Rebane's Ruminations
November 2011
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Does everyone understand what went down this morning between our Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank?  I venture that less than one in ten thousand Americans know that their pocket was legally picked today by international central banks.  This morning the Fed executed a “dollar swap” with the ECB that essentially allows the tottering European banks to have an endless and cheap supply of new US dollars flow to them through the ECB.

When I saw this barely coherent report on the online edition of today’s WSJ blandly talking about “making dollars available” to the ECB, I almost tossed my cookies.  My take on what had actually happened was corroborated by a couple of phone calls to one of my Washington spies who sent me the summary page of “the Fed memo” (about what the Fed did) that was hastily circulated to members of Congress to soften any awkward outcries to the press.

DowntheToiletRR readers know the precarious sovereign debt positions of countries like Greece, Spain, Italy, … .  There is little chance that the euro will survive as the European currency, let alone continue on its vaunted march to becoming a competing reserve currency to the US dollar.  Recall that bankrupt countries borrow from commercial banks to finance their existing debt and continue funding their insane social programs.  Lenders to some countries have already taken ‘haircuts’ on the amounts loaned.  More of this is on the way since none of the eurozone countries have any foreseeable chance of growing their way out their debts.  Instead, many of their economies are shrinking.

So here’s the situation.   A growing number of eurozone countries, up to their eyeballs in debt, owe on their purchases of stuff like oil, other commodities, and their international trade imbalances.  The bills must be paid in dollars.  Their banks are tapped out of dollars (they can still borrow euros from the ECB which can print them, but euros won’t do) so they must borrow from the only source that will still give them the time of day, the ECB.  But the ECB is fresh out of dollars.

So Mario calls Ben and asks for a dollar/euro swap along the lines that was set up way back when “to provide dollar liquidity to foreign banks”.  This essentially means that the ECB sends over to the Fed some euros – at TODAY’S EXCHANGE RATE – and the Fed sends over some newly printed US dollars which get credited to Europe’s banks, who in turn lend them to the heavily perspiring eurozone countries.

In theory the Fed gets its dollars back along with some below market interest income when the ECB is able to repay.   But if the ECB can’t come up with the dollars as stipulated, then there is no default.  The built-in swap provisions allow the ECB to roll over the debt (er, I mean swap) and get more dollars if it needs them for more euros at the bygone fixed exchange rate.  This can go on indefinitely, and it means the Fed is on the hook for continuing to print more dollars to pay European debt with no end in sight, and no way to cash in on the collateral euros it holds in the ECB account.  The way it’s set up, this debt cannot default.

Now I know, dear reader, that you think this is a post in which I’m pulling your leg, and that it should really be posted on April Fool’s Day.   Unfortunately, I’m dead serious.  Without a single elected representative having had a say in this, the Fed has committed to have the dollar follow the euro into what most likely will be an inflation death spiral.  And the American taxpayer will become the lender of last resort to the profligate socialist governments of Europe.  You can get your own snootful on this through a careful read of the memo’s summary page I mentioned above – Download Fed Memo_111130.

I wonder if the fact that 70% of the profits for our international corporations comes from trade with the eurozone has anything to do with this quietly arranged European bailout that went down today.  Like the Chinese don’t want us to go broke, these multi-national corporations (and we?) don’t want Europe to go broke.  You may want to call your congressional rep and hear what s/he has to say about all this.  And that’s how we play kick the can. 

Posted in , , , ,

86 responses to “The Fed/ECB dollar swap”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 123pm – agree fully that this Huffington Post piece does beg the question. But I’m not sure you meant to say that; see http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/11/on-flat-tax-blinder-is-leading-the-blind.html
    Nevertheless, as we reduce our military manpower levels, we will have to depend more and more on advanced systems and technology which come from defense contractors who make a profit. Your solution?

    Like

  2. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Allowing defense contractors to affect public policy when it comes to military actions is like allowing doctors to invent diseases, which they do by the way.
    AT what point does the the harsh critique that you apply to such organizations such as Sierra Business Council that they use their bully pulpit to affect policy that they profit from apply to the defense industry that reply’s almost entirely on public funding?
    This lobbying can also be evidenced by the fierce opposition to the closing of military bases both here and abroad. It’s all “socialism” as I see it.
    I’m not sure how your link applies.

