Healthy diets are bad for you?

WRONG! (apparently...)
(pic source)

Computer expert and financial maven Karl Denninger lost a lot of weight a couple of years ago. He's keen to spread the news that carbohydrates are the enemy.

Repeating his message today, Denninger references a WSJ article by investigative journalist Nina Teicholz, trailing her dietary-fat book that is due out next week. The article reveals that the research recommending the so-called "Mediterranean diet" was deeply flawed:

"Dr. Keys visited Crete during an unrepresentative period of extreme hardship after World War II. Furthermore, he made the mistake of measuring the islanders' diet partly during Lent, when they were forgoing meat and cheese. Dr. Keys therefore undercounted their consumption of saturated fat. Also, due to problems with the surveys, he ended up relying on data from just a few dozen men—far from the representative sample of 655 that he had initially selected."

It now seems that official dietary advice has been not only wrong, but lethally so:

"Excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease. The real surprise is that, according to the best science to date, people put themselves at higher risk for these conditions no matter what kind of carbohydrates they eat. Yes, even unrefined carbs. Too much whole-grain oatmeal for breakfast and whole-grain pasta for dinner, with fruit snacks in between, add up to a less healthy diet than one of eggs and bacon, followed by fish. The reality is that fat doesn't make you fat or diabetic. Scientific investigations going back to the 1950s suggest that actually, carbs do."

One dramatic claim is that in the light of this new knowledge, Type 2 diabetes can be reversed. Newcastle University Professor Roy Taylor recommends weight loss through a calorie-reduced diet. However, diabetes blogger Janet Ruhl's take on this is that cutting calories implies cutting carbohydrates; it's not the weight that's the problem, but the insulin-level-jangling carbs.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

A reply from Mr Karl Denninger

         I'm struck by the vehemence of opposition to so-called "Obamacare".

 

Why are you struck by vehement opposition to anyone putting a gun in your face and demanding money? Can I send a few brigands over to your home because they need something and tell them it's ok to stick you up this evening? After all, it's for their children.

Am I correct in supposing that you are not in principle against the idea that poor, sick people might receive appropriate medical treatment?

 Define "appropriate" and, incidentally, how much of that medical care is necessary due to self-inflicted injury and illness? For example, it is clear that someone who has Type II diabetes requires treatment. Exactly why should they be able to force someone else to pay for it when the condition is evident because they have voluntarily eaten a crap diet for 30 years and weigh 350lbs?

Note that the real issue here isn't care -- it's cost. Even very poor people have access to some cash flow for the most part in the United States; those who don't (e.g. truly homeless) either are typically so by choice or relatively-severe mental illness. The former is a choice, the latter is a disease but in terms of percentages is a vanishingly-small percentage of the whole, and absent compulsion they don't want treatment.

It's not illegal to be crazy (nor should it be) so long as you don't harm others. Voluntary charity is more than sufficient to cover both needs in the main; it was for hundreds of years in the past and it is today -- provided we stop jacking up the cost.

Isn't the real problem, the fact that drug companies, doctors, medical lawyers, medical malpractice insurers and health plan insurers all make and take so much money that healthcare for the common man is seen to be unaffordable?

Yes, but.

If you look at the facts (as opposed to the rabid nonsense coming from the left and apologists for asset-stripping the entire nation to cover this crap) you will find that, for example, a routine birth in 1963, repriced under the CPI from 1963 to today, could be had (complete, all costs included) for under $1,000 US.

Now in 1963 this included not only the epidural and other medications and such but also all doctor charges and three nights in the hospital!

Today that same routine procedure cannot be had in this country for less than 500% of that price and they kick you out of the hospital within 24 hours. The only reason that's the case is monopoly protections, which in theory are illegal under The Sherman and Clayton Acts. The medical industry has finagled itself exemptions to said laws. If I tried any of what they do every day when I ran an Internet company I'd STILL be rotting in a federal prison (and with good cause.)

