Unity at the Ministry of Truth offers 15,000 words to justify the legalisation of drugs, and is cheered on by Devil's Kitchen and (or am I mistaken?) by James at Nourishing Obscurity.
On the other hand, ex-Birmingham prison medic Theodore Dalrymple points out that no-one has ever died from coming off opiates; de-addiction can be achieved in a limited time; and it's criminals who turn to heroin, not heroin-users who turn to crime.
"Ah, but we only want the same treatment as smokers and drinkers," will be the cry. Well, seeing the damage that fags and booze did to my 20-years-too-early departed parents (and friends and acquaintances, and Looked After Children I've worked with), I'm inclined to agree; but not in the way the libertarians wish.
I'd be interested to know all the costs, expressed financially, of the harm done by "cigareets and whisky". I very much doubt that the tax covers the expense of the disbenefits. Here's an example, relating to alcohol: "For the UK, the external costs are likely to be in excess of the £20 billion figure and indeed taking loss of life into account and using more usual figures to value this loss could bring the total closer to £45 –50 billion for the UK as a whole. This is clearly way in excess of the revenue yield of £12 billion in 2000/01."
Instead of battening on the addictions of its citizens, the government could easily forego the £18 billion revenue on tobacco and alcohol - that's only the same cost as the ludicrously expensive and probably unnecessary NHS IT project, "Connecting for Health". Then, freed from this compromising financial interest, it could begin to tackle the problems seriously - not through the unimaginative approach of Prohibition, but through better education, and limiting the outlets of these harmful substances, as I have already suggested here.
As for other drugs, what is this campaign to encourage us to spend half our lives in a doze, daze or haze? Is there a plan to subvert society, to leave us in the land of the Lotus Eaters? Are we to sleep like the hare, while the Eastern tortoise wins the race? Is the opiate of the masses to be opiates?
B*lls to the Politics of Ecstasy; it's just an excuse for the spoiled end of the middle classes to indulge themselves further, leading (like the Pied Piper) hordes of less safety-netted proles into oblivion.
And why should libertarians support addictions, which imprison the will and distort reason?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The next wave of bailouts
It's not just the banks that are short of money. Many US States and local authorities are also suffering financial problems, and this is affecting the trade in their bonds, i.e. their borrowings on the money market. ("What are bonds, exactly?" - see here.)
Michael Panzner reports that municipal bonds ("munis") offer a better yield than US Treasury bonds, but the difference is still not enough to pay for the extra risk. Professional investors are short-selling "munis". i.e. betting that they will fall in price. A steep fall may indicate imminent bankruptcy, and some say this is on the way for many authorities, as Mish reported at the end of December.
So, what will happen when the US Government is seen to be buying everybody's bad debts?
People (even here in the UK, where we tend to wait patiently for our wise rulers to solve all) are beginning to worry about inflation, and are thinking about investing again. An article in Elliott Wave International warns us not to be panicked into parting with our cash, and reminds us:
... there are periods when inflation does erode the value of cash. I mean, look at the seven years leading up to the October 2007 peak in U.S. stocks: big gains in the stock indexes, while inflation was eroding cash. No way did cash do as well as stocks during that time.
Right?
Wrong. Cash outperformed stocks in the seven years leading up to the 2007 stock market high. That outperformance has only increased in the time since.
Since this is the view I took and communicated to clients in the 1990s, you will understand that I didn't make much money as a financial adviser. But it was certainly good advice, even if it was based on strongly-felt intuition rather than macroeconomic analysis.
Not that analysis guarantees results, in a world where the money game's rules are changed at will by politicians with a host of agendas that they don't share with us ordinary types. But my current guess is that the stockmarket will halve again in the next few years, when compared with the cost of living.
Michael Panzner reports that municipal bonds ("munis") offer a better yield than US Treasury bonds, but the difference is still not enough to pay for the extra risk. Professional investors are short-selling "munis". i.e. betting that they will fall in price. A steep fall may indicate imminent bankruptcy, and some say this is on the way for many authorities, as Mish reported at the end of December.
