By Robert Reich, Robert Reich

What passes for business reporting in the United States is too often a series of breathless reports about the stock market. When the Dow rises precipitously, as it did today (Wednesday), the business press predicts an end to the Great Recession. When the stock market plummets, as it did last week, the Great Recession is said to be worsening.

Pay no attention. The stock market has as much to do with the real economy as the weather has to do with geology. Day by day there’s no relationship at all. Over time, weather and geology interact but the results aren’t evident for many years. The biggest impact of the weather is on peoples’ moods, as are the daily ups and downs of the market.

The real economy is jobs and paychecks, what people buy and what they sell. And the real economy — even viewed from a worldwide perspective — is as precarious as ever, perhaps more so.

Today’s rally was triggered by news that one of China’s official measures of its growth – its Purchasing Managers Index – rose. The index had been in decline for three straight months.

Why should an obscure measurement on the other side of the world cause stock markets in New York, London, and Frankfurt to rally? Because China is so large and its needs seemingly limitless that its growth has been about the only reliable source of global demand.

Many big American companies have been showing profits because they’re doing ever more business in China while cutting payrolls at home. American consumers aren’t buying much of anything because they’ve lost their jobs or are worried about losing them, and are still trying to get out from under a huge debt load (the latest figures show more consumer debt delinquent now than last year and a surge in personal bankruptcies). The U.S. housing market is growing worse, auto and retail sales are dropping, and the ranks of the jobless continue to swell.

Europe is in almost as much a mess. The problem there isn’t just or even mainly that Greece and other nations on the “periphery” have too much public debt. A bigger problem is European consumers aren’t buying nearly enough to generate more jobs. Unemployment remains high, and the trend is bad. Manufacturing growth there has slowed to its weakest pace in six months. Yet bizarrely, Europe’s large economies – Britain, Germany, and France – are paring back their public budgets. It’s exactly the wrong time, and a recipe for disaster.

Germany’s so-called “job miracle” (as Chancellor Angela Merkel calls it) is more mirage than miracle. Most of the gains in employment there have come from part-time jobs, often at low pay. Average annual net income per German employee continues to drop. This explains why domestic demand there is so sluggish and why Germany is desperately dependent on its exports of machinery and manufacturing components to Asia, especially China.

Meanwhile, Japan, now the world’s third-largest economy, is a basket case. Japanese consumers aren’t buying much of anything, and why would they? The country is still in the grip of a deflationary cycle that shows no end. Japanese consumers reason if they can buy it cheaper next week there’s no reason to buy now. Basically the only thing keeping Japan’s economy going are its exports of cars and electronic components to China.

Australia is booming, but look closely and you see the same buyer. Australia is making a boatload of money selling its minerals and raw materials to China (Australia is fast becoming one big Chinese mine shaft). The Brazilian economy is soaring. Why? Exports of wheat and cattle to China. Middle East oil producers are getting richer. Why? China’s insatiable thirst for oil.

Elsewhere around the globe the picture is as uncertain. Much of Pakistan is under water. Much of the rest of the Middle East is under tyrannical or corrupt regimes. Russia has suffered such a dry spell it’s hoarding wheat. Despite its wealthy few, India’s masses are still terribly poor.

The stock market could plunge tomorrow or the next day because the world’s economic fundamentals are so precarious.

The global economy cannot be sustained by one big, voracious nation – especially one that’s suffering bouts of civil unrest, actively repressing dissent, suffocating under a blanket of pollution and coping with other environmental hazards, and whose biggest companies are run by the state.

More articles from Robert Reich….

The Daily Reckoning

Well, August washed up. It was the worst month for US stocks in almost a decade. And yesterday didn’t help. The Dow couldn’t manage a rally. It rose just 4 points.

The British newspaper, The Telegraph, has the story:

Those fears took centre stage again during the final day of trading.

In New York, markets enjoyed some brief respite from the blizzard of weak data as reports on the US housing market and consumer confidence proved better than feared. The Conference Board’s index of consumer confidence climbed to 53.5 last month from 51 in July, while the latest reading from the respected S&P/Case-Shiller index showed that home prices were up 4.2pc in June compared with a year ago.

The day’s rally proved short-lived, however, after the minutes of the Federal Reserve’s latest meeting returned investors to the summer’s familiar themes. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has spent the past few weeks facing increasing pressure from markets to publicly declare he will do more to fight the prospect of a second recession if the recovery stumbles further. According to the minutes, some members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee saw “increased downside risks to the outlook for both growth and inflation”.

That admission left the Dow up just 4.99 points at 10,014.72 for the day, while the S&P ended the day up 0.41 at 1,049.33.

As predicted on this page, both Martin Wolf and Paul Krugman are taking the low road. Not that we wouldn’t take it too, were we in their position. They urged the Obama team to undertake massive programs of “stimulus.” Now that the stimulus hasn’t worked, they say it wasn’t massive enough.

