Is your financial adviser a charlatan?

It seems the experts now agree with my guess that the economic doldrums may continue until at least early 2010, a considerable change from their more sanguine assessment a year ago.

Unlike them, I was warning my clients about US indebtedness in the 90s; about the '98 Far East crash; about the late-bubble tech enthusiasm of '99; and have generally spent the last 10 years or so cautioning clients against making substantial investments. And I first said 2010 in January (in one of my Ol' Blue Eyes farewells - I keep making comebacks because I can't shut up when I hear what "experts" say).

The real difference is, I'm not rich; I simply can't understand it.

I may retrain in astrology. It's less regulated and I can't remember an astrologer being successfully sued. Here's a sample:

ALL SIGNS: house prices will continue to trend downwards in real terms, but because homeowners don't like accepting a loss on their personal real-estate speculation (I've long said that anything you treat as an investment will behave like one), much of the slide will be achieved by long-term stagnation.

Meanwhile, the good news is that to be a contrarian now means to keep your powder dry while looking for promising targets. I wonder, for example, whether a punt into carefully-selected construction firms might prove lucrative in the long run?

That is, unless we manage to deport the people who've come here illegally and start to apply geonomic principles to land use, in which case we'll find out that we have no such thing as a housing shortage in the UK.

Financial experts "miserably bearish"

This report by Jim McTague from Barron's, reproduced on the Cumberland Advisors site, gives an indication of how the money experts were feeling this month, on their annual fishing trip in Maine:

[David] Kotok's diagnosis of the cause of the gloom that permeated the crowd was this: Most of them see more economic downside than upside; we don't have functioning credit markets; banks and big Wall Street credit intermediaries are either dead, wounded or on life-support; housing is a wreck; and the auto industry "is done."

Once the economy stabilizes, it will take many years to fully recover, he said, because no strong growth engines are evident. "That's why people are so gloomy! They see no upside!" He personally is investing client money in agricultural plays because, he says, the long-term price of food is trending up. He likes bio-companies whose products are geared to an aging population. And he likes Asia as an investment destination...and he doesn't like much else.

I conducted in-depth interviews with a dozen of the participants. They all perceive the economy in the early stages of a multiyear recession that will be the most painful downturn since the 1970s. The housing market, which experts once predicted would recover in 2008, may not recover even in 2009. Credit woes on Wall Street will begin to inflict real pain on Main Street.

We're already seeing the impact on housing, though the worst may not have happened yet; and I think stocks and bonds are still in something of a fool's paradise. I'm sticking with my guess that in retrospect, we will see that the upturn began in the Spring of 2010.

Accountability - but not to the citizens

Reuters reports yesterday that a bank in Abu Dhabi is suing Morgan Stanley, Bank of New York, Mellon and the ratings agencies for fraud relating to understating the risks in the complex debt packages at the heart of the credit crisis. (htp: Jesse)

Answerability to the voters is so last millennium, pace idealistic dreamers like Karl Denninger; but money talks.

If voting made a difference, it'd be Paris Hilton for Prez, and do you know, she could be a surprisingly good choice. Much more can be achieved laying on a sun lounger than crashing around the world. A film quote from Lawrence of Arabia:

Colonel Brighton: Look, sir, we can't just do nothing.

General Allenby: Why not? It's usually best.

And what a pleasant change it would be, to have a politician who only pretends to be dumb. I can just imagine her sweetly commanding some tough dudes to go and give the financiers the drubbing they deserve, then turning her attention back to her fashion magazine.

Yes, it's money that talks and the people are dumb. In 1930 Ludwell Denny wrote, "Too wise to try to govern the world, we shall merely own it. Nothing can stop us." America forgot that lesson; rising foreign powers now pay the piper, and will call the tune.

If you can't beat 'em... every dollar and pound you save in your bank account, is a vote in this new electoral system. With luck, one of your descendants will be accepted into the Superclass, while the rest vainly try voting for improved social security and healthcare; when the well is dry, the vote won't fill it. The freedom for which America thinks it stands, isn't founded on supplication. As here in Britain, it would be a hard road back.

