The US economy in a nutshell

"Wages are sticky downward": American car workers are still trying to fight gravity, i.e. globalization's effect on wage rates. Denninger think that if it's anything more than a bargaining ploy, it will finish most of the US car industry.

And after them? Who else could have their work outsourced? White-collar workers should not look on unconcerned. Save money while you can, while wages are still ahead of minimum spending requirements.

Meanwhile, up in the clouds, a hedge fund manager has (allegedly) admitted his business was a fraud, losing $50 billion; more than three times the car-makers' bailout fund currently under discussion.

Bookends: deflation and inflation

On one side, the redoubtable Mish scorns those who think inflation is a clear and present danger:

...Those who think inflation is about prices alone were busy shorting treasuries, and looking the wrong direction for over a year. Only after the stock market fell 50% and gasoline prices crashed did the media start picking up on "deflation". Only those who knew what a destruction in credit would do to jobs, to lending, to retail sales, to the stock market, to corporate bond yields and to treasury yields got it right...

Those who stick to a monetary definition of inflation pointing at M3, MZM, base money supply, or even Money AMS, are selecting a definition that makes absolutely no practical sense. Worse yet they do it screaming about bond-bubbles at yields of 5% or higher, all because they refuse to see or admit the destruction of credit is happening far faster than the Fed is printing...

The trick now is to figure out how long deflation will last, not whether we are in it. Humpty Dumpty is of no use, he cannot even see where we are.

On the other end, Jesse recalls Moscow in 1997, before the currency popped:

...They were desperate times, and you could see that there was a climactic crisis coming. It is easy to talk about this sort of thing, a thousand to one devaluation of your home currency, but harder to understand the impact. Imagine that you have $500,000 in savings for your retirement. Now imagine that within two years it is effectively reduced to $5,000 or less, and you will understand how disconcerting a currency crisis can be.

If you don't think a financial panic is possible here in the US, just take a look at the negative returns on short term T bills, and you will get a taste of the leading edge.

One of the best descriptions of the Weimar experience I have ever read was by Adam Fergusson titled "When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Collapse." It is notoriously difficult to obtain, but it does the best job in describing how a currency collapse can come on like a lightning strike, although in retrospect everyone could have seen it coming. Denial is a strong narcotic. People believe in their institutions and ignore history until they are staring on the edge of the abyss.

Hurray for a radical

I sympathise with Mish; but getting it done would be like a goat persuading a tiger to turn vegetarian.

If deflation is not the problem, what is?

The problem is fractional reserve lending that allows banks to leverage lending 12-1 and broker dealers like the now defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman 40-1. It does not take much to cause a run on the bank when leverage is 40-1. Fannie Mae is leveraged many times more than that.

Without that excessive leverage, no one would be in trouble over falling prices. Actually everyone would benefit. The cure is not to defeat deflation, the cure is to embrace deflation and stop fractional reserve lending and the serially bubble blowing activities of the Fed.

I support abolishing the Fed and the elimination of fractional reserve lending. Those are the only long term cures to the problems we face.

Deflation hasn't happened yet; interest rates to rise, eventually

Jesse argues that we're not yet in a deflation, technically speaking; it's "the transfer of wealth from one asset class to another". So the money is merely changing pockets.

But after that, he expects (as I suggested yesterday) gold to rise sharply: "the move in gold will obtain explosive momentum from which a major rally leg will occur as the banks lose control." The euro, too, he thinks; and oil will stay high. So he concludes that when the pent-up liquidity starts to flow in the system, the US will have to raise interest rates to prevent a relative decline in the dollar.

$431,270,863,309.37

That's America's "Interest on the debt outstanding" for the fiscal year 2008 - not ended.

20 years ago, it was $214,145,028,847.73.

Zgirl's "Better than nothing" blog explains why deflation would cripple the American government, so money has to keep pouring in and we have to hope that foreign creditors (including the equally busted Brits, it seems) continue to buy-in US Treasury securities.

How to come down from this perilous height?

