Not too many, are there?

Now here’s a tougher one. Name an asset that is near the lowest price in all of human history.

The answer is: wheat.

Actually, the entire agriculture complex, including corn, beef, pork and beans could fit this description. But for now we will focus on wheat.

Wheat? Didn’t that just leap higher? Aren’t we wringing our hands about the high price of wheat?

People don’t realize how cheap wheat is today, even after its recent gains. In 1904, a bushel of wheat cost about $1.00. That was in 1904 dollars. Since a $20 gold coin contained about an ounce of gold in those days, your $20 gold coin would buy about 20 bushels of wheat. This was a typical price until the mid-1960s.

Today, your $20 gold coin – it could be the very same one – would buy about 187 bushels of wheat. Since there are 60 pounds in a bushel, that would be 11,220 pounds of wheat. At today’s $7.74/bushel, a pound of wheat costs about $0.13 wholesale. Combined with a little meat and vegetables, it would feed a man for a day.

Here’s what it looks like graphically:

We can see that the price of foodstuffs fell dramatically beginning in the late 1960s. This could be ascribed to the “Green Revolution,” which increased crop yields dramatically. However, even if we take just the last few decades, we see that wheat has fallen to very low levels, when compared to the eternal money of gold. (These month-end values are updated to December 2010.)

Commodity values across the board fell against gold during the 1970s, and never really recovered. So, it is possible that grain values will fall to an even lower plateau during today’s currency devaluation episode.

However, we know that wheat is never going to zero. The downside is limited. Actually, it is getting a little difficult to grow wheat these days, mostly due to continuing strange weather. Less supply. On the demand side, multiple billions of people mostly in China and India are adopting a more westernized diet, and they now have the money to pay for it. More demand.

I don’t know what will happen to wheat over the next ten years. However, I suspect that it could do better than stocks, bonds, real estate, and even gold and silver.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

The Cheapest Thing on Earth originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

At this point, I ask myself: what is the biggest barrier between us today and that happy conclusion? What is the limiting factor? Is it the criminal instincts of today’s politicians? The cow-like acquiescence of the masses? The immense gains still being enjoyed by the bankster class? The endless prevarication of academia’s high priests of Keynesianism? The sycophantic parroting of the establishment spin by the mainstream media?

All of these are important factors. But they are not the most important factor.

The biggest barrier today is – us! The gold standard advocates themselves.

Their motives are pure and their ideals are high. But can they deliver the goods? Do they have the practical, technical knowledge that would allow them to build a world monetary system that could last for a thousand years, and could be implemented with no disruption?

Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” This condition can be remedied. However, it had better be remedied quick, because we don’t have that much time left.

If you had twenty minutes with Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, or Hu Jintao – we will assume they know little about monetary economics – and were asked to explain the basic tenets of a gold standard system, what would you say? Here is what I would say.

Tenet #1: Stable Money is superior to Unstable Money. “Stable Money” is money that is stable in value. Capitalist economies work best with conditions of stable money. “Discretionary” monetary policy doesn’t really solve any problems, and actually causes new ones.

Tenet #2: Gold is stable in value. Unlike other commodities, gold does not go up and down in value. For this reason, it is the premier monetary commodity, and has been for literally thousands of years. Although it is a bit of a stretch to assume that gold is perfectly unchanging in value, nevertheless, after centuries of experience, we have established that it is sufficiently stable in value to serve its purpose as a monetary benchmark. Also, gold is a better measure of stable value than any other available reference or statistical concoction.

Tenet #3: Therefore, if your currency’s value is pegged to gold, that currency will be as stable as gold. A gold-value peg is the best means to accomplish our goal of stable currency value. For the last 500 years, every government that has wished to implement a stable-currency policy has used some variant of a gold standard. It is proven, it works, and there is no need to invent another, inferior solution.

Tenet #4: A token currency, whether coins or notes, can be pegged to gold via the adjustment of supply. “Supply” is technically known as “base money,” which consists of notes, coins, and bank reserves. If the currency’s value sags below its gold peg, then supply is reduced. If the currency’s value is higher than its gold peg, supply is increased. No gold bullion is needed to maintain this peg – only a mechanism to increase and decrease the supply of base money. Central banks accomplish this today by buying and selling government bonds in “unsterilized” transactions. This is effectively the same as currency board systems in use today.

Tenet #5: A “lender of last resort” can be provided within the context of a gold standard. The original “lender of last resort,” or what we today call a central bank, was the Bank of England during the 19th century. The Bank of England was also the world’s premier champion of the gold standard. The Federal Reserve was originally constituted in 1913 to serve as a “lender of last resort” within the context of a gold standard system, and did so for 58 years until 1971. Central banks’ original purpose was perverted during the 20th century due to the rise of Keynesian soft-money ideology, causing them to come into conflict with the proper operation of a gold standard system.

These tenets probably seem familiar, and, except perhaps for the last one, not very controversial. However, in my view, today’s gold standard advocates have not properly internalized and mastered these core concepts. I suggest that they do so as quickly as possible.

When people who are unfamiliar with monetary economics listen to the speech and arguments of today’s gold standard advocates, I think they get the impression that the gold standard advocates have a tendency towards ideology, and a rather poor grasp of practical issues. They might not be able to explain why, but for some reason, it seems like the gold-standard advocates don’t have all their ducks in a row.

There’s a simple reason for this: it’s true! However, once the gold standard advocates expand their understanding and master the core concepts, this quality would also become apparent in their speech. The lay observer would have a different impression – that the gold standard advocates have a viable alternative, and are able to deliver on their promises with complete expertise and understanding.

We need a small group – perhaps twenty people, in the English-speaking world – who have achieved this level of mastery. We fall somewhat short of that today, but this problem is easy to remedy.

It’s hard to change the world. But, it is not too hard to change yourself. Start with this, and the rest will follow.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

The Biggest Obstacle originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

This is why gold was used as a monetary foundation for literally thousands of years. You want money to be stable in value. The simplest way to accomplish this was to link it to gold. Today, we summarize this quality by saying that “gold is money.”

From this we can see immediately, that if gold doesn’t change in value – at least not very much – then it can never be in a “bubble.” There may be a time when many people are desperate to trade their paper money for gold, but that is because their paper money is collapsing in value. It has nothing to do with gold.

Let’s take a look at some of the great gold bull markets of the last hundred years:

• From 1920 to 1923, the price of gold in German marks rose from 160/oz. to 48 trillion/oz.

• From 1945 to 1950, the price of gold in Japanese yen rose from 140/oz. to 12,600/oz.

• From 1948 to 1967, the price of gold in Brazilian cruzeiros went from 648/oz. to 94,500/oz.

• From 1970 to 1980, the price of gold in US dollars went from 35/oz. to 850/oz.

• From 1982 to 1990, the price of gold in Mexican pesos went from 8,000/oz. to 1,025,000/oz.

• From 1989 to 2000, the price of gold in Russian rubles went from 1,600/oz. to 8,120,000/oz.

Each of these situations was an episode of paper currency depreciation. Today is no different. The rising dollar/euro/yen gold price is simply a reflection of the Keynesian “easy money” policies popular around the world today.

We can also see that, if gold remains stable in value, then the supply/demand considerations that affect industrial commodities do not affect gold, which is a monetary commodity. This is why gold is used as money. If its value was affected by industrial supply/demand factors, we would not be able to use it as money.

Thus, “jewelry demand” or “peak gold,” or any other such factor, has little meaningful effect on gold’s value. Day-to-day money flows will affect the price at which currencies trade vs. gold, but this ultimately affects the currency in question, not gold.

None of these historical “gold bull markets” resulted from jewelry demand or mining supply.

Any attempt to attach a valuation to gold is mostly a waste of time. Concepts like the “inflation-adjusted gold price” or the “gold/oil ratio,” or a ratio of outstanding debt or currency to a quantity of gold bullion, are a distraction. An item that doesn’t change value is never cheap or dear. That’s what “gold is money” means.

