Neel Kashkari

Low trade volume is sucking the fuel from the global economy

One of the recurring analogues we have used in the past to describe the centrally planned farce that capital markets have become and the global economy in general has been one of a increasingly chaotic sine wave with ever greater amplitude and ever higher frequency (shorter wavelength). By definition, the greater the central intervention, the bigger the dampening or promoting effect, as central banks attempt to mute or enhance a given wave leg. As a result, each oscillation becomes ever more acute, ever more chaotic, and increasingly more unpredictable. And with "Austrian" analytics becoming increasingly dominant, i.e., how much money on the margin is entering or leaving the closed monetary system at any given moment, the same analysis can be drawn out to the primary driver of virtually everything: the inflation-vs-deflation debate. This in turn is why we are increasingly convinced that as the system gets caught in an ever more rapid round trip scramble peak deflation to peak inflation (and vice versa) so the ever more desperate central planners will have no choice but to ultimately throw the kitchen sink at the massive deflationary problem - because after all it is their prerogative to spur inflation, and will do as at any cost - a process which will culminate with the only possible outcome: terminal currency debasement as the Chaotic monetary swings finally become uncontrollable. Ironically, the reason why bring this up is an essay by Pimco's Neel Kashkari titled simply enough: "Chaos Theory" which looks at unfolding events precisely in the very same light, and whose observations we agree with entirely. Furthermore, since he lays it out more coherently, we present it in its entirety below. His conclusion, especially as pertains to the ubiquitous inflation-deflation debate however, is worth nothing upfront: "I believe societies will in the end choose inflation because it is the less painful option for the largest number of its citizens. I am hopeful central banks will be effective in preventing runaway inflation. But it is going to be a long, bumpy journey until the destination becomes clear. This equity market is best for long-term investors who can withstand extended volatility. Day traders beware: chaos is here to stay for the foreseeable future." Unfortunately, we are far less optimistic that the very same central bankers who have blundered in virtually everything, will succeed this one time. But, for the sake of the status quo, one can hope...

Neel Kashkari, previously of Goldman Sachs, subsequently of TARP creation fame, and currently of PIMCO payroll generosity and Macroeconomic Advisors "expert network" insight, has penned a charmingly faux-heartfelt, and supremely hypocritical Washington Post op-ed in which he asks rhetorically whether "Washington can tackle the big economic issues?" Ironically these are precisely the same "issues" that have arisen as a result of none other than his very own decision to make moral hazard a global policy courtesy of his own TARP creation. It was also none other than the Washington Post's own profile of Kashkari that explained the deep thought that went into the creation of the biggest Bernanke Put in history: "Seven hundred billion was a number out of the air,” Kashkari recalls….”It was a political calculus. I said, ‘We don’t know how much is enough. We need as much as we can get [from Congress]. What about a trillion?’ ‘No way,’ Hank shook his head. I said, ‘Okay, what about 700 billion?’ We didn’t know if it would work. We had to project confidence, hold up the world. We couldn’t admit how scared we were, or how uncertain.” So the next time Kashkari's own boss at Pimco waxes philosophically on how it is that "the Fed is now the most brazen of all ponzi schemes" perhaps he can first get the advice of his own puppet whose own morally hazardous actions "held up the world." And, by the way Neel, had the US government done the right thing, and not "held up the world" letting those who deserve to fail, actually fail, then there would be no need for Washington to tackle big economic issues - ironically the market would have long been able to fix said problems on its own. But thanks to your actions we will indeed watch in terror as the government continues its exercises in supreme central planning.