Ambivalence on Health Care

My wife and I had to take our baby girl to the emergency room because she had a high fever, some diarrhea, and we worried she’d get dehydrated. We were there a few hours, during which time she was checked on several times by very conscientious doctors, who spent a total of maybe 30 minutes of total person-hours on her care. The bill? Over $10,000. We have health insurance through my job, but we continue to get seemingly-random requests for co-payment. Every few months it seems they want another $50.

In places like Japan, Canada, and much of Europe, it is thought to be rather curious that Americans have such resistance to universal health insurance coverage. This incident provides a clue as to why it is so. For those lucky enough to have health insurance, the outcome we observe seems pointlessly mediocre. This is the land of customer service. Yet most experiences with health care delivery tend to involve long lines, ample doses of frustration, Byzantine rules and regulations, and a complete lack of alternatives. I thought markets were about free choices and clear prices. Asking how much a medical procedure costs is itself an exercise in futility. It depends on your coverage, because different deals have been made with different parties. Health insurance seems to have wrought a system that is complex and delivers rather poor overall results. There are over 100,000 deaths in American hospitals per year due to infections contracted in those hospitals; experts estimate two-thirds of those deaths could be wiped out by instituting simple procedures involving hygiene, such as hand-washing.

Unbelievable. Can you imagine any other business that is not affected by thousands of needless deaths? If one restaurant has an outbreak of E coli, it gets shut down. But not for hospitals.

I’m not an expert in health care. But it seems to me that the health insurance system effectively shields the industry from the competition in price and quality that every other business faces, to the detriment of consumers, and indeed, to all of us, because the care we get is overpriced and of poor quality. While many helpful people work in health care, people who genuinely care about helping people, the overall experience tends to be poor. When we were in the emergency room, were taken to an uncomfortable, poorly heated, poorly lit facility with little privacy. Nearby are several drug addicts in various stages of overdose. We would much prefer to see a doctor, as our situation is hardly a complex medical issue, just a simple matter that could be handled by a general practitioner, even a nurse, and an IV. But it’s pretty hard to see a doctor on the weekend, so one is left with the ER.

Where this all leaves me personally is with the same ambivalent attitude toward health insurance that I think is shared by many other Americans. I’m very thankful that the system is there for me if I were to have a truly catastrophic accident. But in almost every interaction I’ve had with it, I’ve been left with the feeling that there’s got to be a better way. While I don’t know exactly what that way is, it seems clear that the insurance system that we have isn’t working very well, even for those that have good insurance plans. So while I support Obama’s plan, and indeed it seems to be the outcome of a thoughtful analysis by a person who cares deeply about the country, I doubt that it will give us high-quality health care at an affordable price.

Stimulus Blues

I recently had the opportunity to take an unoffical poll of my economist colleagues a the City College of San Francisco, where I teach. One of the areas of very strong agreement was that the US dollar is the most serious risk to the US economy (there was one dissenter out of six economists). The other area of agreement was that the US needs another stimulus, on the order of $500 billion. Here, I was the lone dissenter. (Several of my colleagues didn’t feel another stimulus was politically feasible; I don’t think another stimulus is desirable economically.)

My colleagues are in good company; Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel prize-winner in economics has called for a second stimulus, as has Robert Reich and many others. A majority of economists were in favor of the first stimulus, though there were also some prominent dissenters. I think the views of economists tend to mesh with the conventional wisdom that the government has to do something.

The problem is that doing something is rarely a good substitute for doing the right thing.

Economics has largely scrapped the distinction between necessary and surplus value; necessary value is the portion of value that reproduces the capital and labor that went into producing a good or service, while surplus value is the additional value of the product above the cost of production. Without this key distinction, it becomes impossible to distinguish between economic activities which are productive (directly produce surplus value) and unproductive (those that do not); we’re left with only GDP numbers, without a notion of where the value flows came from.