And thank God the administration at least took some of our advice, they add. Otherwise, things would be a lot worse!

In today’s Financial Times, Wolf refers to a recent paper by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi. The two use a “standard macro-economic model” to determine that without the feds’ intervention the decline in GDP would have been three times worse and unemployment would have risen to over 16%. And, can you believe it, we would have had a federal deficit of $2.6 trillion.

Oh man, oh man…we’re so grateful to Wolf, Krugman, Summers, Obama, Bernanke and all the other savants who protected us from such a dreadful fate.

But wait a minute, this “standard macro-economic model” sounds great and all…but we can’t help but wonder. It can predict precise outcomes based on federal policy inputs, right? That is, if the feds were to do such and such…it tells us what will happen, right? And Wolf says it’s “standard,” so we imagine that you can get it at any Wal-Mart or filling station. So, the Obama team must have had it two years ago, right? We can’t help wonder if this was the same model they used when they forecast that unemployment wouldn’t go over 8% – if Congress agreed to the stimulus bill the administration proposed. Must have been a different one… Because Congress did pass the stimulus bill and unemployment rose over 9% anyway.

And it’s still over 9% – almost 2 years after the stimulus effort got underway.

So, maybe this “standard macro-economic model” is full of… But let’s imagine that it isn’t. Let’s allow our imaginations to take flight…to soar…to loose themselves from the gravity of worldly cares or practical reality. Let’s imagine that these economists have a clue!

Imagine that the feds had done nothing – which was more or less standard policy for the nation from its founding in 1776 up until the middle of Herbert Hoover’s term in 1930…and for all the years that preceded them…all the way back to the founding of Rome. Now, let’s imagine that Blinder and Zandi are right. Without fed intervention, GDP would have sunk 12% – three times more than the actual loss…and half the loss of the Great Depression. Well, that would have been a disaster, right?

Well. Maybe not. It might have been a blessing. The point of a correction is to correct. The Blinder/Zandi study tells us that the economy had mistakes equal to 12% of GDP. Okay…well, maybe the correction overshoots. Who knows? But think of the crazy years of the Bubble Epoque…when lenders were giving unemployed people a mortgage for 110% of the inflated value of a house. Think about the Private Equity deals based on growth assumptions that were hallucinatory. Think about the hundreds of trillions’ worth of derivatives based on complex formulae that were phony and silly? Think of all the decisions made on the assumption that consumer credit would continue to expand as it had from 1949 to 2007. Was one of every 8 of them too optimistic? Too ambitious? Too unrealistic? We’d be surprised if there weren’t more errors…far more than 12% of GDP.

Now ask yourself…what good was done by failing to correct those mistakes? By failing to wash out the excess debt? Failing to allow insolvent banks to go broke? Failing to permit worn-out, uncompetitive businesses to die in peace?

We don’t know how many mistakes there were. We don’t know how far GDP SHOULD go down. And we don’t know what would have happened if willing buyers and sellers had been allowed to sort themselves out in the age- old ways – by panic, default, bankruptcy, restructuring, and reconstruction.

We don’t know. We’ll never know. But there is no reason to think we’d be any worse off if we’d found out a year ago. A 12% drop in GDP might have been just what we needed. We could be on the road to prosperity now, rather than looking at another 5 to 15 years of stagnation, decline, and desperation.

And more thoughts…

But we have good news. Yes, dear reader, genuine, no-doubt-about-it good news.

Two bits of good news, actually.

First, the café across the street from our office serves a proper café au lait. A real one.

In Paris these days, if you ask for a “café au lait” they mark you as a foreigner. Parisians ask for a “café crème.” Trouble is, the café crème doesn’t have much milk in it. It tends to be a bit watery and bitter.

A proper café au lait, on the other hand, is served with a little pitcher of hot milk. Not many cafes in Paris still serve it that way – unless you ask them specifically. Fortunately, the one across the street still does it the right way.

Second, and perhaps more important, we discovered yesterday that tea- totallers die sooner than heavy drinkers. This comes as a great relief to your editor. He sat down last night with a bottle of Lussac St. Emilion to celebrate.

Here’s the story from John Cloud (originally appearing in Time Magazine):

Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don’t drink actually tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that – for reasons that aren’t entirely clear – abstaining from alcohol does actually tend to increase one’s risk of dying even when you exclude former drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers’ mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers.

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don’t have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It’s true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors – job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don’t get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables – socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on – the researchers (a six- member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who had never been drinkers, second-highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers.

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the never-drinkers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than people who have never drunk. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There’s also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle.

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• Government is Still Misleading and Economists are Still Mis-interpreting
• America Completes Collection of Welfare State Essentials With Health Care System
• Most Government Services Are Disservices
• Almost Every Mortgage Written Last Year Underwritten by US Government
• Mr. Market Never Gets a Say on Government Jobs

More articles from The Daily Reckoning….

