• 5 minutes 'No - Deal Brexit' vs 'Operation Fear' Globalist Pushback ... Impact to World Economies and Oil
  • 8 minutes China has *Already* Lost the Trade War. Meantime, the U.S. Might Sanction China’s Largest Oil Company
  • 12 minutes Will Uncle Sam Step Up and Cut Production
  • 8 hours Maybe 8 to 10 "good" years left in oil industry * UAE model for Economic Deversification * Others spent oil billions on funding terrorism, wars, suppressing dissidents, building nukes * Too late now
  • 4 hours OPEC will consider all options. What options do they have ?
  • 31 mins Recession Jitters Are Rising. Is There Reason To Worry?
  • 14 hours Russia Accuses U.S. Of Stoking Tensions With Missile Test
  • 5 hours What to tell my students
  • 5 hours CLIMATE PANIC! ELEVENTY!!! "250,000 people die a year due to the climate crisis"
  • 18 hours With Global Warming Greenland is Prime Real Estate
  • 6 hours NATGAS, LNG, Technology, benefits etc , cleaner global energy fuel
  • 1 hour Trump vs. Xi Trade Battle, Running Commentary from Conservative Tree House
  • 1 day In The Bright Of New Administration Rules: Immigrants as Economic Contributors
  • 21 hours Get First Access To The Oilprice App!
  • 10 hours Flaring is at Record Highs in Texas
Mad Hedge Fund Trader

Mad Hedge Fund Trader

John Thomas, The Mad Hedge Fund Trader is one of today's most successful Hedge Fund Managers and a 40 year veteran of the financial markets.…

More Info

Premium Content

Dinner With Joseph Stiglitz

The great thing about interviewing Joseph Stiglitz over dinner is that you don't have to ask any questions.  You just turn him on and he spits out one zinger after another. And he does this in a kibitzing, wizened, grandfatherly manner like one would expect from a character that just walked off the set of Fiddler on the Roof.

The unfortunate thing is that you also don't get to eat. The Columbia University professor and former World Bank Chief Economist animatedly talked the entire time, and I was too busy feverishly taking notes to ingest a single crouton.

Stiglitz argued that for 30 years after the end of the Great Depression there was no financial crisis because a newly empowered SEC was on the beat, and everything worked. A deregulation trend that started under Reagan began stripping away those protections, with the eventual disastrous repeal of Glass-Steagle in 1999. The philosophical justification adopted by many economists, including Fed chairman Alan Greenspan, was that unfettered markets always lead to efficient outcomes.

This belief was based on simplistic models assuming that markets were always perfect, always open, and that everyone had perfect information. Stiglitz's own work on "information asymmetry," which earned him a Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, pulled the rug out from under this theory, because it showed that one party to a transaction always has more information than the other, often the seller.

The banks used this window to introduce super leveraged derivatives that had never been regulated, studied, or even understood. They then clawed open accounting loopholes that were so imaginative that not only were shareholders and regulators deceived about how much risk was involved, senior management was clueless as well. Instead of managing risk, they created risk.

A 2006 GDP that was 80% derived from real estate transactions and a savings rate that fell to zero meant that a severe crash was a sure thing. President Bush's response was to unleash an extreme form of "trickle down economics," with the banks given $700 billion with no conditions attached. Intended to recapitalize the banks so they could resume lending to the mainstream economy, much of the money ended up being paid out in bonuses and dividends. Of the $180 billion used to rescue AIG, $13 billion went to Goldman Sachs, and much of the rest went to German and French banks. No wonder Main Street feels cheated.

The financial system is now more distorted than ever, with major institutions wards of the state, and smaller banks that actually lend to consumers and small businesses going under in record numbers, because the playing field is so uneven. There are too many structural conflicts of interest. The "once in a 100 year tsunami" argument is merely a justification for changing nothing. Banks would rather maintain the fiction that the loans on their books are good, than make adjustments, meaning there will be more foreclosures in 2010 than in 2009 or 2008. No financial system has ever wasted assets on this scale, and the end result will be a national debt many trillions of dollars larger.

The $787 billion stimulus package was too small, and should have been at least $1.2 trillion, but there was no way Obama was going to get more out of this Senate. The 40% of the stimulus that was tax cuts will get saved and create no immediate beneficial effects on the economy. More money should have gone to the states, which unable to deficit spend, are now a huge drag on the economy. But even this meager package was able to prevent the unemployment rate from rising from 10% to 12%, as it was set to do. The inadequacy of the first package means a second is almost a certainty. Any major spending cuts will produce "Hoover" outcomes.

The outlook for the economy is bleak, at best.

Well, I don't get to chat at length with a Nobel Prize winner every day, so I thought I'd give you the full blast, even though I had to leave a lot out. I'll talk more about markets tomorrow.

By. Mad Hedge Fund Trader

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on September 06 2010 said:
    I have come to like Joseph Stiglitz, but the work that he received the Nobel for was nonsense, and I may have told him so when he visited Sweden. That was not appreciated by my superiors, but I don't give a ____ what they appreciate and they know it. About Obama's program. As a Democrat, I should like it, and I seem to remember liking some of it, but I'm ready to vote Republican if they find a decent candidate. He's playing a role in some B film, or maybe The West Wing.
  • Anonymous II on January 17 2012 said:
    Well, when you've won your own Nobel prize, maybe we'll take your criticism of Stiglitz's eminently correct thesis about imperfect knowledge affecting markets seriously. Until then ...

    Contemplating giving power to the very party that conceived, executed and delivered the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression because Obama had to pass a too small and too tax-cut-oriented stimulus to get GOP votes, is like bringing back Jeff Dahmer back to run a McDonald's. The Republicans have become the scariest show on earth, and we'd deserve our fate if we voted for them now.

    It would, however, prove Stiglitz right, once and for all.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play