IN- or DE: Denninger reasserts his position

Karl Denninger repeats - in his rather forthright and sexualised way - the simple argument that deflation suits the bankers who run the Fed:

... In a deflationary environment the banker gets as much of your money as he can, and then he also gets the house! [...] The banker makes money in terms of real value in a deflationary environment. You, on the other hand, being debt, get rammed."

In short, cui bono?

And in the Marc Faber interview cited in the previous post, Dr Doom maintains that the drop in the price of oil shows that we're already in recession; the drying-up - the sucking back out - of excess liquidity is what will make the dollar more valuable.

I once read a short story by Brian Aldiss, in which invisible vampire aliens ravage a farmer's livestock - all one can see is the double puncture. The skin is pierced, the innards liquefy and are drained. Sturdily, the farmer accepts that he has a new class of customer.

Is this not like banking and government? Without mortgages and inheritance tax, how otherwise would almost everybody in each generation be forced to buy their living quarters anew?

Inflation, deflation, the world economy and freedom

This article by Matthew Beller on the Mises website tries to show how the US government can't "print its way out" of the present crisis.

The Federal Reserve controls the "monetary base" of physical currency and bank deposits, which represent only 15% of the money supply; the rest is bank lending. Currently, the banks are in a fright, so they are reducing credit, on which the economy depends. But if the Federal Reserve increases the monetary base, the banks' ability to multiply their deposits could lead to hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar altogether. Hence the attempts to maintain confidence in the banking system instead, even if that means expensive financial support.

This isn't enough for the monetarists. They say the lending in the recent boom went on consumer spending, which encouraged producers to make too much of the wrong stuff and so the economy developed in the wrong way. The econo-Puritans say we should accept deflation because, although temporarily painful, it will rebalance the economy for a more sustainable long-term future.

However, nobody likes nasty medicine, so a political question is whether democracies will allow politicians to take timely corrective action. Past history suggests that we'll only vote for the treatment when we're half-dead, and even then, we'll curse the doctor afterwards.

My feeling is that this tendency to delay means that underneath the business cycle is a fatal linear trend, moving wealth and power to less democratic countries. When the world economy recovers, it may be on very different terms: for although (e.g.) China may suffer a setback as the Western consumer reduces spending, Chinese industrial capacity has been growing over recent years - not only the factories and tools, but equally importantly the skills base. At the upturn, the East will be well-placed to cater for reviving demand, while the West struggles to supply appropriately-skilled labour, and tries to buy back some of the industrial materials it had previously exported. And as the East industrialises, it will generate locally a greater proportion of world demand.

I cannot see how we can avoid becoming poorer, on average, than we have been in past decades, even if an elite in our society grows richer and more powerful (a phenomenon associated with more impoverished economies). We cannot rely on high-end production: China will address its quality issues, as Japan did in the 1950s. Nor can we be complacent about intellectual property rights, in a world where might makes right.

But China itself has deep problems - an growing and ageing population; an increasingly unbalanced demographic structure, thanks to attempts to limit family size; pollution; water shortgages; declining quality of farm land. The Chinese leadership faces a long-term challenge in dealing with unsatisfiable domestic expectations, which will tend to make it intransigent in its relations with foreign powers. The East-West contest may become characterized by desperation on both sides.

And so democracy in the West will come under pressure. In difficult times, people are thrown back on a network of social relationships and mutual expectations, but sudden, unreal access of wealth has tempted us to put our faith in the amassing of cash, and/or government intervention, to the detriment of agreed internal social control and support systems. When the system enters its failure phase, which Fischer ("The Great Wave") thinks may be starting, the social threads begin to snap: inflation, crime, family breakdown, war. The reification of the ties that bind us together tempts our government to maintain the social order through externalised means of surveillance and enforcement. Ultimately, the mismanagement of national budgets is a freedom issue.

TMS a better measure of the money supply?

What looks like an important idea and discussion of "True Money Supply" in Mish. I shall have to chew on it for a bit, but thought the finance-oriented reader might care to do the same.

Mish says when you look at the situation correctly, we are definitely in DEflation.