To try to increase GDP without considering whether we’re increasing productive or unproductive economic activity is dangerous in an economy like the US, where unproductive activity has been steadily rising over the last 60 years. This rise has been financed by growing debt and capital inflows to the US economy, but as these flows slow, unproductive activity becomes less and less viable. To put it simply, the future of the US economy is in agriculture and manufacturing, not in finance, retail, or advertising. While there will always be a place for finance and other unproductive activities in the economy, it must be recalled that government is also an unproductive activity. As government spending increases, it absorbs a greater portion of the economy’s total surplus, at the very moment when that surplus is most needed to restructure, innovate, and re-invest. That is a recipe for a lingering malaise, such as what Japan experienced in the 1990s.

This is the time for government to cut back, do less and spend less, to balance the budget, and to trim taxes. In short, the government should take the advice given to a man in a small pond, thrashing about in an effort to make the muddy water clear:

Be still; it will happen best on its own.

The IMF Unravels the Global Monetary Order

On August 28^th, the International Monetary Fund quietly made history.

The IMF was a product of the Bretton Woods summit of economists that created the post-war global monetary order of the same name. The IMF was envisioned as a global central bank, that would act as a lender of last resort to countries facing balance-of-payments crises. The IMF has traditionally lent by raising funds among the wealthy nations, but in 1969 it created a special kind of currency, called the Special Drawing Right. SDRs aren’t used as a means of payment anywhere in the world; SDRs are used as an accounting device between countries for international settlements. Perhaps SDRs were created in the hope that one day the IMF may be able to issue its own fiat currency, a step toward a global ‘super-currency’. If so, that day has arrived.

The IMF announced on August 28^th that it would create $283 bil worth of SDRs, and distribute them to member countries. I know of no other instance of fiat currency being issued by a non-governmental organization that has no economy behind it. Countries can exchange their SDRs for one of the four hard currencies that underlie the SDR’s value (the US dollar, the pound sterling, the euro, and the yen). The US will receive one-sixth of the new SDRs, worth about $47 bil. Small change next to the magnitude of the deficits, but every billion helps.

What’s the game here? The US desperately needs to fill the hole caused by continuing trade and budget deficits and is increasingly sensitive to the criticism (made by many world leaders and central bankers) that it plans to do so by printing dollars. Could this be a sneaky move where the US receives the benefit of free money but sticks the IMF with the bill? It won’t work, of course, as global markets will simply respond by increasing prices. Increasing the money supply without increasing the supply of goods will always create inflation.

The global recession was caused by reckless money creation, which inflated the value of assets from stocks to commodities to real estate, while encouraging astounding degrees of leverage. The financial house of cards was simply not built to last, and pumping more fake money into the deflating credit bubble won’t work. Debt leverage isn’t available like it was in the past, and even if it were, a more important illusion has been punctured, namely that all this risk was essentially free. Risk always comes with a price tag, and the sooner that price is accurate, the better for the global economy.

Important Article on the Global Monetary Order

Take a minute and read this important article by Paul Nathan on the changing role of the IMF's fake currency, the SDR, or special drawing rights.

I'll have more to say on this article shortly.

Is Inflation Coming Soon?

Most economists will tell you that there’s a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment (called the Phillips Curve), making it unlikely that a high unemployment economy generates unemployment. Well, expect to see the unlikely happen soon.

Here’s a chart of monthly inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, since 2007:

The Federal Reserve is waging war against deflation, funnelling trillions of new dollars into the financial system in an attempt to defeat deflation.

The Fed will win; in fact, they’re already winning. Inflation has simply been channeled into the stock market. Oil has doubled in price. Gold has recovered from its low of the fall of 2008, when it dipped below $700, and is currently pushing $950. These are early signs of inflation.

An interesting feature of the CPI is that it’s not designed to measure changes in the cost of living. It’s designed to provide a measure of how much money it takes to maintain a constant level of satisfaction. That means the Bureau of Labor Statistics must do a very difficult thing: instead of merely measuring prices, they must measure our satisfaction. They do this by imputing value to technological changes, and by using sophisticated averaging techniques which attempt to measure how consumers make substitutions between products in response to price changes. The outcome of this fancy guessing-game is the most widely-quoted measure of inflation in the US, but CPI has little to do with what most think the CPI measures.

My guess is that we’re already seeing the kind of inflation that the Fed so fears: consumer price inflation. Prices ought to fall during a recession, and some have. But I think prices have not fallen as much as they should, given the extreme weakness in consumer demand. If the effect of money creation is the prevention of falling prices, that’s inflation, it just doesn’t look like it when we look at the CPI.