So, what will happen when the US Government is seen to be buying everybody's bad debts?
People (even here in the UK, where we tend to wait patiently for our wise rulers to solve all) are beginning to worry about inflation, and are thinking about investing again. An article in Elliott Wave International warns us not to be panicked into parting with our cash, and reminds us:
... there are periods when inflation does erode the value of cash. I mean, look at the seven years leading up to the October 2007 peak in U.S. stocks: big gains in the stock indexes, while inflation was eroding cash. No way did cash do as well as stocks during that time.
Right?
Wrong. Cash outperformed stocks in the seven years leading up to the 2007 stock market high. That outperformance has only increased in the time since.
Since this is the view I took and communicated to clients in the 1990s, you will understand that I didn't make much money as a financial adviser. But it was certainly good advice, even if it was based on strongly-felt intuition rather than macroeconomic analysis.
Not that analysis guarantees results, in a world where the money game's rules are changed at will by politicians with a host of agendas that they don't share with us ordinary types. But my current guess is that the stockmarket will halve again in the next few years, when compared with the cost of living.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Conspiracy, not c*ck-up
Michael Hudson sees the current crisis as deliberately fomented, and intentionally anti-democratic (htp: Anon, on Nourishing Obscurity). The economic is now shading into the political:
What do you mean “failure”? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down. The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept.
You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.
Meanwhile, Karl Denninger makes his case for the perpetrators of the credit crunch to be penalized under the US laws relating to mail fraud.
What do you mean “failure”? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down. The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept.
You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.
Meanwhile, Karl Denninger makes his case for the perpetrators of the credit crunch to be penalized under the US laws relating to mail fraud.
Stock market could halve again
As you know, I've been doing my own extrapolations recently, based on the Dow since 1928, and the implication is that the low point could be as deep as c. 4,000 points, i.e. another 50% off where it stands today.
Now, "Mish" looks at revised earnings estimates for companies and relates them to stock prices, applying various price-earnings ratios. His conclusion is broadly the same.
As Michael Panzer predicted* (reviewed here in May 2007) there's been a flight to cash, and now (as he also predicted) it looks as though inflation is set to roar. This will disguise what's happening to stocks, but underneath it I see that decline. As in the '60s-'80s. it may take some years after the apparent turnaround before real values increase again.
Provided you trust the government to pay up when due, and to calculate inflation fairly, National Savings Index-Linked Savings Certificates (or US TIPS) may be a valuable weapon in your anti-inflation armoury.
*"He predicts first a credit squeeze, which makes cash king and ruins our credit-dependent lives and businesses wholesale; then hyperinflation, as the government prints money to keep the system from complete collapse.
In this scenario, at first, stocks, corporate bonds, property, commodities (including gold), even government bonds and savings certificates, all decline in value against hard cash as everybody scrambles to settle their own debt, collect what's owed to them and continue to pay the bills. Then the hyperinflation hits and everybody tries to offload their currency."
Now, "Mish" looks at revised earnings estimates for companies and relates them to stock prices, applying various price-earnings ratios. His conclusion is broadly the same.
As Michael Panzer predicted* (reviewed here in May 2007) there's been a flight to cash, and now (as he also predicted) it looks as though inflation is set to roar. This will disguise what's happening to stocks, but underneath it I see that decline. As in the '60s-'80s. it may take some years after the apparent turnaround before real values increase again.
Provided you trust the government to pay up when due, and to calculate inflation fairly, National Savings Index-Linked Savings Certificates (or US TIPS) may be a valuable weapon in your anti-inflation armoury.
*"He predicts first a credit squeeze, which makes cash king and ruins our credit-dependent lives and businesses wholesale; then hyperinflation, as the government prints money to keep the system from complete collapse.