Now consider the poor couple. They have few assets or funds, but I refuse to believe that given nine months notice they could not come up with $1,000. Sure they could. They might have to give up the beer and smokes for the duration, but they can do it. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? Not even close in a nation (ours) where "poor people" have Xboxes, 60" flatscreen TVs and cars with $3,000 rims on them along with iPhones and $1,000 annual service plans (which, incidentally, is most of those so-called "poor") not to mention the Earned Income Tax Credit that is refundable, meaning that they typically get thousands in actual cash every year from the government in excess of the taxes they paid.

But can they afford an $8,000 bill for the same thing? No -- but they can afford a $1,000 bill.

So where does the problem lie? It's not in their cash flow, it's in the monopoly pricing.

Malpractice and lawsuits (e.g. "tort reform") along with "uncompensated care" are often thrown around as the cause of this. That's a knowing and intentional lie; you could cut both to ZERO (the former of which would deny legitimately injured people compensation) and it would amount to less than 10% of what we spend on medical care. The problem simply doesn't lie there but it's a convenient foil for both the right and left to avoid talking about where the problem really DOES lie.

 Over here in the UK, the American Right seems insanely hard-hearted, homicidal even. And your general stance viv-a-vis the crookery of politicians and banksters doesn't seem to gel with your passionate denunciation of widening medical cover.

Of course it does. Theft is theft, fraud is fraud, and both are supposed to be illegal whether or not they are undertaken for a given person's benefit or not.

Is the explanation that you think the latter is actually OK as a project, but the way it's been done is misguided?

Not at all.

If you remove the monopoly games then even the poor can afford to pay cash, in the main. And virtually everyone who chooses to would be able to buy a catastrophic medical policy to cover the rare but possible situation that can arise, because it would cost a few hundred dollars a year. Those who choose not to do so, taking their chances, have the right to do exactly that.

But you have to break the monopolies and demand that insurance actually be insurance or you solve nothing.

Obamacare is designed to perpetuate theft in this portion of the economy and provide these firms and individuals involved in it with the guns of government. At the end of the day all monopolies and similar schemes rely on force of some form -- the medical industry ran out of their ability to use fear to power more extraction from the average American, and thus turned to government (literally, they wrote the bill) to continue the scam.

More to the point if we don't stop this the economy is doomed and so are federal, state and local budgets. That's a matter of arithmetic and no amount of trying to patch it by stealing one person's money to pay a monopolist will change it. We either cut this crap out or it is a mathematical certainty that our economy and the medical system will both collapse.

Incidentally, I assume that since you published this letter to me you intend to also publish, in full and unedited, my response.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Debt: we will have to default

Denninger points out that if interest rates return to normal, two-thirds of taxes will go out to pay the rent on the debt. He urges default and says we should replacement private lending by banks, with direct money issuance by the government.

Whether or not his idea will come to fruition, this proposed desperate remedy shows that the disease is equally desparate.

House prices - Wave 2

Karl Denninger looks at recently-failed US banks and by comparing their asset valuations with losses charged to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discovers that they overvalued their properties - at the time of failure.

If you add up the nominal assets of the three banks - $903 million - and downgrade them to their real value as implied by the losses borne by FDIC - $602.3 million - you will find the collective assets were overvalued by 49.9%. In other words, current estimated real estate values should be cut by 33.3%.

These were banks operating in (now) economically distressed states - Florida, Illinois (both with official unemployment rates at or exceeding 11%), Maryland (over 7 % unemployment), so you can't necessarily apply that regrading to the whole of the USA.

Nevertheless, those states are relatively heavily populated, and so are the others now showing high rates of unemployment - see this US population map. So it may well be that the US housing market in general may need to be reassessed. If, as Denninger says, he is "generous" in estimating houses to be overvalued by 25%, that means we need to cut nominal prices by 20%.

This is borne out to some extent by reported house sale prices - see this real estate website - though the Northwest has shown a rise (why?).