It’s clear that the Federal government would prefer inflation to deflation. With the ten-year deficit now officially projected to add $9 tril to the public debt (which would bring it above $20 tril), some inflation sure makes the interest easier to pay in depreciated dollars. I wonder if the American consumer will go along for this ride. Sure, inflation will probably kill your real wages, but it can also zap the value of your debts. Perhaps the average American won’t complain too much if inflation begins to roar. Much depends of what happens to the unemployment numbers as we move forward.

Unemployment in the US

I’ve got a friend who has been unemployed for a year. She has a PhD in archaeology, and experience in both non-profit and for-profit organizations. A graduate degree tends to insulate one against unemployment; for many years the rate of unemployment for those with master’s degrees and higher was less than a third that of the rate for those with only a high school education. But this recession doesn’t spare the educated. Though the disparity between unemployment rates by educational attainment is still large, the recession has narrowed it.

California’s unemployment rate is pushing 12%. Michigan’s is 15%. (They were 7.3% and 8.3% a year ago). Unemployment rates have skyrocketed in the last year, and though this month’s national rate shows a slight improvement (9.5% to 9.4%), these numbers are still eye-popping.

An interesting feature of the numbers is that the labor force participation rates are also declining for all levels of education, as those who cannot find work become discouraged, or move to another activity, such as school, caregiving, or work in the informal economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ U-6 unemployment rate attempts to capture the effect of people moving out of the labor force (or moving to part-time employment when they’d prefer full-time); the U-6 stands at 16.8%.

And these numbers have been getting steadily worse (or holding more or less steady) since the beginning of 2009. Even the BLS’s narrowest measure, called U-1, those unemployed 15 weeks or longer, is at a frightening 5.1%. That’s truly unreal. Over 5% of the labor force has been unemployed 3¹/₂ months or more. In the face of this, the stock market has rallied 45%.

Why should unemployment be so high? It’s a grave sign that the economy has become sclerosed, and cannot quickly adjust the forces of supply and demand. This is the Great Contraction: you lose your job, you must cut expenses, more people per square foot of real estate, fewer hours spent on leisure. This is still the richest country in the world, with 90% of Americans still working. For the labor market to clear, wage rates would have to fall, and with them, so would the housing market, (both prices and rents would be relentlessly beaten down until they reached a proper proportion to household incomes). Many other prices would also fall. All those overpriced services will cost an awful lot less: think of haircuts, dog walkers, personal shoppers, personal assistants. These services and more will be driven down in price by falling demand and price competition on the supply side, as those remaining in these fields attempt to keep a portion of their sales.

What I’m saying has become anathema to the field of economics, yet it’s a simple truth: falling prices can be healthy for the economy. Yet we’re spending trillions to try to keep inflated prices high. If we simply stay out of the way, markets will clear and prices will find their natural level. Then a truly robust recovery can and will begin.

Economic Medicine and Poison, part 1

The most helpful thing we could possibly do for the economic corpus is to create a sound currency that is linked to a stable banking system.

Right now we have neither, and so we have risks to the economy that are simply unknown. A risk that you don't know is always worse than one you can understand. Will your bank be around tomorrow? This is no longer an idle question.

Creating a stable currency would not be hard. It's a simple matter of pricing, and there is nothing that markets do better than pricing, when they are allowed to function without interference. Take an item of real value, one that cannot be produced by the printing press. Let's say, I don't know, how about the gold standard of money?

Gold has been used as money for 5000 years or more. Let's say we go back to using gold as money. You want to sell something. OK, how many grams of gold would you accept to part with it? You want to buy something. How many grams would you give up to obtain it?

The thing is, we're used to using dollars as our standard. We think, "how many dollars is that worth?", not "how many grams?" Like visitors in another country, we'll be running the numbers through our heads, converting to dollars. At least for a while. Pretty soon we'll get the hang of it.

