Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Rosenberg: A Modern-Day Depression
"It's Time To Start Calling This For What It Is: A Modern Day Depression"-- David Rosenberg
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Headed for Hyperinflationary Depression?
"The world is now staring into the abyss and we are most likely entering the Dark Years which I wrote about two years ago. The consequences will almost certainly be unlimited money printing and a hyperinflationary depression." -- Egon Von Greyerz
Monday, July 11, 2011
It's Getting Worse! Even Dollar Stores Feeling Pinched!
Wow! Check out that headline from CBS:
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — More stores across the U.S. that offer deeply-discounted products are seeing their sales decline after years of growth amid America’s “Great Recession” — and one analyst said on Monday it’s another sign of even deeper downturn.
While the demand at stores like the 99-Cent Store or Dollar Tree is still relatively high, the biggest chains in the nation have fallen short of Wall Street’s expectations for several months, a trend that may prove even more ominous for the economy at large.
“I think what’s going on in those stores is that we are in a depression for 80 percent of Americans,” top retail analyst Howard Davidowitz told KNX 1070.
America’s three largest discount chains — Dollar General Corp., Family Dollar Stores Inc. and Dollar Tree Inc. — all recently missed their quarterly earnings targets.
Davidowitz pointed to the weakness of the dollar and a gloomy consumer outlook as some of the factors behind the stores’ slump.
“In those stores, somebody comes in with $12 to do all their shopping,” said Davidowitz. “The person who used to come in with $12 now comes in with $8.”
“In other words, the economy is continuing to be worse, the Obama depression continues to explode,” he added.
Analysts say rising food and transportation prices are likely eating into the profit margins of discount stores, which risk driving away price-sensitive customers with any potential price hikes.
Core customers at most U.S. discount chains typically have a household income of $40,000 or less.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
"We're on the verge of a great, great depression" --Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer
from CNBC:
Wall Street is having a hard time figuring out what to do now that the U.S. economy appears to be sputtering and yields are so low, Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, told CNBC.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Apres Nous, Le Deluge
From Egon von Greyerz of Matterhorn Asset Management
Apres Nous, Le Deluge

Moral and financial decadence

Are boom and busts inevitable?
Empty stomachs are rioting
The hyperinflationary deluge is imminent

Hyperinflation Watch
- The US dollar is down 82% against gold since 1999
- The US dollar is down 49% against the Swiss Francs since 2001
- The Dow Jones is down 81% against gold since 1999
- The Continuous Commodity Index is up 100% since 2009


Stock Market

Bond market
Currency Market
As we have explained for many years, hyperinflation is created by the government destroying the currency as a result of money printing to finance deficits. This leads to the cost push inflation that we are now experiencing. Add to that, shortages in commodities worldwide, thus creating the perfect hyperinflationary scenario. The Dollar, the Pound, the Euro and many other currencies will continue to decline. They can’t all decline against each other at the same time so the market will take turns in attacking one currency at a time. But all currencies will continue to decline against gold. We believe that the dollar will soon start a very rapid fall against gold and against many currencies. Investors should exit the Dollar and also the Pound and the Euro. There is no currency better than gold or silver but for any small amounts of cash we prefer the Swiss Franc, the Norwegian Krone, the Singapore dollar and the Canadian dollar.Wealth Protection

Thursday, December 9, 2010
True Defict of $4-$5 Trillion/Year
"Eventually it is going to be a hyperinflationary great depression... The annual deficit is running $4-5 trillion a year, that includes the Y/Y change in the NPV of unfunded liabilities... There is no political will to deal with this." -- John Williams, economist, Shadowstats.com
Monday, September 27, 2010
Krugman: Right Conclusion, Wrong Causes
This guy is so grossly misguided by his keynesian dogma that while he reaches the right conclusions, he is still in denial of his keynesian culpability! Did Mr. Krugman miss that his economic philosophies have ruled for most of the past century (remember, "we're all keynesians now"!), but his contention is that we need more of it? He's convinced that we didn't do enough of it? What? We didn't administer enough poison to kill the patient? I think Koolaid Krugman is just trying to cover his rear end so he can later say, "I told you so."
Mr. Krugman's antidote throughout has been to create an ever larger black hole of debt, and now he's willing to suggest that a default of that debt he recommended is inevitable? What kind of warped, psychotic thinking is that?
