The damage to the USA economy due to inflated health care costs is huge. A significant portion of the excessive costs are due to policies the government enacts (which only make sense if you believe the cash given to politicians by those seeking to retain the excessive costs structure in the USA the last few decades buy the votes of the political parties and the individual politicians).

In 2015, Humira (a drug from Abbvie to treat rheumatoid arthritis that is either the highest grossing drug in the world, or close to it) costs $2,669 on average in the USA; $822 in Switzerland; $1,362 in the United Kingdom. This is the cost of a 28 day supply.

All the prices shown here are for the prices reported are the average allowed costs, which include both member cost sharing and health plan payment. So it only includes costs for those covered by health plans (it doesn’t include even much larger price tags given those without insurance in the USA).

Harvoni (a drug from Gilead to treat hepatitis C is also near the top of drugs with the largest revenue worldwide). This is also a drug that has been used as a lightning rod for the whole area of overpriced drugs. One interesting thing is this is actually one that is not nearly as inflated in the USA over other countries nearly as much as most are. Again, for a 28 day supply the costs are $16,861 in Switzerland; $22,554 in the United Kingdom and $32,114 in the USA. Obviously quite a lot but “only” double the cost in the USA instead of over triple for Humira (from Switzerland to the USA).

Tecfidera is prescribed to treat relapsing multiple sclerosis. The cost for a 30 day supply vary from $663 in the United Kingdom to $5,089 in the USA ($1,855 Switzerland).

There are actually some drugs that are more expensive outside the USA (though it is rare). OxyContin is prescribed to treat severe ongoing pain and is also abused a great deal. The prices vary from $95 in Switzerland to $590 in the United Kingdom ($265 in United States).

The report also includes the cost of medical procedures. For both the drugs and the procedures they include not only average but measures to show how variable the pricing is. As you would expect (if you pay attention to the massive pricing variation in the USA system) the variation in the cost of medical procedures is wide. For an appendectomy in the USA the 25th percentile of cost was $9,322 and for the 95th was $33,250; the average USA cost was $15,930. The average cost in Switzerland was $6,040 and in the United Kingdom was $8,009.

As has been obvious for decades the USA needs to stop allowing those benefiting from the massively large excessive health care costs in the USA from buying the Democrats and Republicans support to keep prices so high. But there has been very little good movement on this front in decades.

Related: USA Heath Care System Needs Reform – USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP – Decades Later The USA Health Care System is Still a Deadly Disease for Our Economy – USA Spends $7,960 per person Compared to Around $3,800 for Other Rich Countries on Health Care with No Better Health Results (2009) – Drug Prices in the USA (2005)

My plan would have 3 parts. I like a flat tax, I doubt it will ever happen, but if we could get one I would be happy. Cruz proposes that (at 10%). I am fine with his proposal to eliminate all deductions but mortgage interest and charity. I would definitely tweak that some – no more than $50,000 in mortgage interest deduction a year and the same for charity. Basically subsidizing it a bit for the non-rich is fine. Subsidizing these for the rich seems silly so I would cap the deductions in some way. I also wouldn’t mind an almost flat tax, say 12% up to $200,000 and 15% after that (or some such rates).

Cruz’s rate is far too low given the government he wants. The government budget is largely: Social Security, Medicare and Military. Then you also have debt payment which have to be paid. Those 4 things are over 80% of the spending. All the other things are just in the last 20%, you can cut some of that but realistically you can’t cut much (in percentage terms – you can cut hundreds of billions theoretically but it is unlikely and even if you did it isn’t a huge change).

We are piling on more debt than we should. Therefore we should increase revenue, not reduce it. But if we can’t increase it (for political reasons) we definitely should not reduce it until we have shown that we have cut spending below revenue for 2 full years. After that, great, then decrease rates.

The White House, Washington DC by John Hunter. See more of my photos of Washington DC.

The VAT tax on businesses replacing the corporate tax system is in Cruz’s plan and this is the best option for corporate taxes in my opinion. Another decent option is just to pass through all the earnings to the owners (I first heard this proposal from my Economics professor in College) and tax them on the earnings.

Increasing the giveaways to trust-fund baby as Cruz and Trump propose is the single worst tax policy change that can be made. I have explained previously how bad an idea this is: The estate tax is the most capitalist tax that exists. The trust-fund-baby favors should be reduced not increased. I would roll back to the Reagan Administration policy on estate tax rates.

