Laying it on the line

Some people will act beyond their self-interest. Karl Denninger is an expert investor, but is moved to be an economic prophet for his country and like other prophets, despairs of the passivity of his people:

This financial weapon of mass destruction is going to detonate.

It will make it impossible for the government to pay your Medicare and Social Security benefits.
It will result in double the tax burden you have now being laid on your children and grandchildren, OR MORE.

And when that happens, if I am still alive I'm going to spend MY MONEY on a full page advertisement in The Wall Street Journal (or whatever the "mainstream media" is at that point) telling your kids (who will then be adults) that you scr*w*d them on purpose because you were too much of a cheap j*ckoff to get on a plane and go raise h*ll in Washington DC to put a stop to this cr*p!

I wonder what their reaction will be to "Dear Old Dad" when they're living in poverty as a direct consequence of you fiddling while Rome burns?

I wonder if Moses used expletives when he came down off the mountain and found the people worshipping a statue of an ox?

Good man.

Cut and run?

Atash Hagmahani does pessimism in a flowery and Orientally allusive way, but the bottom line is familiar: stagflation is on the way, if not here already, thanks to financial imprudence and the offshoring of work.

His action points are interesting, including starting to save hard (and I agree that's technically possible, though many people might find this hard to sell to their life-partners) and (more controversially) not wasting money on a college education for your children:

They will spend vast amounts of money (much of it borrowed) on an education that is economically worthless; the jobs they could not get out of high-school will still be out of reach after college.

I think that recommendation needs qualification. It seems to me that in poor countries, the well-off are even better-off. Surely it's more important to ensure that your children, if capable and hard-working, either pursue courses that train them for well-paid work, or at least go to universities that raise their ambitions and help them make useful social connections.

But I think he's right to think that we'll soon find we're in a game of musical chairs with most of the seating removed. Another of Hagmahani's options is simply to quit the country. It's time to really think out of the box.

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!

UK public debt twice as bad as America's

David Walker, the US Comptroller General, reckons the debts and unfunded liabilities of the USA amount to some $53 trillion, which assuming GDP of $13.75 trillion means a debt-to-GDP ratio of 3.85. Mr Walker, now retiring, has taken his "Fiscal Wake Up Tour" round America for two years, warning Cassandra-like of the woe to come if things don't change soon.

"Wat Tyler" of the redoubtable blog Burning Our Money reckons UK debts and unfunded liabilities to be some £9 trillion, which assuming GDP of $2.472 trillion (c. £1.26 trillion today) means a debt-to-GDP ratio of 7.16. Sir John Bourn (74) is the UK's equivalent of David Walker, and recently left office after a tenure of 20 years. A Google news search using the terms "Sir John Bourn", "debt" and "warning" yielded nothing today.

We worry about mortgages, but according to this site:

"Recent figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) showed average first-time buyers borrowed 3.24 times their income - the highest level ever recorded...Many lenders will calculate a debt income ratio, which as a rule of thumb should not exceed 40%. " (i.e. 0.4; my highlights)

Bonds: up or down?

Where's safe for your money? It's like a minefield: we seem to be zig-zag running between financial explosions. Housing? Overpriced, full of bad debt. The stockmarket? Due to drop when earnings revert to the mean. The commodity market? Distorted by speculation and manipulation.

How about bonds? Clive Maund thinks US Treasuries are due for a pasting as yields rise to factor-in inflation; but Karl Denning is still firmly of the DE-flation persuasion and thinks a stockmarket fall may be our saviour:

The Bond Market no likey what's going on. The 10 is threatening to break out of a bullish (for rates) flag, which presages a potential 4.20% 10 year rate. This will instantaneously translate into higher mortgage and other "long money" rates, destroying what's left of the housing industry.

There is only one way to prevent this, and that's for the stock market to blow up so that people run like hell into bonds, pushing yields down!

He also gives his own theory as to why the Fed stopped reporting M3 money supply rates:

The moonbats claim that The Fed discontinued M3 because they're trying to hide something. In fact they discontinued M3 because it didn't tell you the truth; it was simply NOT capturing any of the "shadow" credit creation caused by all the fraud (and undercapitalized "insurance" which, in fact, is worth zero), but it sure is capturing the forcible repatriation into bank balance sheets when there is no other when it comes to access to capital for companies and governments.

So, two elephants are riding the bond seesaw: fear of inflation, and fear of losing one's capital. I hope the plank doesn't snap. Antal Fekete reckons the bond market can take all the money you can throw at it - but what goes up will come down.

Cash still doesn't seem like such a bad thing, to me.

A secular bear market in housing?

It's now generally accepted that houses are overpriced. I think valuations will not only go down, but (notwithstanding bear market rallies) stay down for at least a generation.

