Help required: economic modelling

Following reported opinion from Marc Faber and others that we may expect sell-offs in commodities, bonds, equities and real estate, and given concerns about the quality of our currencies, the question arises, where should we hold our cash?

It seem that in the USA and UK, we are holding down interest rates to avoid crippling homeowners, the home-loan-based economy, and what's left of our industries, and also in the hope that we can repay our debts to foreigners with devalued cash. On the other side, countries like China and Japan seem to be trying to prevent their currencies from appreciating, so as to preserve their trading advantage.

So one party is letting their currencies sink, and the other is trying to stop theirs rising. To this amateur, the world's foreign exchange system looks like a bunch of corks tied to an unchained anchor and flung into the sea. Will the string on the corks hold, or break under the strain, or be abruptly cut?

Is there any computer- or board-game-based model of the world economic system, that might make it clear to me how this wretched thing works?

And how is the ordinary person to save money and preserve its value in real terms, without having to be super-sophisticated? I know something about American TIPS and British NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certifcates, but I'm leery of handing the government what little money they haven't already extracted from me in taxes. And I don't trust them to define inflation fairly.

Does anybody know how this boneshaker of a contraption actually operates, so we can make sensible decisions?

Speaker or silencer?

I now read in The Grumbler that David Davis was prevented by the Speaker of the House of Commons from delivering his resignation speech to the House, and had to go outside the building to say it to journalists instead. Words fail.

What oil hike?

The Mogambo Guru (too long absent from these pages) points out that a major factor in the increase in the price of oil, is simply the decline in the dollar. We here in the UK don't see it, because the pound is staring the dollar in the eye as both go screaming parachuteless towards the ground.

At least Richard Daughty is one who will not go gentle into that good night.

Now, isn't this what happened in the Seventies? Only we were conned into thinking it was down to wicked Arabs, when really the story was increased monetary inflation for some years pre-1974.

Marc Faber, cash and Cambodia

I said on Monday that Marc Faber was, by and large, in favour of keeping his money in his pocket, and a quick Google News trawl shows that his mind hasn't changed:

Stocks, Real Estate and Oil Are Overvalued, Marc Faber Says

Why rising inflation will trigger a bond market rout

Cambodia Starts to Beckon Private Equity
For investors, Cambodia could be the next Vietnam

The last is interesting. I have suspected for some time that Dr Faber lives in northern Thailand, not simply to hide in Shangri-La but to be nearer to the places where real bargains may be found, and so that his hunches can be informed by personal networking and under-the-radar experience. Quirky and fast-moving, he would not be the man to manage a large institutional fund: I think his lightning ex-ski champ reflexes demand more challenge.

An after-thought: if you do think cash is best, there's still the question of which currency.

Is it OK to have principles?

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigns his Parliamentary seat to fight a by-election on the issue of civil liberty in Britain, and Michael White in the Guardian plays the sneering curmudgeon; parti pris?

UPDATE

Someone put the text of Mr Davis' speech as a comment to Michael White's piece. Here are a couple of extracts:

This Counter Terrorism Bill will in all likelihood be rejected by the House of Lords... But because the impetus behind it is political, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act...
It has no democratic mandate to do this...

... I am just a piece in this chess game.

Folly? Vanity? My eye (and Betty Martin).

Are free trade and small government the answer?

Liberal economists argue consistently for free trade, libertarians argue constantly for smaller government. We can easily see the faults of over-regulation and the centralisation of power.

But what would happen to the poorest if we really did move towards laissez-faire capitalism? I don't mean the poor in India and China, who are currently benefiting from open markets; I mean the poorest in the USA and UK. Would things really sort themselves out to the good of all?

Or would we find that we'd leapt from the frying pan into the fire?

An appetite for investment risk?

How does the quote from Jonathan Wilmot in the previous post sit with the new Risk Appetite Investable Index fund his firm launched last month?

Just curious.

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)

Please read this man

David Parsley writes in today's Sunday Express, a piece titled "Homes Panic Is A Bank Ploy" (not yet available on the Net for free, but look for it again soon). The content is self-evident, but please, read and believe him. Spread the word. Find more such pieces by optimistic counter-contrarians, and publicise them. Blow away all that negative thinking.

That way, I may have more time to sell my house at current ridiculous market prices, which for personal reasons I can't yet.

Does State expenditure inflate the market?

Charles Moore comments on Jonathan Ross' £18m 3-year deal with the BBC:

... even if it is a wonderful idea to pay Mr Ross roughly 30 times more (annualised) than the Prime Minister and 20 times more than the Governor of the Bank of England out of what is, after all, tax, it is obvious rubbish that this does not push up the market. If the BBC were not competing in this field, Mr Ross’s price to commercial channels would plummet.

Deplorably, Mr Ross is unbelievably coarse, which sends a message to his (relatively) young audience. Peter Hitchens suspects that this crassness is a cynically avaricious pretence:

Ross talks on TV in an arrogant sort of loutspeak.

I wonder if he talks like that when he’s dealing with his lawyers and his accountants.

Now that would be a fly-on-the-wall documentary to screen next to Ross' show.

So, celeb wages inflated and manners undermined by spendthrift public services.

Meanwhile, Liz Jones takes a very laudable interest in the young, especially those rotting away in the complex trap of social security benefits. And again, a market may be distorted by public money:

Her room is damp, sparsely furnished, has a stinking, threadbare carpet, and Paris mostly sits on her bed, terrified to walk to the shared bathroom in case one of the boys who slouches around outside harasses her.

Drugs are dealt openly in the corridors. Each week, ‘the council’ (I’ve never heard her use the words ‘government’, ‘Labour’ or ‘Gordon Brown’) pays the £330 rent (yes, that is £1,430 a month, more than my mortgage repayments) for her box room direct to the private landlord; on top of that, Paris is given £47 a week to live on.

That is, she was, until the council got wind she had got off her backside and found a job, just three days a week, in a clothes shop in Oxford Street (she would have loved, she told me once, to have been a fashion designer).

Although her pay is less than her rent, she has been bombarded with letters and forms, too complicated for anyone, let alone someone with dyslexia, to fill in, demanding six months’ back rent.

She is now being threatened with eviction.

The negative reinforcement is too obvious to summarise, but look at this young girl's rent as a proportion of her total "income": 87.5%!

Compare that with this, from the Guardian in December 2007:

The CML said a typical first-time buyer paid 20.6% of their income to service their mortgage in October, up from 20.4% in September, while for those moving house it rose to 17.6% from 17.5%. The figures are the highest recorded since 1991 and 1992.

There are now very many people (about 4 million) on some form of housing benefit. Is it not possible that rents, and consequently housing valuations, have been grossly distorted by such interventions? Isn't there some other way to house people without creating opportunities for modern Rachman types?