Off licence alcohol purchases - minimum age 21

At last, some small attempt to rein-in the alcoholisation of the young, even if only in Scotland.

Michael White confuses matters by yoking this good horse to a bad one (morning-after pills for the underaged). Nevertheless, I wonder if we might make progress in this direction, as with smoking, but perhaps in a different way. as it's not just the young who have drink problems.

I think availability is a key factor. Imagine having a beer (or other tipple of your choice) tap next to each cold-water tap in the home - who could resist? Yet alcohol is nearly as accessible these days - supermarkets, post offices, even petrol stations. Rather than try to enforce an age limit (another pile of arrest records to write), let's try to remove some of the temptation: let's reduce the number of off-licences.

My preferred solution would be not to renew the liquor licence for a supermarket if there is an alternative outlet within a certain distance. Supermarket shelving has a narrative all its own - and booze is near the end so we can say to ourselves or our partners, "Shall we?" "Go on, then." It's a cunningly-positioned add-on to household shopping, encouraging the potentially dangerous habit of steady home drinking.

No stagnation, but a house price crash

A carefully-reasoned post by "Alice Cook" on UK Housing Bubble concludes that house prices will drop 25% quickly (by the end of next year).

The alternative (house prices stagnate, allowing inflation to achieve the same result more slowly) has become unsustainable because of fears respecting the stability of the banks.

Drink is the curse of the post-working classes

The main change in the structure of capital during this century has been the relative stagnation of industrial capital and the growth of the service sector of the economy. This trend, which has been most marked in the south of England, has had consequences for inner city working class areas: de-industrialisation, mobility of labour, and post-war rehousing policies have combined to dislocate the pattern of community based upon local work and extended families and associated cultural traditions (Cohen, 1972). Population has been decanted to the New Towns, and more generally, to the suburbs, where social life has focussed upon the nuclear family, and the home is increasingly regarded as a place of leisure, recreation and consumption. It is in this context that off-licence sales have become more important. The 1961 Licensing Act relaxed restrictions on the opening of off-licences, and the 1964 Licensing Act facilitated supermarket sales. By the late 1970s, most beer was still sold in public houses, but one third of all wine and half of spirits were consumed at home (Thurman, 1981; 4).

... from Alcohol, Youth, and the State by Nicholas Dorn (RKP, 1983)

Taking on the supermarkets now would be like eradicating the Taliban. Remember how they took on the government and won easily, e.g. in 1991? So much for the rule of law.

Licensing Act 1964 - legal summary
2003 Licensing Act - summary

On the coarsening of British culture

"On what little things does happiness depend!" wrote Oscar Wilde in the Nightingale and the Rose. He was referring to the heartbreak endured by a student who needed to get a red rose to impress a professor's daughter. Actually it turned out that the professor's daughter was a bloody idiot and didn't deserve the red rose that was only secured through the agonising death of a lovely nightingale; he should've just written a request for fellatio on the back of a bus ticket and stuck it to her forehead - and insisted on the return of the ticket.

Thus Russell Brand, in the Guardian newspaper. His louche autobiography is entitled "My Booky Wook", though for some reason he doesn't apply the same baby-linguistic titling approach to his blog or website ("My Blogy... no! No! Career death!"). For there are things these jokers take very, very seriously: banknotes.

The Teflon coating on his deadly bullets of vulgarity is a trifling pretension to verbal and literary sophistication. And it's happening all around, and so very well rewarded.

Of course, the next generation is past TV. So what are your children playing on the Internet? Here's some of the games I've seen ten-year-olds chuckling at in the last fortnight:

Stair Fall
The Torture Game
The Last Stand 2

And as fast as you block these entertainments, new routes to them appear via new game compendium sites. And more and more new games, most of them free of charge.

But the work of psychic corruption must proceed, so we must be inoculated against notions of censorship by tendentious TV biopics of well-meaning moral campaigners like Mary Whitehouse, who was of course not nearly so posh, sophisticated, well-breeched and well-connected as the moguls she took on. So smart are we that she is to be condemned as much for her eyewear as for her lower-middle-class status and dowdy profession (schoolteaching - art and sex education).

I think we must wait for the University rebels of the late Sixties to retire or die before we can start the salvage operation.

In the paper shop

6.30 a.m. today. An elderly man is poring over the pink Lottery result printout in the newsagent's. He's had four numbers come up.

"Drinks are on you, then," I say.

"I've spent £35,000 since the Lottery started, and had five back," he says.

He'd come to the shop at six, having forgotten that it opens at half-past. He thinks he's in the early stages of Alzheimer's.

__________________________________

Here's some lines of comment that could come out of this, but you can easily expand them yourself, I'm sure:

• Mathematics - the Lottery gives back 45% in prizes, but averaging-out could take forever
• What is a Government doing, making gambling so easy and readily available (and it started under the Tories)?
• How much would this man have had, if he'd saved £208 per month since 1994?
• Now that insurance salesmen have disappeared, what has happened to savings among the C2/D classes? Has financial consumer protection (after the pensions mis-selling compensation and regulation bonanza) indirectly impoverished them and made them more dependent on the State?

I expect you can come up with more, and better.

And then there's drink, from allowing supermarkets to sell it along with your groceries, to 24-hour booze licensing.

Are misguided arguments for liberty being used to enslave people to their weaknesses? Should heavily-capitalised businesses be allowed to batten on those flaws?

Oil: back to the Seventies

Found on InflationData.com

Unbidden, The Time Warp came to me (though I had thought the word "shimmy" appeared in the lyrics). And, of course, as usual, the Brits manage to get themselves into a worse pickle:

Found on Mish's.

Fasten your seatbelts

"Chervil" (author of the Australian Green Living blog) has kindly directed me to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which refers to ideas about economic long cycles:

David Hackett Fischer has studied the behaviour and historical meaning of inflation not just over the last decade, or the last century, but over the last 800 years. He sees the world positioned in a dangerous moment of possibility, on the rearing crest of the fourth great wave of inflation in eight centuries.

I would still be grateful for any information about what I shall call "sim economics" - potentially so much more useful than other simulation games.

Anybody able to help, please?

Help required: economic modelling

Following reported opinion from Marc Faber and others that we may expect sell-offs in commodities, bonds, equities and real estate, and given concerns about the quality of our currencies, the question arises, where should we hold our cash?

It seem that in the USA and UK, we are holding down interest rates to avoid crippling homeowners, the home-loan-based economy, and what's left of our industries, and also in the hope that we can repay our debts to foreigners with devalued cash. On the other side, countries like China and Japan seem to be trying to prevent their currencies from appreciating, so as to preserve their trading advantage.

So one party is letting their currencies sink, and the other is trying to stop theirs rising. To this amateur, the world's foreign exchange system looks like a bunch of corks tied to an unchained anchor and flung into the sea. Will the string on the corks hold, or break under the strain, or be abruptly cut?

Is there any computer- or board-game-based model of the world economic system, that might make it clear to me how this wretched thing works?

And how is the ordinary person to save money and preserve its value in real terms, without having to be super-sophisticated? I know something about American TIPS and British NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certifcates, but I'm leery of handing the government what little money they haven't already extracted from me in taxes. And I don't trust them to define inflation fairly.