Zero Hedge

You will pardon us for posting two excerpts from David Rosenberg today, but this one is a must read, and explains more clearly than anything written on the matter why America is currently, and without doubt, in a depression, due primarily to ongoing secular changes in consumer and investor behaviour, something not experienced during mere recessions. As such any intraday or short-term bounces in the stock market that merely confirm that there was a liquidity injection by one player or another, or a successful short squeeze engineered by the wily folks at the custodian firms or due to simple headfakes, are completely irrelevant (especially with record implied correlations), as the long-term trend has only one way to go in the long-run. Down. Of course, those who believe they can time the moment when the last lingering support pillar collapses and everything tumbles down, are more than welcome to keep trying their top-ticking. We are confident that when the mass exodus begins, the HFT liquidity “support” of the market will be alive and well, and provide everyone with a perfectly acceptable exit price level…

WHAT IS A DEPRESSION ANYWAY?

A depression, put simply, is a very long period of economic malaise. A series of rolling recessions and modest recoveries over a multi-year period of general economic stagnation as the excesses from the prior asset and credit bubble are completely wrung out of the system. In baseball parlance, we are in the third inning of this current debt deleveraging ball game.                                     

You know you’re in a depression when interest rates go to zero and there is no revival in credit-sensitive spending. 

The economy is in a depression when the banks are sitting on $1.3 trillion of cash and yet there is no lending going on to the private sector. It’s otherwise known as a liquidity trap.    

Depressions usually are caused by a bursting of an asset bubble and a contraction in credit, whereas plain-vanilla recessions are typically caused by inflation and excessive manufacturing inventories. You tell me which fits the bill today.

When almost half of the ranks of the unemployed have been looking for a job fruitlessly for at least six months, you know you are in something much deeper than a garden-variety recession. True, we can’t see the soup lines; the soup lines are in the mail — 99 weeks of unemployment cheques for over 10 million jobless Americans. Don’t be lulled into the view that we are into anything remotely close to a normal economic cycle.

Basically, in a depression, secular changes take place. Attitudes towards debt, discretionary spending and homeownership are altered for many years, or at least until the scars from the traumatic experience with defaults and delinquencies fade away. That is why, as per last week’s data releases, we saw existing home sales slide to 15-year lows and new home sales to record lows despite the fact that mortgage rates have tumbled to their lowest levels in modern history. There is no economic model that would tell you that declining  mortgage rates should lead to lower home sales.

In a depression, radical changes occur in terms of social norms and spending behaviour. In recessions, people don’t cancel their life insurance policies – as one example. But in a depression, tragically, that is what happens – almost 35 million Americans now have no such coverage, up from 24 million five years ago. This reflects the focus by households to pay down their debts at all costs and how companies have bolstered profits – by eliminating benefits.

More fundamentally, in a recession, the economy is revived by government stimulus. In depressions, the economy is sustained by government stimulus. There is a very big difference between those two states.    

After all, we are now in a situation where every 1-in-6 Americans is now receiving some form of government assistance — more than 50 million Americans, from food stamps, to Medicaid, to extended jobless benefits, are on one or more taxpayer-supported programs. That transcends the definition of a recession.

In a recession, everything would be back to a new high 33 months after the initial decline. This time around, everything from organic personal income to employment to real GDP to home prices to corporate earnings to outstanding bank credit are still all below, to varying degrees, the levels prevailing in December 2007.

Let’s be clear: After all the monetary, fiscal and bailout stimulus, the economy should be roaring ahead, as would be the case if the economy were coming out of a normal garden-variety recession. The fact that there has been no sustained response to all these efforts by the government to turn things around is a testament to the view that this is not actually a traditional recession at all, but something closely resembling a depression. That, my friends, is exactly what the bond market is signaling, with Treasury yields rapidly approaching Japanese levels.  

For all the chatter about whether the recession that started in December 2007 ended sometime last year, here is what you should know about the historical record. The 1930s depression was not marked by declining quarterly GDP data every single quarter. In fact, the technical recessionary aspect to the initial period following the asset and credit shock goes from the third quarter of 1929 to the first quarter of 1933.

What is important to know is this; in that initial four-year economic downturn, from 1929 to 1933, there were no fewer than six — six! – quarterly bounces in GDP data. The average gain in these up-quarters was 8% at an annual rate! But because they proved not to be sustainable, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) refused to declare that the recession officially ended, even though the stock market rallied 50% in the opening months of 1930 on the belief that the downturn was about to end. False premise. And guess what? We may well be reliving history here. If you’re keeping score, we have recorded four quarterly advances in real GDP, and the average is only 3%.

I can understand how emotional the debate can get over whether or not we have actually just stumbled along some post-recession recovery path or whether or not this is actually a depression in the sense of a downward trend in economic activity merely punctuated with noise that is influenced by recurring rounds of government intervention. The reality is that the Fed cut the funds rate to zero, as was the case in Japan, to little avail. Then the Fed tripled the size of its balance sheet – again with little sustained impetus to a broken financial system. Government deficits of nearly 10% relative to GDP, or double what FDR ever ran during the 1930s, have obviously fallen flat in terms of providing and lasting impact to the economy.  