Take a clue, Keynesian Krugman: You administered more than enough of your poisonous keynesian koolaid. Yes, the patient is dying, but at a slightly slower pace than we expected! And it was your keynesian koolaid that did it!
Krugman on NYT:
I think it’s fair to say that a majority of economists believe that excessive private debt played a key role in getting us into this economic mess, and is playing a key role in preventing us from getting out. So, how does it end?
A naive view says that what we need is a return to virtue: everyone needs to save more, pay down debt, and restore healthy balance sheets.
The problem with this view is the fallacy of composition: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is a depressed economy and falling inflation, which cause the ratio of debt to income to rise if anything. That is, we’re living in a world in which the twin paradoxes of thrift and deleveraging hold, and hence in which individual virtue ends up being collective vice.
So what will happen? In the end, I’d argue, what must happen is an effective default on a significant part of debt, one way or another. The default could be implicit, via a period of moderate inflation that reduces the real burden of debt; that’s how World War II cured the depression. Or, if not, we could see a gradual, painful process of individual defaults and bankruptcies, which ends up reducing overall debt.
And that’s what is happening now: as this story in today’s Times points out, the main force behind the gratifying decline in consumer debt appears to be default rather than thrift.
So basically, we can do this cleanly or we can do this ugly. And ugly is the way we’re going.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Empire In Decline
by Graham Summers at Phoenix Capital Research:

Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Another Scenario Causing a Hyperinflationary Depression
You see millions of websites devoted to the topic. These would mostly be the self-proclaimed “Gold bugs” who warn us that an impending hyperinflationary event, which would significantly boost prices of all precious metals and necessities such as food, would lead to chaos as the country’s savings would vanish literally over the course of a couple of weeks. Riots would occur. Commodities would gain in value as Fiat currencies see their end game. Overall it portrays a very ugly picture indeed (let me pull out that Mayan Calendar). My definition of hyperinflation revolves around a deep and sharp loss of confidence in a currency. This is different than inflation where it is simply a function of too many dollars in the economic system; however, the line between high levels of inflation and hyperinflation is quite gray primarily dominated (in my view) by “future inflation expectations”. Quick upward movements in this metric would signal to me that the public is less confident in the purchasing power of their currency, a prerequisite to hyperinflation. Another reason that I’ve thought of, though not heard much about, would be a supply-side shock in important material resources. Regardless, I’ll come out and say upfront that there are so many headwinds, crosswinds, you name it, that predicting whether hyperinflation would occur would be akin to throwing darts. However, this will not stop me from researching the reasons why such an event may occur.
First my stance: Overall I believe that the probability of a hyperinflationary event occurring due to a loss of confidence in the US dollar remains very remote.
The other reason for hyperinflation is more unique and deserves more attention. The Fed, for all intents and purposes, is becoming a growing national security threat in my view. My main reason for such a diatribe is rooted in its quantitative easing strategy in an attempt to avoid deflation. This strategy seems shortsighted in my view from a longer-term perspective. Given the last round of quantitative easing and the low rates that it produced it is now obvious that consumers are not keen on increasing demand for loans. Despite the Fed’s best attempts to restart lending and keep the credit machine growing, the consumer has made its intentions known. They are in the process of de-leveraging and saving. Decades of profligate spending are coming home to roost; the bill now needs repaying. Retirees must save as their largest asset (home) has taken a beating and doesn’t seem to be bouncing back anytime soon. The consumer is looking to fix its balance sheet, translating to an overall period of secular weakness in the economy. The fundamental question that I have is whether the Fed, and perhaps more importantly, policymakers see continued debasement of the dollar via quantitative easing as a viable strategy to combat our problems. If they do, quantitative easing will continue and if it continues, I see an increasing probability of the following long-term scenario unfolding.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Harding and Coolidge: How to Handle a Depression
by Jim Powell from Washington Times:
Although the con- ventional wis- dom - backed by President Obama and the Democrats - is that government spending must go up in hard times, the 1920s began with a depression, and spending went down. Gross National Product (GNP) fell 23.9 percent from 1920 to 1921, compared with the 23.4 percent drop from 1931 to 1932 - the biggest annual GNP decline of the Great Depression. Unemployment doubled to 11 percent in 1921, compared with 24.9 percent in 1933, the worst unemployment level of the Great Depression.