Does anybody know how this boneshaker of a contraption actually operates, so we can make sensible decisions?

Speaker or silencer?

I now read in The Grumbler that David Davis was prevented by the Speaker of the House of Commons from delivering his resignation speech to the House, and had to go outside the building to say it to journalists instead. Words fail.

What oil hike?

The Mogambo Guru (too long absent from these pages) points out that a major factor in the increase in the price of oil, is simply the decline in the dollar. We here in the UK don't see it, because the pound is staring the dollar in the eye as both go screaming parachuteless towards the ground.

At least Richard Daughty is one who will not go gentle into that good night.

Now, isn't this what happened in the Seventies? Only we were conned into thinking it was down to wicked Arabs, when really the story was increased monetary inflation for some years pre-1974.

Marc Faber, cash and Cambodia

I said on Monday that Marc Faber was, by and large, in favour of keeping his money in his pocket, and a quick Google News trawl shows that his mind hasn't changed:

Stocks, Real Estate and Oil Are Overvalued, Marc Faber Says

Why rising inflation will trigger a bond market rout

Cambodia Starts to Beckon Private Equity
For investors, Cambodia could be the next Vietnam

The last is interesting. I have suspected for some time that Dr Faber lives in northern Thailand, not simply to hide in Shangri-La but to be nearer to the places where real bargains may be found, and so that his hunches can be informed by personal networking and under-the-radar experience. Quirky and fast-moving, he would not be the man to manage a large institutional fund: I think his lightning ex-ski champ reflexes demand more challenge.

An after-thought: if you do think cash is best, there's still the question of which currency.

Is it OK to have principles?

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigns his Parliamentary seat to fight a by-election on the issue of civil liberty in Britain, and Michael White in the Guardian plays the sneering curmudgeon; parti pris?

UPDATE

Someone put the text of Mr Davis' speech as a comment to Michael White's piece. Here are a couple of extracts:

This Counter Terrorism Bill will in all likelihood be rejected by the House of Lords... But because the impetus behind it is political, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act...
It has no democratic mandate to do this...

... I am just a piece in this chess game.

Folly? Vanity? My eye (and Betty Martin).

Are free trade and small government the answer?

Liberal economists argue consistently for free trade, libertarians argue constantly for smaller government. We can easily see the faults of over-regulation and the centralisation of power.

But what would happen to the poorest if we really did move towards laissez-faire capitalism? I don't mean the poor in India and China, who are currently benefiting from open markets; I mean the poorest in the USA and UK. Would things really sort themselves out to the good of all?

Or would we find that we'd leapt from the frying pan into the fire?

An appetite for investment risk?

How does the quote from Jonathan Wilmot in the previous post sit with the new Risk Appetite Investable Index fund his firm launched last month?

Just curious.

Cashhhhhhh... don't tell anybody

"There is now the distinct possibility of a simultaneous sell-off in global bonds, equities and commodities," said Jonathan Wilmot from Credit Suisse.

... reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (I must start to read the big-words papers). Anyhow, this is what Marc Faber said months ago. Short-term, I have a feeling DE is still on for the 'flation hors d'oeuvre, with IN as the entree.

By the way, are any managers of collective investment funds actually saying the type of thing Wilmot is saying, to their clients (not the big, favoured ones, the others, the Moms 'n' Pops)?

(htp: Karl Denninger)

Please read this man

David Parsley writes in today's Sunday Express, a piece titled "Homes Panic Is A Bank Ploy" (not yet available on the Net for free, but look for it again soon). The content is self-evident, but please, read and believe him. Spread the word. Find more such pieces by optimistic counter-contrarians, and publicise them. Blow away all that negative thinking.

That way, I may have more time to sell my house at current ridiculous market prices, which for personal reasons I can't yet.

Does State expenditure inflate the market?

Charles Moore comments on Jonathan Ross' £18m 3-year deal with the BBC:

... even if it is a wonderful idea to pay Mr Ross roughly 30 times more (annualised) than the Prime Minister and 20 times more than the Governor of the Bank of England out of what is, after all, tax, it is obvious rubbish that this does not push up the market. If the BBC were not competing in this field, Mr Ross’s price to commercial channels would plummet.

Deplorably, Mr Ross is unbelievably coarse, which sends a message to his (relatively) young audience. Peter Hitchens suspects that this crassness is a cynically avaricious pretence:

Ross talks on TV in an arrogant sort of loutspeak.

I wonder if he talks like that when he’s dealing with his lawyers and his accountants.

Now that would be a fly-on-the-wall documentary to screen next to Ross' show.

So, celeb wages inflated and manners undermined by spendthrift public services.

Meanwhile, Liz Jones takes a very laudable interest in the young, especially those rotting away in the complex trap of social security benefits. And again, a market may be distorted by public money:

Her room is damp, sparsely furnished, has a stinking, threadbare carpet, and Paris mostly sits on her bed, terrified to walk to the shared bathroom in case one of the boys who slouches around outside harasses her.

Drugs are dealt openly in the corridors. Each week, ‘the council’ (I’ve never heard her use the words ‘government’, ‘Labour’ or ‘Gordon Brown’) pays the £330 rent (yes, that is £1,430 a month, more than my mortgage repayments) for her box room direct to the private landlord; on top of that, Paris is given £47 a week to live on.

That is, she was, until the council got wind she had got off her backside and found a job, just three days a week, in a clothes shop in Oxford Street (she would have loved, she told me once, to have been a fashion designer).

Although her pay is less than her rent, she has been bombarded with letters and forms, too complicated for anyone, let alone someone with dyslexia, to fill in, demanding six months’ back rent.

She is now being threatened with eviction.

The negative reinforcement is too obvious to summarise, but look at this young girl's rent as a proportion of her total "income": 87.5%!

Compare that with this, from the Guardian in December 2007:

The CML said a typical first-time buyer paid 20.6% of their income to service their mortgage in October, up from 20.4% in September, while for those moving house it rose to 17.6% from 17.5%. The figures are the highest recorded since 1991 and 1992.

There are now very many people (about 4 million) on some form of housing benefit. Is it not possible that rents, and consequently housing valuations, have been grossly distorted by such interventions? Isn't there some other way to house people without creating opportunities for modern Rachman types?

For the record - a British MP speaking in Parliament on the EU's legislative control of the UK

From Hansard's records of Parliamentary debates (click title above for link) (htp: Peter Hitchens in the Mail On Sunday newspaper):

3 Jun 2008 : Column 644
Members of Parliament (Pay and Responsibilities)
3.35 pm

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities. If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs’ pay is assessed.

This issue is important because Parliament is considering transferring a significant slice of its powers on energy, foreign policy, immigration and several other areas to European institutions under the Lisbon treaty. A substantial transfer of powers has already occurred under previous treaties, and this House has ceded powers on a lesser scale to devolved Parliaments and to the judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998. The German Government estimate that more than 80 per cent. of German laws are now decided at a European level. Our own Trade Minister has admitted that

“around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2006; Vol. 683, c. WA184.]