Here's some reasons, some having a longer-term effect than others:

• house prices are now a very high multiple of earnings, choking the first-time buyer market.
• presently, there is increasing economic pessimism, which will further inhibit buyers.
• the mortgage burden now lies in the amount of capital to be repaid, rather than the interest rate; that's much harder to get out of, and will prolong the coming economic depression, either through the enduring impact on disposable income, or through the destruction of money by mortgage defaults on negative-equity property - and as valuations fall, there will be more and more of the latter.
• fairly low current interest rates allow little room to drop rates further to support affordability - and at worst, rate drops could sucker even more people into taking on monster mortgage debt. But interest rate reductions are unlikely to benefit borrowers anyway. The banks have survived for centuries on the fact that while valuations are variable, debt is fixed. They got silly with sub-prime, but by George they will remain determined to get all they can of their capital back, and preserve its value. The people who create money literally out of nothing - a mere account-ledger entry - are now tightening lending criteria and will continue to press for high interest rates; for now, they will content themselves with not fully passing on central bank rate cuts, so improving the differential for themselves, as compensation for their risk.
• food and fuel costs are rising, and given declining resources (including less quality arable land annually), a growing world population and the relative enrichment of developing countries, demand will continue to soar, cutting into what's left of disposable income.
• our economy is losing manufacturing capacity and steadily turning towards the service sector, where wages are generally lower.
• the demographics of an ageing population mean that there will be proportionately fewer in employment, and taxation in its broadest sense will increase, even if benefits are marginally reduced.
• the growing financial burden on workers will further depress the birth rate, which in turn will exacerbate the demographic problem.

In short, there will be less money available to chase house prices; and in my view, less to chase investments, too. It may be very similar in the USA - as Jim from San Marcos says now (repeating himself from last May):

A market goes up when more people want to buy, than those that want to sell. Well, all of these first time home buyers have no spare cash for the Stock Market. The Baby Boomers, sometime in the future are going to want to sell. The question arises, "Sell to Whom?"

Returning to houses, there are still those who think valuations will continue to be supported by the tacit encouragement of economic migration to the UK.

Now, although this helps keep down wage rates at the lower end (where is the Socialist compassion in that?), the government is pledging the future for a benefit which is merely temporary, if it exists at all. Once an incoming worker has a spouse and several children, how much does he/she need to earn to pay for the social benefits consumed now and to come later? State education alone runs at around £6,000 ($12,000) per annum per child.

And then there's the cost of all the benefits for the indiginous worker on low pay, or simply unemployed and becoming steadily less employable as time passes. And his/her children, learning their world-view in a family where there is no apparent connection between money and work. The government makes get-tough noises, but in a recessionary economy, I don't think victimising such people for the benefit of newspaper headlines will be any use. I seem to recall (unless it was an Alan Coren spoof) that in the 70s, Idi Amin made unemployment illegal in Uganda; not a model to follow.

So to me, allowing open-door economic migration to benefit the GDP and hold up house prices doesn't work in theory, let alone in practice.

Besides, I maintain that in the UK, we don't have a housing shortage: we have a housing misallocation. There must be very many elderly rattling around alone in houses too large and expensive for them to maintain properly. This book says that as long ago as 1981, some 600,000 single elderly in owner-occupied UK property had five or more rooms; the ONS says that in 2004, some 7 million people were living alone in Great Britain. Then there's what must be the much larger number of people who live in twos and threes in houses intended for fours and fives. Before we build another million houses on flood-plains, let's re-visit the concept of need.

Maybe we'll see the return of Roger the lodger - if he's had a CRB check, of course.

Would I buy a second home now? No. Would I sell the one I live in? I'd certainly think about it - in fact, have been considering that for some years.

Reversion to mean

Echoing recent comments by Vitaliy Katsenelson (also on Barron's), Jeremy Grantham thinks profit margins will decline towards normal and the Standard & Poor's 500 will head from its current c. 1334 to 1100 in the year 2010 - a drop of about 18%.

Grantham is emphatic that borrowed money is not a stimulant to the economy:

I have an exhibit that shows the 30 years prior to 1982 when the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio was completely flat at 1.2 times. Total debt is defined as government debt, personal debt, corporate debt and financial debt. Then in the 25 years after 1982, the flat line goes up at a 45 degrees angle from 1.2 times to 3.1 times GDP. Massive. In the first 30 years, when debt is flat, annual GDP growth is its usual battleship, growing at 3.5% and hardly twitching. After the massive increase in debt, GDP, far from accelerating, grew at 3%. So debt in the aggregate does not drive the economy. The economy is driven by education, man-hours worked, capital investment and technology.