Because pumping trillions into the economy hasn't worked this time, maybe we ought to reflect on the last time government spending was under control - back in the 1920s.
In every decade except one since then, federal spending has more than doubled. The exception (1980-1990) was a decade when spending nearly doubled. How was federal spending brought under control during the 1920s, and how does that relate to dramatically lowering unemployment?
Warren G. Harding, who won the 1920 presidential election, thought companies that prospered because of the war must find peacetime business or shut down. People had to find peacetime jobs. Harding thought that the faster adjustments were made, the better off everybody would be. He understood that the top priority was the recovery of private-sector employment because government didn't have any money other than what it extracted from taxpayers. Accordingly, Harding was determined to minimize taxpayer burdens. By the time he died in August 1923, he had cut spending almost 50 percent. He cut taxes almost 40 percent, and he began paying down the national debt. There were no big-government programs.
The result? The 1920 depression was over in just 18 months. The Roaring '20s boom began in 1922. The American middle class blossomed. Millions of people acquired their first telephone, first radio and first car. The Great Migration of blacks from the South, seeking better opportunities in Northern industrial cities, gained momentum during the 1920s. As a depression fighter, Harding was much more successful than Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose presidency during the 1930s was plagued by chronic double-digit unemployment.
Vice President Calvin Coolidge succeeded Harding and won a term of his own. He, too, was a strong believer in low spending, low taxes and minimum interference with the private sector. Coolidge further cut spending, down to $2.8 billion in 1927. Altogether, spending and taxes were cut 50 percent during the 1920s, and about 30 percent of the national debt was paid off. There were budget surpluses throughout the 1920s. Unemployment fell to 1.8 percent, the lowest U.S. peacetime level in more than 100 years.
There were three principal reasons why Harding and Coolidge were able to control spending, taxes and debt during the 1920s and achieve historically low unemployment.
First, there were no entitlements. The entitlement era in the United States began with Social Security in 1935. Today, entitlements account for more than half of federal spending, and unfunded entitlement liabilities exceed $100 trillion. Congress determines the qualifications for receiving entitlement payments, and the government is obligated to pay however many people show up with qualifications. Entitlement spending could be reduced by changing qualifications to reduce the number of people in a program, but any member of Congress who supported such changes would risk political suicide.
Second, Harding and Coolidge didn't have to deal with government employee unions. These began expanding rapidly during the 1960s. Now they're perhaps the most aggressive lobbyists for higher spending. Government employee unions have gained above-market compensation and gold-plated benefits - more than $5 trillion in federal liabilities. Unfunded state government employee liabilities are another $1 trillion.
Third, Harding and Coolidge believed the job of the military was to protect the United States. They didn't support anything like the current policy of subsidizing the defense of affluent nations in Europe and Asia that can afford to pay for their own defense, or entering other people's wars - especially civil wars - that don't involve a direct national security threat to the United States. Harding and Coolidge believed the United States could legitimately go to war after Congress debated the issues and voted for a declaration of war.
Because Harding and Coolidge were able to keep government spending low, they were able to minimize taxes, debt and government interference with the economy. The private sector flourished, productive jobs were abundant, and unemployment rates reached a historically low peacetime level that no big-government president has ever matched.
Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of "FDR's Folly," (Crown Forum, 2003) and "Wilson's War" (Crown Forum, 2005).
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The Coming Crisis of the U.S. Government; "Hyperinflationary Depression"
Most market reporters, commentators and politicians continue to rely upon nothing but the same short-term "snapshots" which have caused them to be "surprised" by everything. However, it is a safe conclusion that even such rampant incompetence (combined with a strong "herd mentality"), could not and does not mean that the entire U.S. government remains in an oblivious state of ignorance regarding this re-acceleration of the collapse of the U.S. economy.
This begs an obvious question. Given that at least some elements of the U.S. government have known all along that the U.S. economy was not recovering and could not recover, why is it that only now are we hearing of tentative, new plans of more "life support" for the dying U.S. economy?
The answer is also obvious. As I pointed out when I originally denounced the Obama stimulus package, it was never anything more than a bad joke. The combination of the collapse of the U.S. housing sector, massive unemployment, and the largest credit-contraction in the history of the U.S. economy had combined to subtract approximately $2 trillion per year in consumer spending from this consumer economy.