I have heard hon. Members claim that only 10 per cent. of our laws are made in Brussels—a figure that they attribute to a Library paper, but that paper says no such thing. It remarks that the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 amounts to about 10 per cent. of all the statutory instruments passed by the House, but points out that EU statutory instruments typically enact a whole directive, which is often the equivalent of an Act of primary legislation, whereas domestic statutory instruments implement regulations. To compare the two is like comparing apples and pears, or rather pumpkins and pears given the disparity in their size. It also ignores the most plentiful fruit that comes from the European orchard—regulations, most of which are never considered by this House and which hon. Members find difficult even to obtain.

The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions. Even that huge tally ignores the extent to which our powers are diminished by our inability to do things that we would like to do because they would conflict with European law. When I was a Minister, officials would frequently say, “No, Minister, you can’t do that”, because something was within the exclusive competence of the European Union.

If the Lisbon treaty goes through, a further salami slice of powers will be transferred to the European institutions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who served with distinction on the European constitutional convention and who knows more about the implications of the Lisbon treaty than almost anyone else in the House, except for my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), recently told the Fabian Society:
“If the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and devolution...continues apace, in fifteen to twenty years this House of Commons will have only two functions...to raise taxes and...to authorise war”.
She went on to say that we are making “fewer and fewer decisions that matter” to people’s daily lives, and that she could not tell her constituents that the buck stops here.

Admittedly, declaring wars kept Parliament pretty busy under the previous Prime Minister, as does raising taxes under the current incumbent of No. 10. However, our constituents want us to wage fewer wars, raise fewer taxes and focus on the huge range of issues that affect their daily lives, over which they assume and hope that we retain the powers that they pay us to exercise on their behalf.

Few voters, or even Members of this House, fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this. The first is that Governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred. The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive, they behave as though the initiative were their own.
Indeed, Ministers often end up nobly accepting responsibility for laws that they actually opposed when they were being negotiated in Brussels. They took the rap for costly and troublesome home improvement packs—which have added to the woes of the housing market—even though they were actually mandated by a Brussels directive. Similarly, they took the rap for fortnightly bin collections, hospital reconfiguration and a number of other measures, even though they had all been triggered by directives from Brussels. At first sight, it is odd that Ministers—who, in this Government, are not normally slow to blame others—should nobly defend and accept responsibility for Brussels’ legislative progeny, in whose conception they have often played little part. They prefer to claim paternity rather than admit impotence—the fate of the cuckold across the ages.

The third reason is that the transfer of power occurs not all in one go but by a process of salami-slicing, and it is easy to close our eyes to what is happening. As a result, there is a danger of Parliament sleepwalking into becoming little more than a provincial assembly. If that is what is happening, we should be paid accordingly—just as district councillors get less than county councillors, and county councillors get less than Members of the devolved Assemblies.

I do not have a masochistic desire to see MPs’ pay cut, but I want still less to see our powers diminish. The best way to prevent the latter might be to link pay to responsibilities. I do not know any Member of Parliament who entered Parliament to become financially better off. None the less, just as the prospect of being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully, so the prospect of finding our pockets a bit emptier at the end of the month—and having to justify that to our spouses—might wake up those who have shut their eyes to what is happening. If we do not face up to what is happening, we will find ourselves being progressively relegated to what Bagehot called the dignified part of the constitution. As Tony Benn once rhetorically asked:
“I wonder how long it took for the yeomen of the guard to realise that they were no longer part of the regular army.”

My Bill is designed to provide a wake-up call whenever we risk going further down that route, although I accept that it has little chance of becoming law in this Parliament. Those who support the transfer of power from here to supranational institutions should logically accept that our pay should reflect the diminution of our responsibilities. But, strangely, all the Euro-enthusiasts whom I asked to sponsor the Bill declined to do so without explaining why. Too many Members are happy to avert their eyes from what is happening, so long as they retain the prestige and emoluments that were appropriate to a fully sovereign Parliament. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

If any Labour Members oppose the Bill, I hope that they will come out and object to it here and now, rather than trying to dispose of it by subterfuge one Friday morning. I look forward to hearing them argue for having their cake and eating it. I doubt that they would convince many of their constituents that, unlike any in other occupation, MPs’ pay should be divorced from their responsibilities.

Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): We have just heard a witty and amusing speech. I was not aware that this issue was going to be raised today, but I was sitting in the Chamber listening to Transport questions and suddenly the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rose to his feet and made this proposal. He said that he had asked a number of Euro-enthusiasts to back his Bill; I regard myself as a Euro-enthusiast, but he did not ask me. Had he done so, he would have given me advance notice that he was going to make this nonsensical proposal, and I would have been able to prepare a better speech. However, I shall certainly try to rise to the challenge that he has thrown across the Chamber.

The right hon. Gentleman argues that the volume of legislation to be considered by the House will decline as more and more powers are passed across to the European Parliament, but he knows as well as any other Member that the volume of legislation considered by this House continues to increase year by year. We have never suggested that that is an argument for increasing Members’ pay pro rata—

Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): That is a good idea.

Hugh Bayley: I note what my hon. Friend says. Nor should the passing of some legislative powers from this House to Europe be an argument for moving in the opposite direction.
I must say seriously to Members of the House that I do not think that the European Union provides a good model for the remuneration of Members of Parliament. I have just checked with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is a sponsor of the Bill and well versed in EU matters, and she tells me that EU spend is about 0.5 per cent. of EU wealth. The spend of our national Government is probably about 40 per cent. of our national wealth, which is 50 or 60 times as much as the EU spend.

If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that there is a serious transfer of financial responsibility from the House to Europe, that is just not based on fact. The Lisbon treaty not only does not change that fact, but it delegates some powers back to national Parliaments. The public want to see more information about MPs’ pay and allowances, but they would get less information if our pay was tied into and buried under bureaucracy from Europe. Surprisingly to my way of thinking, the Bill is proposed by a staunch opponent of Europe whom I would have thought could see that point himself.

The right hon. Gentleman is making a political point about Europe, not a serious proposal for greater transparency in the pay of Members of Parliament and greater accountability to the public for Members of this Parliament. I hope that the Bill does not receive its First Reading.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Redwood, Ms Gisela Stuart and Mr. Charles Walker.
Members of Parliament (pay and Responsibilities)
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to require the Senior Salaries Review Body to take account of transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions when making recommendations on the pay of Members of Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 113].

Stock up your larder

Reading "The Grumbler" today, I was struck by Rosie Boycott's article on our vulnerability to oil and food shortages, particularly now that so much of our food supply is dependent on the supermarkets' just-in-time logistics.

I believe the Mormons have a rule that members of their church must have 12 months' security set up for their families - I remember an old colour supplement article with a picture of a Mormon sitting on a year's supply of baked beans. Doesn't seem so daft now - and it's worth remembering why landlocked Utah is the Seagull State.

More generally, there is now a feeling that the government has failed to prepare for material and financial shocks. Genesis 41 has been obscurely referenced by George Osborne ("Our competitors used the fat years to prepare for the lean years"), though back in 2002 Treasury Committee member Dr Nick Palmer was using the same analogy, but in Gordon Brown's favour ("in the first years [Gordon Brown] repaid a lot of government debt so as to give us a really strong basis for difficult times as and when they arose").