I would raise the federal tax on gasoline by 50 cents a gallon. Use it to fund mass transit improvements and to cut the deficit and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would want have the whole rest of the taxes revenue neutral (and use this as extra income) but if that wasn’t possible, then make the whole thing together revenue neutral.

Social Security taxes are nearly equal to other income taxes. They are highly regressive. I would eliminate the current elimination of the tax on high income earners. I would just have the tax due on all earned income (no cap). If that let me reduce the rate, great, if not fine it would just make the fund solvent for longer. I would not increase the benefits due for high earners beyond what it is now.

I would also prefer to raise the retirement age on which benefits are paid (this isn’t really something that seems likely but I would support it strongly if there was any interest). I would do this in a similar way to the last time this was done. Last time they only raised it by 2 years. I would aim for at least 3 more, but would take whatever we can get. Those increased ages would not take full affect until 20-30 years from now.

I would also strongly support Bernie Sander’s desire to increase all tax revenue and create a single payer health care system. The economic cost of the current USA health care system is an enormous burden we all suffer from every year. A single payer solution isn’t nirvana but the current system is horrible, a single payer system would be a huge improvement.

I would prefer to change unearned income taxes to be more favorable for long term investing (if such income didn’t get swept up into a flat tax). Including it in a flat tax would be my preference, I am just saying if we didn’t get that and had something more like our current system I would want a change in tax on unearned income. Dividends shouldn’t get special treatment. Capital gains should be indexed to inflation – so selling a stock 20 years later would be not calculated on just the purchase price and sales price. The post inflation gain or loss would be calculated and then I would give favorable treatment to long term investments (over 2 years).

So I would gladly take a VAT from Cruz but at a more reasonable rate (perhaps 15%) and the flat tax from Cruz but again at a more reasonable rate (perhaps 15%) and the other adjustments mentioned above. I have no idea but just based on my wild guess it seems like 15% for both might fund a single payer health care system. But if a better health care system wasn’t possible due to special interests then just set those percentages at whatever makes it revenue neutral with the other factors (reasonable estate taxes instead of trust fund baby subsidies, increase gas tax).

I would be much more willing to cut spending than either the Democrats or Republicans. There are only 3 places to cut real money and neither party wants to cut Social Security or Medicare. I don’t want to cut Medicare. I don’t want to cut Social Security benefits but I would move back the age (cutting benefits for people retiring 20+ years from now) I would also be fine cutting payments to the rich, but this is not politically feasible so I am fine not doing it.

Many Republicans want to increase military spending, few are willing to cut it; a few Democrats are willing to cut it but not many. I would be willing to cut military spending to the tune of hundreds of billions a year. We just shouldn’t try to do as much as we do militarily. It is too costly. We need to spend less. Again this isn’t so likely but unless you do this thinking you can cut taxes is foolish. If you want to cut taxes you have to cut spending. I would be willing to cut military spending to cut taxes but it is unlikely there is political will do that in the USA.

Related: Taxes per Person by Country (2010) – USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations (2010) – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household (2007) – Lavishing Tax Cuts on Ourselves That Our Grandkids Have to Pay For is Bad Policy (2013)

Effectively the rich end up subsidizing the low rates for the poor, which is a very sensible setup it seems to me. The market functions fairly well even though it is distorted a bit to let the poor (or anyone that uses very little electricity) to pay low rates.

In a country like Malaysia as people become rich they may well decide to use a great deal of electricity for air conditioning (it is in the tropics). But their ancestors didn’t have that luxury and having that be costly seems sensible to me. Allowing the poor to have access to cheap electricity is a very good thing with many positive externalities. And subsidizing the rate seems to be a good idea to me.

Often you get bad distortions in how markets work when you try to use things like subsidies (this post is expanded from a comment I made on Reddit discussing massive bad investments created by free electricity from the power company to city governments – including free electricity to their profit making enterprises, such as ice rinks in Puerto Rico).

View of downtown Johor Bahru from my condo (a small view of Singapore visible is in the background)

With the model of low residential rates for low usage you encourage people to use less electricity but you allow everyone to have access at a low cost (which is important in poor or medium income countries). And as people use more they have to pay higher rates (per kwh) and those rates allow the power company to make a profit and fund expansion. Often in developing countries the power company will be semi-private so the government is involved in providing capital and sharing in profits (as well as stockholders).

The USA mainly uses central air conditioning everywhere. In Malaysia, and most of the world actually, normally they just have AC units in some of the rooms. In poor houses they may well have none. In middle class houses they may have a one or a couple rooms with AC units.