The response of the Obama regime to this scenario was a one-time injection of $780 in stimulus, spread out over more than a year. Obviously, you can't replace $2 trillion with less than $800 billion and call it stimulus.
This brings us to the present dilemma of the U.S. government. The U.S. economy is much sicker than it was when Obama ascended the throne. Wall Street has continued to ruthlessly choke off all credit to the U.S. economy, meaning that tens of millions of American households and tens of thousands of businesses are much closer to the breaking point than they were in January of 2009.
The entire U.S. retail sector is in a terminal death-spiral, and its only response is to eliminate vast numbers of retail outlets, and herd consumers into more online retailing. While this cuts costs for these companies, most of those cuts will be reduced employment -- fueling the next leg lower for consumer demand, resulting in even more store closures, etc.
This means that the trivial "band-aids" being mused-about by government talking-heads are utterly meaningless. Simply, the Obama regime has to "go big, or go home." It must either engage in massive (genuine) stimulus of the U.S. economy -- meaning a multi-trillion dollar commitment, or simply allow the collapse to proceed (and feed upon itself). However, in even contemplating another, massive wave of spending, Obama faces two other problems (which he created for himself).
Throughout this "U.S. economic recovery," the U.S. government has continued to pretend that it was almost ready to begin some actual, fiscal restraint -- halting the exponential increase in federal government debt. That was the only thing propping up the U.S. dollar (putting aside the constant Euro-bashing by the U.S. propaganda-machine). Allow another sickening plunge in the U.S. dollar, and that will drive away the last, few chumps still insane enough to buy grossly over-priced U.S. Treasuries. This is the road that leads to hyperinflation.
If this was not bad enough, the Obama regime has continued to be successful in duping both the vast majority of sheep in the U.S. electorate, as well as Republican knuckle-draggers that the U.S. economy was "strong enough" to begin to curtail runaway spending. This pool of chumps is looking for spending cuts, not a multi-trillion spending spree.
Thus, the U.S. government is facing exactly the same scenario today as the Bush regime faced in the summer of 2008. In hindsight, we all know what choice the previous government made. Lehman Brothers was "assassinated" -- as the first step in a concerted effort to destroy commodities markets. The collapse in these vital markets, combined with the collusion among Western bankers to choke off all credit to credit-based Western economies achieved its desired objective: a global "economic collapse," and the expected panic which such an artificial crisis would naturally produce.
It was only through this panic that frightened sheep (i.e. U.S. citizens and government "leaders") meekly submitted to the largest "bail-out" in history for Wall Street: a combination of hand-outs, loans, and guarantees which exceeded every other corporate bailout in every country on Earth, throughout history, combined. The last estimate I heard of the nominal value of this bailout was approximately $14 trillion, matching "official" U.S. GDP. The number will continue to increase (even without any new bailouts), as all of the 0% money being "loaned" to Wall Street banks is yet another taxpayer subsidy (since even the U.S. government can't borrow at 0%).
Given the current circumstances of the U.S. government, and past history, the "plan" is clear: do nothing long enough for the U.S. propaganda-machine to whip-up public fear into another frenzy, and then (and only then) will it "act decisively" to address this new "crisis." There is a second audience at which this clumsy charade is aimed: the governments of other nations.
While we must presume that a small number of these other governments understand the true state of the U.S. economy (China leaps to mind), most of these governments have been quite content to "drink the Kool-aid" being dispensed by the U.S. government. Should the Obama regime simply announce ("out of the blue") a multi-trillion dollar spending package, these willing dupes would be forced to confront reality: that the U.S. government has clearly embarked upon the road to hyperinflation.
However, create a "crisis" first, and we can expect these "leaders" to instantly transform into a flock of Chicken-Littles -- desperate for some massive prop, to prevent the sky from falling upon them. Understand that for the ivory-tower leaders of our governments that a crisis means nothing more to them personally than being thrown out of their pampered, government posts -- and being forced to survive upon the extremely generous public-pensions they award themselves.