The “price of gold” may reach five thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, a million, or a billion dollars per ounce. The gold bubble-callers will be frothing at the mouth, until they finally have the realization that there was never a bubble in gold, but only a crash in paper money.

Gold is money. Always has been. Probably always will be. This time it’s different? I don’t think so.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

Gold Never Has Been (and Never Will Be) in a Bubble originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

“Stimulus” – favored by the left-leaning politicians – rarely amounts to more than a form of welfare spending. This is appreciated in hard times, but it tends to be extremely expensive and does little for the economy as a whole. Deficit worries increase. Then comes the “austerity,” often favored by conservative politicians.

“Austerity” usually means spending cuts and tax hikes. But, it does not take long before politicians, bureaucrats, public employees and corporate cronies all agree that they don’t actually want to cut spending. Usually, they take some unpleasant swipes at welfare programs and services – in other words, the only programs that actually do some good, and which are especially important in a recession. This also happens to be the only government expenditure that does not land in the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, public employees and corporate cronies.

These spending cuts rarely amount to much, so the government relies more and more on tax hikes for their “austerity” plans. The results of the tax hikes are typically an even worse economy, and often no appreciable increase in tax revenue.

As the economy contracts further, demands on the government increase. “Austerity” becomes unpopular, and is postponed until some future date “after the economy recovers.” (The tax hikes remain, however.) If the government has not exceeded its debt carrying capacity, it lurches back toward “stimulus” and large deficits. Japan has been though this cycle probably a half-dozen times by now.

If the government can no longer credibly issue debt, the typical next step is a double helping of “austerity.” There is talk of huge spending cuts, which rarely materialize. What usually happens next is minor spending cuts and huge tax hikes. This often begins the final implosion, when businesses give up completely, and tax evasion soars as the government has lost all legitimacy. Default may follow soon after.

Britain’s government is near this point now. “Stimulus” is no longer tenable. Out come the tax hikes. The talk now is of raising the capital gains tax from 18% to 40%, and even 50% in some situations. This would be on top of an increase in the VAT to around 20% from 17.5%. It was 15% in 2009. In November 2008, Britain’s government raised the top income tax rate from 40% to 45%, and in 2009 it increased to 50%.

In his 1932 election campaign, Herbert Hoover boasted that more public works had been built in the four years of his administration than in the previous thirty. Federal spending ballooned from $2.9 billion in 1929 to $4.4 billion in 1931, a 52% increase. Part of this gusher of cash went to build the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River.

This spending binge, in the midst of recession, brought huge deficits. Hoover then tried to address the deficit with a huge tax hike. In 1932, the top income tax rate in the US rose from 25% to 63%. He also tried to implement a national sales tax, but this was defeated. This followed the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which put a 60% tariff on more than 3,200 products.

After 1933, the Roosevelt administration pursued much the same approach. By 1935, Federal expenditures had grown to $6.4 billion, and in 1940 they hit $9.5 billion – over three times the level in 1929. That year, the top personal income tax rate was 79%. President Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, described the results in May 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. …We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot.”

The cycle of “stimulus” and “austerity” eventually leads to more spending and higher taxes. It doesn’t work. So what’s the solution?

A better strategy is less spending and lower taxes.

In 1976, Britain was so hard up that it had to go to the IMF for a loan. Without this assistance, the government would have likely defaulted. The IMF insisted on its usual “austerity” plan, with spending reductions and higher taxes of course. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became prime minister. Thatcher is remembered today for her sweeping reorganization of government, in which public employees, subsidies and state-run businesses were slashed or discarded. She crushed the influence of public unions in the face of widespread strikes.

Despite this, in the 1983 general elections, only 39% of union members voted for the opposing Labor Party. Thatcher was popular. Why? The other side of her strategy was tax cuts. She immediately moved to lower top income tax rates from 83% to 60%. By 1986, the top income tax rate was 40%, and the basic rate had fallen to 25%. Capital gains tax rates were reduced from 75% to 30%, and indexed to inflation. The corporate tax rate was reduced from 52% to 35%.

Ronald Reagan, in the US, had much the same strategy: tax cuts and spending cuts. During his presidency, the top US income tax rate fell from 70% to 28%. His attempts to reduce spending floundered in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Ideally, spending reductions should focus on the waste, theft and graft – the politicians, bureaucrats, public employees and corporate cronies – not on the public services which are the government’s primary reason for existence. Britain still has its National Health system.

I find that these sorts of policies are accompanied by a certain change in mood. The political focus shifts from parasitic self-enrichment to one of national success and failure. If your initial premise is to find a way to strip-mine the populace for wealth, and then distribute your gains among your cronies, then tax hikes and spending increases are the natural conclusion. Politicians find the answers when they start to ask the questions. Thatcher studied conservative texts, and actually read Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom from cover to cover.

You can sense this change in mood when the terms “stimulus” and “austerity” disappear from discussion. Politicians start to talk about “national greatness,” as Vladimir Putin did in 2000 when he introduced Russia’s amazing 13% flat income tax. In the explosive recovery that followed, the Russian government’s income tax revenues soared. In 2001, the first year of the new tax system, income tax revenues increased by an astonishing 46%! This had nothing to do with oil prices, which finished that year at $19.33 per barrel. In 2002, income tax revenues increased another 40%, and crude oil finished the year at $29.42. By 2007, income tax revenues were 624% higher than they were in 2000, and Russia was once again a major world power.

This can be a wonderful time for investors.

Sometimes, governments never pull out of their spiral of decline. During the 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest and most powerful state in Europe, with a world empire stretching from California and Peru in the west to the Philippines in the east – not to mention Portugal and most of Italy and the Netherlands. By the early 17th century, native Spaniards were fleeing to the Americas to escape crushing taxes.

In his wonderful book, For Good and Evil: the Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, Charles Adams notes an observer in early 17th century Madrid who said:

“The galleons left on the 28th of last month; I am assured that in addition to the persons who sailed for business reasons, more than 6,000 Spaniards have passed over to America for the simple reason that they cannot live in Spain.”

Four hundred years later, Spain remains a nice place for a sunny vacation.

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

Stimulus, Austerity, and the Spiral of Decline originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

If I could send a fortune cookie to those future leaders – five, ten, or twenty years from now – it would contain the Magic Formula of economic success. Here it is:

Low Taxes
Stable Money

If you look at any of the great economic successes over the past two hundred years, you will usually find this combination. Likewise, most of the great failures have the converse: high (or rising) taxes, and unstable money.

Today, a rather energetic discussion of economic policy is taking place, but you will notice that almost nobody suggests anything that is in line with the Magic Formula. On the contrary, the trend is toward the opposite. Economic weakness begets heavy spending; heavy spending begets large deficits; large deficits beget a political trend toward higher taxes. They will eventually find out that higher taxes beget economic weakness.

President Obama has already outlined his preferences for a reversal of the Bush tax cuts, plus still higher taxes on upper-income earners, plus a removal of the upper-income cap on payroll taxes, plus additional increases in capital gains taxes. But this is just the beginning; there is serious talk of introducing a national VAT in the US.

What about the stable money part of the equation? The most stable money, historically, has always been produced by a gold standard. That is the gold standard’s purpose. However, beginning especially in the 1930s, a new ideology arose. We no longer wanted stable money. We wanted money we could manipulate, so we could fool people into doing things they would not otherwise do. Alas, this sort of thing has consequences, and they are usually not too pleasant. The US dollar has already fallen to 1/50th of its original value due to our belief in monetary manipulation. The next 50-fold decline might take place in a much shorter period.

Thus, we have higher taxes and, I expect, increasingly unstable money. On top of a dozen other things you could name. Do you see what I mean about an era of economic decline?

I know that many learned economists will say: “Yes, that is interesting, but we can’t afford a major tax cut at this time. Plus, we need all the help we can get from monetary policy.” This is what people always say in the early period of an era of economic decline.