In this scenario, at first, stocks, corporate bonds, property, commodities (including gold), even government bonds and savings certificates, all decline in value against hard cash as everybody scrambles to settle their own debt, collect what's owed to them and continue to pay the bills. Then the hyperinflation hits and everybody tries to offload their currency."
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Snap
Denninger:
JAIL the fraudsters, including those in Congress, Treasury and on Wall Street. Bluntly - if we can find a predicate felony to nail you with in this mess, off you go.
REMOVE all of the overseers. This includes The Fed. Set up a new agency that is charged with enforcing all of the laws related to the financial system including The Federal Reserve Act, and empower them with subpoenas. Direct that they must act and operate "in the sunshine", with everything published on The Web. You do an evil thing, the public sees it. They try to hide it, the public sees it.
DEFAULT all the bad debt. Yes, this "booms" a lot of banks. Tough.
SET UP new banks. Take the remaining $350 billion and capitalize ten banks with $35 billion each. IPO them to the public. By law no officer, current or former, of an existing public bank may serve on these firm's boards. Now we've got the means to replace the credit creation the boomed banks can't do any more.
JAIL the fraudsters, including those in Congress, Treasury and on Wall Street. Bluntly - if we can find a predicate felony to nail you with in this mess, off you go.
REMOVE all of the overseers. This includes The Fed. Set up a new agency that is charged with enforcing all of the laws related to the financial system including The Federal Reserve Act, and empower them with subpoenas. Direct that they must act and operate "in the sunshine", with everything published on The Web. You do an evil thing, the public sees it. They try to hide it, the public sees it.
DEFAULT all the bad debt. Yes, this "booms" a lot of banks. Tough.
SET UP new banks. Take the remaining $350 billion and capitalize ten banks with $35 billion each. IPO them to the public. By law no officer, current or former, of an existing public bank may serve on these firm's boards. Now we've got the means to replace the credit creation the boomed banks can't do any more.
Uncanny. We agree pretty much exactly. Either he's an amateur, or I'm a professional.
The disenfranchised shareowner?
A startling picture of how share ownership has shrunk - pretty steadily, despite the Conservatives' pledge in the 1980s to widen it. Though I can't tell from this to what extent it's down to individuals' purchase of unit trusts, investment trusts and collective pension funds.htp: Patrick Vessey
P.S. I Like the flowers. Man.
Where to turn?
People are starting to run around looking for a haven for wealth. German bond issues partially unsold; US bonds yielding virtually nothing yet at risk of default and dollar devaluation; the UK's economic fundamentals worse than America's (without the advantage of having the world's reserve currency); others saying the PIGS (Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain) may crash out of the Euro, and that the Euro itself may not see out another ten years.
Marc Faber is predicting that precious metals will outperform equities and bonds; this commentator reckons silver will outperform gold.
Dear me.
Marc Faber is predicting that precious metals will outperform equities and bonds; this commentator reckons silver will outperform gold.
Dear me.
Money Management
As reported in The Hightower Lowdown, the Tribune Company is going under. It was bought last year for $8.2 billion by real estate magnate Sam Zell. Because he didn't have enough cash for the deal, he colluded with the CEO to use the employees' pension fund as collateral for a loan. The crushing interest rates meant that he had to slash payroll to try and make ends meet.
Not only is the deal itself troubling, but I do not see how a company can be bought with borrowed money, and then be profitable enough to pay the loans and make more.
Perhaps the whole idea of large amounts of credit is itself the problem?
Not only is the deal itself troubling, but I do not see how a company can be bought with borrowed money, and then be profitable enough to pay the loans and make more.
Perhaps the whole idea of large amounts of credit is itself the problem?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
A lesson from China
Shagang, the Chinese steel company owned by self-made billionaire Shen Wenrong, is raising its prices, according to Steel Business Briefing (4 January 2009).