It is such "me-first" selfishness which inspires the most blind-panic in any crisis, and the U.S. government is clearly relying upon such a reaction. They can announce their multi-trillion rescue of the global economy, and maybe, just maybe the self-absorbed leaders of other countries will blind themselves to the hyperinflationary consequences of more print-and-spend insanity. There is no more money for the U.S. government to borrow, thus every penny used as a response to this pending crisis will be newly-printed Bernanke bills.
This sets the stage for another chaotic autumn for the global economy -- and even more chaos for markets. While I have outlined what I consider the most likely scenario, we are so close to the true collapse of the sickest economies that there are many dire scenarios possible.
The one scenario which I totally reject is another commodities meltdown which would come anywhere close to 2008. There are two reasons why this part of the pattern cannot repeat itself. To begin with, there is only a tiny amount of the "leverage" which existed in the rabidly bullish commodity markets of 2008. Secondly, the hyperinflationary consequences of more banker money-printing (and debt) are far more obvious today -- after two years of massive, deficit-spending have been factored into fiscal parameters.
The U.S. economy lurches closer and closer to the "hyperinflationary depression" which John Williams (Shadowstats.com ) first predicted in 2003. The precise effect of this collapse on the global economy cannot be predicted -- only its eventual result. We are heading toward a Great Divide: a division of the global economy into winners and losers.
This is not a new phenomenon. What is new is that most of the losers will come from the "Old Guard" economies (i.e. the U.S. and Western Europe). The citizens of these "loser economies" must act now to shield their diminishing wealth from the death of Western banker-paper which is almost upon us. As always, I remind investors that (for hundreds of years) precious metals have represented the best "insurance" against the depravity of bankers (and their servants in government).
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
David Rosenberg: "This is a Depression, Not a Recession"
![]() |
Monday, July 5, 2010
Dow Depression History Repeats Itself
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell during the Great Depression, Daryl Guppy, CEO at Guppytraders.com, told CNBC Monday.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: U.S. Trapped In Depression
People queue for a job fair in New York. The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. The ratio was 63pc three years ago.
"The economy is still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession," said Robert Reich, former US labour secretary. "All the booster rockets for getting us beyond it are failing."
"Home sales are down. Retail sales are down. Factory orders in May suffered their biggest tumble since March of last year. So what are we doing about it? Less than nothing," he said.
California is tightening faster than Greece. State workers have seen a 14pc fall in earnings this year due to forced furloughs. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is cutting pay for 200,000 state workers to the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour to cover his $19bn (£15bn) deficit.
Can Illinois be far behind? The state has a deficit of $12bn and is $5bn in arrears to schools, nursing homes, child care centres, and prisons. "It is getting worse every single day," said state comptroller Daniel Hynes. "We are not paying bills for absolutely essential services. That is obscene."
Roughly a million Americans have dropped out of the jobs market altogether over the past two months. That is the only reason why the headline unemployment rate is not exploding to a post-war high.
Let us be honest. The US is still trapped in depression a full 18 months into zero interest rates, quantitative easing (QE), and fiscal stimulus that has pushed the budget deficit above 10pc of GDP.
The share of the US working-age population with jobs in June actually fell from 58.7pc to 58.5pc. This is the real stress indicator. The ratio was 63pc three years ago. Eight million jobs have been lost.
The average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. Nothing like this has been seen before in the post-war era. Jeff Weninger, of Harris Private Bank, said this compares with a peak of 21.2 weeks in the Volcker recession of the early 1980s.
"Legions of individuals have been left with stale skills, and little prospect of finding meaningful work, and benefits that are being exhausted. By our math the crop of people who are unemployed but not receiving a check amounts to 9.2m."
Republicans on Capitol Hill are filibustering a bill to extend the dole for up to 1.2m jobless facing an imminent cut-off. Dean Heller from Vermont called them "hobos". This really is starting to feel like 1932.
Washington's fiscal stimulus is draining away. It peaked in the first quarter, yet even then the economy eked out a growth rate of just 2.7pc. This compares with 5.1pc, 9.3pc, 8.1pc and 8.5pc in the four quarters coming off recession in the early 1980s.
The housing market is already crumbling as government props are pulled away. The expiry of homebuyers' tax credit led to a 30pc fall in the number of buyers signing contracts in May. "It is cataclysmic," said David Bloom from HSBC.