The fact of the matter is that you can always reduce taxes. Some of the most brilliant tax cut strategies have come from governments in the direst situations imaginable.

Russia was a disaster zone when Vladmir Putin introduced a 13% flat income tax in 2000. Over the next seven years, the average worker’s salary (in US dollars) increased by an astonishing 30% per annum.

Germany was in even worse shape in 1949. In the years after the war, hyperinflation raged and millions died of starvation. Much the same was happening in Japan. Both enacted huge tax cuts in the early 1950s. Japan even went so far as to require a balanced budget by law. Both introduced gold-linked currencies at the same time.

This is the kind of thing that happens in the early stages of an era of economic success. The results were very much in line with Russia or China over the past few years. You’ll notice that Russia and China today have little interest in monetary manipulation, but are teaming up to establish an international currency regime that promises more stability than the mismanaged US dollar. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev even presented a 1/2 oz. gold bullion coin at the most recent G-8 meeting, as an example of the international currency of the future.

Why did Germany and Japan go this route? They did it because they finally got fed up. Once they got fed up enough, they started to look for answers. The answer was the Magic Formula, although they didn’t call it that in those days.

Politicians today, especially in the US, are nowhere near that point. They still think they can spend and tax and devalue their way… not to prosperity exactly… but to a continuation of the status quo. The status quo in which they are somewhere near the top.

Maybe one of them is reading this essay right now. If they hadn’t heard of the Magic Formula before, they know about it now. And what are they thinking?

“Hmmmm, some kind of libertarian crank by the looks of it.”

It’s just too early in the process. Louis XIV’s finance minister Vauban wanted to replace the hideously corrupt and oppressive French tax system with a simple 10% income tax. Louis fired him.

Maybe Louis XIV himself was corrupt and oppressive. Plus, he was already the Sun King. Why fix what ain’t broken? Taxes got higher and higher, until finally the French “voted” for lower taxes by exterminating the aristocrats altogether.

The French example is from a wonderful book by Charles Adams, called For Good and Evil: the Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization. Adams also offers an example from ancient Egypt:

“Scholars have tried to determine what went wrong in Egypt under the Ptolemies, when an empire that had survived for over three thousand years simply withered and died… Egypt had suffered no military disasters, famines or plagues…”

The most impressive analysis of Egypt’s demise came from the great Russian scholar Rostovtzeff… Rostovtzeff felt that the continual and unabated tyranny of Egyptian tax collectors produced a nationwide decline in incentive. Egyptian workers and farmers lost their desire to work – agricultural lands fell into disuse, businessmen moved away, and workers fled. Sound money disappeared as a raging inflation destroyed what capital there was. The land became filled with robbers who wrecked commerce and brought fear and despair to the populace.

Remember the Magic Formula. It will come in handy someday.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

The Magic Formula originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

People in other countries are beyond such simple mechanisms of control. For an international currency, there must be reasons to use the currency voluntarily.

The best currency is the one that is most stable in value. Historically, the premier international currencies, whether the US dollar after World War II, the Dutch guilder in the seventeenth century, or the Athenian owl in the fourth century BC, were those reliably pegged to gold. Gold has been the superlative monetary standard for thousands of years.

Even after the US dollar left the gold standard in 1971, it remained the most stable currency in the world, which allowed it to maintain its prominence up to the present day. There was no better alternative.

During the 19th century, the US was considered an emerging market. The premier international currency was the British pound.

In 1914, the British pound had been pegged to gold (with brief lapses) for 233 years. However, the beginning of World War I tossed all the European powers into turmoil, including Britain. The pound’s link with gold was broken. People in Europe looked for a reliable store of their financial assets. They observed that the United States was untroubled by war and had by then a long history of gold-linked currencies and protection of property rights.

In the 1930s, all European governments devalued their currencies again. The United States did as well, in 1933, but the dollar remained pegged to gold afterwards while most European currencies (and the yen) floated. World War II cemented the transfer of financial prominence to the US To put it quite simply: the US Treasury bond – denominated in gold-linked dollars – was the most reliable store of value in the world.

Financial theorists divide the world of investments into two asset classes: the risk-free asset, and all other risky assets. With currencies mismanaged constantly by central banks, nothing today even approaches the ideal of a “risk-free asset.” In marketing-speak, a vast demand goes unsatisfied.

How could China establish an international currency? I predict it will happen when a person anywhere in the world is able to say: The Chinese government bond is the most reliable store of value in the world – the closest approximation to the “risk-free asset.”

Obviously, we are not there yet. How could the Chinese government promote this process?

The Chinese yuan would have to be reliably stable in value. In the past, this has always meant a gold standard. Fiat floating currencies managed by bureaucrats are never very reliable, and have a nasty tendency of disappearing altogether. In the past, the international currency was always the one that remained pegged to gold, while the alternatives sank into chaos and devaluation.

Chinese authorities may claim that their floating currency managers are better than the US or European floating currency managers, but nobody would believe them.

The yuan would have to be a reliably independent alternative to the dollar, euro or yen. Since 1950, the yuan has had one form or another of a dollar peg. It is completely pointless to use yuan instead of dollars, if the yuan is pegged (tightly or loosely) to the dollar. The desire for stable exchange rates is entirely reasonable. However, the Chinese government has not established any record of being able to manage an independent currency.

Simply having a floating currency is not enough. Both the euro and yen float, but they are not really independent of the dollar. Monetary policies at all three central banks are eerily similar. The Bank of Japan, in particular, seems to be subject to political pressure from the United States. If the dollar were to fall in value considerably, it is likely that the euro and yen would also be guided lower to avoid disadvantages to trade. They would all decline together, if not quite at the same speed.

To put it a slightly different way: Even though people are getting nervous about the reliability of the US Treasury bond, neither the German government bond nor the Japanese government bond are clearly better.

If China adopted a gold standard policy, this would establish true independence from the dollar. However, if the dollar fell in value considerably, then the yuan/dollar foreign exchange rates could change dramatically. Instead of about 7:1 today, perhaps it could go to 1:1 in the future. This would be due to a dollar fall, not a rise in the yuan.

Many countries could not tolerate such a situation. Switzerland tried, in the early 1970s, but the trade consequences were too great. It would be quite unpleasant for China as well. However, China already has significant trade advantages, so even large forex moves like this could be withstood.

The Gulf States – and Russia to some degree – have an even larger advantage in this regard. They have no real competition for their primary export, crude oil.

A credible military remains, unfortunately, an important component of political independence, and consequently currency independence. The US is not likely to hand over its mantle of world leadership without complaint. While hostilities are unlikely, certain political pressures by the US can be imposed upon governments who, in schoolyard terms, seem like they can be pushed around. Japanese leaders remember the military exercises the US Navy conducted in Tokyo Bay in 1989, a rather blatant reminder of the Black Ships of 1853. Russia is well aware of political incursions in the former Soviet republics, and even Germany still hosts enormous US military bases.

China is establishing itself as a military power. An alliance with Russia, and acquiescence among the other Asian states, would help establish real political independence.

There remains a little problem of exactly how to manage a gold standard system. This is not very difficult, but the Chinese monetary authorities apparently have not yet mastered the basic concepts involved. Fortunately, there is now a handbook on these subjects – Gold: the Once and Future Money (2007), which is available in a Chinese edition.

The US dollar is, quite frankly, not a very good currency. It would not be difficult to develop a better alternative – a currency pegged to gold. Once the Chinese authorities had demonstrated that they can manage such a system, people everywhere would flock to yuan-denominated assets. Lenders would demand that their loans be denominated in reliable, gold-linked yuan. Shangahi would become the financial capital of the world.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

How To Establish and International Currency originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

It is a total fantasy.

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” we are told. Almost everybody understands that when a currency loses value, it eventually takes more and more currency to buy things.