Inflation vs deflation - the iTulip debate

Find the time to have a look at this in iTulip. Lots of plums in this cake, including a suggestion that the USA is quietly negotiating a replacement for the dollar, with the Chinese. And 30% annual inflation in a few years' time.

Cashhhhhhh... don't tell anybody

"There is now the distinct possibility of a simultaneous sell-off in global bonds, equities and commodities," said Jonathan Wilmot from Credit Suisse.

... reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (I must start to read the big-words papers). Anyhow, this is what Marc Faber said months ago. Short-term, I have a feeling DE is still on for the 'flation hors d'oeuvre, with IN as the entree.

By the way, are any managers of collective investment funds actually saying the type of thing Wilmot is saying, to their clients (not the big, favoured ones, the others, the Moms 'n' Pops)?

(htp: Karl Denninger)

Do recessions lead to inflation?

Robert Murphy thinks so, and produces a graph that to him suggests prices go up during a recession, not down:

However, this picture suggests to me that recessions follow periods of higher inflation, and maybe where that inflation continues during the recession, it could be put down to a sort of residual momentum. Why should prices fall at precisely the moment the NBER says a recession has started? Even a cut flower will maintain its bloom for a while.

On the other hand, it seems clear from the above graph that prices do generally seem to fall after a recession. Perhaps this is because of the recently reinforced lesson about thrift, so people become less keen to spend too much on stuff they don't need.

But it's also possible that the recession has cleansed certain inefficiencies in the use of capital - businesses that should have folded faster - and as that capital gets better employed elsewhere, it does its work of improving productivity.

Which it needs to, when people have become more cost-conscious. I recall reading about an American who found a way to sell dresses for a dollar in the Great Depression - he used a machine to stamp out the outline of 100 at a time, so only the machine sewing was needed, not the measuring and cutting. So it was still possible to buy a dress for your sweetheart when money was tight.

But the little hand-mill of monetary inflation continues to grind...

Does asset inflation help support stock prices?

An anonymous comment on the preceding post has set me speculating further. The commentator says:

You are right, but I believe that this time around it will be equities, rather than commodities or real estate that will provide the hedge against coming inflation. Tobin's Q will prevail due to the juxtaposition of equity prices vs. the other two asset classes (which already had their surges) and the market's increasing valuation sophistication compared to the last time we saw hyperinflation in developed economies (i.e. the 1970s). So I've been buying stocks as an inflation hedge, despite the statistical evidence that this is foolish...

Wikipedia offers an explanation of Tobin's Q here. Essentially, Q is a measure of the relationship between the value of all a company's shares, and the value of the company's assets. If Q is greater than 1, there is some reason (real or imaginary) why the company has extra value to offer; if less than 1, a share investor could buy a company's underlying assets at a discount.

In 2006, Michael Alexander wrote a series of articles for Safe Haven, about stock cycles. Below, from the second in the series, is his graph for Q in several bear markets, including the one which he suggests began in 2000:

According to this, Q was already below 1 in 2006, and since the market is now back to about where it was a couple of years ago, that would suggest that shares are now fairly valued in relation to company assets.

But if history repeats itself, the current bear market has a long way to go, since the other three lasted 15 - 20 years. And in each of the previous cycles, Q slumped below 0.4.

Another complicating factor, thanks to the lending boom, is the real estate bubble. Steve Moyer is firmly of the opinion that real estate is very heavily overvalued, even now. So a collapse in that market would push Tobin's Q back up for many companies, a technical indication that share prices would have to drop steeply to get back to fair value (let alone overshoot to below Q=0.5).

In this context, it's worth noting that one of Mike Alexander's books, published in 2000, is titled "Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next twenty years".

Long term inflation in the UK

Housing stall, after all?

Looking at the economy now, we have to go well beyond subprime, and consider the general value of housing. Karl Denninger repeats that, in the long term, average house prices are three times income, but at the same time observes that they are "sticky". No-one wants to crystallise a loss, and you have to live somewhere, so why sell now?