Even in luxury condos (and houses) they will have some rooms without AC at all. I never saw a condo or house with AC for the kitchen or bathrooms. The design was definitely setup to use AC in fairly minimal ways. The hallways, stairways etc. for the “interior” of the high rise condos were also not air conditioned (they were open to the outside to get good air flow). Of course as more people become rich there is more and more use of AC.

Related: Traveling for Health Care – Expectations – Looking at the Malaysian Economy (2013) – Pursuing a Growing Economy While Avoiding the Pitfalls That Befall to Many Middle Income Countries – Singapore and Iskandar Malaysia – Looking at GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010 – Malaysian Economy Continues to Expand, Budget Deficits Remain High (2012) – Iskandar Malaysia Housing Real Estate Investment Considerations (2011)

One thing people in rich countries forget is how many of them are in the 1% globally. The 1% isn’t just Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. 1% of the world’s population is about 72 million people (about 47 million adults). Owning $1 million in assets puts you in the top .7% of wealthy adults (Global Wealth Report 2013’ by Credit Suisse). That report has a cutoff of US $798,000 to make the global 1%. They sensibly only count adults in the population so wealth of $798,000 puts you in the top 1% for all adults.

$100,000 puts you in the top 9% of wealthiest people on earth. Even $10,000 in net wealth puts you in the top 30% of wealthiest people. So while you think about how unfair it is that the system is rigged to support the top .01% of wealthy people also remember it is rigged to support more than 50% of the people reading this blog (the global 1%).

I do agree we should move away from electing corrupt politicians (which is the vast majority of them in DC today) and allowing them to continue perverting the economic system to favor those giving them lots of cash. Those perversions go far beyond the most obnoxious favoring of too-big-to-fail banking executives and in many ways extend to policies the USA forces on vassal states (UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan…) (such as those favoring the copyright cartel, etc.).

Those actions to favor the very richest by the USA government (including significantly in the foreign policy – largely economic policy – those large donor demand for their cash) benefit the global 1% that are located in the USA. This corruption sadly overlays some very good economic foundations in the USA that allowed it to build on the advantages after World War II and become the economic power it is. The corrupt political system aids the richest but also damages the USA economy. Likely it damages other economies more and so even this ends up benefiting the 38% of the global .7% that live in the USA. But we would be better off if the corrupt political practices could be reduced and the economy could power economic gains to the entire economy not siphon off so many of those benefits to those coopting the political process.

The USA is home to 38% of top .7% globally (over $1,000,000 in net assets).

Oxfam published a report on these problems that has some very good information: Political capture and economic inequality

The chart shows the correlation between kids and parents income and income inequality for each country listed. The more income inequality the more rigid the economic system is. Those countries with huge amounts of income inequality create economic systems to insure those that have rich parents are rich themselves.

At the least trust fund baby country cultures you have Scandinavian countries. The USA has been moving to an increasingly trust fund baby focus over the last few decades with the expected increase in kids incomes being more related to their parents income than any other factor. In the USA now nearly 50% of someone’s income can be “explained” by their parents income. That is the math showing how income is correlated to factors (such as college education, degree type…) shows that 50% of the kids income can be calculated just using the parent’s income.

That is obviously a very anti-capitalist system. It is the essentially a nobility based system of kids inheriting their place in society instead of earning it. I have written numerous times about this corruption of the word capitalism by the talking heads and politicians in the USA being used to justify corruption. For example, in these posts: We Need to be More Capitalist and Less Cronyist, Anti-Market Policies from Our Talking Head and Political Class and Not Understanding Capitalism.

The corrupt political system adopting economic policy that favors those giving cash to politicians is very bad for our economy and society. We can change this by not electing corrupt politicians but we don’t seem even remotely interested in doing so. Until that changes the corruption system will continue to damage our society, country and world.

If we are lucky we will reduce the level of corruption in the the political parties in the USA and other rich countries. The level of corruption is likely to remain very high though. The rules are being made by those with cash to pay corrupt parties and only minor adjustments around the edges are able to blunt the full force of corruption. It would be wonderful if this corruption could be largely eliminated (such as petty corruption has largely, though there is still far too much, has been USA – bribes to get business license, bribes to avoid sanctions for unhealthy food preparation conditions, etc.).

The current system largely favors the very wealthy and powerful that get special favors only available to them. One way to participate is in those companies that benefit from the current corrupt systems (cable TV, ISPs, too-big-to-fail-banks, copyright cartel industries, health care…). The biggest exception I think is too-big-to-fail banks. In the other industries the executives take large portions of shareholders profits, because then can, but they have some limits where shareholders will finally throw them out.