It works the other way as well. When a currency rises in value, it takes less and less currency to buy things. Let’s call this process “monetary deflation.”

This hardly ever happens. Inflation has natural temptations, but there is normally little political support for sustained deflation. Beginning in 1985 – with a bit of international arm-twisting known as the Plaza Accord – Japan experienced probably the longest and most dramatic monetary deflation (rising currency) in the last 500 years, if not all of human history.

This is obvious in foreign exchange rates. Beginning in late 1985, the yen soared above 250/dollar level that it traded in the early 1980s, eventually peaking at 80/dollar – a threefold increase – in 1995. Ouch. The yen’s rise is more definitively described by the ratio of the yen to the eternal measure of value, which is gold.

This may puzzle some people. Wasn’t the Japanese economy roaring into a bubble in the late 1980s? Indeed it was – driven in part by the 300 basis point decline in interest rates that resulted from the soaring yen. You can imagine the effects on the already-overheated property sector. Also, the government was engaging in a series of dramatic tax cuts, in line with the similar Reagan tax cuts in the U.S.

This, plus a healthy dose of irrational exuberance, was enough to keep the economy humming even though the CPI hovered around a negative 2.0% in 1987, 1988 and 1989 (when adjusted for an increase in the consumption tax).

However, once the asset bubble popped, the full effects of the monetary deflation were felt. The yen kept rising, eventually hitting a peak near 28,000/oz. of gold in 2000. This was about a seven-fold rise in the yen’s value from its 1980 nadir near 200,000/oz., and a threefold rise from the mid-1985 value of about 90,000/oz.

I think it is fair to characterize the property market of the late 1980s as a “bubble” similar to the one we’ve experienced in the U.S., but it did not die naturally. No, the Japanese property market was pushed.

The government, aware of unsustainable asset valuations, embarked in a draconian series of steps to depress property prices throughout the 1990s. This not only blew away the froth of unsustainable valuations, it also demolished the real, fundamental value of property. They began with a series of tax measures on January 1, 1990 – the first day of the bear market – which eliminated certain preferential capital gains tax treatments for property. To take a few of a great many such steps which followed: In 1992, the tax rate on short-term capital gains (under 2 years) on property was raised to 90%. Long-term gains were taxed at 60%. A 0.3% National property tax was introduced (this was several multiples greater than existing property taxes). A City Planning Tax of 0.3%. A Registration and License Tax of 5% of the sale value of a property. A Real Estate Acquisition Tax of 4%. An Office Tax of 0.25%. A Land Ownership Tax of 1.4%. Even the regular property tax, the Fixed Assets Tax, was effectively raised by several multiples. From 1990 to 1996, Japanese property values imploded by as much as 70%. However, the revenues from this tax rose by 46%. You can do the math.

All of this resulted in epic levels of bad debts at banks. For some reason, the banks managed to get the blame for this, as if they were responsible for the unprecedented monetary deflation during the decade, or the tax assault on property owners.

Banks wrote off and liquidated loans continuously during the decade. However, the economy was unable to improve due primarily to the hideous monetary deflation, so more bad debts kept piling up as one borrower after another reached the end of their resources. This gave the appearance that the banks “weren’t doing anything about their bad debts.” As fast as they bailed out their boat, new water was coming in.

In 2000, the government, still convinced that banks “weren’t doing anything about their bad debts,” undertook an extensive audit of bank assets on a loan-by-loan basis. They wanted to determine if there were any “hidden bad debts,” borrowers that had effectively gone bust but were being carried as performing loans. Then, having dug all the skeletons out of the closet to their satisfaction, they mandated that the banks resolve all these bad debts over the course of the next few years. Banks were required to state their progress under this plan in their financial statements.

Thus, we can see with great precision what banks were up to. As of September 30, 2000, Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group had “bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets” of 653 billion yen. These were the real bad loans – those that had defaulted. There were another 2,594 billion of “doubtful assets” – these were loans that were paid in full, but where the borrower was in some difficulty (a large cohort after 10 years of recession).

By March 31, 2003, SMFG had reduced this original group of “bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets” to 144.5 billion, a decline of 78%. Problem solved? As of March 31, 2003, the bank had 524.9 billion of “bankrupt and quasi-bankrupt assets,” with the difference made up not by leftovers from a decade earlier, but the brand new bad debts caused by the recession of 2001-2002.

Banks were doing more-or-less what they should have been doing. The government, far from “doing nothing” about the problem, was actually carpet-bombing the economy with the most destructive sorts of new taxes, on top of the horrible monetary deflation that persisted until about 2003.

The Bank of Japan eventually figured out the problem and implemented its “ryoteki kanwa” plan, which was translated into English as “quantitative easing.” With the decline of the yen beyond its 10- and 20- year moving averages, monetary deflation was not a problem in Japan after 2003. Finally free of the crushing monetary deflation, the economy managed a modest rebound. Yet, the economy has been strangely moribund, even taking into account the difficulties happening worldwide since 2007.

Is the government still “doing nothing?” Hardly. The Japanese government’s tax barrage continues to this day. Already there is an annual rise in payroll taxes, scheduled for every year between 2004 and 2017, which will eventually take the payroll tax rate from 13.6% to 18.3%. (Employers match this, and there is no maximum income to which it applies.) And what about the increase in taxes on dividends from 10% to 20%? Or the introduction of a brand-new capital gains tax on equities of 20%, which had effectively been tax-free before? Or the effective 25% increase in personal income taxes, the result of the elimination of a 20% tax cut introduced in 1998? On top of all that, politicians are talking about increasing the consumption tax (similar to a sales tax) from 5% presently to 10% or higher. Until a 3% consumption tax was introduced in 1989, there was no consumption tax at all in Japan, not even at the prefectural or municipal level.

This performance is spookily similar to the policies of both Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom raised taxes throughout the 1930s and squandered boatloads of money on public works and other such spending “stimulus,” with little long-term effect.

There is certainly a lesson to be learned from Japan, but it is not the one that most people think. The lesson is: keep your money stable, and taxes low. When Japan was on the gold standard in the 1950s and 1960s, and reduced taxes steadily, it was the growth wonder of the world.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning

The Japan Baloney originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

Hoover Dam is perhaps the most iconic of all of these efforts. Although environmentalists might argue, in terms of its benefits such as electricity generation and water supply for agriculture and eventually urban use, it is about as useful and worthwhile a public work as anyone could ever hope for. When it was completed, it was the world’s largest electric-power generation facility and the world’s largest concrete structure.

Planning for Hoover Dam began in 1922, and was overseen by Herbert Hoover himself. Construction on the project was approved by Congress in December 1928 — long before the economic problems emerged. It was, in contemporary terms, as close to a “shovel-ready” project as you’d find. The initial appropriation for construction was made in July 1930.

The project officially began in September 1930. The contract for construction was awarded to a joint venture of six private companies in March, 1931. The first thing they had to do was to make a small city for the workers who would be working on the project. Boulder City was occupied in the spring of 1932. Roughly 16,000 workers were part of the construction, and many brought their families to live in Boulder City.

Initial construction on the dam project itself began with the upper cofferdam in September 1932. Construction was completed in March 1936. It was considered a great accomplishment to complete such an ambitious project so quickly.

As a result of these spending programs, the Federal budget ballooned enormously. In 1929, the government had $3.862 billion of tax revenue, and spent $3.127 billion, enjoying a surplus of $734 million. In 1932, the government spent $4.659 billion, a 49% increase despite the “deflationary” environment.

In 1931, the government had its first deficit in eleven years, of $462 million. Perhaps this, and the spending commitments upcoming, is why Hoover pushed through an enormous tax hike in April 1932, which was enacted in June of that year. The top income tax rate in the U.S. rose to 63%, from 25% previously. Inheritance taxes were doubled, corporate tax rates rose, and a long list of excise taxes were imposed. It was predicted to raise $1.1 billion in new revenue, in an effort to close the budget deficit.