This is going to sound like a broken record but it took a decade of parabolic credit growth to get the U.S. economy into this deleveraging mess and there is clearly no painless “quick fix” towards bringing household debt into historical realignment with the level of assets and income to support the prevailing level of liabilities. We are talking about $6 trillion of excess debt that has to be extinguished either by paying it down or by walking away from it (or having it socialized). Look, we can  understand the need to be optimistic, but it is essential that we recognize the type of market and economic backdrop we are in.

The markets are telling us something valuable when (after a period of unprecedented government bailouts, incursions and stimulus programs) we had a 2-year note auction that saw the yield dragged to new record low of 0.46%. Instead of lamenting over how attractively priced equities must be in this environment, market strategists and commentators would bring a lot more to the table if they tried to decipher what the macro message is from this price action in the Treasury market. Conducting stock market valuation analysis based on unrealistic consensus earnings assumptions does nobody any good, especially when these estimates are in the process of being  cut.

If the Treasury market is correct in its implicit assumption of a renewed contraction in the economy, then we could well be talking about corporate earnings being closer to $60 or $65 in the coming year as opposed to the current consensus view of almost $90. In other words, we may wake up to find out a year from now that whoever was buying the market today under an illusion of a forward multiple of 12x was actually buying the market with a 17x multiple.

How’s that for a reality check?

More articles from Zero Hedge….

Oil Price Ignores Long-Term Supply Worries

You could be excused for seeing a grim metaphor for the death of the oil age in the scenes of destruction visited on the U.S. Gulf coast this summer.

However, production from the ocean floor is growing more quickly than from any other type of reserve and is supposed to allay concerns about ‘peak oil’, the idea that the amount of crude the world can produce might suddenly decline.

Now, so far, this notion hasn’t had much of an impact on energy prices.

But, as cheaper oil fields are run down and more crude is drawn from expensive, hard-to-reach offshore reserves, the costs of energy supply are starting to rise.

Drilling agency imposes conflict-of-interest rules

WASHINGTON – Scandalized by federal regulators who had sex with oil company executives and negotiated with them for jobs, the agency that oversees offshore drilling is imposing a first-ever ethics policy that bars inspectors from dealing with a company that employs a family member or personal friend.

Michael Bromwich, head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said the new policy should help restore credibility to his beleaguered agency, which was widely criticized under its former name — the Minerals Management Service — for being too close with oil and gas companies.

President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar have pledged to end the agency’s “cozy relationship” with industry and slow the revolving door between government and the energy industry.

Pemex looks to shale

Pemex is considering opening an entire line of exploration that concentrates on shale gas wells in the northern state of Coahuila.

Pemex board member Hector Moreira told Market News International the new line could reduce the company’s dependence on natural gas imports.

OPEC oil output falls to lowest since Nov 2009

LONDON (Reuters) – OPEC crude oil supply fell in August to the lowest since November 2009 as reduced supplies from Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq offset increased output in Angola, a Reuters survey showed on Wednesday.

Supply from the 11 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with output targets, all except Iraq, averaged 26.83 million barrels per day (bpd) last month, down from 26.95 million bpd in July, according to the survey of oil companies, OPEC officials and analysts.

The Gas Bulls of Summer Turn into Bears

Recently, the last of the raging bulls on natural gas prices traded in their horns for bear uniforms – and we don’t mean the Monsters of the Midway variety! By throwing in the towel on gas prices for this year, these bulls-turned-bears then proceeded to claw their future gas price forecast by stating they expected $6 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) to be the long-term average. The reality is that these bulls of summer were really merely acknowledging the power of the market as natural gas prices are about two dollars per Mcf below where they were at the start of 2010, and well below the $7.50/Mcf average gas price the bulls had forecast.

Feds downplay risk of leak when well cap moved

The federal government’s point man on the Gulf of Mexico spill response said Wednesday there is no “significant risk” that more oil will leak into the sea when engineers remove the temporary cap Thursday that first contained the gusher in mid-July.

Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said vessels will remain on standby just in case to collect any leaking oil.

FACTBOX – Key political risks to watch in Uganda

(Reuters) – Uganda expects to become an oil-producing nation in 2011, but a protracted dispute with British exploration firm Heritage Oil may delay production and risks unsettling other investors.

With the potential to be a top 50 oil producer, Uganda stands to reduce its budget dependence on foreign aid and improve poor infrastructure.

Nissan starts selling all-electric Leaf sedan today

At long last, Nissan begins taking actual orders today for the first next-generation fully electric car from a major automaker, the Leaf.