In a manufacturing recession, this is a counterintuitive move by the man who bought what was left of the German "Phoenix" steelworks and shipped it to the Yangtze, reasoning that a ready-made factory would not only get into production faster, but (at the scrap price he paid for it) without the debt burden that would ruin his competitors when (as he foresaw) the next downturn came.
The company may also push ahead with its plan to "go public" and expand its operations.
We could do with people like him, over here.
In a manufacturing recession, this is a counterintuitive move by the man who bought what was left of the German "Phoenix" steelworks and shipped it to the Yangtze, reasoning that a ready-made factory would not only get into production faster, but (at the scrap price he paid for it) without the debt burden that would ruin his competitors when (as he foresaw) the next downturn came.
The company may also push ahead with its plan to "go public" and expand its operations.
We could do with people like him, over here.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Time for another Jubilee
Karl Denninger elegantly demonstrates that compound interest on debt will always tend to blow up the economy, if the interest rate x is more than y (the average rate of economic growth) + z (the average rate of default).
Lenders will try to achieve this blessed state of affairs, but if they succeed, they will eventually end up owning everything, and the system will go "pop" long before that point. Which is why the Bible talks about a Jubilee year of total debt forgiveness, occurring every half-century.
Getting governments to take over all bad debts interferes with that reset, and so the "pop" must be louder when it finally, inevitably happens.
Lenders will try to achieve this blessed state of affairs, but if they succeed, they will eventually end up owning everything, and the system will go "pop" long before that point. Which is why the Bible talks about a Jubilee year of total debt forgiveness, occurring every half-century.
Getting governments to take over all bad debts interferes with that reset, and so the "pop" must be louder when it finally, inevitably happens.
They could be right, darn it
The British Government claims it wants to do more for our health.
There's the new Change4Life campaign, encouraging us to eat less fat, take more exercise and live longer; and there are the perennial pushes to give up smoking and (after they've extended the licensing hours and vastly increased the number of licensed outlets) reduce alcohol consumption.
On the other hand, we have the prospect of the State pension system hitting the buffers, thanks to millions of coffin-dodgers; not to mention the cost of care homes and the bed-blocker burden on the National Health Service. And if we all became totally abstemious, we would cost the State its £10 billion annual revenue from tobacco, and £8 billion from alcohol. At first sight, if you wanted to destroy the State, you'd follow its advice - a novel strategy of subversion by civil obedience.
Hence, tabloid-style contrarianism! I haven't found the evidence, but I expect that staying healthy (and working longer) will more than pay for itself, by reducing the costs of chronic ill-health and increasing revenue from taxes on income.
There's the new Change4Life campaign, encouraging us to eat less fat, take more exercise and live longer; and there are the perennial pushes to give up smoking and (after they've extended the licensing hours and vastly increased the number of licensed outlets) reduce alcohol consumption.
On the other hand, we have the prospect of the State pension system hitting the buffers, thanks to millions of coffin-dodgers; not to mention the cost of care homes and the bed-blocker burden on the National Health Service. And if we all became totally abstemious, we would cost the State its £10 billion annual revenue from tobacco, and £8 billion from alcohol. At first sight, if you wanted to destroy the State, you'd follow its advice - a novel strategy of subversion by civil obedience.
Hence, tabloid-style contrarianism! I haven't found the evidence, but I expect that staying healthy (and working longer) will more than pay for itself, by reducing the costs of chronic ill-health and increasing revenue from taxes on income.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Deflation, low interest rates and the poor old saver
The British Government claims it wants to do more for the saver. Actually, it's already done a lot: the Daily Telegraph reports that the Halifax estimates house prices fell by 16.2% in 2008. Putting it another way, someone holding cash in a shoebox has made 19.33% tax-free, measured in house price terms; or 32.22% gross for a 40% taxpayer.
And that's a point: the government doesn't tax you on the gains of deflation. But I'm sure they're keen to rectify that: normal inflation will be resumed as soon as possible.