The tax didn’t help the economy much, however, and revenues remained weak. In 1932, revenue had collapsed to $1.924 billion, and were only $1.997 billion in 1933. The budget deficit exploded to $2.735 billion in 1932 and $2.602 billion in 1933.

John Maynard Keynes once argued that, in a depression, it would be worthwhile to pay workers to dig holes, and to pay other workers to fill them up. But how is this different than paying workers to do absolutely nothing? The main advantages appear to be psychological. “Workers” maintain a better morality and work ethic, and are less likely to revolt, than “welfare recipients.” And, they can be counted as “employed,” while a welfare recipient might remain “unemployed” until they actually found something productive to do in the economy.

We can see that it is not so easy to just “push money into an economy” via public works projects. The more useful they are, the more likely it is that they will take years of planning and construction. If the goal is to supposedly avoid some sort of downward spiral over the next six months, it is more likely that the funds will end up directed into something more like Keynes’ hole-digging exercise.

Thus, we can see that, when short-term “stimulus” becomes the focus, the effect is more likely to be short-term welfare. There is nothing particularly wrong with welfare in a depression. Better than having people dying in the streets. But, increased welfare spending isn’t much of an economic program in itself.

In retrospect, Hoover Dam was probably a worthwhile project. It produced something of value, and kept 16,000 workers busy over the 1931-1935 period, the worst part of the Depression. However, one effect of this aggressive deficit spending was an eventual rise in tax rates, which did additional economic harm. Roosevelt continued along the same path: spending soared up to $9.468 billion in 1940, and tax rates soared higher as well, with the top rate hitting 81% in 1940 (and 94% in 1945).

Politicians always like to spend other peoples’ money, so it is no surprise that they — always and everywhere — flock around those economic advisors that tell them that enormous spending projects are the key to resolving economic difficulties. Nor is it a surprise that economists are quick to tell people what they want to hear. If you’re going to be wrong all the time, you might as well be popular, well-paid, and wrong. Economics being what it is, you can always argue later that you were wrong because “people didn’t do enough.”

These ideas were solidified in a book written by John Maynard Keynes and published in 1936. Since governments had already been hard at work at “stimulus” for a half-decade or more already by that point, you could say that the book was a how-to guide for economists to justify policies that were already popular.

When you get past the cloud of nonsense surrounding “stimulus spending,” with its output gaps, multipliers and so forth, it seems to me that government spending during a recession accomplishes roughly what it does during any other time. Mostly, it is a big waste of money, but it might keep some people employed and maybe you’ll even be left with something useful afterwards. I would suggest a decent rail system, at least as good as that of France. Since we’re spending trillions anyway, how about as good as the U.S. had in 1910? That would be, I argue, the least bad of all possible boondoggles.

Public Works Done Right originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

People sometimes ask me: "What should I do with my retirement account?" I often tell them to consider ways of retiring that are not dependent on financial abstractions and various corporate/government promises, such as Social Security or corporate pensions. This usually gets some puzzlement because they’ve been trained for decades to think only in terms of financial products.

Let’s look at a specific example. This is for my own parents, who turned 65 last year. (That puts them just before the Baby Boomers.) They live in a nice suburb outside of New York City, on the coast of Connecticut. Like many older people, they would like to stay in the house they have owned for about 20 years now, in the community they are accustomed to, and near the friends they have. It’s not so easy to start over when you’re over 65.

Even people who have been able to accumulate significant assets, pensions etc., might be a little nervous. Trying to depend, for the next 20 or even 30 years perhaps, on financial abstractions and government promises would be a little scary. I usually tell them that they should be scared! Or, at least don’t put too much faith in various Wall Street promises (and pensions are ultimately Wall Street promises too). You aren’t going to make a smooth 8% per year in your 401(k) just because some financial advisor told you so. But, I guess you’ve figured that out now. Anything can happen. Particularly as we are sort of in a depression right now. Owning a big house in a nice neighborhood is not cheap, even if it is 100% owned with no mortgage. The annual costs of a house look something like this:

Property tax: $8000 (and that could go up)
Insurance: $2000 (could be higher)
Maintenance: $2000 (could be higher)
Utilities (phone, internet, cable, electric, trash collection) per month: $200 or $2400/year.
Heating oil: $2000 per year (could be higher).

Total: $16,400. That is probably on the low side. So, let’s just budget it at $18,000.

Then, you’ve got a car and all the other expenses of living. And what happens when you get a little frail, and want living assistance?

Have you seen the prices for nursing homes?

It’s not that these burdens are unbearable. It’s rather that they are burdensome. Just house-related costs could chew up most of your Social Security check right there. And, if things really go to hell in the future, they might become unbearable. Who knows what things will look like in 20 years? Only your financal advisor knows for sure.

Let’s look at it from the financial side. Maybe you can get 3% of cashflow from a "safe" muni bond portfolio, or dividends from stocks. And, you have to take into account inflation … over the next twenty years. How do we "take into account" the unknowable? What happens if there’s not enough fifteen years from now, and I’m still alive? To get $18,000 of income would take $600,000 of muni bonds. And, muni bonds are looking kinda risky these days. Dividends from stocks might take more than $600,000, because you have to pay taxes on dividends. Stocks go up and down a lot too. Sickening.

Now, like I said, they’ve been living in the area for a while and have some good friends, who are about the same age and in similar circumstances.

So, here’s the plan:

You get together with your friends. You say: "We’re all retired now. I’ve got a big empty house. You do too I suppose. Maybe we can think of living together. That would help reduce our living expenses. Plus, it might be fun, and it would be a good way to keep an eye on each other. That can be important when you’re getting older."

Everyone is repulsed at first, because we Americans are all taught that we have to live as far away from each other as possible. But, they remember that, when they were in college, they used to share houses, and it was kind of fun. Also, everyone is older now and a lot better behaved than when they were in college. And, it is true that it might be good to have someone keeping an eye on you.

So, everyone decides to move into one house, owned by the Owner. The people who move in, two other retired couples, are the Renters. The Renters pay the Owner $800 a month to rent a bedroom, and agree to pay 1/3 of the utility and heating bills. The Renters’ cost of living looks something like this:

Rent: $800 * 12 = $9600
Utilities: $100/month = $1200
Heat: $700

Total annual costs: $11,500.

Now, indeed renting turns out to be cheaper than owning the big house, even when the big house is fully paid for. They could sell their big houses if they wanted to. But, they are nervous about just selling the house they have owned for twenty years, and moving in with someone else. It might not work out. Let’s not burn any bridges. So, instead of selling their now-empty houses, they rent them out.

Rent: $3500 per month = $42,000 per year (typical, actually a little low). Heckuva lot cheaper than paying the mortgage on a million-dollar house. Just the thing for a Wall Streeter with a family that needs to downsize quickly. Real quickly. Utilities are paid for by the renters.

Costs:
Property tax: $8000
Maintenance: $3000 (higher with renters)
Insurance: $2000
Total: $13,000

Net cashflow: $42,000 – $13,000 = $29,000.

Now, they’re getting $29,000 in rent net of property expenses. Then, they pay their $11,500 it costs to live in the shared house.

$29,000 – $11,500 = $17,500.

Now, look at the renters:

Before: $18,000 per year of housing costs.

After: Housing and utilities are paid for, and an extra $17,500 per year of free cashflow, plus probably some tax benefits.

Wow, all of a sudden, you’re living for free, and getting paid too! You just created, out of thin air, the equivalent of a $1,200,000 muni bond portfolio. Maybe more, if you consider tax benefits (rental properties can charge depreciation.) And, you still own your house.

For the Owner, it looks like this:

House costs: $13,000
Utilities: $1200 (1/3)
Heat: $700 (1/3)
Total: $14,900

Rental Income: $800 * 2 * 12 = $19,200

Net cashflow: $19,200 – $14,900 = $4,300.