    Like

  3. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    27 million to lobby? My golly, that is about 57 seconds of federal deficit. How terrible!
    I would suggest Solyndra losing 580 million bucks of our hard earned taxpayers money, you know PaulE, those men an women, getting up every day to toil at the Subway sandwich shop for 9 bucks and hour, those folks who have the tax money yanked from their check so Obama could give it to Solyndra executives to pay for their yachts, yeah, you have your priorities just about right.

    Like

  4. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 304pm – can’t make sense of “AT what point does the the harsh critique that you apply to such organizations such as Sierra Business Council that they use their bully pulpit to affect policy that they profit from apply to the defense industry that reply’s almost entirely on public funding?”
    It appears that we’re going to circle the ‘socialism’ barn a few times again. I covered the definition here
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/07/who-is-a-socialist.html
    The link in my 137pm is to the piece I did that included discussion of reasoning which included arguments that ‘beg the question’ the important definition of which is not well understood.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    My question stands. My use of the word “socialism” is partly a sarcastic commentary of your vernacular.
    So George isn’t the process essentially the same for organizations such as the SBC and Big War Defense Contractor that in that they both use their status to affect public policy in manners that reward them financially. Since they are both dependent on government funding is not the similarity on your eyes profound?

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    similarity in your eyes profound?

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    So PaulE, how do we as a people create the mechanisms of safety the military uses? Would you have the Generals run the factories and have the soldiers as the workers? Tell us how you envision a military without the “industrial” complex?

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Good question. Also how do you temper the influence of the Complex to promote wars that they will profit by therefore receiving taxpayer subsidies to promote war? I’m open to ideas. I don’t necessarily have an answer.

    Like

  9. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 402pm – equating SBC and the defense industry on the basis of both getting funded by the government is a necessary but not sufficient argument to accuse them of being equal socialistic organizations. Many people, including me, don’t understand the beneficial role of SBC in our lives (in fact I can cite several projects which SBC has undertaken that I believe have hurt me and my neighbors – the promotion of Prop23 and AB32 to being the most egregious).
    Few people could make the same case for a whole catalog of defense systems spending. BTW, any argument that if we don’t develop system/capability X, then China/Russia/… won’t also develop them is beyond the pale and will have to be argued with someone else.
    Is there a better system than denying business lobbying rights? Perhaps, but I’d be real careful what I do there. Remember, it’s the scumbag politicians that do what’s wrong. And always trying to put them into a sanitized environment will not work – scum will seek out scum.

    Like

  10. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Fortunately, by a margin of 61.5% to 38.5% the voters of California did not agree with George, including the good voters of Nevada County.
    By the way Paul, SBC is not “dependent on government funding”…..the misconceptions of idiots notwithstanding.

    Like

  11. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    By the way George, If one wanted to donate to the SESF would that donation be tax deductible?

    Like

  12. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Seems the very same Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation that Russ, George and Barry are on the board of directors of did a little work on Prop 23 as well.
    http://sesf.typepad.com/files/prop-23-tech-note_10-04a.pdf
    Perhaps they forgot….or are they saying that their public education is valid and everyone else’s is wrong? Hmmmm

    Like

  13. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    How could I have missed it, is Mikey McDaniel is on the board as well? Those must be some fun non-profit board of directors meetings.

    Like

  14. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” – C.S. Lewis

    Like

  15. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    It looks like the tax leech (99% tax funding) is protesting again. Someone must have hit a nerve.
    PaulE, now that you have had some time to think, what is you \r solution to the military “industrial” partnership in creating, building and sustaining our nations military and it suppliers?

    Like

  16. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF – Both SBC and SESF do what they each believe benefits society. Unfortunately, as MikeyMcD points out, we seem to pull in opposite directions many times.

    Like

  17. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    One thing I have learned about liberals like SteveF is they can spend a million bucks advocating, we can spend two bucks and they call that equal.

    Like

  18. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    So let me see if I have this right….you get to blast me for being associated with a non-profit, yet you serve on the board of a non-profit, and you justify your hypocrisy by claiming to be on the “right road”? So does that mean that you should have special rights because of the righteousness of your cause? Or do you support equal protection and rights under the law? Which is it boys?
    You post on your web site an argument in favor of prop 23 yet excoriate me for opposing prop 23?
    Todd, are Russ, George, Barry and Mikey “tax leeches”?
    Seems to me that the problem you have here is that SBC is just better at what it does than SESF is. The funny thing is I actually like and would support your Techtest.
    You guys really take the cake. You are the biggest bunch of phony, self-righteous fools I have ever met.