And that's a point: the government doesn't tax you on the gains of deflation. But I'm sure they're keen to rectify that: normal inflation will be resumed as soon as possible.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
MSM admits keeping shtum
Edmund Conway breaks journalistic ranks to admit he should've said something sooner.
Disaster deferred (and increased), not averted
Karl Denninger goes back to basics, explaining how the reflation is merely paying you-now from you-future's account. Knit faster, we're running out of wool.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Murky business
Brad Setser does a very interesting bit of detective work and concludes that much of the UK's holdings of US Treasury securities, are on behalf of China. He gives us a graph demonstrating that when the UK's official holding declines sharply (usually in June), China's suddenly rises.
Setser estimates that China owns $1.425 trillion in Treasuries and Agencies, which is equivalent to about 10% of US GDP. ("Treasuries" are debts directly owed by the US Government, "agencies" are debts of the US Government's organisations, as explained in this Federal Reserve handbook from 2004.)
He ends by calling for more transparency in British accounts of these holding - that would be most welcome all round, generally. Half our problems (and, I assume, opportunities for fatcat swindlers) stem from our not knowing the real position of the world's finances.
Setser estimates that China owns $1.425 trillion in Treasuries and Agencies, which is equivalent to about 10% of US GDP. ("Treasuries" are debts directly owed by the US Government, "agencies" are debts of the US Government's organisations, as explained in this Federal Reserve handbook from 2004.)
He ends by calling for more transparency in British accounts of these holding - that would be most welcome all round, generally. Half our problems (and, I assume, opportunities for fatcat swindlers) stem from our not knowing the real position of the world's finances.
Pop
Perhaps the fall will be faster.
In this piece, Charles Biderman explains that the value of a stock is set by marginal purchases, which do not reflect what you'd get if you sold all the company's shares at the same time. He estimates that from 2003-2007 the world's equities increased in notional value by $25 trillion, on nothing more than $1.5 trillion cash, a bit of borrowing and mostly, illusion: "Market cap and money aren't necessarily related."
When the illusion goes pop, so do all the gains. First out gets the most.
htp: zgirl
In this piece, Charles Biderman explains that the value of a stock is set by marginal purchases, which do not reflect what you'd get if you sold all the company's shares at the same time. He estimates that from 2003-2007 the world's equities increased in notional value by $25 trillion, on nothing more than $1.5 trillion cash, a bit of borrowing and mostly, illusion: "Market cap and money aren't necessarily related."
When the illusion goes pop, so do all the gains. First out gets the most.
htp: zgirl
Elliot, Kondratieff, or normal service resumed?
On 26th June I looked at the progress of the FTSE since around 1984 and thought that the next low would be no worse than c. 4,500. Here's what actually happened:
The lows were certainly lower, and we have only recently learned just how close we came to a banking collapse. The question now is, are we where we "should" be - following a trend set by the last 25 years - or are there longer cycles due to make hay of the pattern of the last quarter-century? Elliot wavers and Kondratieff followers say yes.
My guess is that, after the steep stockmarket falls and the horrid crisis apparently averted, there will be a bounce in the next 1-2 years, then a decline in real (inflation-adjusted) terms for maybe another 5 years after that. Your guess?
By the way, I'd also be interested to know your views on why the bankers and brokers have been allowed to Get Away With It. To me, it seems like a big fat moral hazard and unless there is some real squealy punishment for all this bad behaviour, I'd advise any bright, conscienceless youngster to become a banker.
Currently, my preferred fantasy solution is to bust all the overextended banks, leave the shareholders with zilch, sack the senior bank managers and ban them from being company directors for at least 5 years, halve all mortgages, and give the book of business to more prudent operators including well-run building societies. In my view, this was never ever going to happen, because the FSA, the BoE and the government are also implicated. So, not so much "too big to fail", but too well-connected to fail.