So, the Owner is also living for free! However, their cashflow is not as high as the Renters. That’s probably the way it should be, because the Renters will probably want a little extra incentive to move out of their house into someone else’s.

So, now where are we? All three couples are now living for free, and getting some extra cash on top of that. And, there are things you can do in a shared house, like splitting cooking duties. Instead of cooking every night for two, the cook can cook twice a week for six. That’s a lot easier, and would probably result in a more ambitious menu, and would resolve the question of how three people can cook in one kitchen. If the men are smart, they will encourage a little friendly competition among their wives, to "keep up the pace" for their two dinners a week. You can finally use that formal dining room every day. Then, everyone has a house’s worth of furnishings. The antiques, boutiquey stuff, art and heirlooms, and the grand piano, all goes into the house where everyone is living. The more generic, replaceable stuff can go into the houses that are being rented out. Maybe you can charge an extra $500 a month for a furnished house. $500 a month is $6000 per year. That’s another $200,000 muni bond portfolio-equivalent, that you created out of some used furniture. You would have had to save $400,000 before income taxes, to get a $200,000 portfolio after taxes.

After a while, in a shared house, there is always the issue of who does what house chores, and do they do it adequately, and so forth. The easy way to solve this problem is to get a housekeeper to come in one day a week, and do the vacuuming, laundry, bathrooms and all that. It’s $100 a week, or $5,200 a year, or $1,735 per couple per year. Covered by their extra cashflow. Over time, people are over 70 and a little frail. Maybe they would like a little more help with shopping or even cooking, or they are no longer able to drive safely by themselves.

So, they get a live-in full-time housekeeper. The housekeeper lives in the fourth bedroom. The housekeeper gets room and board and use of a car, plus $1,000 a month in salary. Not a bad deal for a housekeeper. That’s $12,000 per year or $4,000 per couple. That is also within their net cashflow. So, now everyone has their housing and utilities and a live-in housekeeper paid for. Make it $2,000 a month and you could get a registered nurse, probably. Now you’ve got a private nursing home.

Being older with lots of free time, it would probably be good to get outside for some light exercise. The house sits on two acres, of which perhaps there is one full acre of lawn. Instead of growing grass, let’s grow some vegetables. This is prime farm country, or it was in the colonial days. You can grow a lot of vegetables on a full acre. Heck, you can grow a lot of vegetables on a tenth of an acre. A tenth of an acre is 4,356 square feet, or 43 feet by 100 feet. Not a small garden, that. So, you drop some seeds in the ground, and have fresh vegetables all summer. You even do some canning and put some away for winter. It’s all organic, you get some exercise, and no more big-ticket trips to Whole Foods.

So, now, instead of paying out $18,000 a year in housing expenses, you’re living for free, with your friends, with a live-in housekeeper, with some extra cashflow on top of that, and a lot of your food costs are covered as well. What is there to be worried about? Pass the 401(k) on to your kids. Don’t worry about the corporate pension. Consider the Social Security check to be your entertainment budget. If there’s inflation, just raise your rents.

And all it took was a little cooperation among friends, to make better use of what they already own.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning
January 07, 2008

Nathan Lewis is the author of Gold: the Once and Future Money (2007), published by Agora Book Publishing and John Wiley.

"Psst…we’re breaking out of this joint…Saturday night…pass it on…."

Yes, dear reader…we’re breaking out… We’re not going to let these prison bars stop us. A whole generation of American investors is being fattened for slaughter…we’re not going to be among them.

Let’s look at yesterday’s headlines just to see what is going on.

The Dow rose 62 points yesterday. Oil held steady at $48. Gold went up $8. Yields are rising…but you still get paid nothing when you lend money to the U.S. government.

The economic news tells us that things are getting worse. Alcoa said it will lay off 13,500 workers. But all across the country, businesses are either laying off old workers or not hiring new ones. Most of the joblessness never makes the news – until it is already painful to the fellows without jobs. Small businesses don’t announce layoffs. Nor do they send out a press release when they decide not to hire a new kid at the carwash.

After the worst car sales in half a century, Toyota says it is shutting down its plant for 11 days.

And a figure out yesterday tells us that consumer bankruptcies rose 33% last year. But the crash came late in 2008; job cuts didn’t really begin until the last quarter. People didn’t have a chance to get their paperwork together. This year, the bankruptcy numbers should really soar.

Most likely, Americans are still in the dark about what is going on. Heck…their leaders are driving without headlights…why shouldn’t the lumpen too? People don’t seem too sore about what happened to them in ’08. They’re still hopeful that a new administration will find a way to fix things. Yes, they’re planning on cutting back spending and saving money…but they have no idea how their attempts at thrift – magnified by millions of other citizens – will affect the economy.

Levy Forecasts, which was generally right about the financial crash, now says the "damage to the economy will rapidly accelerate the financial crisis." In other words, the financial crash is causing an economic crash…which will cause a worse financial crash.

Profits are made at the margin. Most sales merely cover costs. It’s the marginal extra buyer – preferably the one who spends his savings, rather his salary – that provides business with profits. On a macro level, salaries are a cost to business. When a man spends his salary, business is merely getting back the money it paid out in labor costs. But when a man spends savings, the money falls to the bottom line as profit.

Who is going to spend savings in ’09? Who is going to spend at all? That’s why business profits are going to fall harder than most people suspect. Unemployment is going up more than most people expect. And stocks are going down more than most people expect.

Barron’s survey of Wall Street’s "top strategists" tells us that the consensus among these fellows is that stock prices will go up 18% in 2009. But these are the same strategists who thought stock prices were going up in 2008 too – instead of crashing 35% – 40%.

Here at The Daily Reckoning, we’re with the Levy bros. Our guess is that stocks will rally…and then crash again, ending the year below where they began it.

There is no doubt that the U.S. economy has entered a major downturn…probably a generational slump, in which the errors of an entire generation will be corrected.

What do we mean by that? Well, since the early days of the first Reagan Administration Americans have been building fences, to keep themselves confined, and forging chains, to wrap around their own ankles. They built cars and houses that demanded more energy – when energy was becoming more expensive. They became accustomed to lifestyles that cost about 10% more than they earned. They began to think that houses and stocks would go up every year…and that foreigners would lend them money forever. Well…you know what happened. Every link was heated white hot in the furnace of mass delusion and hammered on the anvil of wishful thinking – while public officials urged them on!

Now, the whole country drags around these heavy chains of debt…private debt in all its forms – mortgages, student loans, credit cards, home equity lines, commercial loans, private equity finance, bridge loans, road loans, ditch loans. Last year, all of a sudden, this debt got so heavy, the poor debtors started to pitch over. Lenders looked around and worried, not about the return on their money, but the return OF their money. In many cases, it didn’t look like they’d get it back. That is what caused the ‘credit crisis’ – lenders closed their wallets to all borrowers – save one, the only borrower who was 100% sure to pay you back the money when you needed it, the U.S. government. As a result, bonds and gold were the only two major asset classes to go up last year. People bought government bonds to protect against the implosion of private debt. And they bought gold to protect against government bonds.

We recall Nassim Taleb’s turkeys. Until Thanksgiving, he says, the turkey lives well. Everyday, the food arrives. Everyday, he gets bigger and fatter. Then, one day, just before the third Thursday in November, when Americans celebrate their traditional Thanksgiving dinner…with no warning, comes the knife…the crash…the collapse…the discontinuity…the 7 sigma event in the turkey’s life that changes everything.

"That’s why we need to study history," says Elizabeth, who is working on a master’s degree in 18th century French history at the Sorbonne. "If the turkeys had studied history, they might been warned. In early November, they might have started whispering to each other in the yard: ‘it’s a set-up…we’re all going to be sent to the ovens…break-out planned for tomorrow at dinner…pass it on.’ Then, while a few birds got into a squawk to provide a diversion, the others might have rushed the gate. Instead, they didn’t know what was coming and took it in the neck."