Carpooling

Passengers might be the most under-appreciated factor in how much fuel and money you waste. As I write this, for example, a business headline boasts of Toyota’s multi-million-dollar plan to boost fuel efficiency by 25 percent, with the usual discussion of what this will mean for the economy and the climate. Any of us, however, can boost the efficiency of our cars by several hundred percent instantly, with no additional expense or technology, simply by getting more people in the car.

This fact is also forgotten when we judge car owners by the wastefulness of their vehicles. An SUV is a spectacularly inefficient machine compared to a Prius, for example, but pack that Dodge Durango full of people and suddenly it is greener than the electric hybrid driven alone.

Transit systems easier to predict with smart phone apps

Allen Stern says he had a 40-minute wait between buses when he lived in Manhattan. Using a free mobile app that became available about a year ago, he could at least tap into the Metropolitan Transit Authority with his cellphone and find out exactly how far away the next bus was from his stop.

Jatropha: A new form of energy

SINGAPORE – Biotechnology firm JOil is confident that it can breed and genetically engineer the Jatropha plant to be a more sustainable alternative to fossil fuel and other biofuels.

It plans to create a Jatropha hybrid that can produce more fruits and match the four to six tonnes of oil per hectare that palm trees can generate.

Pedal power takes off as exercise produces electricity

Pedal power is gaining traction as thousands of bikes and elliptical machines are retrofitted to produce electricity.

Gyms are using sweat equity to help power their facilities. A Brooklyn eatery uses it to make smoothies. Female inmates at a Phoenix jail pedal to power their TV to watch soap operas. Actor Ed Begley Jr. bikesrides a bike to run his toaster.

Obama lobbied to add solar panels to White House

A campaign to make the White House greener is intensifying as a group of environmentalists plan this month to give President Obama a solar panel that used to sit atop 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Points of departure

There is a strong correlation between energy consumption and economic growth. We can for sure hope for “decoupling” – to be able to have continued economic growth while maintaining or even reducing energy use – but no country has ever managed this Indian rope trick and that does not bode well. Maybe we are high on energy, listening a little to closely to the voice of intoxication, but it will unfortunately all too soon be replaced by a massive hangover.

The Peak Oil Crisis: Prospects for China

The key question in all this is how much longer China’s economic miracle can continue before the realities of finite mineral resources force a slowdown? Another five years of 10 percent annual economic growth will result in Beijing increasing its oil consumption by another 2.5-3 million barrels per day. This alone would likely mop up much of the world’s spare capacity to produce oil and result in very large price increases. When China’s ever growing demand is added to that of India, Brazil and the oil exporting states, the likelihood that we will see a substantial increase in oil prices within the next five years becomes very high.

Secret German military study warns of dramatic oil crisis

Berlin : A confidential German army study warned of a looming oil crisis which could have dramatic political and economic consequences for the world, the Hamburg-based weekly news magazine Der Spiegel said Tuesday.

According to the report, a think-tank of the German army has for the first time ever analyzed the security policy dimensions of the peak oil problem.

Peak Oil from a Security Studies Perspective

The Strategic Institute of the German Bundeswehr has now published a document on the implications of peak oil for security (more precisely: the study was leaked). The study is very well written and recommended as an essential read not only for geostrategist but especially for those involved in global sustainability questions. In fact, at least in wording the authors care about such diverse issues as environmental impact of unconventional oils and the impact of global-marked-induced land-use change on indigenous populations. It is worthwhile to have a closer look on some of their results:

Remembering Matt Simmons

Matt Simmons, a long time friend of the Maine coast and its islands and a student of the winds and waters of Gulf of Maine, loved to tell the story of his first trip to Maine, courtesy of a labor strike while he worked construction one summer as a college student in his home state of Utah. When a labor dispute suddenly shut down the construction site, he and a buddy were only too happy to collect their strike checks and head out on a jaunt. They went north into the Canadian Rockies then turned right and headed toward the Inscrutable East, dipping back down into the United States via the border at Jackman, where they drove along the shores of Moosehead Lake before ending up in Boston. On a lark, Matt ducked into the Harvard Business School, which had not had a long history at that point of actively recruiting students from Mormon country in Utah, but the visit was enough to entice him to apply and enroll. Matt loved telling that story because it held the kinds of mutually opposed contradictions he loved to explore-a businessman who owed his right future to a labor strike. If genius is the ability to hold mutually opposing ideas in the mind at the same time without being paralyzed, Matt Simmons would certainly qualify.

Oil Drops, Caps Worst Month Since May, as Hurricane Earl Threatens Demand

Oil tumbled, capping its worst month since May, on forecasts Hurricane Earl will pelt the U.S. East Coast, curbing fuel demand during the Labor Day holiday weekend.

Crude dropped the most in 12 weeks amid speculation that stormy weather will keep beachgoers and travelers at home. Labor Day is the traditional end of the U.S. summer driving season, the peak gasoline demand period. U.S. gasoline demand slid to a 12-week low last week, MasterCard Inc. reported today.