But there's a price to pay, anyway: it's now clearly Us and Them. Perhaps, since they are immeasurably more powerful, we should give up trying to rectify the world and merely ape their cynicism and corruption. Moralists will demur; and so this is truly an age when we can say, "Affairs are now soul size".
The lows were certainly lower, and we have only recently learned just how close we came to a banking collapse. The question now is, are we where we "should" be - following a trend set by the last 25 years - or are there longer cycles due to make hay of the pattern of the last quarter-century? Elliot wavers and Kondratieff followers say yes.
My guess is that, after the steep stockmarket falls and the horrid crisis apparently averted, there will be a bounce in the next 1-2 years, then a decline in real (inflation-adjusted) terms for maybe another 5 years after that. Your guess?
By the way, I'd also be interested to know your views on why the bankers and brokers have been allowed to Get Away With It. To me, it seems like a big fat moral hazard and unless there is some real squealy punishment for all this bad behaviour, I'd advise any bright, conscienceless youngster to become a banker.
Currently, my preferred fantasy solution is to bust all the overextended banks, leave the shareholders with zilch, sack the senior bank managers and ban them from being company directors for at least 5 years, halve all mortgages, and give the book of business to more prudent operators including well-run building societies. In my view, this was never ever going to happen, because the FSA, the BoE and the government are also implicated. So, not so much "too big to fail", but too well-connected to fail.
But there's a price to pay, anyway: it's now clearly Us and Them. Perhaps, since they are immeasurably more powerful, we should give up trying to rectify the world and merely ape their cynicism and corruption. Moralists will demur; and so this is truly an age when we can say, "Affairs are now soul size".
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Am I the idiot, or are they?
For years, at least since the Reagan era, we in the US have heard the Republican Party mantra that the answer to growing the economy is to cut taxes for the richest, since they will 'invest in business'.
It never made sense to me, especially as I saw such a transfer of wealth to those same rich people, who spent their money on luxury imported goods. Incomes for the middle and lower class barely kept pace with inflation, even as industry became ever more efficient.
Today, thanks to posts here and elsewhere, I finally realized what is wrong with the claim above: buying stocks does not 'invest in a company', unless you are buying stock directly from that same company. All it does is put money in the pockets of the stockbrokers, while you have a piece of paper that must rise in value by profit plus fees, and find another sucker to buy it. The real estate market is no different.
Nonetheless, all of the experts that I have talked with over the years insisted that I simply didn't understand, implying that I was an idiot. Am I?
It never made sense to me, especially as I saw such a transfer of wealth to those same rich people, who spent their money on luxury imported goods. Incomes for the middle and lower class barely kept pace with inflation, even as industry became ever more efficient.
Today, thanks to posts here and elsewhere, I finally realized what is wrong with the claim above: buying stocks does not 'invest in a company', unless you are buying stock directly from that same company. All it does is put money in the pockets of the stockbrokers, while you have a piece of paper that must rise in value by profit plus fees, and find another sucker to buy it. The real estate market is no different.
Nonetheless, all of the experts that I have talked with over the years insisted that I simply didn't understand, implying that I was an idiot. Am I?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Fun with extrapolation
Since the 1990s, the stockmarket has been showing such freakish returns that many thought we were in a "new paradigm", whatever that means.
So I've looked at the Dow adjusted for CPI since late 1928, and calculated max/min lines on the basis of the highs in 1929 and 1966, and the lows in 1932 and 1982, to see just how unrepresentative the last decade has been. If we saw a return to these imaginary trends, the next Dow low could be less than half the present value. If, if, if...
Coincidentally, Jim Kunstler is predicting much the same:
By May of 2009, the stock markets will resume crashing with the ultimate destination of a Dow 4000 before the end of the year.
But I think it may take longer than that. The Elliott-wavers are looking for a final upwave first. Having said that, the last 10 years have been out of all comparison with the 70 years before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)