That last sentence is really pregnant. I'm not sure about the man-hours (the closer we approach peasanthood, the harder we'll work), but I think that on both sides of the Atlantic, we've been falling down on the other three.

In Britain, our government has failed to distinguish between investing in education, and managing it - and where it has tried to do the latter, has pursued a Romantic-heritage political agenda. Capital investment? Going abroad. Technology? Ditto - and eagerly taken up (if not positively filched) by our Eastern trading partners.

I live in what used to be Car City; now, the vast Longbridge site is being redeveloped for housing and shops - in other words, open prison for the new ex-industrial underclass.

But Rome, too, kept control of its plebs with bread and circuses for a couple more centuries, before it fell.

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.

Warren Buffett's misleading optimism

Jonathan Chevreau reports Warren Buffett's bullishness on the US economy, long-term; but the real gem in this piece is the extensive, but cogent and crunchy comment by Andrew Teasdale of The TAMRIS Consultancy, who analyses Buffett's real approach to equity valuations.

Teasdale points out that although interest rates hit 21% in 1982, there was less debt, higher disposable income and lower valuations: relative to disposable income, debt is a bigger burden today than it was 25 years ago. He summarises his position pithily:

It is also worthwhile remembering that not everyone holds a Buffet portfolio and not everyone has the luxury of a 220 year investment horizon. If I was a long term investor with no financial liabilities arising over the next 15 years equities would be my preferred asset class relative to cash and bonds, but I would be mindful of valuations in determining where I put my money.

Not all the bad debt has yet surfaced, and as Karl Denninger comments, even at this stage Citibank has recently been forced to borrow foreign money at 14%, and other banks at over 7%, in preference to the 3% Federal Funds rate, presumably to keep the scale of their insolvency in the dark.

Inflation is increasing, therefore money-lenders are going to want more income to compensate for risk and the erosion of the real value of their capital. For the yield to rise, the capital value of bonds has to fall.

So I read Teasdale's summary as implying that for now, it's cash rather than either bonds or equities.

The Golden Compass doesn't work

FTSE closed today down at 5,724.10, a point first reached (travelling the other way) in December 1998. The longer-term chart above suggests to me a glass ceiling. Or flogging a dead horse (I can't tell you how some ten-year-olds I know misheard that last saying recently, or how their conversation continued. That generation appears to be developing backwards from middle age.)

Adjusted for inflation, the line would look worse, of course. I think my gut feeling was right ten years ago: essentially, we've been going down since the late nineties.

But what inflation measure to use? Gold seems to go down together with equity sell-offs, rather than seesawing against them. And unlike with the Dow, there doesn't seem to be an easily accessible index of the FTSE priced in gold terms; but GATA last week went very public with their theory that gold is being held down by surreptitious selling - and has been quietly disappearing from central bank vaults. This is something I've touched on a number of times before, and MoneyWeek gives its take on it here. Meanwhile, here's the ad:

The New World Order: a philosophical objection

A deep essay by Christopher Quigley here, but one I intend to re-read. Marxist philosophy always made my eyes water, practically instantly, as I have little tolerance for prolonged abstract multisyllabic holy-rolling, but I'll steel myself because we have to have some understanding of the madness that seems to have seized our modern conspiratorial ruling class. "Affairs are now soul-size".

Gold chart confusion

Here's a chart of gold against inflation as measured by CPI, from Captain Hook, and it suggests that high as it is now, the price of gold is still below its 1973 - 1997 average:

... and here's another reproduced on the Contrarian Investor's Journal (possibly from TedBits, which I'll come to in a moment), which seems to show the opposite:

... and here's another from Ty Andros's TedBits, comparing gold to gobal financial liquidity:

Which line of reasoning would you support at this time?

Why equities should go down

I'm breaking radio silence because of a brilliantly lucid article (from the subscription-only Barron's site) found for us by Michael Panzner.

Vitaliy Katsenelson explains that the current average price-earnings ratio may seem cheap, but that's because recent profit margins have been well above the 8.5% trend. Even allowing for a shift since 1980 away from industry towards the higher-margin service sector, the present 11.9% profit margin should be seen against a longer-term background figure of around 8.9 - 9.2%, which if current p/e ratios continue would imply a downward stock price correction of 22 -25%.

This chimes with Robert McHugh's "Dow 9,000" prediction from last July. And in many fields it's usual for overshoot to occur in the process of regression to a mean, so if it holds true in this case we could see even deeper temporary lows.

Day traders, be warned: this piste is a Black Run.

Au revoir

It looks as though the bear market has begun, though of course, events are liable to make fools of all of us. A recent peak was in October last year and if we take a recession as lasting typically 30 months, we should be grounding by around April 2010.