On the financial front, I think the government cracked in 2003, when extra liquidity (simplified graph here) began to be released into the system, over-hydrating the housing market. Radix malorum est cupiditas, and that applies here if you interpret "cupiditas" in the general sense of over-attachment to worldly things, especially to power and its accompaniments.

Buffett eyes Europe

A most interesting article by Matthew Lynn in this week's Spectator. It's certainly worth reading in full, but here's a few points and questions arising:

• Buffett's got $35 billion in cash to go a-shopping, and thinks Europe is more promising than the emerging markets - partly because Europe is already in recession.
• Have European companies endured because many have remained family-owned? Is the Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism too erratic and destructive?
• How important are hunches in investing? Lynn says, "Buffett doesn’t believe in extended due diligence or complex financial models. He chooses his investments based on what he feels about the people in charge, and whether he likes their products." And recently, George Soros said that for all his research, he pays attention to his own psychosomatic backaches.
• How much vital business information is conveyed - or betrayed - by tone of voice and body language? Mark McCormack said that he liked to go to meetings on his own, so that he wouldn't have to worry about unconscious non-verbal signals given away by an underling's reactions. For the same reason, he loved the opposition to come with company. Is the most important bit of investment reserach the site visit?

How many trillions?

A while ago, the pessimistic figure being discussed was $1 trillion of losses; yesterday the FT looked at the prospect of $5 trillion of liabilities emerging from off-balance obscurity, to lurch back onto already-weak bank balance sheets.

There comes a point when it gets so dire it starts to become funny. Ah well, time to clean house.

A splendid rant

Karl Denninger lays all about him vigorously today. Where are the Brit bloggers to match him? Any nominations for UK financial Jeremiah of the Year?

Democracy - a cut flower

I think we are not a democracy, but a competing selection of complex oligarchies with a mechanism for periodic bloodless overthrow.

I put the above comment about the British system on the ever-elegant Angels in Marble. Is it too cynical?

What does democracy mean here? What should it be like?

Is democracy the best system, or should we turn to authoritarianism, which seems to be working for the Russians and Chinese, as an increasing number of opinion-formers seem to be suggesting?

Is that happening anyway? Are the people watching the bottom rung of the ladder of power rise out of reach?

Why interest rates should increase - and (IMO) probably won't

Hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, East European and other emerging market workers and many millions of enterprises have entered the global marketplace as suppliers of goods and services that are competitive with those produced by the UK (so-called "core" goods and services) and as demanders of commodities, especially energy, metals and food (so-called "non-core" goods). As a result, the price of energy, food, metals and other commodities, relative to that of manufactures and services, has risen.

Willem Buiter gives a beautifully clear and concise view of the factors affecting inflation and argues for an increase in lending rates.

But the hard, narrow path upward is often avoided, especially in "democracies" where the governing party feels its hold on power slipping.

Besides, a depreciating pound is helping maintain orders for what remains of our manufacturing industry. Why halt the pound's fall?

Maybe we should start doing our FTSE charts in Euros, so we can see the real effect of rotting currency. Like Alice and the Red Queen, when the stockmarkets stand still, they are actually falling back, once you price them against the rest of the world's money.

I note that Mish used the Red Queen's Race analogy two years ago, and presciently outlined the monetary and economic dilemma for the USA - and, I suspect, the UK:

Bernanke is trapped in "Wonderland" but unlike Alice has no way out.Bernanke gets to choose between hyperinflation and deflation. The moment he can not run fast enough, the US economy will implode. If he runs too fast, the value of the US dollar as well as the FED's power will both come to a very abrupt stop.

A long way to go yet

Equities are not cheap enough and need to decline by at least 50 percent.

These and other observations recently from Morgan Stanley's Teun Draaisma are reported here in FT Alphaville.

The return of the gods

I perceive a theme in public opinion these days, regarding democracy. Taki has a piece in the Spectator this week, saying that even in ancient Greece it was empire and aristocracy. Highly intelligent professionals like Don Boudreaux boast of their refusal to vote. It seems that people think the system will continue to run more or less for our benefit, even if we take no part in it; just as your local shop will always be there, even though you very rarely patronise it.

Yes, rule us as you wish, as long as our kettles and TVs work, as long as there is petrol for our cars and the trains run on time. What we want is broth for our bellies, now, like Esau.

We may have to re-learn our lessons the hard way, as Kipling warned... and Cavafy:

Without consideration, without pity, without shame
they have built big and high walls around me.

And now I sit here despairing.
I think of nothing else: this fate gnaws at my mind;

for I had many things to do outside.
Ah, why didn’t I observe them when they were building the walls?

But I never heard the noise or the sound of the builders.
Imperceptibly they shut me out of the world.

Oil speculation?

Pace Nick Drew's comment on the previous post, Jim in San Marcos reckons there is indeed influential speculation in the oil market.

But Karl Denninger reckons it's just money looking for a home, like the boll weevil, and ultimately deflation caused by credit writedowns should reverse the trend.

The Oil Controversy

Tom Bower pooh-poohs "Peak Oil" claims in the Daily Mail, saying there's several times more to come out of the ground than has ever yet been extracted. His book on the subject is due out soon.

I should like to see what energy commentators like Nick Drew wish to say to this. From what I've read, remaining oil stocks are likely to be of lesser quality and will cost far more to extract than God's gift to the Saudis (which, I understand, is already being exploited at a rate that is damaging the field).

Granted, oil is massively over-taxed. Americans would head for their gun rooms if they had to pay £5 a gallon.

Meanwhile, the FTSE continues to float cheerily above 6,000 and the Dow above 12,000 - for how much longer?

It's going to be bad...

Mike Morgan, quoted in Mish's, is now convinced that we are headed for outright economic depression. Builders, banks and the rest of us are going to be hit very hard. This is, of course, the view of a real-estate expert in Florida, but he sees this as hitting the whole country.

We in the UK will not be immune from the general economic malaise to follow, even if unregulated immigration and a slower past housebuilding program help keep our housing assets from falling quite so far.

Any room for dissent?

I was listening to BBC Radio 4's "Any Questions?". The first audience question was on China's "media-savvy" handling of the Szechuan earthquake.

And with a disgraceful click, the supposedly diverse panel closed ranks behind China, despite some attempt by the chairman to generate at least a little debate. We heard that we have been indulging in "China-bashing" lately, and now that this earthquake has happened, we should stop all this nonsense about China's human rights and/or ecological violations.

I began to wonder whether there might be some business and party-political interests to declare, for I've rarely heard such a combination of unanimity and superficial reasoning. The message seemed to be, "Stop talking about Tibet, look at this crisis instead."

That's imposing a false perspective. China's own news media currently reckon the death toll from this terrible quake to be under 29,000; but "According to various estimates, up to 1.2 million Tibetans have died due to the Chinese occupation and various political campaigns since the Dalai Lama fled his homeland in March 1959." So in cold mathematical terms, Tibet has suffered a death toll 40 times as great - and far more avoidable. Why should a recent misfortune be the pretext for ignoring a long-standing injustice?