So the executives many times their fair share of the economic benefits due to the corruption in Washington DC but there is a large amount left for shareholders. In the too-big-to-fail banks the executives treat shareholders like their customers – fools to be fleeced at every opportunity. So they have hugely profitable businesses supported by bought and paid for politicians and bureaucrats but they then take so much of the profits that owning those companies seems unwise to me.

But for many other industries you can participate in the benefits provided by the corrupt political parties in the USA by owning stock in those businesses they provide favors to for piles of cash. You don’t make the .01% global rich list by working hard and a normal job and saving 15% of your income. But you can make the 1% global rich list by doing that with a median income job in the USA (and most other rich countries). It might not be glamorous and you might be jealous of those that are better at exploiting the corruption to get ahead, but you still are better off than 99 our of 100 people economically. That is hardly something worth pity.

Now if your parents are poor you are going to have a much harder time getting to the point where you get a job where you earn a median USA income. It would be better if the USA improved a great deal, but even so, there are very few (if any) places you are better off being born (economically) than the USA. Of course, being born rich in a country like the USA where we elect politicians to create trust fund baby economic policies is even more lucky than just being born in the USA.

Related: Cash for Votes subreddit – Economic Fault: Income Inequality – How Economic Inequality Harms Societies – The Aim of Modern Day Political Parties in the USA is To Scare Donors Into Giving Cash – Rich Americans Sue to Keep Evidence of Their Tax Evasion From the Justice Department

Debt borrowed in other currencies is extremely risky, for substantial amounts. When things go bad they snowball. So if your economy suffers, your currency often suffers and then the repayment terms drastically become more difficult (you have to pay back the debt with your lower valued currency). And the economy was already suffering which is why the currency decreased and this makes it worse and they feed on each other and defaults have resulted in small economies over and over from this pattern.

If a government borrows in their currency they can always pay it back as the government can just print money. They may pay back money not worth very much but they can pay it back. Of course investors see this risk and depending on your economy and history demand high interest to compensate for this risk (of being paid back worthless currency). And so countries are tempted to borrow in another currency where rates are often much lower.

If you owe debts to other countries you have to pay that money outside the system. So it takes a certain percentage of production (GDP) and pays the benefit of that production to people in other countries. This is what has been going on in the USA for a long time (paying benefits to those holding our debt). Ironically the economic mess created by central banks and too-big-to-fail banks has resulted in a super low interest rate environment which is lousy for lenders and great for debtors (of which the USA and Japanese government are likely the 2 largest in the world).

The benefits to the USA and Japan government of super low interest rates is huge. It makes tolerating huge debt loads much easier. When interest rates rise it is going to create great problems for their economies if they haven’t grown their economies enough to reduce the debt to GDP levels (the USA is doing much better in this regard than Japan).

Japan has a much bigger debt problem than the USA in percentage terms. Nearly all their debt is owed to those in Japan so when it is paid it merely redistributes wealth (rather than losing it to those overseas). It is much better to redistribute wealth within your country than lose it to others (you can always change the laws to redistribute it again, if needed, as long as it is within your economy).

While inflation can allow you to payoff debt with less valuable dollars (or yen or whatever) and thus reduce the value of what is given to other countries (also to retirees and other holders of government debt but for the matter of losing wealth to other countries that isn’t a factor). But markets adjust and unless you have now paid off all your debt and owe nothing you have to borrow again, and lenders will demand larger interest payments to make up for the risk of your debasing the currency to pay them back worthless dollars. So while this can maybe work in the short term if you fool the markets it most likely doesn’t work in the long term for the USA.

It seems to me (it is up for debate) that debt to GDP levels above 70% are starting to be risky and above 100% are very risky. The USA and Japan can (at this time) get away with much higher levels than other countries for a number of reasons (Japan needing little foreign capital, the USA bing a huge economy that is still perceived as the safest store of money, other countries wanting to drive down their currency in relation to the $ to aid their businesses competitiveness with the USA…). While driving down their currency value does aid business competitiveness it is also a tax on consumers so I think the USA benefits more from these policies than others do, but for the time being they continue to pursue lower currency values.

Europe has added issues due to the complication of the Euro (it isn’t a currency the individual countries can just print). And government debt levels in Europe are bad (and economic growth is poor). China is also becoming a large debtor (though in very opaque and confusing ways to analyze). China’s debt is largely local (not federal) and locally owned (which is better than foreign owned – in as much as paying off production to service the debt, though it will be a problem when that debt is defaulted, which seems likely to happen to large amounts, say hundreds of billions of US$). But China is also very difficult to read it is requires having to makes guesses without clear visibility.