If we get rid of the risky fractional reserve system (perhaps following this great plan by Kotlikoff and Leamer), then we have the absolute best basis for economic prosperity. Systematic inflation becomes impossible. And deflation has no power to wreak economic havoc. Deflation becomes your friend, because deflation is simply falling prices. We only associate deflation with the end of the world because deflation has typically occurred only at the end of a credit bubble, as the harbinger of deep recession, bringing with it financial panic and high unemployment.

The problem is how the stable currency would interact with the dollar. The dollar decays like a radioactive isotope. A stable currency operating in parallel with the dollar would instantly reveal what a poor currency the dollar really is. Fewer assets would be held in dollars, and fewer transactions would be made in dollars. Both would cause a reduction in the demand for dollars, and a depreciation in the value of the dollar. Perhaps that would be viewed as an "attack" on the dollar. It's not an attack to remove lipstick from a pig. (My apologies to Mrs. Palin.)

The dollar is worth about what the paper it's printed on is worth, and to put it next to a commodity with real value simply reveals that truth.

What Will It Take to Pay Off the Federal Debt of the US?

The US is awash in debt on every level: Federal, state, local, as well as households and businesses. But for the private part of the economy, there is a different consequence for bankruptcy than for the public side. If a private individual or business goes under and fails to pay their bills, the creditors lose money, of course. But when a government goes under, it tends to go under in a way that inevitably affects everyone, for it devalues the currency.

Of course no government destroys its own currency with malice aforethought, but the pressures that come to bear on governments are such that destroying the currency seems at the time to be the right thing to do, given other options. Circumstances are already headed in that direction now, and pressure on the dollar continues to build in the face of rapidly expanding Federal debt.

The current Federal debt is $11,659 bil, and with the stimulus and other unfunded expansions in Federal spending, it’s widely believed to expand by at least another $1,800 bil in the next year alone, and to nearly double in ten years. It’s an open question as to how the Federal government expects to get the funding for that level of debt, as our foreign creditors are already reducing their purchases and seeking to ‘diversify’ their assets. China is inking trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina to conduct trade in the Renmimbi rather than in dollars. China is also channeling more of its massive currency hoard into durable commodities like copper, gold, and oil. Every day it seems, the discussion of the status of the dollar becomes a bit more open, a bit more honest, as countries seem to feel increasingly free to point out that the dollar’s days as the reserve currency of the world are numbered. Dollar-denominated Treasury debt is like a game of musical chairs: in the end, not everyone will get a seat.

In the past, the US has relied on economic growth to reduce its debt. Is that possible now? Total Federal government revenue was $2,554 bil in 2008. Let’s say that average rates of US growth resume immediately (3% per year) and continue indefinitely. Say that Federal revenue increases at the same pace. Say we immediately run surpluses, so that we can pay the interest on the debt plus an additional 1% of Federal revenue to pay the principle. (In 2008, that combination would cost $451 bil in interest plus $25 bil in principle, instead of the $458 bil deficit that actually occurred). Even with these rosy assumptions, it would take about 90 years to pay back the debt. Ninety years of solid economic growth and perfectly balanced budgets (plus the 1% surplus). No government on earth has such a record. (This analysis doesn’t include all the unseen obligations the US government has, such as Social security and Medicare, which add up to trillions more).

It seems likely that at some point, the United States’ largest creditors will demand repayment in some other form than dollars. Perhaps they would demand payment in their own currency, but that seems unlikely. The traditional asset for international settlements is gold, so gold is the most likely candidate, especially given that our two largest creditors, China and Japan, have relatively low gold reserves, while the US has the largest gold hoard in the world.

Let’s consider what would happen if the debt would have to be paid off in gold. According to the US Treasury (www.fms.treas.gov), the US government is in possession of 261,498,899 Troy ounces (8,133 tonnes) of gold, which at a gold price of $964, is worth $252 bil. The US gold stock is unaudited, and since it is also routinely leased to other parties, how much of it is owned free and clear by the government is unclear. The way that gold is leased is through a kind of repurchase agreement called a gold swap, which gives the US Treasury cash in exchange for a firm commitment to buy back the gold at a specified point in the future. For example, Goldman Sachs may give the US Treasury $1 bil today, using the gold as collateral, to receive $1.05 bil in one year, whereupon the gold reverts to the Treasury’s possession, though the gold has never left the vault. While 5% isn’t a great return, I’d say that Goldman can use the contract as an asset, since it’s backed by gold and the full faith of the US Treasury, which allows Goldman to obtain a risk-free return on the $1 bil, and still put the money to work in other ways to obtain returns.