Perhaps Chesterton's observation on Christianity may apply equally to the US Constitution: "[it] has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

In praise of the American Constitution

On The Great Depression Of 2006 recently the talk has turned, inevitably, to rich vs. poor. When societies are under stress, the people turn on each other. I think they are forgetting what holds them together.

I hold no brief for American foreign policy (perhaps nations and religions should be evaluated according to how they treat "the others"), but I wish we in the UK had something that guaranteed our international independence and defined and limited the powers of our government. My comment on Jim's piece is as follows:

Would we have to be talking like this if the banks hadn't exploded the money supply?

After much heart-searching (and encouragement from me), my brother recently became an American citizen. He sent me the crib book ("The Citizen's Almanac"). Page 5 ("Responsibilities Of A Citizen"), item one: "Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The explanatory paragraph ends, "When the Constitution and its ideals are challenged, citizens must defend these principles against all adversaries."

Please don't bridle if I quote the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall [...] emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."

It's not just about money, but allowing the bankers and politicians to corrupt the money system threatens liberty. We in the UK had a constitution based on civilised understandings that have been thrown out by mad revolutionaries, but you have a clearly expressed founding document more precious than any wretched paper dollars you may have. Lincoln said that the American nation was conceived in liberty and dedicated to equality; "... Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

Then as now, you may be the last major nation to hold up that flame. It is not gold and silver that made America admirable, but the principles that bind her citizens. Perhaps excessive material wealth has proved a distraction and a subversion.

After the crash, there will still be Americans, and the American nation. May I humbly suggest that Denninger is right, and the miscreants who have threatened the community with their greed and irresponsibility, should be held to account?

Gold: "reculer pour mieux sauter"

A very interesting, concise post from Mish. He says deflation forces borrowed money out of speculation, so gold and silver will drop while this happens; but then - it could take some time yet - will come the rise: "The reason gold will reassert itself is that Gold Is Money."

Mish's line appears to be consistent (June 2007):"Typically gold is a counter-cyclical asset that does best in real terms when liquidity evaporates."

Gold seems unpredictable - the demand for it as jewellery is unrelated to price - but if his chart below is correct, there is an underlying trend of steadily increasing demand. New gold mined each year is only some 2% of the total still available above ground - gold generally doesn't get used up (though I have drunk Danziger Goldwasser) - so the supply cannot be easily boosted by the State in inflationary times.

Gold, or paper? Your choice.

Judge Mental on broken families

Even though he is a judge, and an expert in dealing with the results of family breakup, Mr Justice Coleridge will be panned for observations like these:

"... almost all of society's social ills can be traced directly to the collapse of the family life."

"I am not saying every broken family produces dysfunctional children, but I am saying that almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family. "

He's not wrong. I'm the last to hug a hoodie, but you have to know why they're like that. Knowing the causes doesn't make them any better; the point is that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In years of teaching children in social services care, and children excluded from mainstream education, I don't recall knowing even one case where the child came from a hard-working, addiction-free, two-parent family.

By the way: to what extent is the government fanning the flames, with its tax-greedy promotion of alcohol, its popularity-seeking liberality on drugs law enforcement, and its negligent attitude to employment (especially, I hesitantly suggest - expecting to get it in the neck for saying so - full-time employment for men)?

But it's not just about keeping the parents together. There needs to be a commitment to nurturing the child emotionally: squabbling parents who want the child to take sides make a deep and enduring split in the child's psyche. No law, judge or social worker is going to remedy that; putting the child first should be a screamingly obvious moral point. But who is allowed to make it? "Musn't be judgmental."

Oh yes, we must. Watch the American Judge Judy on Freeview when the subject of children, marriage and responsibility comes up. She did many years in family court, and she doesn't have any time for the mealy-mouthed approach.

The big one is yet to come

Karl Denninger gives his interpretation of recent events: hedge funds have been caught out badly betting against oil and the dollar, and the frantic unwinding hit gold. His prognosis is that sooner or later all the over-borrowing is going to take its toll:

There is a "supercritical" point where all asset values will get hit at once, unless the process runs to exhaustion first, and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in Hell that it will.