And then we have to consider properties repossessed by lenders but not sold, and owners who are sitting on their properties and refusing to sell.

The UK, with its much more densely-populated land, maybe somewhat different; but I think that when all the recent financial stimuli stop and we get past the next General Election, we may see clearer evidence of declining valuations here, too.

ADDENDUM (10 March):

A counter-argument would be that the FDIC has applied a "forced-sale" valuation, as with individual or company insolvency. On the other hand, the FDIC must be in no hurry to overstate its obligations/losses - its own finances are already very shaky - and there are already many forced residential property sales actually ongoing, so the regrading of assets may to some extent reflect actual market conditions.

News: North Korea steals from savers

See Denninger.

People get ready

We're going to be splatted by a headlights-on-full-beam, diesel-pluming, horn-honking road-train of debt. Fred Goodwin, CEO at Nomura (i.e. not the RBS wrecker who scuttled to his hideout in France - the private gated resort may be the one between Cannes and Mougins) has used the colourful phrase "clear and present danger" of the British economy. Unfortunately, shouting "Look out!" usually doesn't prevent disaster.

Karl Denninger, still indignant and vengeful but now also beginning to sounding the Cassandra note of inevitable defeat ("We are one cycle away from a collapse - if we're lucky"), graphs debt against GDP for the USA and it's clear that there must be a break in the smooth lines at some point.

And however bad it is for America - a country which periodically falls over, picks itself up, dusts itself down, and starts all over again - it'll be far worse for Britain, a country where the management has never quite lost that 1066 sense of being quite unconnected with the indigenous peasantry subjected to their cruel alien rule. This is why our overlords find it so easy to flee the country to take their place in the new pan-European aristocracy currently under construction, an unlovely amalgam of big-business swindlers, venal politicians and their marketing men. They're allying with old money smart enough to know which side its bread is buttered; history is made in the bedroom and the backroom (“Let others wage wars: you, fortunate Austria, marry”).

There is a long history of England's rulers employing foreign mercenaries (especially Germans) to put down uprisings of the overwrought population, both here in the sixteenth century, and in the American colonies in the eighteenth. In the modern world, where the predominant avatar of Power is money (Bertrand Russell's 1938 book is illuminating on the three-headed helldog), we are being driven off our business smallholdings and made day-labourers for giant enterprises owned abroad or by equally huge collective investments in which the individual shareholders' voices are lost "like tears in rain".

And when the Empire falls, as it must, as all do, the great forgetting will descend. Perhaps we can take comfort in the thought that after the bloody cataclysm, the Dark Ages, so named because untroubled by the scribes and accountants of expansive rulers, were, quietly and anonymously, as sunlit as ours.

20:20 hindsight and the coming stock collapse

Look at this fascinating interactive graphic from the New York Times, about the shrinking and swelling of the major US financial firms. They may not have seen it coming, but boy can they see clearly in the rear-view mirror. (htp: Barry Ritholtz)

So, is all well again?

Denninger thinks not. To get back to where we were in 2000, either debt has to be slashed (this isn't the path chosen by the powers-that-be over the last couple of years) or GDP and incomes have to soar (how? Who are we suddenly going to sell loads more to?).

Given a choice of the impossible and the merely unpleasant, it looks as though there must be a large-scale default sometime - either of actual debt, or of current and/or future government-provided benefits (or both).

In the meantime, the monetary pumping may erode the dollar's value and cause a highly misleading leap in nominal stock prices. Like I said yesterday, I think we could be looking at a re-run of the mid-70s to 1982. I remember an old financial adviser colleague reminiscing about the stockmarket "boom" of 1974, but he didn't mention the inflationary context, which is what concerns Marc Faber - the fundamentals are still all wrong.

Splat

A couple of days ago I said that US debt default would splat the US far worse than its trading partners; of course, I missed the point. The real danger is rejection of US debt and the US dollar by its foreign purchasers, and both Karl Denninger and Jesse see that as an outcome of the Japanese election result.