The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has estimated that the total amount of gold that is leased through gold swaps is between 12,000 and 15,000 tonnes, about half the total of all gold held by central banks. Individual nations don’t publish the extent of their gold swaps, but let’s say that half of the US Treasury’s gold has been leased, meaning that the gold is no longer an asset, but rather an obligation. If the Treasury really owns just half the gold in its possession, then it has about 131 mil Troy ounces of gold, worth $126 bil.

Now let’s imagine that a few of the large holders of US Treasury debt were to demand that the debt be repaid in gold rather than in dollars. The US Treasury holds its gold at a book value of $42.222 per Troy ounce, rather far below market prices. (If only one could buy a few ounces at that price!) Say that China and Japan (which own $1,477 bil) demand repayment in gold. Of course, these countries wouldn’t be so unreasonable as to ask for all the money all at once; let’s say they simply stop buying new debt, and ask for the interest on the debt outstanding to be paid in gold. If any large buyers were to stop or even slow their buying, yields would rise. Let’s say the yield rises only to the historical mean of about 6.5% (an event like this would probably push the yield far higher). At that yield, the interest would come to $96 bil a year, which would quickly drain the US Treasury’s entire gold stock. In fact, it would be gone in less than 18 months. If China and Japan started asking for gold, other countries would no doubt follow, as would large domestic holders, both institutional and individual. If the entire interest bill had to be paid in gold, it would come to $63 bil per month, and the Treasury would be out of gold in two months.

Now if there are no new buyers for Treasury debt, either the Federal government must immediately balance the budget, which seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely the Fed will step in and buy the debt directly, with money it conjures out of thin air. This leads to further depreciation of the dollar against gold, and would probably lead to a lot more demands for payment in gold, as creditors realize that their dollars will get less gold than before.

So we can’t grow our way out, and we can’t fall back on gold. The only other possible avenue is to depreciate the dollar. But how much depreciation would it take to reach the equilibrium that markets demand? If the situation arises where gold is sought for repayment rather than dollars, the question is, at what price? The US government will have give up the accounting fiction that the gold is worth $42.22 an ounce, and set an exchange rate between the dollar and gold. The rate chosen will not be below the market price, it will be well above the market price. How high is anyone’s guess—I’ll say $10,000 an ounce just to get the guessing started. This option allows the US to service its debt without the humiliation of an outright default, though it will still probably result in chaos, just as it did when the US last tried it, in 1933. It also creates a de facto gold standard. With gold at $10,000, the Treasury’s gold is worth $1,310 bil, and can now be used to pay the interest on the debt!

Where things go next is hard to foresee. But it’s clear that the debt is far too large to pay off, and that the United States’ creditors will demand payment in an asset that the US government can’t depreciate at will. The signal to investors is pretty clear: get out of Treasury debt and into gold. One way or another, the US will repudiate its debt. The other lesson is equally clear: the inevitable depreciation of the dollar simply follows the logic of the market, and cannot be denied by either money creation or fiscal stimulus.

The Rally Continues!

Well, I went on vacation and that market made a fool out of me while my back was turned!

Far from the rally running out of steam, as I predicted (here and here) the rally merely paused, then continued steeply upward, revitalizing the talk of recovery and green shoots.

Gold has gone back to tracking the market, and has also done well, as has oil. This makes me wonder if the surging stock market isn't really an early sign of inflation. This is what can happen in financial markets - they act as a canary in a coal mine, sending off inflationary signals well before consumer prices are affected. But these signals are hard to read. We generally think a rising market is good, and it carries us along in a bullish daze. Even my phrase "done well" to indicate "rising price" is a sign of the positive spin we put on it.

But I wonder what the market is up to. All that money the Fed created has to go somewhere. A lot of money is still on the sidelines, waiting to get back in. Barron's asked recently, should you get in or get out? Could this be the time that the Dow chooses to get back above 10k, even claim 11k?