If the financial victim next door has to sell his house at a 50% discount, that's all the more reason for you not to sell yours. If no-one sells voluntarily, how do you determine a real, as opposed to forced-sale value? So one effect of the housing drop could be a general slump in sales - with maybe a rise in home swaps for those who need to go to a different geographical area, perhaps for job reasons.

But what about people caught in negative equity? Here in the UK, ditching the house for less than the outstanding loan could leave you being chased for the balance, for years, unless you opt for bankruptcy. However, in the USA, many mortgages are on the roof but not on the borrower, leaving the lender short if the homeowner mails the keys back. Denninger has said more than once that borrowers need to consider this option solely on its financial/legal merits, as he thinks many lenders lost the moral argument when they knowingly advanced far too much to people who they knew couldn't maintain the loans. Now this could really upset the applecart.

Michael Panzner features a piece by FT columnist Martin Wolf. Wolf wonders what may happen if a high proportion of negative-equity homeowners default. The economic impact may be closer to Nouriel Roubini's $3 trillion, than to Goldman Sachs' more sanguine $1 trillion (the latter itself is a massive increase on the sort of figures bandied about before Christmas). Wolf sees two options:

There are two ways of adjusting the prices of housing to incomes: allow nominal prices to fall or raise nominal incomes. The former means mass bankruptcy and a huge fiscal bail out; the latter imposes the inflation tax.

But either option is so unattractive that (despite Denninger's image of paddling furiously as we head for the waterfall) there is a very strong incentive for fudge and delay. We've seen central banks pump many billions into the system in the last few days; and the ratings agencies seem to be trying their best to help maintain the status quo by not downgrading lenders as quickly and severely as some think they deserve. But again, housing is intrinsically illiquid, and houses aren't turned over rapidly like shares, which is why we have "mark to model" instead of "mark to market". What's the rush to crystallise a terrible loss now? Better a Micawberish hope that "something will turn up" than a grim Protestant insistence on an immediate collapse which would benefit very few people.

Assuming wages continue to rise over time, the gap between prices and incomes will lessen. If the homeowners can somehow be reassured that the government is determined to support house prices, then the sell-to-rent speculators could be caught out in their attempt to "short" the housing market. Can they be sure that, having sold their nice house, they can buy another such in the right area for much less, later? What will they do meanwhile?

The real threat is this "jingle mail", and the potential consequences seem so dire that something creative may be done. Bankruptcy rules might be modified to protect lenders; maybe portions of recent loans may be written-off. How about part-ownership, part-rent, as with UK housing associations - having escaped the trailer park, many first-time homeowners may want to keep their foot on that first rung of the ladder. Not everyone will want to pour engine oil into the carpet and trash the light fittings.

So I think we will have fudge, delay and attempts at more creative solutions, and a long stall in the housing market. Unless there's another hammer blow that the system simply can't take, such as an explosion in the financial derivatives market, as arch-doomster Marc Faber expects and (in his inherited Swiss Protestant way) hopes. In that case, every sign we've seen so far is that our governments will run the money-presses white-hot rather than face major deflation. We all have an incentive to paddle away from the brink.

What's your house worth?

Home prices WILL contract so that the median house is 2.5-3x the median income

says Karl Denninger. Now do your sums.

Some interesting comments and suggestions (including my usual twopenn'orth) on this post at the Capitalists@work blog - people seriously discussing inflation hedging and survivalism, here in the UK. We're getting beyond ivory-tower discussion.

Going down

Another grizzly, this time Captain Hook:

You should know that when banks begin to fail in the States, and they will, things could spiral out of control to the extent controls will to need be placed on both digital and physical movement. Transfers between banks will cease up completely, debts will be called in (so pay them off now), systems from food distribution to medical care will break down, and Martial Law will be the result as the population retaliates. Life will change as you know it.

