Hiding Public Debt

In response to comments from "City Unslicker" (see previous post), a Business Wire article trawled via Highbeam (subscription required) reveals that in the UK, the equivalent of US $98 billion of projects have already been agreed under the Private Finance Initiative.

These are, apparently, also known as BOT (build-operate-transfer) projects. Half are to do with transport, but PFI is also used for schools and hospitals.

From: In the UK, under the Government's "Private Finance Initiative" Launched in 1992, BOT Projects with a Value of GBP 48.3 Billion Had Been Signed by March 2006.
Source: Business Wire, January 15, 2007. Via: HighBeam™ Research; COPYRIGHT 2007 Business Wire

The Independent (June 6) reports on a National Audit Office finding that many PFI projects are poor value. This kind of financing has been controversial for a long time, and seems like another way of burdening future generations while pulling the wool over the eyes of the present electorate. It seems to me like another sign that governments are losing control of our money and trying to pretend they're not. The pretence merely prolongs and increases the problems.

From: Half of PFI deals fail 'good value' test ; Business News IN BRIEF
Source: The Independent - London, June 6, 2007. Via: HighBeam™ Research; Copyright 2007 The Independent - London

...and now a high-profile project in London, servicing the underground railway system, has suffered financial collapse, leaving behind extra costs and political embarrassment:

From: Tube's 17bn upgrade at risk as Metronet collapses ; Mayor will need to find 50m a week by DICK MURRAY
Source: Evening Standard - London, July 18, 2007. Via: HighBeam™ Research; Copyright 2007 Evening Standard - London

Poll update

Early responders seem to prefer gold and silver to foreign currencies, as stores of value. As Shylock correctly pointed out, "thrift is blessing, if men steal it not", and the fear of inflation's theft appears to be greater than the promise of interest on foreign bank accounts. The "breed of barren metal" is winning at the moment.

Please vote in the polls opposite.

Gold stocks heading for a postwar low

I've looked at the World Gold Council's long-term series from 1948 on. Current gold stocks held by governments are at a low not seen since before 1949: WGC figures for June 2007 total 30,374 tonnes (another 9 tonnes down from last December).

In 1948, official world gold reserves weighed 30,182.6 tonnes; in 1949 they were 30,623 tonnes, more than today's holdings. From then on, the hoards increased, reaching a peak in 1966 (38,283.6 tonnes). In 1967, they dropped suddenly to 36,900.9 tonnes.

Then the slow slide, taking these periods to lose around 1,000 tonnes at each stage:

1968 - 1978 (11 years): 36,000 - 37,000 tonnes
1979 - 1992 (14 years): 35,000 - 36,000 tonnes
1993 - 1996 (4 years): 34,000 - 35,000 tonnes
1997 - 2000 (4 years): 33,000 - 34,000 tonnes
2001 - 2002 (2 years): 32,000 - 33,000 tonnes
2003 - 2004 (2 years): 31,000 - 32,000 tonnes
2005 - 2006 (2 years): 30,000 - 31,000 tonnes

You'll see that the rate of loss steepened from 1993 onwards, and accelerated further from 2001. We're now approaching the lowest point since these records began, 59 years ago.

Are gold stocks a measure of world economic progression and regression?

Where's the gold gone?

Looking again at World Gold Council stats, there's something odd: a heck of a lot of gold has disappeared.

In seven years, from the first quarter of 2000 to the last quarter of 2006, the total tonnage held by countries and the IMF and World Bank has declined from 33, 375.1 to 30,383.8. That's a total reduction of nearly 9%, 2,991.3 tonnes of gold to be exact. At today's price ($21,426.87 per kilo), that's $64.09 billion gone off the radar.

Or to put it another way, at this rate of attrition, there will be no officially-held gold in the world at all in about 71 years' time, less than the lifespan of an average American.

The people must be voting in the only way that makes much difference these days, squirreling away pieces of gold. Or does anyone have a better explanation?

Bad news update; listen to Grandad

Peter Schiff has been quoted in various sources, e.g. the LA Times, as predicting oil at $100 a barrel.

Michael Panzner refers us to a site called Grandfather Economic Report, which like me is concerned about the impact of bad economics on families and the next generation.

Money and crime

The Mogambo Guru (Richard Daughty) posts a long one on The Daily Reckoning, including the text of his speech at the recent Agora Financial "Rim of Fire" conference in Vancouver. He writes and speaks like a Ranter from the English Civil War, or a Cassandra who has already dug her secret emergency escape tunnel out the back of Troy, away from the Greek lines.

But underneath the Vincent Price-like, self-parodying Gothic melodrama, I feel he's right. The answer to the question in my previous post is yes, because as money continues to be produced, of course everything will go up in nominal terms, for a time. The turning point will come when people realise that their money is going to be worth noticeably less every month, and trust in the currency will be in danger of collapse.

I also think he's right in saying that this systematic abuse suits the powerful, and their lesser friends and servants. Much of human misery is the result of people's unwillingness to do genuine work, so oarsmen will be replaced by coxes until the crew is entirely composed of steersmen and the boat stops. You do not have to be a member of the National Rifle Association to think that ever-increasing government is a problem.

Where I disagree, is the bit about looking forward to being a complacent gold bug while your neighbours suffer. Not for moral reasons, but from the practical point of view that in such a situation, your life and property would not be safe.

I remember that in the early nineties, when recession was chewing on us in the UK, one hard-working and decent small-businessman client was starting to talk, only half-jokingly, about turning to crime, just to survive. Until then, it had never occurred to me that some "stand-up guys" could be driven that way; I'd always assumed that criminals were simply a type. But I could tell he was getting serious - many a true word is spoken in jest. Fortunately for him and the rest of society, the economy improved, his house increased in value, and he sold up and emigrated to the Far East. I hope it's working out okay for him.

Back here, and in the US, I'd like to see economic reform now, not social breakdown later.

Could the Dow AND gold BOTH go up?

In unusual circumstances, normal behaviour changes, as Richard Bookstaber recently observed. If the dollar's decline continues, and gold maintains its "real" value, a 17% dollar devaluation would mean a corresponding 20.48% increase in the price of gold, carrying the yellow metal over the $800 threshold.

A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive - both finished goods and raw materials - but is a stimulus to some exports. Maybe, if it didn't all happen too suddenly and scare everyone off the market, the Dow would rise.

It would also mean paying back foreigners with cheaper money, a trick played on the world by Britain's Harold Wilson in the devaluation of 19 November 1967, when the pound's foreign exchange value was cut abruptly by 14%.

The US Treasury's figures for May 2007 show there's a total of $2.18 trillion in foreign-held securities. A Brit-style 14% devaluation would lose Uncle Sam's partners about $305 billion. John Bull's share of that loss would be some $23 billion, or around £11.5 billion.

Maybe that would finally get the British news media to notice the recent huge UK support for US government debt. I can hardly wait. Be still, my beating wallet.

There's a political price to pay, but US Presidents can't serve more than two terms anyway, not since they changed the Constitution to stop another Roosevelt reign.

Harold Wilson resigned in 1974, citing ill health, but I did once hear a rumour that the IMF, which bailed us out in 1975, had made Wilson's resignation a precondition of the loan. In these document-shredding and email-deleting times, a paranoid would say you know it's the truth when it's officially denied.

Meanwhile, please place your bets in the two polls opposite!