Federal tax rises are automatically baked into the pie. The Congressional Budget Office said fiscal policy will swing from
a net +2pc of GDP to -2pc by late 2011. The states and counties may have to cut as much as $180bn.
Investors are starting to chew over the awful possibility that America's recovery will stall just as Asia hits the buffers. China's manufacturing index has been falling since January, with a downward lurch in June to 50.4, just above the break-even line of 50. Momentum seems to be flagging everywhere, whether in Australian building permits, Turkish exports, or Japanese industrial output.
On Friday, Jacques Cailloux from RBS put out a "double-dip alert" for Europe. "The risk is rising fast. Absent an effective policy intervention to tackle the debt crisis on the periphery over coming months, the European economy will double dip in 2011," he said.
It is obvious what that policy should be for Europe, America, and Japan. If budgets are to shrink in an orderly fashion over several years – as they must, to avoid sovereign debt spirals – then central banks will have to cushion the blow keeping monetary policy ultra-loose for as long it takes.
The Fed is already eyeing the printing press again. "It's appropriate to think about what we would do under a deflationary scenario," said Dennis Lockhart for the Atlanta Fed. His colleague Kevin Warsh said the pros and cons of purchasing more bonds should be subject to "strict scrutiny", a comment I took as confirmation that the Fed Board is arguing internally about QE2.
Perhaps naively, I still think central banks have the tools to head off disaster. The question is whether they will do so fast enough, or even whether they wish to resist the chorus of 1930s liquidation taking charge of the debate. Last week the Bank for International Settlements called for combined fiscal and monetary tightening, lending its great authority to the forces of debt-deflation and mass unemployment. If even the BIS has lost the plot, God help us.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
M3 Money Supply Plunges, Giving Ominous Sign of Double Dip, Parallels to Great Depression
The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the Telegraph:
The US authorities have an entirely different explanation for the failure of stimulus measures to gain full traction. They are opting instead for yet further doses of Keynesian spending, despite warnings from the IMF that the gross public debt of the US will reach 97pc of GDP next year and 110pc by 2015.
Larry Summers, President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, has asked Congress to "grit its teeth" and approve a fresh fiscal boost of $200bn to keep growth on track. "We are nearly 8m jobs short of normal employment. For millions of Americans the economic emergency grinds on," he said.
David Rosenberg from Gluskin Sheff said the White House appears to have reversed course just weeks after Mr Obama vowed to rein in a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion (9.4pc of GDP) this year and set up a commission to target cuts. "You truly cannot make this stuff up. The US governnment is freaked out about the prospect of a double-dip," he said.
The White House request is a tacit admission that the economy is already losing thrust and may stall later this year as stimulus from the original $800bn package starts to fade.
Recent data have been mixed. Durable goods orders jumped 2.9pc in April but house prices have been falling for several months and mortgage applications have dropped to a 13-year low. The ECRI leading index of US economic activity has been sliding continuously since its peak in October, suffering the steepest one-week drop ever recorded in mid-May.
Mr Summers acknowledged in a speech this week that the eurozone crisis had shone a spotlight on the dangers of spiralling public debt. He said deficit spending delays the day of reckoning and leaves the US at the mercy of foreign creditors. Ultimately, "failure begets failure" in fiscal policy as the logic of compound interest does its worst.
However, Mr Summers said it would be "pennywise and pound foolish" to skimp just as the kindling wood of recovery starts to catch fire. He said fiscal policy comes into its own at at time when the economy "faces a liquidity trap" and the Fed is constrained by zero interest rates.
Mr Congdon said the Obama policy risks repeating the strategic errors of Japan, which pushed debt to dangerously high levels with one fiscal boost after another during its Lost Decade, instead of resorting to full-blown "Friedmanite" monetary stimulus.
"Fiscal policy does not work. The US has just tried the biggest fiscal experiment in history and it has failed. What matters is the quantity of money and in extremis that can be increased easily by quantititave easing. If the Fed doesn’t act, a double-dip recession is a virtual certainty," he said.
Mr Congdon said the dominant voices in US policy-making - Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz, as well as Mr Summers and Fed chair Ben Bernanke - are all Keynesians of different stripes who "despise traditional monetary theory and have a religious aversion to any mention of the quantity of money". The great opus by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz - The Monetary History of the United States - has been left to gather dust.