And as for rubbishing ecological concerns, there will come a time (and quite soon) when we have forgotten in which year this quake happened, but we will be dealing with the multifarious fallout of China's economic, demographic and ecological problems. For China is a distressed giant thrashing about in the small house of this world.

China's population last year was estimated at about 1.3 billion, and in the next ten years or so is expected to increase by maybe another 100 million. Over the last 60 years, life expectancy has more than doubled and infant mortality has reduced. So despite the one-child-per-family policy (not universally applied in China), the population continues to grow.

And, as time goes by, it is becoming a demographically unbalanced population. Thanks to the preference for sons, there is a disparity between male and female. Should China decide to become warlike in the conventional manner, she will have an almost limitless supply of expendable single men. (Meanwhile, Russia's population threatens to decline to such a degree that reversing the trend was "a key subject of Vladimir Putin's 2006 state of the nation address".)

Less frightening for us, but surely very worrying for the Chinese, must be the growing imbalance of numbers between young and old. Imagine a young Chinese couple who have their one child, but face supporting four elderly parents. And when that child grows up, perhaps up to 6 parents-cum-grandparents (up to 12, after marriage). And the healthcare costs!

And with a smaller proportion of girls surviving to breeding age, the demographic waist will be pinched further. Perhaps the one-child policy will eventually be abandoned.

Meanwhile, China's burgeoning populace must be fed, but how? Changes in diet and the progressive loss of arable land, and reducing yields from such land as is still fertile, have been a serious concern for a long time (see e.g. here).

Then there's the demand for water, and energy, and how to have breathable air while exploiting China's giant coal reserves and rapidly expanding heavy industry.

It's far too simple to make China into a villainess, but she faces enormous difficulties on the road away from her past abject poverty and suffering. These translate into mighty pressures that the rest of the world will feel. We must find a way to assist China in the solution of her problems - but self-censoring discussion of her external relations will not help us find realistic answers.

Check your bank deposit security

A cautionary story from Michael Panzner here. An American nearly lost most/all of $400,000 deposited with his bank, despite taking great care to set up the account in a way that brought it under the FDIC deposit protection scheme.

An intriguing detail is the reluctance of the bank to let the account be titled appropriately - failure to do which could have cancelled the FDIC protection. Another, is the bank's reluctant and misleading response when the depositor tried to exercise his right to withdraw his cash.

And the $15,000 interest was lost, anyway.

Where is your account? Make sure it's not dead money.

Oops

For more detail and comment, see Karl Denninger.

The sky is dark, wings are flapping

Some, like Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek, call the doomsters Chicken Little. Well, many Chicken Littles make a Chicken Big, and she's coming home to roost. Or maybe the pessimists are all wrong, and everybody will live happily ever after. At least, everyone who matters.

Karl Denninger notes that in both the US and Japan, there are moves to force full disclosure of the banks' poor-grade assets; Jim in San Marcos reprises some observations of what happens when mutual funds (collective investments) are told by worried investors to "switch to cash" or simply pay out.

Look out for a hole in the henhouse roof, and a cloud of feathers.

Nationalism and internationalism

"James Higham" joins his voice to those who detect a revival of the nationalist spirit.

I don't think nationalism will be confined to losers in the game, or rejected by those who claim to love all mankind. Once there was Bukharin/Stalin's "Socialism in one country"; soon it'll be "China first". I can't blame the latter - they have worked so hard for what they've got, and won't understand why we think we can whinge it all back from them.

Speaking as the man in the street, my perception is that we have had a long period in which global businesses and a carpetbagging international managerial class developed and made fortunes. The liberal economists say this system is great for all of us, and should stay that way; perhaps so, if we had honest money and sound national budgets, so the correction mechanisms could steer the course of international trade more steadily.

But thanks to criminal negligence, incompetence and greed by those who could have maintained the integrity of the economic system, I think the aspirant working class and lower middle class in the developed world are paying heavily, and will pay more heavily. As they give up on their aspirations, we shall see a ballooning underclass, increasing the drag on national economic performance; but the situation may prove impossible to change for electoral reasons in a sort-of-democracy. The gap between rich and poor in our countries has widened, but will widen further: "Devil take the hindmost."

At the same time, on both sides of the Atlantic, people suspect a sell-out by the political class, which is intertwined (professionally and often maritally, or extra-maritally) with the business, media and public relations people. I have often said that I think we are seeing the reconstruction of the aristocracy in Europe. Many Americans also fear that their society is moving away from its historic and constitutional foundations.

The implications for democracy, social cohesion and international relations are worrying.

Bust - or false boom and mega-bust?

Ron Paul and others discuss the state of the American economy here. Don Boudreaux (the economist who writes the Cafe Hayek blog) agrees with Ron Paul that the central bank should stop "doing something".

This also chimes with what Marc Faber said last year: the crisis should be allowed to burn through and take out some of the players. Of course, those who are in a position to "allow", are part of the club that includes the players, and there's the rub.

Still room for wonder

Just watched Patrick Moore's "Sky at Night" programme - number 666 in the series - and been fascinated by how much we still haven't firmly established, in fact we're conjuring up theoretical matter and energy that dwarf everything we can directly observe.

It's a little early but the programme should soon appear online here.

UPDATE - now online here (requires RealPlayer to view).

Quote of the day

This global credit bust is going to astound practically everyone, including the bears.

says Mish, daringly criticising Warren Buffett, who has declared a $billion-plus loss on short bets in the market.

The system does not care

Please read this - and pass it on. More and more, the services of the State seem to serve only as a way to employ people, not to achieve.

Not all the individuals can be blamed - you can lose your job for going beyond your brief, or shortcutting protocol.

But don't expect a pantomime horse to win the Derby, and don't expect compassion and commitment from these reified functions that we used to perform for ourselves.

Maybe only embarrassment will make a difference. Please pass on the link to Callum's site.

http://calumcarr.blogspot.com/2008/05/those-who-read-yesterdays-post-nhs-mega.html

Brummies

James Higham writes how the nation likes to look down on the humble Brummie. Having lived here for over 30 years, I should like to say something in reply, as no doubt he knew I would:

First, I think the affected contempt for Brummies is a displaced scorn for industrial labour perhaps impermissible to express so baldly in relation to Yorkshiremen and Lancastrians. Imagine such contempt shown for miners!

This is not universal: German engineers put Ing. in front of their names, and may have a kudos similar to that of the medical profession; but British engineers are treated with patrician condescension. Think squaddies in oil-stained Khakis. No place for officers there.

Or picture Repton-educated (though expelled) Jeremy Clarkson, cheerfully displaying his ignorance as he drives the latest wonder constructed by "four blokes bashing metal in an industrial unit". Decades of regarding going into industry as the wooden spoon in life's competition, has brought Britain to our current sorry pass.

Thickos associated with Birmingham include Matthew Boulton, James Brindley, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, JRR Tolkien, John Baskerville, Sir Edward Burne-Jones etc.

But mostly, Birmingham was too busy making its own and the nation's prosperity - the "cheap tin trays" of Masefield's "Cargoes". Ugh, the proles. Who also made the chain, the anchors, the presses, the lathes and so on that liberated us from guarding sheep as we read our Bibles with frozen fingers.