[...] Japan has never really escaped the credit crunch that gripped their economy back in the 90's after bubblizing the real estate market. That's the tell-tale-sign a bubble economy is on its last legs you know - when master planners need resort to bubblizing the real estate market. Generally it's all down hill after that on a secular (long-term) basis because this is a reflection of not just a turn in the larger credit cycle; but more, and the driver of credit growth in the end, this is the signal demographic constraints have turned negative. [...] It's a simple numbers game, where an aging population is less prone to take on debt.

He considers the possibility of a Japanese-style asset deflation, which gels with my earlier thoughts regarding a generation-long UK property slump.

All our banks are sub-prime

The Mail on Sunday reports plans by the British Government to borrow money from the Middle East, on Islamic Sharia terms - that is, without, technically, paying interest.

Never mind the Islamophobic subtext: Islam is not the only religion to object to charging interest (which was illegal in France up to the Revolution of 1789). According to The Merchants' Magazine and Commercial Review by Isaac Smith Homans, William B. Dana (1849) (found by Google search here):

The Jewish law prohibited all usury between Jew and Jew, although it was allowed between Jews and foreigners. (Ex. 22 : 25 ; Levit. 25 : 36, 37 : Deut 23 : 19, 20. Compare Ps. 15 : 5 ; Ezek. 18 : 8, 13, 17, Ac.) The reason of this distinction, according to Father Ambrose, was, that God designed usury as one of the ways of making war upon the Canaanites and other heathen nations.

The Canon Law, as it is called, i. e., the ecclesiastical law of the Roman Catholic Church, pronounces the taking of interest, even the least, to be a mortal sin, and declares those who defend the practice to be heretics.

The interpretation of usury as a form of warfare is resonant.

There is also the unreligious technical point, that the money supply must increase to cover the interest charged. Either that, or ultimately all the money in the world will end up in the hands of the money-lenders.

This may not have mattered quite so much when the world was not so monetized - when we built our own houses, grew our own food, drew water from wells and rivers, and made our own clothes. It has to be said that none of it, generally, was as nice as today (though at least water didn't come in plastic bottles that took seven times as much water to make); but as more and more of reality nowadays has a price ticket on it, the inexorable demands of interest must either create unbounded inflation, or by seizing all our assets, enslave us. Perhaps usury is indeed a form of aggression.

Which leads me to wonder where money came from in the first place. How can you invent something, define the world with reference to your new creation (and possession), and use it to claim - to seize - ownership of the world? This is to make the money-issuer - originally the King or Emperor - lord of all the Creation he can control. So is power the only game in town? Maybe civilised life, the quiet enjoyment of one's own hard-won personal property, is merely an illusion, a time-out in the game. But impoverish the middle class and all bets are off - as Germany found out in the 20s and 30s. How foolish must a State be, to allow its mismanagement of finance to threaten the social order. Still, the Germans weren't entirely responsible for the WWI peace treaty that led to the total wreck of their economy; by contrast, look at this latest from Karl Denninger on the current, State-permitted mess.

The power of the State to coin money is nothing to the way the banks multiply it. Something like a mere 3% of all money is in notes and coins; the rest is deposits and credit - i.e. promises. Instead being charged a modest fee for guarding your cash (which is, I understand, the practice of the traditional Swiss bank), you're paid what you think is a nice rate of interest - but thanks to fractional reserve banking, your deposit can be multiplied and loaned out, at even higher rates. No wonder the banks always seem to have the nicest locations, including converted Tudor houses in little Warwickshire villages.

Swelling the capital within the economy ultimately pushes up prices, though as money-lenders become more cautious and call loans back in, the opposite happens; but meanwhile, the expanded money supply also builds-in massive future inflation, because interest must come back, as well as all the existing capital. Even if some of this fake capital is lost because of asset write-offs, the lenders will seek to make up for it by charging more interest on the loans that haven't defaulted. And the difference between the small interest paid out to you on your little deposit, and the larger interest demanded on the much greater loan base, pays for all the overheads and leaves over enough, and more than enough.