There are plenty of histories of finance – oral and written. But investors pay no attention. One generation of turkeys learns. The next forgets. One makes money; the next loses it. Every generation has to get its own neck chopped in its own way.

*** With so many citizens groaning and collapsing under the weight of so much debt, it is entirely foreseeable that the feds should pretend to come to their aid. Today’s news tells us that Barack Obama’s rescue mission will bring about $770 billion of cash with it. This comes on top of other rescue missions mounted by the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve. Altogether, the total cost of these mercy efforts is into the trillions.

In fact, this morning, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the U.S. government will run a budget deficit of $1.2 trillion in 2009…and that’s not taking into account the stimulus programs.

We have explained why bailouts don’t work. You can’t solve a problem caused by too much debt by adding more debt. The ‘hair of the dog’ technique won’t work – not even if you throw in the whole pooch. But it will have an effect – it will increase the weight of debt to the whole society. The forges are hot again…the hammers are clanging…the smithies are sweaty; now they’re building new chains of debt – public debt. They’re putting up a chain-link fence around the entire United States…and shackling every citizen to a monumental ball. Next year alone, the U.S. federal deficit will go to $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion – or about $20,000 for every family in the country. Over the course of the slump, the total could run to $100,000 per family. This extra public debt is the only sure outcome of the bailout projects.

How will Americans possibly carry so much public debt – along with their already bone-crushing private debt – without collapsing? Who would lend these sub-prime borrowers so much money in the first place?

Give us 24 hours and we’ll have answers to those questions…and give you our break-out plan too. The rest of the turkeys may get the axe…but we’re headed over the fence. We’ve got wings, remember….

*** A dear reader writes: "I respectfully disagree with your assumption regarding the ‘bounce.’ One of the goals of the Bush Administration is to have significant government ‘equity’ presence in Wall Street. This is called ‘Privatization’ when it applies to Social Security – but whatever the Government ‘privatizes’ but retains a hand in, it really ‘socializes.’

"Sufficient ‘equity’ has been poured into NYSE stocks, that the Government can manipulate the Dow (DJIA) much more than it could five years ago.

"As most people find the DJIA and the American economy synonymous, a slow and gentle rise in the Dow is cheering to many. So it is done.

"The Hunts attempted the same thing, with vastly different purpose, with the silver market some 30 years ago. They tried to corner it – and lost. The price went up – but they couldn’t get enough of a controlling share to ‘own’ the market, so they were left with vast holdings of massively overpriced silver.

"(I suspect that the fluctuations in oil prices may have been something similar, just from the pattern – but that’s sheer speculation.)

"We (the taxpayer) are gathering a massive market portfolio of overpriced equities. Like dime stocks, we can drive the price up; but it is so volatile, we cannot sell it all at the higher price – and that would crash the market soundly.

"Our acceleration into Market Socialism is another version of what Governments habitually do – play shell games with values, in order to reap profits. I’m sure that the Soviet Union allowed a little stock market to run here or there, eh? The NYSE is Uncle’s pet now, and it is on strings. Never mind that it is dead. It can still dance."

*** England isn’t so merry these days. First, it is cold – temperatures fell to minus 10 centigrade, according to that reliable source of meteorological intelligence – the Sun. We knew it was cold because the Sun girl on page 3 had goose bumps all over her naked body. But at least she wasn’t sick with the flu. A record 2.4 million workers called in sick yesterday in England – one out of 12 staff was out. Another two million stayed at home because they don’t have jobs to go to. The financial storm that hit Britain last year continues to send waves over the island’s gunwhales. Big retailer Marks & Spencer said it is cutting 1,700 jobs today. And the firm founded by Josiah Wedgewood 250 years ago went bust. UK stocks are down about 40%. Houses are going down fast too. Unemployment is going up. And Britain’s most profitable industry – finance has gone into a slump. Apparently, half the country is either out of work, down with the flu, recovering from the flu, or pretending to have it so they don’t have to go to work.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning

Benefit from Being a Baby Boomer originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.

In 1944, the world leaders that gathered in New Hampshire decided on a system based on gold. This was no innovation, as monetary systems for the past few centuries had also been based on gold. In the Bretton Woods system, the dollar was pegged to gold at $35/oz., and other currencies were pegged to the dollar. Currencies didn’t float in those days. Floating, manipulated currencies were considered an abomination. Exchange rates remained fixed. This stable, gold-linked system formed the foundation for a wonderful worldwide expansion of wealth in the 1950s and 1960s – even among the war’s losers, Germany and Japan.

Unfortunately, there was a flaw in this plan. Interest rate manipulation, as practiced by the Fed, was surging in popularity. It was hoped this currency tomfoolery would prevent another Great Depression, and every other little recession along the way. This "monetary policy" and currency manipulation was contrary to the simple, automatic currency board-like mechanisms by which gold standard systems should be operated. The result was that the fixed exchange rates and gold link came under constant pressure.

For a while, governments attempted to have it both ways. They imposed various capital controls to keep exchange rates fixed – while at the same time their central banks played games that caused exchange rates to diverge. The dollar/gold peg was not maintained by judicious supply adjustment, as a currency board would operate, but by heavy-handed intervention in the gold market in London.

Eventually, the conflict between manipulative central banks and the gold link became overwhelming. In January 1970, Richard Nixon installed his friend Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Burns immediately opened the monetary floodgates to help offset the recession of the time – following the day’s conventional wisdom. In August 1971, the conflict between Burns’ manipulation and the gold link became too great, and, rather than abandoning Burns’ currency games, it was decided to abandon the gold link instead. The dollar had become a floating currency. By 1973, all the major currencies floated.

An economic catastrophe ensued, the inflation of the 1970s. Even in the 1980s and 1990s, as currencies were stabilized somewhat, economies never regained the health they showed in the 1950s and 1960s. Emerging markets, in particular, were beset by regular currency disasters.

The environment of monetary chaos that we have lived in for the past thirty-seven years has finally produced a political willingness to fix the problem. Governments sense that, if they do not take action now, a worldwide crisis may ensue. Just as in 1944, governments want to return to the monetary stability upon which capitalism was founded. On November 15, governments will gather to talk about a "New Bretton Woods." There is even some talk that gold will play a part. The creators of this New Bretton Woods, if they are able to agree on anything at all, would do well to recognize the successes and failures of the original Bretton Woods.

Bretton Woods was, overall, a great success. This was due to the link with gold, and the fixed exchange rates worldwide. Capitalism since the Industrial Revolution had been based on this monetary principle, and it worked again as it had in the past.

The reason that the Bretton Woods gold standard did not persist indefinitely was not government deficits, or insufficient gold bullion reserves, "current account imbalances" or any other such thing. The only reason that governments decided to abandon the gold link was that they preferred to play central bank games with their currencies. A New Bretton Woods must wholly and completely abandon such practices.

Without these guiding principles, this month’s discussions are likely to devolve into an unworkable hodgepodge of currency baskets, CPI targets, promises likely to be broken, and rhetorical vagaries. Certainly no usable system would emerge, although an unusable system might.

A New Bretton Woods, of gold-linked currencies worldwide, would be very easy to create. It could be done in a weekend, and wouldn’t cost a dime. It is merely a decision to manage currencies one way – a gold link – rather than another way. Unfortunately, I don’t think today’s generation of monetary bureaucrats in the U.S. and Europe have the talent, skills or understanding to accomplish this solution. They can’t even identify it.

I place my hopes on Russia, China and the Middle East. Their monetary bureaucrats don’t have the skills either, as far as I can tell, but they are willing to learn. As outsiders, they can see that the G7′s conventional wisdom isn’t working.

I wish the best for those governments willing to step up with a solution to the problems that have plagued the world since 1971. I just hope they get on with it before things get too out of hand.