There may be a London-centric jealousy because Birmingham is not Britain's Second City, but, technically speaking, its first in geographical area and population. It is the largest local authority by a country mile (the "Mayor of London" controls a larger budget, but that "London" is an sort of urban conglomeration imprecisely related to the City of London, the surrounding boroughs, and other local authorities in the greater metropolitan area).

As to accents, few outsiders could pass for Brummies. Attempts to imitate the accent usually sound like a Scouser being strangled; and what is often thought of as a Brummie accent (say, Timothy Spall's Barry in "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet", or Julie Walters' Mrs Overall in "Acorn Antiques") is more like West Bromwich.

The Black Country abounds in accents; when I first came to Birmingham a Black Country-born history teacher told me that it was once possible to identify by his speech not only the village of the interlocutor, but sometimes even his street.

My personal preference is Sedgley, an exceptionally musical tone. Their pronunciation of the word "flowers" makes me think there must indeed have been a Golden Age in which men sang rather than spoke.

The newt got up and slowly walked away

I didn't think it plausible.

Pay up, or default

Karl Denninger says it's time to settle accounts. Here's his estimate of the tab:

We have recognized $300 billion of losses but it has all been derivative loss. The $2.5-$3 trillion in credit loss from housing is still to come, plus all the credit card and other debt that cannot be paid down, likely a couple hundred billion more - at best.

= c. 20% of US GDP.

The system is now out of control

Recently I seem to be an annexe for Karl Denninger's blog, but that's the way it is. Here he figures that public and private debt in the US are so massive that with an average 8% interest rate, debt servicing is now equivalent to 22.4% of GDP. He thinks the system must soon explode and those holding cash will be safest.

The pocket calculator reveals the truth

A spendidly indignant Karl Denninger explains how the $600 "stimulus cheque" sent to American taxpayers will be more - much, much more - than paid for, by higher borrowing costs.

Where are the forthright Cassandras on this side of the Atlantic? Are they silent because nobody here believes in our country?

The "little hand-mill"

Official figures going back to 1963 show that bank lending has NEVER stopped increasing.

Lowest: 1.1% annualised, for the quarter ending 31 December 1966.
Highest: 44.9% annualised, for the quarter ending 30 June 1972.

Median: 11.9%
Mean: 13.45%

Is it my imagination, or does the graph spike regularly before stockmarket crashes and recessions?

Original BoE data here.

In the late 60s, my school magazine carried a major bank's advert, for 16-year-old school leavers to join them. I aimed at a degree instead. Perhaps I'd have chosen differently if the ad had read "39 thieves looking to recruit trainee".

Do recessions lead to inflation?

Robert Murphy thinks so, and produces a graph that to him suggests prices go up during a recession, not down:

However, this picture suggests to me that recessions follow periods of higher inflation, and maybe where that inflation continues during the recession, it could be put down to a sort of residual momentum. Why should prices fall at precisely the moment the NBER says a recession has started? Even a cut flower will maintain its bloom for a while.

On the other hand, it seems clear from the above graph that prices do generally seem to fall after a recession. Perhaps this is because of the recently reinforced lesson about thrift, so people become less keen to spend too much on stuff they don't need.

But it's also possible that the recession has cleansed certain inefficiencies in the use of capital - businesses that should have folded faster - and as that capital gets better employed elsewhere, it does its work of improving productivity.

Which it needs to, when people have become more cost-conscious. I recall reading about an American who found a way to sell dresses for a dollar in the Great Depression - he used a machine to stamp out the outline of 100 at a time, so only the machine sewing was needed, not the measuring and cutting. So it was still possible to buy a dress for your sweetheart when money was tight.

But the little hand-mill of monetary inflation continues to grind...

Tibet and China: clash of cultures

I’d long been interested in Tibet and had a romantic vision of the Land of Snows, but I’d never been there. Now I learned that the Tibetans have a different way of seeing the world. My classmates were Buddhist and had a strong faith, which inspired me to reflect on my own views about the meaning of life. I had been a materialist, as all Chinese are taught to be, but now I could see that there’s something more, that there’s a spiritual side to life.

[...]

The Chinese protesters thought that, being Chinese, I should be on their side. The participants on the Tibet side were mostly Americans, who really don’t have a good understanding of how complex the situation is. Truthfully, both sides were being quite closed-minded and refusing to consider the other’s perspective. I thought I could help try to turn a shouting match into an exchange of ideas. So I stood in the middle and urged both sides to come together in peace and mutual respect. I believe that they have a lot in common and many more similarities than differences.

But the Chinese protesters — who were much more numerous, maybe 100 or more — got increasingly emotional and vocal and wouldn’t let the other side speak. They pushed the small Tibetan group of just a dozen or so up against the Duke Chapel doors, yelling “Liars, liars, liars!” This upset me. It was so aggressive, and all Chinese know the moral injunction: Junzi dongkou, bu dongshou (The wise person uses his tongue, not his fists).

Read the rest of Grace Wang's Washington Post article here.

GloomBoomZoom vs. GloomBoomDoom

Not only do we have the Great Debate about 'flation (In- vs. De-), but selective quotation can make the same expert give evidence for both sides.

Here it looks as though Dr Marc Faber is expecting inflation:

Dr Marc Faber has argued that even in the United States, where property prices are in decline, in an environment of high inflation he would rather own a US$1 million home than hold the same amount of cash or bonds, because the house would better preserve value.

... but here, its extreme opposite:

The view Marc is putting forward is the opposite one - that deflation will be the clear winner, dragging the whole world economy into a slump, with lower prices for commodities as well as stocks and property...

...In a real downturn, the United States (and other developed nations) would stop importing so much oil...and so much merchandise from China, which would have the consequence of reducing energy consumption by China too. Result: lower energy prices and a worldwide recession...maybe even the worst worldwide depression in history.

I think the giveaway in the first, is in the qualifying phrase "in an environment of high inflation". All I've read so far about Marc Faber indicates that his real position is represented by the second.

In my (amateur?) view, we're heading for a bust, and unless it can be avoided (which would be wonderful news), then the sooner, the better. Ideally, it would have happened in 2000 - in fact, it did, but we then got the reckless monetary reflation of 2003-2007.

Why soon? Because the longer it goes on, the more the transfer of productive capacity to the Far East, so that when recovery comes, we in the West won't be equipped to restart.

Empathy test - infallible

Off topic

Cure, effect, cause

A paper from the Levy Economics Institute is arguing (at least theoretically) for an extra US fiscal stimulus of 4% of GDP. That's $600 billion.

The authors say that the effect would be better if this reflation came in the form of additional direct government spending, though they acknowledge that it still wouldn't immediately halt the economic decline:

It is somewhat discouraging to see that even a relatively large stimulus plan will fail to prevent a substantial loss of output. But over the medium term, as the devaluation of the dollar and reduced spending begin to exert a moderating effect on the current account deficit, foreign trade will boost output and employment, providing the impetus for renewed growth.