Meanwhile, keep your money safe.

Authoritarian governments are winning

From Brad Setser's blog.

I've said before now that 2003 was the year the UK and USA blew it, with reckless credit expansion.

The US owes China a trillion dollars - Setser

"... China’s government already plays a significant role in determining the allocation of credit inside the US economy, not just the allocation of credit inside China’s economy..."

Brad Setser (htp: Jesse's Cafe Americain)

Setser reported to Congress a year ago on the USa's vulnerability to foreign creditors and investors. See my blog here and here.

Down

Mish reckons there will be - is - a global slowdown and credit contraction, savings will increase, and bond yields and interest rates will reduce.

Liberal economics and the Panama Canal: hope?

Read the following article from four years ago by Beth King in Innovations Report, as an analogy with globalization. Do you think it works?

The Panama Canal as a natural biological invasion experiment

Invasive species may cause severe economic losses. Thus the hot debate regarding the ecological mechanisms determining the outcome of biological invasions is of equal interest to scientific and business communities. Do invaders bump residents out by competing with them for scarce resources, or do they merely move in without causing harm to their neighbors?

In one of the first environmental impact studies ever, the Smithsonian Institution’s 1910 Panama Biological Survey provided baseline data for Panama Canal construction, a project creating the largest man-made lake in existence at the time. The Canal, completed in 1914, rerouted the Chagres River on Panama’s Atlantic slope into the Pacific Ocean--connecting watersheds across the continental divide. Since then, fish from the Atlantic and Pacific sides of Panama have intermingled, but the mix has not resulted in extinction of fish in tributaries on either slope according to new research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (online) by Scott Smith and Graham Bell of Canada’s McGill University and Eldredge Bermingham, Staff Scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, concern about human-induced environmental change was already on the agenda. Faced with the immanent flooding of 500 square kilometers of lowland tropical forest in Panama, the Panamanian government authorized the Smithsonian Institution to conduct the Panama Biological Survey (1910-1912), an extensive biological census of the region to be covered by Lake Gatun, the Panama Canal waterway.

The U.S. Bureau of Fisheries assigned Seth E. Meek from the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History and Samuel F. Hildebrand, his assistant, to census the fish fauna of the Canal area. They made lists of fish in the Chagres River on the Atlantic slope and in the Rio Grande, on the Pacific slope, rivers that would become part of the Canal waterway, a new freshwater corridor between two oceans.

It did not take long for fish to move from Atlantic to Pacific slopes and vice versa. When Hildebrand returned to Panama in the 1930’s many species had already moved into streams on the opposite slope.

In 2002, the authors of the new report returned to the Chagres and the Rio Grande to collect fish. In total, they found that three fish species had colonized the Chagres River and five had colonized the Rio Grande. Both sides of the Isthmus became more species rich as a result of the Canal connection. All of the original species found in each stream in Meek and Hildebrand’s initial, 1916 survey, are still there.

This is a significant contribution to our understanding of biological invasion because it shows that dispersal played a more significant role than local ecological interactions in the structure of the fish communities in these two rivers, even after many generations in this great natural experiment.

If at first you don't succeed - give up.

Think tank Policy Exchange has stirred up a hornet's nest with the suggestion that people in poorer Northern areas should quit backing a loser and head for the South-East, or the Golden Triangle.

Or the Golden Circle:


Isn't this the rational, liberal-economic thing to do? Or is mankind something more than a calculation in money terms? Is there any one measure for Man?

Are liberal economists rational? Do they describe the world as it is, or as they think it should be? Would it be dangerous for us to follow their prescriptions, if others elsewhere took a different view?

An after-thought: would it not be more rational to head for Scotland? Free tertiary education, more money spent on care for the elderly, etc?

Are the poor too rich?

I read a piece in Cafe Hayek a while back, lamenting the rise in the US minimum wage. I left a short quotation: "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."