The government debt problem is even greater for other countries. Small and medium sized economies can quickly become unstable and debt levels can quickly go from acceptable to a huge economic problem as economic problems in the country compound upon themselves. This is especially true with large amounts of foreign held debt (when the foreigners decide they don’t like how things look they sell and likely prices collapse and more people panic… and even if the panic is held back if foreigners don’t keep adding to their holdings that creates economic problems). For these countries I think debt above 50% of GDP is risky. And if the debt is not in the country’s currency things can much more quickly get very bad.

2-year chart of Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) to US dollar (USD) from Yahoo Finance. See current 2 year chart.

Malaysia provides a recent example. The budget is based on government profits from natural resources and even with that has been running up large debts. With risks of USA raising interest rates the Malaysian Ringgit took a beating in the summer (as did several currencies). In many ways Malaysia has a strong economy but it is built with too much debt, both government and consumer debt. The amount of foreign borrowing was also high and when things started to become precarious for currencies in the summer Malaysia was one that investors ran from.

Now, with the collapse of oil prices in appears the economic risks became to great and the Ringgit was hit very hard. It has fallen from 32 to 33 US cents per Ringgit over the last few years to 30 to 31 cents in the fall, and about a week ago dropped another 7% to 28.5 cents.

The numbers seem a bit less dramatic because of the small values but $100,000 in Ringgit has lost $13,600 in about a year. This increases the prices of foreign goods you want to import (say Apple iPhones) and when your citizens travel internationally their costs have gone up 14% even in the prices didn’t increase in the local currency. This drastic drop is what happens as economic issues quickly compound and currencies amazingly quickly. It decreases the value of assets people hold though it does aid businesses competing internationally (though it is a bit tricky as when they need to buy good, they have increased costs due to their devalued currency).

Very likely interest rates in Malaysia will have to increase to tempt the foreign investors given the debt level (government and consumer) Malaysia finds itself with. And that means that debt will take an increasing share of economic productivity overseas (because of the higher interest levels on the debt). Higher interest rates will harm consumers with heavy debt loads, driving down consumption and creating more economic problems. Luckily the oil crisis probably won’t last years (in my opinion) and Malaysia has other strengths in the economy that may allow things to stop from deteriorating. But high debt levels put the country at risk and spending above even what the high profits from natural resources could provide may prove to have been too big a risk to take.

Related: Which Currency is the Least Bad? – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household (2007) – Looking at the Malaysian Economy

The situations have many differences, for example, China is a poor country growing rapidly, Japan was a rich country growing little (though in 1990 it showed more growth promise than today). Still this one of the more interesting pieces of data on how much a bubble China real estate has today. Japan suffered more than 2 decades of stagnation and one factor was the problems created by the real estate price bubble.

The global economic consequences of the extremely risky actions taken to bail out the failed too-big-too-fail banks including the massive quantitative easing are beyond anyones ability to really understand. We hope they won’t end badly that is all it amounts to. Noone can know how risky the actions to bail out the bankers is. The fact we not only bailed them out, but showered many billions of profit onto them (even after taking billions in fines for the numerous and continuing violations of law by those bailed out bankers), leaves me very worried.

It seems to me we have put enormous risk on and the main beneficiaries of the policies are the bankers that caused the mess and continue to violate laws without any consequences (other than taking a bit of the profit them make on illegal moves back sometimes).

I hope things work out. But I fear the extremely risky behavior by the central banks and politicians could end more badly than we can even imagine.

Related: Continuing to Nurture the Too-Big-To-Fail Eco-system – The Risks of Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions Have Only Gotten Worse – USA Congress Further Aids The Bankers Giving Those Politicians Piles of Cash and Risks Economic Calamity Again – Investment Options Are Much Less Comforting Than Normal These Days

The data, from IMF, does not include China or India.

The chart shows data for net debt (gross debt reduced by certain assets: gold, currency deposits, debt securities etc.).

Bloomberg converted the data to look at debt load per person (looking at gross debt – estimated for 2014). Japan has ill-fortune to lead in this statistic with $99,725 in debt per person (242% of GDP), Ireland is in second with $60, 356 (121% of GDP). USA 3rd $58,604 (107%). Singapore 4th $56,980 (106%). Italy 6th $46,757 (133%). UK 9th $38,939 (95%). Greece 12th $38,444 (174%). Germany 14th $35,881 (78%). Malaysia 32nd $6,106 (57%). China 48th $1,489 (21%). India 53rd $946 (68%). Indonesia 54th $919 (27%).