Meanwhile, the temporarily bloated money supply inflates assets, including assets that really you must have, such as a roof over your head. In the UK, the M4 measure of money supply has approximately doubled since 2000 - and house prices have done almost exactly the same. But I don't have the power to say, I don't believe in borrowing money so I won't pay so much for your house. And since you (quite understandably) will refuse my lower offer, I will have to rent instead - at a rate that reflects the price of houses. What would houses cost - what would rents be - if home loans were illegal?

So now, in the wake of sub-prime (and other, earlier financial bubbles), we're all clapping our hands to save Tinkerbell's life. The government pumps yet more funny money into the economy to shore up the confidence tricks of bankers, and in the case of Northern Rock, their own voter base. If we understood what this "Tinkerbell" is really like, and what she's been up to, perhaps we'd be better off letting her die.

Except the law's on her side, and she'd take us and our families down with her. After all, by agreeing to borrow, we fix an obligation in nominal terms, even if (owing to events beyond our control, but not necessarily beyond that of the money-makers, and money-fakers) the assets decline in nominal terms. In fact, by first expanding and then contracting the money supply, it is possible for lenders to take your assets and any additional capital that you personally contributed, then reinflate the assets later. Hey presto, they've grabbed your cash. No wonder some Americans trash the house before mailing back the keys.

I think that for those who have the liberty to do so, escape comes in two stages: get your cash out, then buy whatever you need so that in future, you depend on the money system as little as possible. You should also stay mobile - the State needs captives, and a house is an excellent way to tie you by one leg. And the licence plate on a car is the next best thing to a tag clipped onto your ear. Unfortunately, in an overcrowded island like ours, this doesn't seem realistic, but maybe that's why an Irish girl told me, years ago, that farsighted (and typically pessimistic) Germans were buying into rural Ireland. Perhaps in America, or some other land blessed with a lower ratio of population to fertile land, we may escape with the raggle taggle gypsies. Velvet-clad slavery, or freedom and poverty?

What care I for a goose-feather bed?
With the sheet turned down so bravely, O!
For to-night I shall sleep in a cold open field
Along with the raggle taggle gypsies, O!

Will monetary inflation be absorbed by the bond market?

In the previous post, I looked at the expectation that interest rates will rise. But it seems that freaky things can happen if the government tries to stimulate the economy by progressively cutting interest rates and pumping more money into the system.

Professor Antal E Fekete thinks that in a deflationary environment, governmental attempts to reflate by introducing more money will be thwarted by the ability of the bond market to soak up the excess liquidity. Higher bond yields result in lower bond valuations, so reducing interest rates inflates the price of bonds. Fekete says that halving the rate doubles the bond price, and since mathematically you can halve a number indefinitely, the bond market can absorb all the fiat money you can create. Therefore, you can have hyperinflation and economic depression at the same time.

This trap is possible because the abandonment of the gold-and-silver standard means that the dollar has no limit to its expansion. And bond speculators have their risk covered by the need of the government to return to the market for renewed borrowing. If the Professor is right, it would be a nasty trap indeed.

But maybe our conclusion should be that this explains why interest rates must rise.

A quibble on style: especially in England, money is regarded as dull. So financial commentators try hard to add flavour, and in the Professor's case, too hard - it has been difficult for me to detect the meat of the argument under its many-spiced similes. Byron's Don Juan comes to mind:

And Coleridge, too, has lately taken wing,
But like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,
Explaining Metaphysics to the nation--
I wish he would explain his Explanation.

Panzner votes DE (flation)

Michael Panzner is in the DE camp, because the bubble was caused by credit creation: "The way up is the way down" (a maxim of both Taoism and Heraclitus, apparently; but then the Greeks have always been great travellers and interested in ideas).

In his excellent book (reviewed here last May), he suggests that inflation will come afterwards (actually, not just IN- but HYPER-).

Here we go

Two from Karl Denninger in the last two days:

Monday, he reasserted his belief in DE-flation; but as I've been saying for some time, maybe the real issue is the divide between haves and have-nots, and he deals with that, too. No point being rich if you daren't go out.

Yesterday, he sounded the bells for a possible crash today. Maybe this is when Robert McHugh's prediction is fulfilled.