I didn't expect much response, even though Americans owe one of their most famous symbols and (in part) their very Revolutionary victory to the French. But I had a glance at the comment thread this morning and there was indeed a riposte:

"Jonah Golberg wrote a really good editorial on this about four years back. Good stuff and good Economics & History lesson, too!"

Can the realtor (estate agent) who posted this, and the salaried economics professor who hosted it, be right? Are the working American poor really so feather-bedded by their £3-something per hour earnings? Does anyone have a different Economics & History lesson?

Does even the slightest concern for the poor make me (the son of a refugee from the murderous ravages of the Red Army in East Prussia) a no-good pinko Commie son-of-a-gun?

I shall read my newly-acquired Sloman's "Essentials of Economics" and then I'll know the answer.

What is inflation?

One answer is to look at alternative currencies. Here's an FT article, originally from 1983, on the Mars Bar Index. Any more detailed updates?

Dearieme says "Mars Bars were 99p per pack of five in our Co-op recently. Bargain!" Is this proof of deflation?

Blogger helps Georgia overcome cyber onslaught

Civil.ge, the Georgian news site, is "under permanent [cyber] attack." So they've switched their operations to one of Google's Blogspot domains, to keep the information flowing about what's going on in their country. (Wired Blog Network, 11 August)

Here's the Blogger site for Civil.ge

Liberty

The greatest liberty is the right to change yourself.

Recently I've put on a few pics of women, the lovely creatures, and get concerned comments from Nick Drew and Pej. This is entirely a natural response, but it is also an example of what I call the homeostatic principle. You know: try to lose weight and people say you're not fat, just pleasantly plump; forswear alcohol or tobacco, and they advise you to cut down a little instead, but just for now go on, have one etc.

We worry (rightly, of course) about the tyranny of big government, but there is also the long, slow, grinding tyranny of the small (and small-minded) community, and the dysfunctional family. And we, too, are so often, unconsciously and instinctively, the oppressors.

Simone de Beauvoir (who was led a dance right royally by her liberated lover Sartre) said that every book is a cry for help. Mostly, that cry will go unanswered, and few will rally to your home-made flag. We enjoy our blogging, but delude ourselves if we think the world will change much as a result, or perhaps should change much.

If you want a major, exhilarating change, go for action direct: change your own life. And if you are a libertarian, watch for how even you try to hold others back.

On me fait tort

In the Post Office just now, I glanced at the leaflet rack and there were all these savings products labelled The People's Instant Saver etc.

I remember watching Tony Blair announce the death of Diana, and how he half-choked on "the people's princess", as though some wiser part of him at the back of his throat was trying to save him from a ghastly, laughable gaffe. He seems to have got away with it, though (as my wife pointed out at the time) she was the daughter of an Earl. (Note, by the way, how his speech began the first two paragraphs with the first-person personal pronoun. Everything was always about him, was it not?)

I suppose this is all part of the Gramscian cultural deforestation in preparation for the Garden of Eden that will be Cool Britannia. I also suppose that when we have become the PRGB, the country will be disunited and the people will have less say than ever.

If, by then, we have enough money (for clearly that's all that matters, now), we may move to Jersey, which at least recognises Her Majesty's rule under her title of Duke of Normandy. When we visited there years ago, we learned that as in ancient times, if you feel you have been wronged, you may make an appeal direct to your ruler: you drop down on one knee, spread your arms and call out "Aro, aro, aro, mon Prince! On me fait tort!" The Jersey Council must then hear your case.

But Her writ does not run here, or will not for much longer, if we continue in this direction.

China dolls

Look at this Chinese website for positive images and news about women in the PRC.

Beauty

Lorna Page is using the proceeds of her first book to spring friends from OAP jail. What a beautiful thing to do. And what a beautiful face.

Britney and Madonna at MTV Awards Ceremony

But her 50th isn't until Saturday...

As my wife points out, it's not their sexuality they're exploiting, it's men's. It's just not fair on me.

By the way, Tarantino is sizing up Britney for a big part. Maybe this stunt (from 2003) gave him the idea.