Regards,

Nathan Lewis
for The Daily Reckoning
November 20, 2008

Nathan Lewis is the author of Gold: the Once and Future Money (2007), published by Agora Book Publishing and John Wiley.

Now you don’t talk so loud…
Now you don’t feel so proud…
About havin’ to be scroungin’ your next meal…

- Bob Dylan

A few months ago, working on Wall Street was about the most prestigious thing you could do. Rock legends earned less. Heart surgeons got less respect. Porches had less power. Screen stars had fewer girlfriends. You were on top of the world. You earned more than anyone else. You knew more. You were better educated…the top of the class from the top schools. You understood what a CDO was…and a swap…and a derivative.

Naturally, other people…ordinary people…looked up to you. They gave you good tables at restaurants. They parked your car without scratching it against a fire hydrant. Women wanted to meet you…and men asked your advice on economics, politics, fashion, art – you name it. You were what every mother wanted her son to be – a member of that special club…the secret order…the high priests of the modern world…the ruling elite of Planet Goldman…the Confrérie of Finance.

But now, they that did ride so high now lie in the gutters of lower Manhattan. People practically spit at you on the street. They blame you for their losses…for taking away their retirements…for wrecking the whole world’s economy. You were a hero…now, you’re a schmuck.

Yesterday, the Dow fell another 427 points – to under 8,000. This morning, stocks fell, as recession fears and jobs data plagued the market. O’ Bama! Where is thy bounce!

Consumer price inflation fell by 1% – the biggest drop in history.

Houses in Southern California are now down 41%, according to the latest report. "Harsh reality," says the Wall Street Journal, is now "hitting home."

Architects, too, say their billings have taken a record dip.

About the only profitable business left is hijacking ships!

The typical stock market investor has lost about half his money. He’s looking for someone to blame – surely, it’s not his own fault!

And so now, poor Wall Street, the public is catching on to your scam…

…that the special knowledge you claimed was nothing but smooth talking claptrap…

…that you really didn’t know any more than anyone else about what was actually going on…

…that what you were doing was skimming money from honest businesses with a lot of fancy shenanigans and unnecessary transactions…

…and selling stocks to naive lumpen – claiming that equities "always go up in the long run"

…and loading up business and consumers with more debt than they could carry…

…and then greasing the debt over to investors, softly assuring them that "our models show the risk of default is negligible…it won’t happen, not in a thousand years."

That was only a few months ago. And now the debt has gone bad – trillions worth of it. And now, so many things that Wall Street promised have turned out to be lies and humbug that the whole world financial system has seized up.

Next week, we promise a more detailed expose of Wall Street’s flim flam. (Heck…the whole industry is down…now’s the time to kick.)

Meanwhile, we go on…into the wild blue yonder.

And here we switch from the "innocent fraud" of Wall Street, as Galbraith calls it, to the armed robbery of government.

You see, the Obama Administration will have one overriding priority: to unblock the credit markets, put things back to "normal," and get the economy moving again. If he can do that – or even appear to do that (which is the only possibility) – Obama will go down in history as one of the nation’s greatest presidents.

Of course, everyone is rooting for him. When times are good…we like horror movies and terrorist threats. But when they are bad, we want flicks with happy endings. Obama’s election was a landmark for many reasons. But he won largely because voters wanted a "Hollywood ending" to the campaign. And now they want a Hollywood ending to the new national nightmare.

Will they get it?

Nah…but they might like the show anyway.

*** Dan Amoss offers his two cents:

"Those fearing deflation assume that every American consumer is stereotypical: an overextended, credit card-addicted, house-flipping gambler. This is simply not the case. Many Americans don’t have a mortgage. And most Americans with mortgages are still making their payments. They have, however, temporarily reigned in discretionary spending because of falling house and stock prices.

"Those fearing deflation also assume that demand for debt is low and falling. But demand for debt doesn’t always come from businesses or households looking to invest more or spend more. Any business or household looking to refinance existing debt at lower rates – and there are many – is a source of demand for new debt. Banks borrowing at the Fed window at 1% or less will be looking to supply this new debt by make highly profitable loans to creditworthy borrowers.

"Once borrowers refinance, they may not be as aggressive about spending or expanding business as they used to be. But at least they will have access to credit. In the Great Depression, they did not. So the economy fell into a negative feedback loop of asset sales, bank failures, and rising unemployment.

"Treasury and the Fed will keep taking extreme measures to slow down the pace of credit contraction and housing prices – cutting off this deflationary feedback loop. This could include nationalizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and using the Treasury’s low borrowing costs to refinance hundreds of billions in existing mortgage debt into new 40- or 50-year mortgages with reduced principal balances.

"Sure, such an action would guarantee a decade or more of stagnation in housing prices, but it will also slow or flatten the rapid decline in prices. This is the essence of the Treasury and Fed actions: to stop the deleveraging from getting out of control – even at the cost of future economic stagnation. Like it or not, I think this is the most likely outcome from this crisis."

***And now, let’s look at what the Federal Reserve is doing…

As you’ll recall, the main man at the Fed, Ben Bernanke, has spent almost his entire life studying what went wrong in the United States in the ’30s and in Japan in the ’90s. He’s determined not to let it happen again – not on his watch.

And so, he’s taking America’s central bank where no central bank has ever gone before.

From the day of its founding in 1913, the Fed’s assets – the foundation capital of the U.S. banking system – grew, reaching $1 trillion on the 24th of September, 2008. But then, something extraordinary happened. Something breathtaking. And for a classical economist – something incredibly reckless. In the next six weeks, the Fed added another trillion. And the head of the Dallas Branch of the Fed said that he expected to add another trillion before the end of the year.

How does the Fed get these "assets?" Simple. It buys them. Where does it get the money to buy them? Simple again: it creates it. It makes it up. It conjures it out of nothing.

"If it comes from nothing," you might wonder, "what could it really be worth?" But we’re not going to answer that question. We don’t have time. Besides, it takes us in such a deep metaphysical swamp, we’re afraid we may never slosh our way out…or at least not get out in time for lunch. Instead, we’re going to answer this question:

"If it was that easy, how come the Fed didn’t do it before?"

The answer to that is simple: because when the Fed inflates the money supply it risks inflating consumer prices. People don’t like that. They like it when asset prices go up. But not when gasoline and milk increase.

But now, no one is worried about consumer prices. In fact, the Fed is worried about deflation…about falling prices. Bernanke knows what happens when consumer prices begin to fall. Consumers stop spending – knowing that they will be able to get a better deal in the future. That further depresses the economy…and pretty soon it’s the ’90s again and you’re back in Tokyo. So the Fed has begun a huge program of monetary inflation, intended to offset Mr. Market’s price-cutting.

And now another question: Isn’t there some risk that the Fed will overdo it?

Oh, dear reader…that’s a puffball of a pitch. If we can’t hit that, you can take our laptop away…you can break our sword…and send us back to the dugout.

Remember what happened in the slump of the early 2000s? Alan Greenspan panicked…cut rates to 1%…and left them there for more than a year. He gave the market the wrong medicine at the wrong time…and then delivered such a horse-sized dose, it set off the biggest bubble in mankind’s whole bubbly history.

Now, it’s a different kind of slump…a credit slump. And once again, the Fed is on the scene, like a quack doctor at the side of a heart-attack victim. This time, he’s giving stronger medicine…not just a 1% lending rate, but actual monetary inflation. Trillions of dollars worth of it.

For the moment, Mr. Market is taking away dollars faster than the Bernanke Fed is replacing them. That could continue…for a few months…or even for several years. But it won’t continue forever.

And here, we affirm our unshakeable faith in the people who lead us. They are trying to cause inflation. Eventually, they will get the hang of it. They may shoot for 2% per year; but they are sure to overshoot. Money printers always do.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning

A New Bretton Woods vs. The Old Bretton Woods originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning. The Daily Reckoning, published by Agora Financial provides over 400,000 global readers economic news, market analysis, and contrarian investment ideas.