Where is all the money going?

I read recently that both in the US and the UK, a significant part of the "quantitative easing" is repurchasing sovereign debt from foreign holders. In other words, money is being created to buy back government bonds from overseas investors.

This says two things to me: (a) the new money thus created is not going to help kick-start our economies, and (b) foreigners are losing confidence in us and want out, before inflation and defaults shrivel the value of their investment in us. As to the latter point, I said last August that I thought the Chinese wouldn't let themselves be swindled.

So I suspect we are still headed for slump, currency devaluation and, eventually, high interest rates.

Maybe a new currency, to whitewash the mess and make further progress towards some New World Order political grouping - Oceania, Eurasia etc. Any news on the Amero?

Alle aussteigen!

As the Dow heads cheerily in the direction of 9,000, some may consider this an opportunity to get off if they missed the stop last time round.

Or have the wise actions of our leaders solved all?

Simple Science

The Laws of Thermodynamics for the layman:

First Law: You can't win.

Second Law: You can't even break even.

Translated to money terms, they are still true, but all too many didn't believe it. That's what put us in our present mess.

Once we clear up the meltdown, perhaps the sensible approach would be to base the economy officially on energy. After all, it effectively is already. For example, the price of gold merely reflects the energy expense of extracting it.

Bonner: 1966 - 1982 , and Dow 5,000

Bill Bonner, in the Daily Reckoning, confirms what I've said here many times: we need to measure investment performance in inflationary terms, and done that way, the last cycle ran from 1966 to 1982. The implication for us now?

We only bring this up to warn readers: these major cycles take time. So far, the Dow has only gotten down to the ’66 TOP. Now, it has to get to the ’82 BOTTOM…adjusted for inflation. Where would that be?

Well….as we recall, the Dow was barely at 1,000 when the bull market began. And if [we] adjust that to consumer price inflation, we come to a 2,000 – 3,000.

However, the 1982 bottom was higher than the 1932 bottom, so I'm hoping it will be no worse than 4,000. Having said that, the levels of governmental and personal debt now are quite unprecedented.

Here's the graph I did last October, again:

Good and bad borrowing

Karl Denninger covers a lot of ground - perhaps too much in one posting - in his attempt to clarify fractional reserve banking and its consequences.

What seems to me a major point in his conspectus, is the difference between borrowing for production, and borrowing for consumption. If you borrow at 5% to get a machine that makes you 10% profit, that's fine; but borrowing for a private house to live in, a car for personal use, music and TV, alcohol and weekly groceries - madness.

Quietly edging towards the exits, before the general panic

Htp: Michael Panzer, for this:

They are taking cash out of the bank in preparation for a long-haul bad time. A friend in Florida told me the local bank was out of hundred-dollar bills on Wednesday because a man had come in the day before and withdrawn $90,000. Five weeks ago, when I asked a Wall Street titan what one should do to be safe in the future, he took me aback with the concreteness of his advice, and its bottom-line nature. Everyone should try to own a house, he said, no matter how big or small, but it has to have some land, on which you should learn how to grow things. He also recommended gold coins, such as American Eagles. I went to the U.S. Mint Web site the next day, but there was a six-week wait due to high demand. (I just went on the Web site again: Production of gold Eagle coins "has been temporarily suspended because of unprecedented demand" for bullion.)

Like I said over a month ago: "this is a time for individuals to make their own quiet plans and preparations."

Did we make things worse?

I am by no means an expert on anything, except a small branch of mathematics. However, I have spent my life watching people and animals, and have come to my own conclusions.

We in the US prize the individual over society (until they do something really bad), and so are not very accepting of the fact that humans, like wolves, elephants, and most other primates, are mostly pack animals.

In a pack of wolves or wild dogs with a calm, assertive leader, there are very few fights, and co-operation is the norm. The common role for the alpha females is the nurture and protection of the young. For the alpha male, it is protection of the pack from outside threats, and control of the aggressive adolescent males.

The liberalization of divorce laws in the 1960's shifted the balance of power in middle-class homes clearly to the woman of the house. One wrong move, and the man could lose his family, home, and most of his earnings. The pop psychology of the time told us that 'fathers were not needed to raise children', partly to assuage guilt.

Is it not possible that the removal of assertive leadership over teenage males has made some of our social problems worse?