    Like

  19. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    Your personal opinion of the relative value of the two comparisons has little to do with the question involved. I certainly have many concerns about defense spending for contractors. In the Iraq war for example we have defense contractors involved in torture (see Abu Ghraib) and propaganda, inventing false news stories stories to influence public opinion. These same companies were directly involved in lobbying to support the wars that employ them. The question is back to the one of shall we allow doctors to invent diseases. Since it’s the natural survival function of corporations to do whatever they can to turn a profit.
    Steve
    I was begging the question for the purpose of agitating conversation. In that sense Blackwater is almost totally dependent of taxpayer subsidies certainly much more than SBC therefore they are more socialistic.
    Sure Todd
    No lobbying or contributions from defense contractors. Pure and simple. The danger of make work wars is too grave to be allowed.

    Like

  20. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    I get it Paul, I just don’t want people to think Todd is accurate, because he is not. He clearly know nothing about non-profit reporting, finance or even how to read financial documents; which is clearly evidenced by his serial failure as a business-person. Of course his bailout is “special”, he is absolved of his sin because he is on the “right road”.

    Like

  21. Barry Pruett Avatar

    The difference between Russ’s work (SESF) on Prop 23 versus Frisch’s work (SBC) against Prop 23 is the “call to action” to voters. Generally speaking, 501(c)(3) corporations are forbidden from engaging substantially in lobbying activities unless they have made an election pursuant to 501(h). SBC’s article opposing Prop 23 was what is called Grassroots Lobbying Activities.
    Grassroots Lobbying has three elements.
    1. Identifying Specific Legislation – both SESF and SBC identified Proposition 23
    2. Opposing or Supporting the Legislation – SBC opposed Proposition 23 while SESF dd neither
    3. A Call To Action – SBC urged voters to oppose Proposition 23 while SESF did not such urging
    http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-sierra-business-coucil-violating-irs.html
    See also the IRS website for further details
    http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html
    Russ’s analysis was exactly within the IRS law, while SBC clearly crossed the line. It is not my opinion…it is the law.

    Like

  22. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Barry Pruett Esq., you are dead wrong. What you failed to disclose in your comments is the “substantial part” test. Yu are either a liar, or a bad lawyer.
    “if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation”
    Since a substantial part of SBC’s activities [tested in court several times by other non-profits and generally held to be roughly 20%] is not related to ‘lobbying’ we did not cross any ‘line”. In other words, it IS your opinion, and not the law, and if you want to test me bring it on big boy.
    In addition, you did not answer the real question; how can you critique me for being involved in a non-profit when you serve on the board of one that enjoys the same rights and privileges that mine does?
    Hypocrisy thy name is Barry.

    Like

  23. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Oh, forgive me Barry, that should read, “you are either a liar or a bad lawyer’. My apologies.

    Like

  24. Barry Pruett Avatar

    I am sorry Steve, and I am not trying to argue with you and further this will be my last post on the matter. You must have missed this part in my post – “engaging substantially, in lobbying activities.”
    Further, devoting less than 5% of activities to lobbying is not substantial. Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 907 (1955). Spending between 16.6% and 20.5% of an organization’s time on lobbying is substantial. Haswell v. United States, 500 F.2d 1133 (Ct. Cl. 1974). So, your 20% marker reflects the “expenditure test” not the “substantial part test.” Also as I said before, it is the “call to action” which triggers the substantial part test in the first place. If there was no “call to action” then SBC would not even be close to any line and would not be triggering the substantial part test. There is a big difference between a technical paper and urging voters to support or oppose legislation.
    I am not critiquing your involvement in a non-profit per se. I am critiquing the standard of such involvement. Traveling the state and lobbying against a ballot initiative is not the proper function of a non-profit. It really is that simple.