I do not believe that the worst is over. The economic restructuring that is inevitable has barely begun. But a rising market has a way of making us all feel better. The sooner we face the need to restore the balance between productive and unproductive labor, the better. We need to shake out the debt, and we need a sound currency under the dollar, which is sadly and hideously overvalued.

This Ain't Your Grandma's Statistics!

An interesting article in the NY Times about career opportunities in statistics. Getting a doctorate in stats can bag you a starting job pulling down $125k. Statisticians are the new rock stars at Google and Yahoo.

Getting to the Source of Systemic Risk

Recent articles on the US and world economic crisis have often been focused on the concept of ‘systemic risk’. For example, Robert Pozen, author of Too Big to Save?, argues in The Wall Street Journal (7/9/09) that the Federal Reserve ought to be given the job of monitoring systemic risk. What this refers to is certain kinds of financial ‘products’ and practices that have often graced the headlines of late: credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and other kinds of credit derivatives.

The idea that the financial crisis has been caused by exotic new financial instruments—from credit derivatives to adjustable rate mortgages—has become part of the conventional wisdom. But is it true?

No doubt there is always a tendency to find fault in new practices that seem to be responsible for disasters, such as humbling the titans of finance with billions of dollars of losses, charmingly called ‘write-downs’. But how does that lead to systemic risk? If a large corporation (financial or otherwise) loses billions or even hundreds of billions, how does that threaten the system as a whole? Well, corporations often owe money to other corporations, and perhaps if a large lender goes under, other firms are placed at risk. That does indeed sound bad. But how is it different from the usual course of events? Companies rise and fall. Taking risks can lead to success or failure. When an idea leads to a failure, that strategy tends to be repeated less than those that are successful. A failure, even a large one, poses no threat to the system. Failures are an integral part of the system. Even the largest corporations are subject to market forces. And thank goodness for that. Big corporations must be exquisitely sensitive to quality and reputation, or else they are at risk of losing market share and potential takeover.

In the same way that nature rewards certain kinds of risks and penalizes others—successful strategies lead to greater propagation of a species—an evolutionary market-based process is the best enforcer of risk. The Fed or any regulator will always be 10 steps behind. Even if the government regulator happens to be on time, what should the penalty be? Will such penalties be subject to political forces—such as those that determined that Lehman should fail while Bear Stearns or AIG is rescued?

The nature of markets is the equalization of risk and return. Risky activities ought to have high returns, while less risky activities yield lower returns. Financial markets are filled with risky products that are hundreds of years old. Short-selling (the practice of borrowing shares in order to buy them back later, hopefully at a lower price) exposes the seller to potentially unlimited risk. Out of-the-money options that are close to expiration are also extremely risky. But these options are priced accordingly, not by government regulators, but by the market.

Yet even when markets are functioning well, it’s true there is a systemic risk lurking. At any moment, banks could collapse, for their reserves are only a tiny fraction of their deposits. Any threat to the banking sector sets off a damaging spiral: bank failure leads to bank runs, leading to loss of faith in banks, leading to further contraction in lending and paralyzing the conduit that runs from savings to investment.

This is why economists Kotlikoff and Leamer argue for a new financial architecture, one that does away with this source of systemic risk once and for all, while channelling society’s savings into investment, and providing prices for financial assets that correctly equalize risk and return. (See “A Banking System We Can Trust”, Forbes, 4/23/09). Their brilliant proposal would essentially to do away with the fractional reserve system. Unfortunately, this proposal has received little attention or discussion in the US. I get the sense we’re sick of the topic here. We’d rather believe in the green shoots that are supposedly sprouting. They say ‘less bad’ is the new ‘good’. My guess is that as the rally fades and new risks to the system are revealed, there will be an surge of interest in reforming the fractional reserve banking system, the source of systemic risk to the economy.

Gold Correction

Gold is one of the few assets in the world which is in a primary bull market, meaning that the asset is rising overall, despite periods of downward movement. We're in one such period now, which is going to act as a brake on all gold-related assets, including mining stocks like Seabridge Gold SA which I've recommended.