Bubble 3

It's getting to the point where things go worryingly quiet. First we had a speculative and debt-fuelled stock market bubble; then ditto a housing bubble; and now that the US/UK governments have swallowed the grenades of debt instead of throwing them over the firing-step, a government finance bubble.

I started this blog two years ago, because I thought precious few people sniffed what was in the wind - though I've since discovered that there are quite a few, mostly in the US, who did. I don't know why the UK is so poor at this, unless it's to do with not being used to retaining much of our income. Or a hangover from aristo-landlord days, of pretending to be uninterested in money but always expecting it to be there when needed.

But where can I go from here? There's not much point in continuing to cry iceberg when the ship's side is ripped open. Both Karl Denninger and James Kunstler are saying today that the disaster is far from over, the difference between the two being that Denninger still believes in fixing it with due legal process and decisive action, whereas Kunstler has no such hope and almost looks forward to the final scene because it will usher in a postmodern bucolic age and restore human values. (Kunstler's latest echoes what I've said recently, about drawing some cash for just in case.)

I feel like the Chinese philosopher who dreamt he was a butterfly and when he woke, was not sure whether he wasn't a butterfly dreaming he was a Chinese philospher. The sun shines (beautifully today), I have my teaching to prepare for September, I am proceeding with my plan to revive my IFA business. And yet these projects seem insubstantial, a soapskin full of emptiness.

For now, I have to go on with the assumption that Denninger is right - that when it gets bad enough, tough action will be taken and we'll pull through. That's the horse I'm backing. For I don't believe the proto-Marxist fantasy that a better society will rise out of a collapse, especially not on an overcrowded island like the one where I live.

Off on my hols again next week; and when I get back, time to tackle real life.

The dam may break after all

Jesse reports on another big bank about to go down; Karl Denninger speculates that the FDIC is colluding in the cover-up of widespread bank insolvency, so it isn't forced to step in when there's no money left in its kitty - for the only thing after that is load more of the losses onto Uncle Sam, i.e. the taxpayers and all our descendants.

If the pressure continues, maybe we'll end up doing what some have said all along needs to be done: step back and let the losers fail, to flush all the rubbish out of the system. Well, all the rubbish that Uncle Sam hasn't already been forced to eat.

More difficult for us in the UK, though, since we don't have lots of second-tier banks ready to take over the loan books. Maybe Barclays and HSBC will profit enormously? Or how about the Bank of China, now moving into the British market?

Out of their depth

The first serious, sensible, important piece I've seen from Toby Young, and it's a corker. He reflects on the well-heeled but louche and rackety Bullingdon Club, of which David Cameron and Boris Johnson were members:

... the theatrical element of Oxford's secret clubs and societies, the fact that so much of their activity seemed designed to dazzle and mystify bemused onlookers, is precisely what makes them such ideal training grounds for British public life.

... you don't have to be to the manor born to become a member of Britain's ruling class - or even particularly clever. You don't need charisma or sexual confidence or a sense of entitlement. All you need is the wherewithal to pretend to be someone who has these qualities. Provided you can do a reasonable impression of a person with the right stuff - and provided you wear the right uniform - that's enough to propel you to the top.

... The discovery that all these young pretenders make when they take their seats at the Cabinet table, or become QCs, or pocket £100million on a complicated land deal, is that the people at the very pinnacle of British society - the people pulling the levers of power - are exactly like them.

There is no such thing as the real McCoy, just a bunch of schoolboys parading around in the contents of the dressing-up box. They don't feel like frauds, because everyone else in this elite little club is as fraudulent as they are.

And when all is well, they get away with it. But when it comes to an emergency, a crisis needing skill, grit and sacrifice?