Karl Denninger begs to differ (though in his case, he's still talking about transfers of money, rather than direct government expenditure):

But now we have reached the point where we need $5 in debt to create $1 worth of GDP. As debt levels rise this ratio goes parabolic and ultimately becomes impossible to sustain. That we have reached a 5:1 ratio means that the game is basically up, and the rapidly rising rate of defaults across all areas of consumer debt mean that this "engine" to fuel "growth" simply can't find any more fuel, despite the desires of the bankers and merchants to "make it so."

The Levy paper has echoes of FDR's 30s rescue, but Denninger is more concerned to compare the present mortgage bubble with the one that led to the Crash of '29:

...we've done this before... We saw, in fact, nearly the exact same pattern of practice, fraud and theft that were featured in the housing bubble during the years just before The Depression, and those "standards" in fact were a primary causative factor OF The Depression!

So maybe both parties are correct.




It's also possible that the Uk has got it wrong even worse than Uncle Sam. $600 bn is about £300 bn sterling, but adjusted for relative population size that's only equivalent to £60 bn pumped into the UK economy. We're already talking about a possible £100 bn-worth of mortgage garbage being swapped by HMG for government bonds - and our current fussing over Gordon Brown's crumbling reputation suggests that Prudence wouldn't dare try to reflate with even more direct government spending.

Besides, we are starting with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than the USA, a State that consumes a bigger proportion of the economy, and a populace that suffers a significantly lower level of personal income on a Purchasing Power Parity basis.

Maybe that's why the pound is matching the dollar in its downward trajectory, and may even overtake it.

I've been wondering recently whether the ordinary investor of the future will be more interested to play in the foreign exchange markets, rather than stocks whose value is lied about, manipulated by rumour and sovereign wealth funds, and nibbled half to death by fees, commissions, taxes and inflation.

UPDATE - Karl Denninger is emphatic that it can't work:

Sack, no.

You can't spend $600 billion in deficits without it coming back SOMEWHERE.

Government spending is not a net positive. You can't only get to a net positive via growth in GDP.

Debt-initiated spending only returns $1 for every $5 taken on in debt.

Mortgage bond re-rating: reversing the rescue?

Karl Denninger notes that Moody's have re-rated previously "AAA" packaged mortgage products, and points out that since the Federal Reserve only accepts AAA, it may be forced to send much of this stuff back and demand better collateral. The banks' headache returns.

Second blow

TV ad tonight: Woolworths children's jeans £2. I said, you wouldn't have got a zip for £2 a few years ago. (So many Birmingham kids I used to teach years ago thought school didn't matter, they'd be getting a job at Tucker Fasteners anyway. That or Lucas' - now joining the list of nostalgia subjects.)

Then a thought: when the recession really bites, the price war will be unrestrained. I don't know what is still manufactured in Britain, but in the second phase, when the poor become acutely cost-conscious, I can't see domestic manufacturers staying in business.

Of course, with social benefits still generous, we're not there yet (they're still buying their kids Xboxes and Lacoste trainers, while SoSecurity lay on taxis to take the tearaways to school-for-the-expelled); but wait for the tax and benefit reviews when public finances finally unravel.

And if I ever do get another new car (the Fiat Brava is kept going on a radiator refill every Saturday), maybe it's the Tata Nano for me.

I'm looking at checkmate and trying not to believe it. But that's my problem; the difference between Western waster education and Chinese school is too clear. And we'll be a sort of nationwide museum of once-were-workers. But I don't want to live in the past.

Quality down, as well as prices up

Good article in iTulip about the symptoms of inflation to watch out for.

£50 billion liquidity injection - what does it mean?

£50 000 in £50 notes weighs about 1.3kg. So £50 bn = 1,300 tonnes, or 1,279.46 British long tons, of paper.

In 1936, the Aga Khan was presented with his weight in gold, then 220 lb, or c. 100 kg. Gold currently sells for £14,891.58 per kilo, making the Aga Khan's weight in gold worth £1.49 million in today's prices. However, 100 kg of £50 notes is worth £3.85 million. The £50 notes would weigh as much as 13,027 Aga Khans, but would be worth 33,576"gold-priced Aga Khans".

Or, in pre-crash property terms: it is reported that Sheikh Hamad paid £100 million last year for a penthouse overlooking Hyde Park. Mervyn King has just pledged 500 "Hamads" (or over 700 "Updown Courts", if you prefer).

Or, in height terms:

1 ream of paper (500 sheets) is 5.4 cm thick. So 1 billion £50 notes would make a pile 108 kilometres, or 67.1 miles, high.

Were the Aga Khan of that time to have been the height of the average British man of today (5 ft 9 in, or 1.753 metres), £50 billion would equate to a stack of "gold-priced Aga Khans" (without shoes) almost 59 kilometres high. *

The lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere, the troposphere, varies from 8km at the poles to 16km over the equator; the ionosphere starts at an altitude of about 80 km, and the US Air Force considers "space" to begin at 81 km.

Perhaps it would be simpler to use a new unit: the "government fudge", one box of which costs £50 billion.

By the way: hands up all those who believe the Prescott bulimia story, of which up to now there was not one breath? Now, hands up all those who have an explanation as to why this story should appear this weekend?


* I think this shows that the Aga Khan was worth twice his height in £50 notes.

Trade deficit, undesirability of

(Click to enlarge.)

On freedom

Freedom is not a solitary journey through a desert, where every error and deviation may be fatal; it is found between the hedges and walls of a populous land, defining sovereign islets that combine in mutual defence and succour.

Like a musical string, its harmony relies on bounds. It is the tension between tyranny and anarchy, a common land affording refuge from public and private oppression. It is not lawless. Liberty is to defy another's rule; freedom, to obey one's own; free doom, the "freo la3e" of La3amon's Brut. No law, no freedom.

And now, confusedly and perhaps too late, we must begin to defend our freedom. Here in the once United Kingdom, our self-rule is fragmenting and being sold piecemeal to an unlicked bear-whelp of an aggregated foreign power; in the United States, many of the people and a handful of their representatives are calling for a rally around the principles of the Constitution, while the government becomes forgetful of its foundation. In both, there is economic mismanagement and perilous concentration of wealth. The Big Brother of a political power cutting itself free from popular franchise has his arm round the shoulder of Big CEO, whose business no longer depends on the community from which it sprang. The land will be cleared or peopled at its masters' pleasure; they will move us between their pastures for their profit. The movement will show us that the earth is not ours. We shall be rootless. We shall be dispossessed, wanderers, desperate hired men, like the landless Gregora of Scotland.

This is where we were some two centuries ago. It must all be fought for again, but perhaps, like the valiant tailor, we shall again find a way to overcome the rich and powerful who ravage our lands. Long before the battle, the American Revolution began to assemble its forces among a rabble of pamphleteers, philosophers, dissident clergy, smallholders, inventors, dreamers and adventurers. Every voice, however small, adds to the chorus.

My brother became an American citizen yesterday. Part of the ceremony was a homily, in which the presiding official said (was it a quotation from Jefferson?) that liberty was not passed down to one's children by nature, but by one's actions.

Although my brother has his own views on religion, and although I feel that America has, and has always had, much to learn in its foreign relations, it is without irony that I wish a blessing on America and the American people, and my newly American family.