I still think the stock is a long term win, but I must say that it's likely it will go into correction mode (in fact, it already has fallen $6 or so from its recent peak, a 20% decline). Those with a short-term frame may think about selling, even at a loss, in order to get back at a lower price.

Since I expect the overall market to begin another period of decline, I like a stock that will move inversely to the market, like DXD. (Remember, DXD is for short-term trading only; it has mathematical characteristics that make it a poor long-term investment.)

I suppose I now have to break my 10 grand bit into two groups: long term and short term. Long term, stay with Seabridge, even though you're down right now. It'll come back. Short term, take the loss and move into DXD while you wait for SA to bottom out.

Cheap Gas

Detroit!

Stop tempting us with your cool new muscle cars, like the new Camaro, which gets 22 mpg (on a completely flat road, driving the speed limit, which I'm sure I will be with a 304 horsepower engine).

What with the fall in gas prices and all, the Camaro is destroying the Honda Insight in the sales department.

I guess the thinking behind the muscle car resurgence is, wouldn't it be nice to go back to a simpler time, when all that mattered was how many horses you had under the hood?

It just doesn't seem like the best move, to stake the fate of the American car industry on denial.

Deflation

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the Consumer Price Index yesterday, which shows a very small monthly increase since April (0.1%), but the story that's grabbing the headlines is the 12-month drop in prices, or deflation, to the tune of negative 1.3%.

It's a bait and switch story. What number do we emphasize? The scary number, about the deflationary monster? Or perhaps the core inflation number, which excludes food and energy, and shows a 12-month increase of 1.8%? Only two categories in the CPI fell: transportation and energy. Both are tied to the fall in oil and gas prices. Every other category increased.

What does this tell us?

Expect inflation, not deflation to prevail in the coming months.

Ah, Krugman!

To sum up: A few months ago the U.S. economy was in danger of falling into depression. Aggressive monetary policy and deficit spending have, for the time being, averted that danger. And suddenly critics are demanding that we call the whole thing off, and revert to business as usual.

The above is a quote from the marvelous Paul Krugman. I love him; and yet, he's so wrong right now.

Let's be clear: aggressive monetary and fiscal policy have not averted any danger to the economy. The danger is not inflation, nor is it deflation. The danger is economic distortions. That is, massive investment in unproductive economic activity (retail, advertising, finance, etc.). This kind of economic activity does not produce anything, and hence it is the major threat to the economy.

Why are there economic distortions? Why should it be the case that the market, which often gets things right, ought to be disastrously wrong? What causes the distortions is the massive inflation of the money supply. That may lead to inflation or it may even lead to stable prices, even deflation for a time. It all depends on how the extra dollars are used. If they are saved, no inflation in consumer prices. If dollars are spent elsewhere in the world, no inflation (at least in the US). If those extra dollars are spent in the US, expect to see some inflation.

Rising or falling prices is not the danger. The danger is that there is a prolonged period of confusion: what are my assets worth? Is my business viable? Should I start this business? What is the market saying?

If the answers to these questions are unusually obscure for a long period of time, the result will be stagnation, low growth, and unemployment. This is the danger. And it's in full bloom now. More aggressive monetary and fiscal policy will worsen the situation, not make it better.

Stocks Fall

The Dow has, as of this moment, taken a big hit. It feels like the rally is over.

I expect that there may be an upward movement tomorrow, but I think the rally is basically out of steam.

Seabridge took a big hit today, falling to $25. I expect it will go up to $29, but then follow the market down. I think gold may have a big day tomorrow, as a new wave of fear washes investors out of stocks and into the safety of gold.

I'm going to try to sell SA at or around $29, and get into DXD at or around $45.

Arthur Laffer on Inflation

Arthur Laffer created the Laffer Curve, a rather dubious piece of economic theory that entered the economic canon without ever passing through the peer-review cycle.

He has a rather good piece on inflation and monetary expansion in the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal.

His argument is that the monetary base has increased dramatically, and that this should result in inflation. Since I've been saying the same for some time, I like the argument.

As Gold Continues to Slide, Treasuries Crater, World Openly Debates the Fate of the Dollar

{I wrote this on 6/8, but didn't get around to publishing it until 6/11, which was after the WSJ wrote a cover story on the rising 10-year Treasury!]