My father served his 25 in the British Army, and my mother used to say, "Thank God for civilians," i.e. the experienced people that would come in on callup when war broke out. Doubtless it's different now, with our much reduced and far more battle-experienced Armed Services, but in my father's career he met more than a few "educated idiots." Does the current crop of politicians and bankers have what it takes, including the moral fibre, to get us out of this mess? Or when it gets too tough, will they jump, like "Lord Jim" Blair, leaving us to our fate?

We're going to find out sooner than we'd like, if Denninger is right. He's looking at new Treasury debt issuance of $235 billion in the next week alone, and is busily folding his kitchen foil into a helmet:

Folks, this is how you get detonation of a nation's monetary and political system. Timing the "event" it is not easy, but the certainty of outcome given this sort of outrageously irresponsible activity is not in doubt.

I'm increasing my stock of things that "will never go to zero" and keeping my ear to the ground. The "short the phone book but make sure you get out fast before you get trampled" moment approaches - mark my words.

Belling the cat

Karl Denninger calls again for the fat cats to "eat their own cooking", i.e. accept responsibility for the ruinous debt that will otherwise put a brake on the American economy for a decade. Good luck with that. Now, who's going to make them do it?

This is a test, not of the economy but of democracy.

Market support

Denninger:

... a handful of banks, most specifically Goldman Sachs, constitute the majority of NYSE trading volume... This "back and forth trade" between a handful of institutions is nothing more than the old "pump and dump" game that has been played in the OTC market forever - and almost always screws the individual investor.

This is no different than you and I selling a house back and forth between us repeatedly, each time at a higher price. We both appear to be geniuses as we're both making a "profit", right?

Well, no. One of us is destined to take a horrifying loss if we do not find a sucker to make the final transaction with.

I wondered what was keeping it all up. And sooner or later...

P.S. Rob Kirby strongly suspects that similar manipulation is going on in oil and gold - one kept up, the other down. (For an update on the latter, click on the goldcam.)

Giant US slush fund?

Karl Denninger continues to reflect on a story that hasn't had much coverage - two Japanese have been caught in Italy, attempting to smuggle $134 BILLION in bearer bonds. KD thinks it's part of secret additional financing for the US.

This is not quite as ludicrously James Bond-ish as it seems. Bear in mind that some time ago, Brad Setser studied Treasury bond purchases by China and the UK and concluded that the latter country was acting as an additional conduit for the former's loans.

Good news for the Italians - their law says they'll take 40% of the contraband.

Recession - not even halfway there

Karl Denninger "does the math" and reckons that as Americans retrench, the economy will contract far more yet - at least 20% in total.

So anyone who has real money wants out: "The Chinese, Saudis and others with actual money that we are attempting to borrow to kick that can once again have figured out our scam and they are headed for the exits."

Coming soon: austerity, a devalued currency and high interest rates. And in the UK, it'll be worse.

A good time to save money, while you're still able to; and to bet against the crippled Anglo-American horses. No point piling up savings in our rotten fiat cash.

The Mogambo Guru continues to chirrup his commodities song.

Alle aussteigen!, Part Two

Karl Denninger opines that the seeming rally is a little game by traders to keep the ball in the air; but in his view, it's going to come down when they stop puffing. A chance to get out and salvage something from the investment wreckage, he thinks - as I've felt for a while too.

The concrete life saver

We Brits are naive with money - we're so unused to having any - our Government has always looked after it for us. Perhaps this is why there are so few Brit blogs that help us understand finance.

Speaking of ruinous government help, Karl Denninger describes a trap that seems likely to bankrupt General Motors.

It seems that people who own GM's corporate bonds have an incentive to let the firm collapse: their losses will be made good by the equally-bankrupt former financial giant AIG, through Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are insurances against default on loans. In its panicky attempt to keep the financial system functioning normally, the US Government has effectively become the guarantor for AIG's CDS contracts. So creditors of GM can expect 100% return of their capital.

Better still, once GM goes under, the bonds are unlikely to become entirely worthless. So GM bondholders will get 100% PLUS...