UPDATE

Not Jefferson:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

Denninger calls for a borrower's strike

It lifts your heart a little to read someone who still believes in his country and is unafraid to express moral indignation. Here Karl Denninger advocates getting a home safe for your hard-earned - something the Japanese went into in a big way when their deflation hit.

Speaking of Japan, the Nikkei shows that the stockmarket can disappoint for long periods:

Hi ho-ho, hi ho-ho

It's stagflation, obviously, says Lance Lewis. And he expects gold to resume its climb. Good news for China: "The world’s largest producing nation with 276 t was [in 2007], for the first time, China", says 1read's Weblog.

For the playful, you can join the game here.

China sponsors African dams, for minerals

See this blog on Chinese support for foreign hydropower projects - and their growing responsiveness to ecological issues nearer home.

Tibetology

The New York Times on China, museums and winner's history.

But is it possible that some of our own museums have an agenda or two?

Big Brother has a thin skin

A nightmarish account by a Swedish lawyer, of how the State in her country snatches children from perfectly OK parents, partly because there's a good living to be made from it, and sometimes for squalid emotional revenge. Nurse Ratched unleashed on the family, a much wider target than the mentally ill. But I suppose this is what we get as the State expands.

htp: Schadenfreude

Weaknesses in US depositor protection

A very timely article from Financial Sense on the FDIC and its limitations. After reading this, UK depositors may not be so keen to replicate the system.

htp: Michael Panzner's "Financial Armageddon" blog.

And after Tibet?

This is the disputed territory of Arunachal Pradesh (red) - currently Indian, formerly part of Tibet, and included in Tibet on modern Chinese maps. See "Better Days" blog post (Nov 2004) here; a current Indian political comment here; Wikipedia entry on the region here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tibetans number an estimated 5 - 7 millions. The official Chinese 2000 Census has the Chinese Han population in the "Tibetan Autonomous Region" (TAR) as merely 6% of the total. However, as this illuminating BBC guide explains, the TAR is not Tibet as its government in exile defines it. The larger Tibetan area including Amdo and Kham contains 6.5 million Tibetans and 8.5 million Chinese immigrants. And there may be bigger plans: "Chinese demographers back in the 1980s estimated that Tibet could provide living space for 100 million Chinese."

Tibet is important because of timber, minerals, extra living space for Chinese - and it houses up to a third of China's nuclear arsenal. A major interest is water, because Western China is very dry; among other plans, one is a hydroelectric plant exploiting the Brahmaputra River, which further down flows through Bangladesh and ultimately joins the Ganges. The Chinese claim it will have twice the output of the Three Gorges Dam. "Work is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2009 but has been described as a 'declaration of war' against India and Bangladesh. One of Tibet's most sacred lakes, Yamdrok Tso, has already been mined, tunnelled and used for hydroelectric development."

The population of Arunachal Pradesh (formerly a part of the Indian state of Assam) is slightly over 1 million. The area was a lifeline to China in WW2 after the Burma Road was cut off by the Japanese in 1942. It is well watered and forested.

UPDATE

Climate change already threatens to reduce the great northern Indian rivers to "seasonal water flows", without further constriction by Chinese projects. The potential extra disruption is discussed in this Guardian article from a year ago.

Prudence

(the percentages are annualised equivalents) Source: Bank of England

Defying gravity

"...the equity markets are simply not acting in a rational manner given the underlying issues in the economy and credit markets"

So it's not just my perception. Read Karl "hold cash" Denninger's latest.

The boom that wasn't

Karl Denninger just gets better - it's one of the advantages of sticking to your theme and endlessly rehearsing your arguments, as politicians know.

There is only one way that home prices where they are, even today, are sustainable - that would be for wages to rise by 30% across the board. That, of course, isn't going to happen, and if it did it wouldn't do you a bit of good because prices would simply rise to the same degree, leaving us exactly where we are now!..

There never was a "boom" in earnings power for middle America. The median family income - including all quintiles - was actually down $500 or so over the last eight years. If you exclude the top quintile it was down materially - 5% or so. And that's in nominal, not constant, dollars...

We're now going to adjust spending and investment levels to incomes because there is no way for us to adjust incomes to spending levels! The big productivity gains that came from computerization are finished, and we've already offshored nearly all of our manufacturing, so there's no more "cheap labor improvement" available either...

If we can keep the government from screwing things up with more vote-buying attempts we'll get through the other end of this, although people's standards of living will change. You won't be able to afford to milk your house for the second Lexus and six plasma TVs, but is this really such a disaster? I think not.

Read the whole thing in all its beauty here.

Next task, when I have the time, is to see what happened to the middle quintiles in the UK.

It really, really is a swindle

I am grateful to James Higham for directing me to this article by a very distinguished economist, explaining the scam of fractional reserve banking. Even when you understand how it works, you find it difficult to believe; it's a bit like finding out how babies are made, looking at your parents, and... naaaaah!

Where are the police?

UPDATE

I've been directed (see comments) to this video, "Money as debt", by Canadian Paul Grignon:



Here are the artist's own comments; here's the dedicated website; here's his professional artist's website; and here's a link to the Idaho Observer, with a little extra detail on the making of the film - cut off the last part of the address to see more of the Observer's output.

Whether it's right or wrong, simplistic or not, I'm heartened to see practical idealism like this.

FURTHER UPDATE

Karl Denninger explains why the money-lenders won't permit inflation to run away and destroy the basis of their wealth. And why this means the economy will hit the buffers.

If history repeats itself

A few days ago, I looked at the Dow over the past 40 years and concluded that, on average, the real growth rate was very close to the very long-term historical norm.

What I didn't think to do then, is to illustrate the shape of the Dow if it continues to be as volatile as in the last 40 years. So here goes - same average growth, same inflation rate etc:

It's the volatility that does you in. As Keynes said, "In the long run..."

Matter of fact, if history repeats itself, there's a point around 2021 where in real terms, we're behind where we were in 1967. This time, I will buy beads and wear flares. I'd still be younger than Robert Graves was last time round.

Chirpy

Don Boudreaux is an economist, yet although an expert in the "dismal science", he is an optimist, which makes a very nice change. He claims it's because he's a professional in the field.

Here he says that America's freedom and creativity will overcome present problems, as they have in the past; here he says the housing market can't be too bad if workers are unwilling to sell their houses in a falling market; and here he claims to love America's trade deficit.

Is he right? Or just seeing affairs from the point of view of a man who's had a good dinner and is assured that, in his case, good dinners will never stop coming? I've often thought that war movies should end prematurely and at different points for a random selection among, say, 20% of the audience, to remove the Olympian perspective.

But it is nice to read someone who thinks it's not all gloom and doom.

Banks, usury and slavery

In the UK, GDP is said to trend long-term to an increase of around 2.5% per year, hence also the Monetary Policy Committee's figure for inflation target-setting.

Since 1963, the M4 money supply has grown by an average of slightly under 13.5% per year. So that would be about 11% p.a. relative to GDP.

This means that bank lending, as a proportion of GDP, doubles every 7 years.

How long can this continue? How long before we are completely robbed and enslaved? Or am I asking a fool's question?