The yield on the 10-year US Treasury note is up to 3.88%, [now it's gone up to 3.93%, then slid back to 3.86% today] as prices for the note continue to crater. (Recall that as bond prices fall, yields rise) The battle continues. Since this yield is tied to so many other interest rates, the hazard is that the rising yield will soon become higher interest rates for mortgages, car loans, credit cards, etc. The bigger problem perhaps is, are there borrowers?

It's an economic distortion that interest rates should fall when the economy moves into recession and credit tightens after being loose for so long. What's being revealed is that the risk of default is much, much higher than was previously thought. Naturally, interest rates should rise to compensate for the increased risk. But instead, the Fed tries to go against the market and lower interest rates.

The Keynesian logic is straightforward: because credit is tending to tighten, money destruction ensues through the action of the fractional reserve banking system. However, that destruction of money results in far less aggregate demand. The solution: create money through the central bank (the Fed) equal or greater to the money destruction, lowering interest rates, encouraging firms and consumers to borrow, and stimulating the economy when it most needs it.

Unfortunately, what this Keynesian story overlooks is that the economy has a hangover. The best cure isn't a couple of (trillion) shots of booze, it's a reorganization, a re-thinking of priorities and activities.

The economy has binged on unproductive economic activity: a frenzy of finance, retail, advertising, lawyering and lawmaking. Corporations have turned their attention away from productive investment (the kind that is designed to produce better things) and toward unproductive investment, designed to capture an ever-larger piece of the economic surplus. But since efforts to capture a bigger piece of pie don't actually grow the pie, only so much of US capitalism can be engaged in such endeavors.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund, seeking to retain some kind of relevance, jumps in to say that the world could potentially use a different reserve currency than the US dollar. Of course, their solution is the bogus Standard Drawing Right, administered by an impartial, international central banking organization. I wonder who that would be. Of course, they call for "liquidity", a silly central banking code word which means "fake money". It's obvious that the IMF does not have in mind the creation of a currency backed by an item of real tangible value, such as gold. After all, Keynes called gold a "barbarous relic".

Of course the IMF thinks we're years away from such a "revolutionary" move. Only slowly can we change the global monetary order.

Right.

The world has a way of changing faster than you think. The dollar is already dead. Each country in the world is simply trying to figure out how to edge away from the dollar's corpse before every other country in the world does so. Gold has tripled in price since the year 2000. The technology of producing gold hasn't changed much.

The world faces a choice: either we descend into a morass of distrust, reversing the tide of globalization, retreating behind border walls and tariffs, or we create a new global monetary order that no country, no individual, no corporation can game. That order simply must be based on an item of real value, that no government can manipulate, that holds its value over time, that cannot be destroyed through the printing press. We need the gold standard of money. What could that be?

I'll Be Off For the Rest of the Week

Treasuries are up today, pushing the yield back down to 3.55%. Still too high. With the ten year US Treasury note at that yield, a lot of other interest rates are going to be higher. Still a lot of volatility in this market; today's swing was 2.55%. A lot of movement for any market in one day.

How can the Fed possibly re-inflate this impossibly flaccid credit bubble with high rates?

Commodities took a pause; gold is back under $970, oil retrenched to $66, copper's down to $2.22. A bit of backfilling is in order. I wonder when the next big move up will happen. Next week?

Meanwhile, banks are doing their best to resist honesty and transparency. Here's a piece about their off-balance sheet assets. Isn't it a bit absurd that a corporation would have off-balance sheet assets? What possible rationale could there be for keeping an asset off the books besides lying about its true value?

I'll be traveling for the rest of the week. Have a great weekend!

Ferguson vs Krugman

Historian Niall Ferguson takes Paul Krugman to task in a recent Financial Times piece.

Ferguson is right of course, that the debt load of the US is onerous and that our creditors are starting to wonder if we'll ever pay it back.

While Ferguson is correct that we have not entered a repeat of the Great Depression yet, I think he lays a bit too much emphasis on that fact. Yes, we're not there. Yet. The big difference, of course, is the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. That will change, and as it does, a series of painful adjustments will take place in the US.