And this means that the Government's "help" is about to ruin a huge manufacturer and employer.

Fractional reserve speculation

Fractional reserve lending, as "Sonus" explains so clearly here, became possible when people accepted receipts for gold as payment, instead of insisting on having the gold itself. This opened up an exciting opportunity for the guardians of gold and silver; they could issue receipts for which there was no gold or silver at all, and get other people to accept them as payment. Then we ended up with a world in which you could borrow money that didn't exist, but when the scam burst, you'd have to pay it back with the roof over your head. Now there are voices calling for the return to money actually backed by something that might limit its growth; this will pass.

In much the same way, speculation in shares has changed. Once, investor A bought a share in a company from B, held it and received dividends. But the financial market exploded when it became possible to trade in shares without actually having the certificates.

Speculator C can "short" a share - agree to sell it to A (without yet having ownership) for $1, later buy it from B at 5oc (he fervently hopes), then when settlement time comes, A ends up with the share and C pockets the profit less trading expenses. (C can also "go long": agree to buy a share from B at 50c, sell it to A for $1 later, then comes settlement time when the share ownership is officially transferred).

C can multiply his bet if he trades "on margin", in effect making only a small down payment on his share speculation. If the margin is 10%, then he can (promise to) buy or sell 10 times as many shares, and (if his judgment is right), make 10 times the profit when settlement is made.

C experiences success in conditions of a bull market and expanding money supply. C is now trading in big, big quantities, with shares he doesn't own for most of the time, and cash he mostly doesn't have. C has gone beyond mere shares, and is simply betting on movements in the market. C has become a trader in derivatives; in effect, a high-rolling gambler. What a wonderful world! So much nicer than the school he went to! C has an abundance of worldly goods, worldly girlfriends and envious colleagues who laugh at his jokes. C has taken to introducing himself on the phone as "Nick with the big swinging d*ck". C is young, and has never known things to be different. C is complacent; C has become reckless.

But oh dear, if some of his enormous bets go wrong. C has losses, multiplied by the inverse of his margin, plus his trading expenses. Maybe C doesn't have enough money in his account to cover his losses. Maybe C has been trading with another gambler, D, and now can't pay him. Suddenly D is in trouble, too. And both have also been playing around the green baize with traders E, F and G; maybe with the whole alphabet of gamblers, maybe with the Greek and Cyrillic alphabets too.

But before he busts himself (and possibly his employer into the bargain), C has influence (since it is known that he never gets it wrong - until the day he does): news of his bets affect the market, especially when the market is nervous. When C shorts a share big-time, he can start a run - even if the company was basically OK before then.

Which is why Denninger is now calling for a return to the custom of getting the stock certificate when you buy the stock.

Good luck with that; and with ending fractional reserve banking. Denninger argues against the latter here, and prefers a system of minimum cash margins; perhaps it would be more logically consistent if he advocated the same for short-selling.

Personally, I'd go for whipping the money-changers out of the temple; but they always return.

Hold dollars?

Karl Denninger argues that the failed stimulus will lead to accelerating deflation in the US. His prediction is that demand for the dollar will soar and other currencies will collapse instead. He thinks this will hit US exports and the economy will be crippled, so Americans need to hold in-the-hand folding money - lots of it, maybe a year or two's basic expenses! - away from the bank.

He may be on the wrong medication - the current state of the world's finances is a great impetus towards paranoia and depression; but if he's even half right, we need to start making those quiet, regular cashpoint withdrawals and (for non-Americans) visiting the bureau de change. And not living in the city.

Good and bad borrowing

Karl Denninger covers a lot of ground - perhaps too much in one posting - in his attempt to clarify fractional reserve banking and its consequences.

What seems to me a major point in his conspectus, is the difference between borrowing for production, and borrowing for consumption. If you borrow at 5% to get a machine that makes you 10% profit, that's fine; but borrowing for a private house to live in, a car for personal use, music and TV, alcohol and weekly groceries - madness.