Mr Bernanke no longer pays attention to the M3 data. The bank stopped publishing the data five years ago, deeming it too erratic to be of much use.
This may have been a serious error since double-digit growth of M3 during the US housing bubble gave clear warnings that the boom was out of control. The sudden slowdown in M3 in early to mid-2008 - just as the Fed raised rates - gave a second warning that the economy was about to go into a nosedive.
Mr Bernanke built his academic reputation on the study of the credit mechanism. This model offers a radically different theory for how the financial system works. While so-called "creditism" has become the new orthodoxy in US central banking, it has not yet been tested over time and may yet prove to be a misadventure.
Paul Ashworth at Capital Economics said the decline in M3 is worrying and points to a growing risk of deflation. "Core inflation is already the lowest since 1966, so we don’t have much margin for error here. Deflation becomes a threat if it goes on long enough to become entrenched," he said.
However, Mr Ashworth warned against a mechanical interpretation of money supply figures. "You could argue that M3 has been going down because people have been taking their money out of accounts to buy stocks, property and other assets," he said.
Events may soon tell us whether this is benign or malign. It is certainly remarkable.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Mauldin's Most Morose Assessment Thus Far; Seems to Suggest a Depression Just Might Happen!
I didn't get this newsletter by email this time. I don't know why. This is the first time I've seen John Maulding or any of his guest opinions suggest that this whole economic collapse may end up in a depression. Mauldin has been remarkably bullish until now.
Watch Out For the Second Leg of the Downturn
by Tom Au
Do you think that the crash is over, as certain former bears do? This question arises as we have breached the first downside target, of Dow 7000, based on my proprietary investment value model, that was first published in thestreet.com October 24, 2007. It was less a forecast than an evaluation. The Dow has now vindicated this model by reaching "fair value," as one would expect from a simple definition. Does that represent a base for a new bull market? Or is it just one more stop to the nether regions?
To understand my model, note that a stock can be analyzed as a combination of a bond plus a call option. My proprietary investment value metric for a stock is book value plus ten times dividends. That is a Ben Graham like construct that treats stocks almost like bonds, and gives no effect to growth over and above the pro rata return from the reinvestment of retained earnings. On the other hand, many investors prize stocks, particularly tech stocks, for their "optionality," the hypothetical ability to generate "positive surprises" over and above what economic theory would support. At bottom, the belief in the new economy was a belief in "optionality," that random positive events that occur from time to time, and did so with particular frequency in the 1990s, will become a recurring fixture of the economic landscape.
But such a process can also work in reverse, as it has recently. We are now experiencing what my colleague Robert Marcin calls the Great Unwind. A turbocharged economy is most likely to become "unstuck" when the conditions that initially favored it no longer exist. When this happens, an economy can grow as much below trend as it was formerly above trend, a fact that is likely to be reflected in the financial markets. History is not very encouraging on this score. In past downturns, such as those of 1932 and 1974, the Dow troughed at one half of my investment value metric, reflecting then-prevailing investor beliefs for negative optionality; that the economy will be worse than normal economic forces would dictate. With investment value at 7000 (actually a rounded version of 6600) on the Dow, half of that would be 3300. And during the 1930s, this metric actually fell, meaning that the "ultimate" low could be half of a number lower than 6600.
So having completed a first downleg, the market is now working on a second one. And this would be fully reflective of economic forces. For instance, financial earnings used to represent some 40% earnings (if you count the financing arms of some old line "industrial" companies such as General Electric and General Motors). Thus, they made up $32 of what used to be normalized S& P earnings of $80. But most of those financial earnings have disappeared. That, by itself, would take the S&P earnings into the $50s.. But how many of those non-financial earnings (of $48) were tied to the finance bubbles such as the homebuilding and the "housing ATM?" At least 10%, or around $5, and that is being conservative. Thus, normalized S&P earnings are likely to be no more $50 a share, if that.
The problem comes at payback time. For instance, much of the borrowing was tied to the housing market, on the bogus theory that houses could be made twice as valuable (as a multiple of rent) as they were for all of American history if prices could be kept on steady incline. The problem was that valuations collapsed when house prices fell, or even failed to rise, bringing down the market with it. To make up the shortfall, the U.S. economy now has to consume less than it produces, for a time. But the formerly virtuous circle became a vicious circle when falling prices (and consumption) led to falling production in a self-reinforcing process of the kind best described by George Soros in the Alchemy of Finance. This is a process called underabsorption, which in its strongest form, is called disintermediation. When a major part of the economy becomes "unstuck, the rest of it doesn't merely go into retrograde. It has to fall apart also to keep pace.