I think the gross debt numbers can be more misleading than net debt figures. I believe Singapore has very large assets so that the “net” debt is very small (or non-existent). Japan is 242% in gross debt to GDP but 142% of net debt (which is still huge but obviously much lower). The USA in contrast has gross debt at 107% with a net debt of 88%.

Related: Government Debt as Percent of GDP 1998-2010 for OECD – Gross Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2009: USA, Japan, Germany, China – Chart of Largest Petroleum Consuming Countries from 1980 to 2010 – Top Countries For Renewable Energy Capacity

Congress gives Wall Street public backing for derivatives trading again: http://t.co/PtBePRGuhy Oh joy.

— John Robb (@johnrobb) November 11, 2013

It is no surprise those we elect that have shown there primary concern is providing favors to those giving them lots of cash have given the wall street crowd that showers them in cash what they want yet again. As long as we keep electing these people they will keep providing benefits to those giving lots of cash that the rest of society is stuck paying for.

Read more about this huge fiasco: Congress Sells Out To Wall Street, Again!

Even ill-informed politicians now can’t pretend they don’t know the risks they run by providing these favors. But they figure they won’t have to be accountable – they haven’t been held accountable so far. So they are probably right that they won’t be held accountable when the taxpayers suffer huge losses and the taxpayers have to again bail out the too big to fail institutions and savers have to again bail out the too big to fail banks and…

As bad as the economy has been since the to-big-too-fail crowd created economic calamity it is amazing it hasn’t been much worse. The extraordinary efforts of the Fed have been amazingly successful. I worry they have put us in an extraordinarily risky place but so far the results have been remarkable. Hoping such slights of hand (plus huge transfers of wealth from middle class savers to to-big-too-fail speculators – in the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars – so it isn’t like there are not huge suffering by millions of people – even those that were not thrown out of work) will allow continued reckless giveaways to those paying politicians is a very bad idea.

But it is no surprise those we elect have chosen that course of action. It seems we are very unlikely to learn without a real depression being forced by decades of extremely foolish behavior by our elected officials in Washington DC.

Related: Continuing to Nurture the Too-Big-To-Fail Eco-system – The Risks of Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions Have Only Gotten Worse – Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts is not the Answer – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences (as does letting big contributors create “regulations” that are nothing more than government granted favors to huge organizations) – Congress Eases Bank Laws, 1999, while risks were stated by those not willing to lie down for Wall Street Lobbyists (few though they were)

In fact, while the Fed has pumped about $2.8 trillion into the financial system through nearly five years of asset buying.

Bank excess reserves deposited with the New York Fed have mushroomed from less than $2 billion before the financial crisis to $2.17 trillion today. In essence, roughly two-thirds of the money the Fed pumped into the banking system never left the building.

The Fed now pays banks for their deposits. These payment reduce the Fed’s profits (the Fed send profits to the treasury) by paying those profits to banks so they can lavish funds on extremely overpaid executives that when things go wrong explain that they really have no clue what their organization does. It seems very lame to transfer money from taxpayers to too-big-to-fail executives but that is what we are doing.

Quantitative easing is an extraordinary measure, made necessary to bailout the too-big-to-fail institutions and the economies they threatened to destroy if they were not bailed out. It is a huge transfer payment from society to banks. It also end up benefiting anyone taking out huge amounts of new loads at massively reduced rates. And it massively penalizes those with savings that are making loans (so retirees etc. planing on living on the income from their savings). It encourages massively speculation (with super cheap money) and is creating big speculative bubbles globally.

This massive intervention is a very bad policy. The bought and paid for executive and legislative branches that created, supported and continue to nurture the too-big-to-fail eco-system may have made the choice – ruin the economy for a decade (or who knows how long) or bail out those that caused the too-big-to-fail situation (though only massively bought and paid for executive branch could decline to prosecute those that committed such criminally economically catastrophic acts).

The government is saving tens of billions a year (maybe even hundred of billions) due to artificially low interest rates. To the extent the government is paying artificially low rates to foreign holders of debt the USA makes out very well. To the extent they are robbing retirees of market returns it is just a transfer from savers to debtors, the too-big-to-fail banks and the federal government. It is a very bad policy that should have been eliminated as soon as the too-big-to-fail caused threat to the economy was over. Or if it was obvious the bought and paid for leadership was just going to continue to nurture the too-big-to-fail structure in order to get more cash from the too-big-to-fail donors it should have been stopped as enabling critically damaging behavior.