“It’s the last thing we need,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “It’s a big gasoline consumption weekend. Given how poor the gasoline demand has been, it will be a final parting blow for the summer driving season if people won’t hit the beach in droves.”

Ethanol Surpasses Gasoline for First Time Since December

For the first time since December, ethanol prices are higher than gasoline as corn surges and refiners profit from tax breaks.

Gas Prices Explained

So what determines the price of gasoline? Speculators? Evil conspiring oil companies? Well, actually no. It’s demand and supply, of course. On the demand side the American automobile fleet gets better gas mileage than it did a few years ago and Americans, whacked by the recession and high unemployment rates, are driving a bit less than they used to. In addition, thanks to government subsidies, about 9 percent of what goes into our gas tanks is ethanol produced from corn, which also reduces the demand for refined crude. On the supply side, global oil supplies are ample and refiners in the U.S. evidently believed the Obama administration’s rosy “recovery summer” scenarios and stockpiled a lot of gasoline.

Sinopec Plans to Cut September Oil Processing by 4% at Refinery in Hainan

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., Asia’s biggest refiner, will process 4 percent less crude oil at its Hainan plant in September compared with last month, an official at the refinery said.

FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Saudi Arabia

(Reuters) – Saudi Arabia, under the rule of an ageing King Abdullah, has the dilemma of making reforms that keep the austere clerical establishment that opposes change on side and violent Islamist militants at bay.

Any instability at the helm of Saudi Arabia, which controls more than a fifth of the world’s crude oil reserves and is a regional linchpin of U.S. policy in the Middle East, would be a concern for the rest of the Arab Gulf region.

FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Yemen

(Reuters) – Rising al Qaeda militancy, a surge in violence in a secessionist south and crushing poverty will be this year’s critical tests for Yemen, neighbour to top oil exporter Saudi Arabia.

Reid hopeful for GOP energy votes after elections

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped to pick up Republican votes for a pared-down energy bill after the midterm congressional elections.

“Maybe after the elections we can get some more Republicans to help us on these issues,” Reid, a Democrat, told reporters in a teleconference on Tuesday.

Sinopec Sees Solid Gas Growth Ahead

While oil production experienced sluggishness in the first half, natural gas production showed solid growth. China is ramping up gas production as it seeks to find alternatives to coal, which emits high carbon levels. It is set to raise the country’s energy needs from the current 3% to 10% by 2020.

Insurance likely to reduce BP’s liability for Gulf of Mexico oil spill

BP PLC has taken on some of the blame for the Deepwater Horizon rig that spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year, but the company is still expected to have limited liability for mistakes made misreading pressure data that indicated a blowout was imminent.

BP Raises $363 Million in Malaysian Asset Sale to Help Pay for Gulf Spill

BP Plc, seeking cash to help pay for the worst U.S. oil spill, agreed to sell its Malaysian chemical assets to Petroliam Nasional Bhd. to focus on projects in China and India.

BP will sell its 15 percent stake in Ethylene Malaysia Sdn and 60 percent interest in Polyethylene Malaysia Sdn for $363 million, the London-based company said today in a statement. It will also be eligible for a possible $48 million dividend from the ethylene unit.

A Nuclear Giant Moves Into Wind

Exelon, a nuclear giant that recently backed away from building new nuclear plants, is moving into wind.

Canada company builds major waste-to-biofuel plant

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) – A Canadian company started construction on Tuesday on what it says is the world’s first industrial-scale plant to turn municipal waste into biofuel.

Privately-owned Enerkem Inc said the C$80 million ($75 million) facility in Edmonton, Alberta, will produce enough biofuel to keep more than 400,000 cars a year running on a 5 percent ethanol fuel blend.

Thorium Cures the Free Market

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium … If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.

New Warnings About Costs of Nuclear Power

As anticipation grows about a possible renaissance for the nuclear power industry — and about its potential for curbing greenhouse gas emissions — some politicians are stepping up warnings about the high cost of such projects.

Last week, Traicho Traikov, the Bulgarian economy and energy minister, said the cost of building a second plant near the Danube River had reached 9 billion euros, or $11.4 billion, according to the Sofia News Agency.

The original cost of the project for two reactors was expected to be just under $4 billion.

Homeowners Must Pay Off Energy Improvement Loans

Many homeowners who participated in a program that let them repay the cost of solar panels and other energy improvements through an annual surcharge on their property taxes must pay off the loans before they can refinance their mortgages, two government-chartered mortgage companies said Tuesday.

The guidance came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as efforts to resolve a dispute over the program — called Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE — have failed.

Calif. rejects ban on plastic shopping bags

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California lawmakers have rejected a bill seeking to ban plastic shopping bags after a contentious debate over whether the state was going too far in trying to regulate personal choice.

The Democratic bill, which failed late Tuesday, would have been the first statewide ban, although a few California cities already prohibit their use.