I've done my best to add my voice to the growing chorus of somethingmustbedonners, and tried to warn investors as I did in the late Nineties - not that I'm wise, but I seek out the wise. This won't put off the day traders, who rush in where angels fear to tread and will try to make fortunes on the rattlesnake-fast turns of bear market rallies; some will get it right, and fair play to you, as they say.

For the rest of us, I don't think I can better the common sense, brevity and clarity of this in the comments section from Jim in San Marcos, answering an investor's query as to what to do:

The basic premise is to pay off your debts and have some spare cash in the bank. There will be layoffs.

Buying a big item right now could tie you to a commitment that could be more than you anticipated. I know of one person already that was surprised by a layoff. They didn't see it coming.

If it gets worse, a lot of people will be selling big ticket items to raise cash. There should be some pretty good deals out there.

Money isn't everything, and there are bigger issues facing us: the growing military as well as economic power of Russia and China; our failure to nurture and educate our young, which points up the selfishness of our adults; the threat to democracy that is big government combined with big business, and the growing divide between an increasingly internationalist managerial class and a resentful, paralysed underclass whose numbers grow while our economies shrink and twist. And perhaps it is not entirely paranoid to suggest that there are many (often well-meaning, by their lights) proto-revolutionaries hacking away at the cultural and social ties that bind us, still dreaming that Bakunin was right when he said that the urge to destroy is also the urge to create.

I now have to take some time out to set my own affairs in order - too many commitments, personal and professional. Good luck to you all, and thanks for reading and commenting.

We have tracked the beast to his lair

Many an honourable man is underrated. Richard Daughty (aka The Mogambo Guru) takes this opportunity to show that the banks created the problems that some of them are now called upon to solve. It's like that film (Blowback) where the arsonist villain turns out to be a firefighter. Doubtless no-one will suffer condign punishment for using inflation to steal from gullible savers.

Meow boing splat

Both Karl Denninger and Michael Panzner interpret yesterday's rise on the Dow as a bear market rally. There are already references to "dead cat bounce", but we haven't anywhere nearly touched the bottom, I think.

People speak of the crash of 1929, but it took much longer for the crisis to work through and there were lots of opportunities for investors to step off with smaller losses. There were also plenty of traps for those who thought it was time to buy back in.

Here's a chart (source) of the process:

As they say, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. Today's central banks are acutely aware of this past history and do not wish to be remembered for making the same mistake, i.e. worsening the situation by deliberately contracting the money supply.

However, Denninger and others think we can't stop this contraction anyway, once the credit bubble has been pricked, and attempts to reflate will merely devalue the currency while failing to stimulate the real economy.

Dow 9,000 prediction fulfilled

As at the time of writing, the Dow is 11,820.24 and gold $875.90/oz. The Dow/gold ratio is therefore below 13.51 and has (perhaps fleetingly) fulfilled Robert McHugh's prediction.

Whether the Dow falls below 9,000 nominal in the course of a severe recession is something we shall have to see.

Funny line

Traders described the losses on the FTSE 100 Index as "incredible", with the Footsie at one stage plummeting by as much as 330.7 points.

(Press Association release today.)

Less than 6%. Maybe they should raise the minimum age to be a trader.

Oh, and the PA uses the hack line "More than £x billion was wiped off the value of ... shares". Enough experience for cliche, not enough to remember history.

"See what I mean? Kids!"

It can't happen here

The US bemoans its fate, but we in the UK have also had something of a crash in the last three months, too. FTSE on 12 October: 6,730.70; now: 5,578.20 - 17% down.

It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times, hmmmmmmmm

(The Mothers of Invention)

There was a period of hip journalism in the 60s and 70s that thought it clever to quote pop trash as if it were Holy Writ, and I'm afraid I couldn't resist the cheek. Retro, but maybe appropriate for a rerun of the econogrind of those years.

Trad wins out over Progressive

Jazz is in vogue, and so, it seems, are old-fashioned financial virtues (though not, of course, here in the Western world). Ty Andros points out what I have long suspected: we've been failing for a long time, and only inflation has hidden the truth from the masses. He goes back further than I would, and suggests the real-wealth stagnation in G7 countries began in 1990-1991.

Ben Bernanke half-joked about dropping money from helicopters if necessary; now the first $500 tax rebate parcels are on their way. Andros says we're into a Ludwig von Mises"crack-up boom" which means that nominally, assets won't fall in price, but in reality they will be eaten hollow by inflation:

“Volatility is opportunity” and it is about to SOAR! (As you will see in the next installment of the 2008 Outlook) They will “Print the money” as the unfolding “Crack up Boom” powers generational moves in grains, commodities, currencies, and stocks are on the table.