It has created a wild west investing climate where those that create economic calamity type risks are likely to continue to be rewarded. And average investors have very challenging investing options to consider. I really think the best option for someone that has knowledge, risk tolerance and capital is to jump into the bubble created markets and try to build up cash reserves for the likely very bad future economic conditions. This is tricky, risky and not an option for most everyone. But those that can do it can get huge Fed created bubble returns that if there are smart and lucky enough to pull off the table at the right time can be used to survive the popping of the bubble.

Maybe I will be proved wrong but it seems they are leaning so far into bubble inflation policies that the only way to get competitive returns is to accept the bubble nature of the economic structure and attempt to ride that wave. It is risky but the supposedly “safe” options have been turned dangerous by too-big-to-fail accommodations.

Berkshire’s Munger Says ‘Venal’ Banks May Evade Needed Reform (2009)

Related: The Risks of Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions Have Only Gotten Worse – Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Anti-Market Policies from Our Talking Head and Political Class

They say “misguided government incentives” much of which are due to payments to politicians by too-big-to-fail institution to get exactly the government incentives they wanted. There is a small bit of the entire problem that is likely due to the desire to have homeownership levels above that which was realistic (beyond that driven by too-big-to-fail lobbyists).

“Were safer” says a recent economist. Which I guess is true in that it isn’t quite as risky as when the too-big-to-fail-banks nearly brought down the entire globally economy and required mass government bailouts that were of a different quality than all other bailouts of failed organizations in the past (not just a different quantity). The changes have been minor. The CEOs and executives that took tens and hundreds of millions out of bank treasures into their own pockets then testified they didn’t understand the organization they paid themselves tens and hundreds of a millions to “run.”

We left those organizations intact. We bailed out their executives. We allowed them to pay our politicians in order to get the politicians to allow the continued too-big-to-fail ponzie scheme to continue. The too-big-to-fail executives take the handouts from those they pay to give them the handouts and we vote in those that continue to let the too-big-to-fail executives to take millions from their companies treasuries and continue spin financial schemes that will either work out in which case they will take tens and hundreds of millions into their person bank accounts. Or they won’t in which case they will take tens of millions into their personal bank accounts while the citizens again bail out those that pay our representatives to allow this ludicrous system to continue.

Banks Seen at Risk Five Years After Lehman Collapse

If you get the impression I am upset by the actions of those who have been given responsibility that can be used to ruin millions of people’s economic lives and who have done so you are correct. When teenagers are selfish, irresponsible, brats it is obnoxious but fairly common. When our political leaders and those giving those political leaders the most cash behave as our have the last 20 years it is reprehensible. When the obvious result occurs and tremendous suffering is caused by their reckless, greedy, selfish, foolish and uncaring actions and then just continue to do the same things it is despicable.

That we chose to put those politicians that enable this is sad. But those that are risking the global economy in order to continue their narcissistic behavior are not excused by our foolish decision to re-elect those selling out the country to those paying them for favors.

The exact balance that is unknown. What amount of corruption from political leaders and financial executives can the economy support and survive? I don’t know. Maybe we can support the unforgivable behavior of those leaders in the last 5 years and the the 10 years before that. Maybe throwing millions of people out of jobs, killing thousands of businesses, forcing retirees to have their yields cut to almost zero in order to bail out banks that allow their executives to bleed their treasuries dry with more gusto than kleptocratic dictators in soon to be bankrupt countries. It is disgusting that this behavior continues. How many hundred of billions or trillions more in bailouts and fraud will be extracted from the productive parts of our economies to pay for this unsupportable behavior. Maybe our economies can take this kleptocratic behavior and survive. Maybe it can’t. That we elect people that have decided to take the cash and allow that risk to be tested is a foolish risk to take.

The too-big-to-fail crowd is just fleecing foolish taxpayers and paying those taxpayers representatives (I imagine to knowing continue to fleecing or I suppose it is possible the politicians don’t have the ability to understand what they are doing). The global economy generates trillions of benefits. Such wealth allows for a great deal of kleptocracy and risky bets (that can just be passed onto foolish taxpayers if they don’t work).