A Greener Champagne Bottle

“This is how we’re remaking the future of Champagne,” he said, pointing to the area just below the neck. “We’re slimming the shoulders to make the bottle lighter, so our carbon footprint will be reduced to help keep Champagne here for future generations.”

The Champagne industry has embarked on a drive to cut the 200,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide it emits every year transporting billions of tiny bubbles around the world. Producing and shipping accounts for nearly a third of Champagne’s carbon emissions, with the hefty bottle the biggest offender.

Cleaner Cars, A to D

The Obama administration has proposed new stickers for cars and light trucks that will make it easier to see whether you are buying a fuel-efficient one or a guzzler, and how much it contributes to global warming. The stickers are a symbol of how far this country has come in providing a wider range of environmentally responsible choices to help ensure cleaner air and a healthier planet.

L.A. mayor, Latino activists take on oil companies over Proposition 23

They say the ballot initiative to suspend the state’s climate change law would hurt low-income communities already suffering the most from pollution.

Jeff Rubin: High energy prices make Copenhagen green

There is certainly much to be said for Denmark’s leadership in green energy. While North American carbon emissions have risen by around 30 per cent since 1990 (the reference point for the Kyoto Accord), Denmark’s emissions are actually lower than they were two decades ago. That’s generally ascribed to the fact that a world-leading 20 per cent of the power generated in Denmark comes from wind.

Less commonly known is the source of the other 80 per cent. I was surprised to discover that it comes from good old King Coal. In fact, coal’s share of power generation in Denmark’s power grid is basically the same as it is in China.

Tiny creatures reveal ancient sea levels

“It was a very big surprise,” says David Barnes, lead author of the study at the British Antarctic Survey, of the find of similar bryozoans 2400 kilometres apart in seas on either side of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which is 2 kilometres thick.

“The most likely explanation of such similarity is that this ice sheet is much less stable than previously thought and has collapsed at some point in the recent past,” he says.

“And if the West Antarctic ice shelf has been lost in recent times we have to re-think the possibility of loss in future with climate change.”

If one wants to be taken seriously in the world of policy analysis, one should at least use an internally consistent framework. This consideration, apparently, has not troubled Mr. Reidl.

To quote from The fatal flaw of Keynesian stimulus, in the Washington Times:

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report claiming that the $814 billion “stimulus” has added 3.4 million net jobs.

…

Such implausible analysis does not come from actually observing the post-stimulus economy. Rather, it comes from Keynesian economic models that have been programmed to conclude that government spending injects new dollars into the economy, thereby increasing demand and spurring economic growth. In other words, these models are programmed to conclude that stimulus spending always creates jobs and growth, no matter how the economy actually performs.

Well, not quite. As I described in this post, there are a variety of ways in which multipliers are obtained. Oftentimes, the impacts are estimated either directly or indirectly, by estimating the marginal propensity to consume. The article continues:

But there is one problem with the government stimulus theory: No one asks where Congress got the money it spends.

Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

It is intuitive that government spending financed by taxes merely redistributes existing dollars. Yet spending financed by borrowing also redistributes existing dollars today. The fact that borrowed dollars (unlike taxes) will be repaid some years later does not change that.

Here, I think Mr. Riedl is invoking Ricardian Equivalence, despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence, to my knowledge, that validates pure Ricardian Equivalence (actually, Ricardian equivalence wouldn’t necessary hold for government spending on goods and services, anyway). Now, at this juncture, I thought that he might be invoking a real business cycle model, or an older, nonstochastic version of the RBC, namely a flex price Classical model. But then the next paragraph reads:

Some believe stimulus spending is the mechanism by which the Federal Reserve injects new dollars into the economy. Yet the Fed could run the printing press and then inject those dollars into the economy by buying existing bonds (with mostly inflationary results). It doesn’t need an expensive stimulus bill to conduct monetary policy.

Accepting that the Fed can stimulate via monetary policy then implies either (1) sticky prices so an expansionary monetary policy can affect the real interest rate, or (2) a financial accelerator model such that collateral constraints or some other financial rigidity holds. In the latter case, it seems prima facie that Ricardian Equivalance cannot hold.

Next, I was thrown for a loop, because Mr. Riedl seems to conflate real saving and the monetary multiplier. He argues that government deficits can only be financed by foreign saving, private saving and “idle saving”. This he describes thus:

Idle savings. The only government spending that truly increases current purchasing is the amount that would have otherwise sat idle in safes and mattresses. Those are the only dollars not already circulating through the economy as consumption, or through the financial markets as investment spending.

Idle savings are rare. People and businesses generally invest or bank their savings, where the financial markets transfer them to other spenders. Banks that receive savings either lend them out to a spender, or (when afraid to loan) invest them conservatively to earn some interest. They are not hoarding customer deposits in massive vaults (beyond the required cash reserves).