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 825pm – lot of threads intermingling here, don’t know what you are referencing. Please give me a time tag as a courtesy so I don’t have to go through this long comment stream trying sort which thread might apply. Too busy.
    SteveF 821pm – let’s see now, you’re back here calling people idiots and fools and other personal aspersions. Is this the best you can do in debating the points raised, or do they elevate your arguments?
    My points with you and SBC involve a reasonable difference of opinion on the merits of the causes SBC promotes vs those of SESF’s. And you go ballistic because of that? Why don’t you study the strong responses of DougK and PaulE to see if there’s anything you could pick up there about civility.

    Like

  26. Barry Pruett Avatar

    I am sorry Steve, and I am not trying to argue with you and further this will be my last post on the matter. You must have missed this part in my post – “engaging substantially in lobbying activities.”
    Further, devoting less than 5% of activities to lobbying is not substantial. Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 907 (1955). Spending between 16.6% and 20.5% of an organization’s time on lobbying is substantial. Haswell v. United States, 500 F.2d 1133 (Ct. Cl. 1974). So, your 20% marker reflects the “expenditure test” not the “substantial part test.” Also as I said before, it is the “call to action” which triggers the substantial part test in the first place. If there was no “call to action” then SBC would not even be close to any line and would not be triggering the substantial part test. There is a big difference between a technical paper and urging voters to support or oppose legislation.
    I am not critiquing your involvement in a non-profit per se. I am critiquing the standard of such involvement. Traveling the state and lobbying against a ballot initiative is not the proper function of a non-profit. It really is that simple.

    Like

  27. Douglas Keachie Avatar
    Douglas Keachie

    “Conclusion: Passing Proposition 23 to suspend the remainder of AB32 will have a
    positive economic impact on Nevada County, reducing the risk of escalating state
    mandated carbon taxes and fees.”
    Seems to me this is taking a stand. No case law more recent than 1955 and 1974 on this issue?

    Like

  28. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Can’t even do on-line research can you Barry? Substantial part and expenditure are tied together:
    http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html
    “Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.”
    http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html
    “Under the expenditure test, the extent of an organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status, provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed an amount specified in section 4911.”
    So, once again, you are wrong.

    Like

  29. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Doug, they is a lot of more recent case law. Rest assured I checked this out thoroughly. I would put my crack legal team up against the Pruett, any day. But then, I guess all these guys also object to the National Federation of Independent Business taking a stand on this issue? The same organization that gave Dan Logue legislator of the year? Of course not, BECAUSE THEY AGREE WITH HIM.
    This is not about the law, it is about the people here openly supporting the selective enforcement of the law.

    Like

  30. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    That’s rich, you lecturing on civility. You countenance liars who attack me and my organization, then serve on the board of an organization that does exactly the same thing. The difference between you and me is that I do not hide behind false civility while I act dishonorably.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    SteveF – now you’re accusing me of “false civility” and acting “dishonorably”. I guess it’s time for another timeout, go get a happy face.

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    05 December 2011 at 06:25 PM

    Like

  33. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    How convenient—you get to bounce me after I expose your hypocrisy. Fine!

    Like

  34. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 927pm – thanks much. I suppose you want me to respond to “Your personal opinion of the relative value of the two comparisons has little to do with the question involved.”
    Paul, my personal opinions on how I see the world is what I do here on RR. That’s all I can give you, I don’t pretend to speak ex cathedra like some of my betters here do. And I do my best to counter well-meant criticisms of my positions, and even some criticisms not so well-meant.

    Like

  35. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I swear, that SteveF is a hoot! I posted a story on his 99% he listed as government money to run his non-profit and it was copied from his tax return and he calls me a liar! These scofflaws when caught in their own web of deceit lash out as he did here against his exposers. The SBC tax returns are on the AG’s website which SteveF directed us all to go look at. Wow!
    Oh, and I have no idea what his personal attack on my business acumen is all about. But, those libs need a straw man don’t they?
    Here is my post and anyone can go look at SBC’s tax return.
    http://sierradragonsbreathe.blogspot.com/2011/11/sbc-990s-2002-2009-you-decide-if-they.html
    So I guess SteveF is saying his tax returns are phony?
    BTW, who paid for the rip to China SteveF? Was it the American taxpayer?

    Like

  36. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Steve: The “expenditure test” only applies if the organization has made the 501(h) election thus the higher percetnage allowable due to the election. You should know that, or you are being misleading.
    Doug: Old case law means that the law surrounding this area is very well settled.

    Like

Leave a comment