The scope of the swindle being perpetrated by the too-big-to-fail crowd and their bought and paid for politicians (who it must be said we continue to put back into office) is beyond anything every attempted before. The devastation caused by their reckless action doesn’t slow them down. They just take the bailouts and place even biggest bets, continue to take tens of millions for themselves, and leave the taxpayers to pick up the mess when it is too large.

That too-big-to-fail bailout champions are not only still alive and allowing those working their to take millions every year is nearly unbelievable.

In order to survive this massively risky economic future you would be wise to be very financial adept. Debt is very risky in such a situation. But debt is actually a way to get huge rewards at the right times in this environment (but do this wrong and you will be bankrupt). The huge bailout culture creates bubbles – making a great deal during the bubbles can be used a way to get capital to survive the costs of bailing out the kleptocrats we have allowed to steal from the productive economy. I am not even sure what are safe investments.

My guess is that the right real estate is one good place to invest (but the kleptocrat economy creates all sorts of risks that are difficult to measure). Companies that are very resilient to economic catastrophe are likely another good place. You have to find companies that don’t listen to the too-big-to-fail crowd that attempts to create risky financial structures in order to make cases to justify taking tens of millions (basically they pretend that this financial engineering created millions in value today so count that as earnings, based on those earnings I get millions… it is innately crazy that anyone accepts this junk but just watch those CEOs of our too-big-to-fail institutions when they testified on the hill and you see these are people that don’t have a clue about running an honest business.

This is such utter crap. For decades this excuse has been used to justify insane risks. Businesses may need cash to fund growth (buy assets, invest in research and development…). They might need some cash to get by while cash flow is not adequate. It may well make sense to have some sensible hedging. None of this requires too-big-to-fail banks.

Relatively small banks can do facilitate these needs. Insurance for business risks can be financed by insurers.

There is nothing that requires us to have speculators allowed to create risks that require government bailouts larger than the largest expenses any governments have every made (larger than World War II). There is nothing that requires 98% of the speculation. I don’t care if people speculate with their money and do not have the ability to massively impact the entire market (capitalism is based on the idea no actors have market power – every actor is a the mercy of the market, not the other way around).

Too-big-to-fail speculation mainly allows fake financial estimates to claim profits that haven’t actually taken place yet have. We can eliminate that with no loss to society. It also allows creating financial speculation so complex no-one can understand the huge fees the too-big-to-fail crowd takes. Again who cares, eliminate this. Nothing should be allowed to be 1/10 the size of too-big-to-fail. The only potential cost of this (and I doubt it would be a cost but theoretically it could be) is perhaps borrowing or hedging would be a bit less efficient. This is completely fine. There is not even remotely any justification for large, risky financial institutions in order to reduce the costs a small bit.

The current financial system is extremely complex and risky. There is no economic reason to allow such risks to continue. We can have financial needs met without ludicrously risky financial gimmicks. We should not vote in people that continue to sell out our productive economy to kleptocrats in the too-big-to-fail financial institutions to game the system the way they have the last 30 years.

The collusion (investment banking fees, front running trading [“high frequency trading”], libor, foreign exchange price fixing…) are illegal actions that use fraud to steal from market participants. Those actions should be investigated and criminally prosecuted but frankly that is minor compared to the main too-big-to-fail system corruptions.

The truth is I am able to navigate the massively distorted investment climate created by out too-big-to-fail designed financial system better than most. It is tricky but I think I’ll do fine. I imagine I will actually likely benefit – there are massive distortions and bubble that too-big-to-fail directed economies will generate that I imagine I will likely benefit from (though I have a greater risk of messing up in this riskier investment climate than one that would be much better for everyone in the economy outside the too-big-to-fail kleptocrats). I would much rather be able to invest without the massive distortions caused by the too-big-to-fail directed economic policies of our largest governments. But others are much less able to navigate the massively distorted investing climate. It is immensely more difficult to just make sensible long term, and safe, investment strategies today than is was until recently (the last 10 years or so).

But hundreds of millions or billions of people are suffering greatly and likely to continue to as long as we allow the kleptocrats at too-big-to-fail institutions to direct our government’s to continually do those too-big-to-fail institutions huge favors.

13 Bankers

Related: Buffett Calls on Bank CEOs and Boards to be Held Responsible – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One – Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Paying Back Direct Cash from Taxpayers Does not Excuse Bank Misdeeds – Executive pay “excesses are so great now they will either force companies to take huge risks to justify such pay and then go bankrupt when such risks fail” – Failure to Regulate Financial Markets Leads to Predictable Consequences – Small Banks Having Trouble Competing with Bailed Out Banks