|
"Behind every great fortune lies a crime." - Balzac
You can tell a leopard by its spots. But can you tell a boom by its fattest
cats?
Maybe.
But, first, how do cats get fat?
It is not the goodwill of the baker that puts bread on a man's table.
And thank god. Otherwise, we'd all go hungry. Nor does the busboy bus
for the benefit of mankind. Instead, everyone schleps, humps, sweats and toils
for reasons of his own.
This insight - that people can pursue their own interests, and in so doing
improve the lot of everyone - is the central insight of modern economists,
at least those who aren't idiots. The theory is simple enough; a man
bakes bread not to put bread on others' table, but to put it on his own.
That others have bread to eat too is merely the happy consequence of a virtuous
system. Likewise, the electrician doesn't fix your wiring because he
likes to see sparks fly. He has to earn a living too, and he does it by providing
something useful to others.
The symmetry of it is elegant. The morality of it is appealing. Do unto others...and
they will do unto you. And the more you do for others...the more you can expect
them to do for you. That is why a properly functioning economy does seem to
deliver something close to rough justice. Henry Ford brought the benefits of
automobile transportation to the masses. He deserved to make a lot of money.
Andrew Carnegie provided the nation with steel. John D. Rockefeller rolled
up and rationalized an early market in oil. Who can say these tycoons of yesteryear
did not deserve what they got?
Just look along the 'Gold Coast' of Connecticut. By the early
20th century, you could find the mansions built by the kings of industry and
commerce of the period. Greenwich was home to the Simmons family, who made
a fortune in mattresses...the Phelps Stokes family, who made their money in
copper products...the Milbanks of Borden Condensed Milk...and 'Sugar
King' Henry O. Havemeyer. Their grand houses were testament to their
grand contributions; they were the people who built the wealth of America.
The rich got their money honestly back then...or, at least most of it. They
put their family names on their products and spent their loot grandly. Silk
shirts, top hats, spats...great limousines with chauffeurs...grand balls with
orchestras...and servants dressed in proper outfits.
But now, what's this? A new bunch of kings have taken its place in Greenwich,
dressed in perma-pressed khaki pants with blue, open-collared shirts. They
are richer and busier than any group of bees the honey-pot nation has every
produced. Still, don't bother to look for their last names on your refrigerator...or
on your armchair...or even on your liquor bottles.
Paul Tudor Jones, who lives in a house in Greenwich that resembles the mansion
in 'Gone with the Wind', is a very rich man. But what did he do
for the money? He is not a king of industry. He does not bring milk to the
masses; nor does he provide copper pipes for their water systems...nor mattresses
to rest their weary bones. Mr. Jones is a Bubble King, who manages a $15 billion
hedge fund.
In another little town favored by the new moneyed classes, Norwalk, the granite
mansion of steamship magnate and head of U.S. Steel, James Augustus Farrell,
has fallen into the hands of another Bubble King - Graham Capital Management,
a hedge fund with $5 billion in assets and only 150 employees.
Graham's chief financial officer lives on the other side of Long Island
Sound and is said to commute to work by boat. We wonder why. At this point
in the credit cycle we are convinced that bubble kings can walk on water!
Last week we argued that the present boom is a 'fraud.' This week,
we look at those whom the fraud is rewarding so generously. If they are so
richly paid, says the theory of modern capitalism, they must richly provide.
But what?
Take Lloyd Blankfein. The Goldman Sachs man took the wheel at the firm after
Hank Paulsen went on to greater glory at the Treasury Department. In the six
months from the time he took the job until the end of the year, he is reported
to have earned $53.4 million. Let's see, that is about $9 million per
month...nearly $2 million per week...or about $400,000 every working day.
And here...our eyes roll up to heaven as we wonder: What hath this man done?
This is where the theory of meritocratic markets begins to pinch the common
man like a starched shirt at a summer wedding. He's sure it's what
he wants to wear; but he's beginning to get uncomfortable in it. There
is no better system than free and unfettered capitalism, he tells himself.
He loathes the thought of mobs at Mr. Blankfein's door...and thinks he
is clever enough to resist the meddlers who want to put a limit on how much
a man can earn. Still, he senses that there is something not quite right.
How is it that - in a free market system, where people are supposed to be
rewarded according to how much they provide to others - today's biggest
prizes go to those who provide so little? Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Blankfein do
not add in any appreciable way to the world's wealth. Instead, they merely
move it around - from middle and lower class taxpayers to the super-rich...from
householders to speculators...and, by loading up the world with debt, from
the future to the present.
The answer is to be found in the details of modern finance.
Since 1995, the U.S. money supply has risen at about 10% per annum. The world's
supply of gold, meanwhile, has risen at only about 2% per year. And the world's
supply of goods and services only about 3%. A free market presumes that money
itself is an honest measure. Otherwise, all the "information" that
free prices give is distorted and untrustworthy.
"The introduction of a non-market driven money controller into the financial
system invalidates the assumptions on which free-market economic theory is
based," writes Martin Hutchinson. "In 1929-32, as Milton Friedman
and Anna Schwarz demonstrated in their 'Monetary History of the United
States' that non-market player, the Federal Reserve system, kept money
too tight and precipitated a depression of a duration and severity that should,
under the classical theory have been impossible."
Central authorities have kept money too loose, deceived a whole generation,
and redistributed more wealth than ever in history. Like a cosmetic surgeon
moving fat around, they've fashioned a financial world so lumpy and lop-sided,
its own mother wouldn't recognize it.
Hutchinson adds:
"Lax monetary policy has continued for far longer than would normally
have been possible, fully 12 years, a period of monetary ease and low real
interest rates entirely without precedent. For more than a decade price signals
have been distorted and resources have flowed in artificial directions....
"Globalization and the greater ease of outsourcing have kept wages down
at the bottom of the scale in the [United States] and Europe (an effect which
excessively lax immigration policy has compounded.) However at the top of the
scale those able to benefit from IPOs, those with excessively large homes,
the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds and above all the gatekeepers
such as Goldman Sachs, who control access to the overwhelming flood of liquidity,
have all benefited far more than they should have in a well-functioning economic
system...
"The [United States] and world economic system [have] been distorted
in these people's favor for more than a decade, to the excessive benefit
of their net worth. They have enjoyed a bubbling bull market for twelve years,
and the wealth of the world has been artificially redistributed into their
pockets. They have come to expect such benefits; the Goldman Sachs participation
in the Initial Public Offering for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China,
in which the firm and its partners, mostly the latter individually, made a
$6 billion profit due entirely to its insider position in the world financial
markets, might have landed them in jail for insider trading in a more stringent
environment but in this market only further fattened their bonus pool."
Neither central bankers nor bank robbers create wealth. They merely redistribute
it.
The mob idolizes holdup men; then, often, it lynches them. What they will
do to the central bankers and their accomplices in the financial industry,
we wait to find out.
Regards,
|