But I can live with $50 trough earnings, say many. And at historical multiple of 14-16 times trough earnings, the S&P should stop its downside in the 700-800 range. But the point is, they're not trough earnings, they are the "new normal." And in the current "slow" (zero or worse) growth environment, a trough P/E of 6-8 times earnings is more likely. Put another way, we are about to get the worst of all worlds; below trend earnings, below trend growth from a depressed base, and below trend P/E, after having gotten the best of all worlds, astronomical P/Es on above-trend and rapidly growing earnings, about a decade ago. Warren Buffett now agrees, saying that we will get "almost the worst of all possible worlds..."
The bears-turned-bulls have taken the latter stance because the market now reflects at least a severe recession. One such commentator likened the recent market to 1938-1939, and feels that the latter represents a bottom. But the 1930s bottom was 1932, not 1939, which is to say that the market probably has further to fall. Having correctly dodged the "overvaluation" bullet earlier, the new bulls pin their hopes on the prospect that the current market represents everything bad short of the 1930s Depression. Unlike us, they aren't willing to grasp the nettle that the current crisis will likely be as bad as anything including the Great Depression.
7 Reasons the Bear Will Be Back
- The Banking Crisis Isn't Fixed - It's Getting Worse!
- Job Losses Are the Worst Since the Great Depression
- The Deleveraging of the U.S. Credit Bubble Has Already Begun. And It Isn't Pretty...
- Credit Cards Are Imploding
- It's Waaay Too Soon to Call a Bottom in the Housing Market
- It's a GLOBAL Recession.
- The market is bearish until proven otherwise.
2009 Economic Slowdown Worse Than Great Depression
from the Market Oracle:
Capital flows have also suddenly reversed causing turmoil in the currency markets. January's TIC data indicates that net capital outflows for the US were negative $148 billion in January. Capital is now fleeing the country. Financial protectionism has triggered the repatriation of foreign investment causing a sharp drop in the purchase of US sovereign debt. This is from Brad Setser, economist for the CFR:
"The obvious implication of the recent downturn in total reserve holdings — and the $180 billion fall in q4 wasn't driven by currency moves — is that the pace of growth in the world's dollar reserves has slowed dramatically...
The obvious implication: most of the 2009 US fiscal deficit WILL NEED TO BE FINANCED DOMESTICALLY. The Fed's custodial data indicates central banks are still buying Treasuries, though at a somewhat slower pace than in late 2008. But their demand hasn't kept up with issuance. (Foreign Central banks aren't going to finance much of the 2009 US fiscal deficit; Their reserves aren't growing anymore", Brad Setser, Council on Foreign Relations)
The United States does not have the reserves to finance it own massive deficits which will soar to $1.9 trillion by the end of 2009. The Fed will have to increase its purchases of US Treasuries and monetize the debt. Foreign holders of Treasuries and dollar-backed assets ($5 trillion overseas) will be watching carefully as Bernanke revs up the printing presses to fight the recession and meet government obligations. China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran have already called for a change in the world's reserve currency. It won't happen overnight, but the momentum is steadily growing.
The S&P 500 has soared 23 percent in the last four weeks, but the current bear market rally is misleading. The prospects for a quick recovery are remote at best. The fundamentals are all weak. Corporate profits are down, GDP is negative 6 percent, housing is in a shambles, and the banking system broken. The Fed has increased the money supply by 22 percent, but economic activity is at a standstill. The velocity at which money is spent is the slowest since 1987. Nothing is moving. The banks are hoarding, credit has dried up, and consumers are saving for the first time in 2 decades. The banks' credit-conduit cannot function properly until bad assets are removed from their balance sheets. But the magnitude of the losses make it impossible for the government to purchase them outright without bankrupting the country. According to the Times Online, the IMF has increased its estimates of how much toxic mortgage-backed paper the banks are holding:
"Toxic debts racked up by banks and insurers could spiral to $4 trillion, new forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are set to suggest.
Here is the full article.