This is an odd conflation of saving, measured as a flow, and financial assets. But lets take the equation at face value, there is an incredibly counterfactual observation that there no reserves are behing held in excess of required cash reserves. According to the St. Louis Fed, excess reserves are now approximately $1 trillion dollars. Well, no need for facts to get in the way of a good polemic.

Mr. Riedl’s main point is:

All government stimulus spending requires first borrowing dollars that would have otherwise been applied elsewhere in the economy. The only exception is money borrowed from “idle savings,” which for reasons described above likely constitute a minuscule portion of the $814 billion stimulus.

As I’ve mentioned here and elsewhere, this is true in a full employment model. (I’m working off of textbook models; move to coordination models, or allow monopolistic power, and you have lots of other inefficiencies arising).

Mr. Riedl concludes:

Economic growth requires raising worker productivity to create more goods and services. Government stimulus spending represents a naive “magic wand” attempt to create purchasing power and wealth out of thin air.

No wonder the unemployment rate remains high.

Well, if we’re in a Classical world, then there is no involuntary unemployment. If we’re in a New Classical world, then whatever involuntary unemployment exists is not systematic. If there is involuntary unemployment, then there are resources that are not being utilized, and putting them to use naturally raises productivity (remember labor productivity is defined as output per man hour).

It pains me to say that Mr. Riedl is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin, in economics and political science.

Postscript: Here is Deutsch Bank’s assessment of the impact of the ARRA on the growth rate of GDP.

Figure 1: Dobridge, Hooper, Slok, Sufian, “The growing risk of fiscal drag in the US,” Global Economic Perspectives, New York: Deutsche Bank, July 28, 2010.

Level impacts are depicted in this post. Here is CBO’s latest assessment.

Read more….

Robert Waldmann

Kevin Drum stresses the very sound point that even if part of current unemployment is structural, we should stimulate to get rid of the part which is cyclical. I don’t have a serious disagreement and choose to debate his guess as to the level of structural unemployment for the sake of debating.

“The “normal” unemployment level is about five points less than it is today. I wouldn’t be surprised if perhaps three of those points are cyclical and two are structural.”

He agrees with Annie Lowrey who presents the following analysis

The unemployment is cyclical and structural. Most sectors have suffered from the turndown, but job losses are concentrated in some industries: In residential construction, they are down 38 percent since 2006. (Between Aug. 2007 and Dec. 2009, unemployment in construction quintupled from about 5 percent to about 25 percent.) In health care and education, however, jobs are up.

This analysis is accidental theory. Between the first sentence and the second, there is a theoretical argument that the cycle has the same effect on log employment in each sector. This argument makes no sense. More after the jump.

I know it is not wise to argue with an “I wouldn’t be surprised” but their approach to measuring cyclical unemployment is completely incorrect. Lowrey identifies the cyclical component by assuming that around the cycle percent changes are equal. Therefore a much much larger percent change in construction than in health is not cyclical.

In fact, the amplitude of the cycle in log employment is not the same in each sector. Some sectors are very cyclical (always go down a lot in recessions) others are almost acyclical. A correct estimate of how much unemployment can be eliminated with fiscal and monetary policy requires an estimate of the effect of fiscal and monetary policy on log-employment by sector. The assumption that this is necessarily equal is an accidental theory — a very strong and plainly false assumption which is made by people who think they can just look at the data without theory.

This is the topic of one of my very rare contributions to the actual economics literature

The practical relevance of the decomposition is due to the fact that it is argued, that, if unemployment is due to miss-match, then a general stimulus will lead to labor shortages in some sectors. This would lead to inflation. As Drum notes this is not a problem at the moment. However, let’s imagine a stimulus powerful enough to drive unemployment down to 7%. Does anyone really think this would create (much more of) a shortage of workers in health care ?

Why would demand for health care increase much (as a percent of current demand for health care). 85% of people are insured. Much of the effect of the recession is people moving from private insurance to Medicaid. There isn’t a big cycle in the number of uninsured and there is little reason for demand for care by the insured to shift with aggregate demand. Even the uninsured demand health care in ERs, then go bankrupt. Recall the HCR debate.

Now how about residential construction. Does anyone really think that no construction workers can shift from residential to commercial construction ? Is there any reason to think that an increase in employment which were to drive the unemployment rate down to 6% would cause labor shortages anywhere ?

Read more….

By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker

Well that’s not so good.

Service employment is estimated to have risen by 30,000, goods producing down 40,000.  Manufacturing down 6,000.

Large business employment was flat, medium and small decreased by 5,000 and 6,000, respectively.

Construction employment was down 33,000 – there’s no joy there.  Anyone looking for construction to "lead us out" is out of their frapping minds, as I’ve repeatedly asserted – yet we keep focusing policies on construction through the housing sector.   THIS IS A LOST CAUSE FOLKS – oversupply will make certain of it no matter what else you do.

Given that the government was firing more Census workers this last month, I expect the Friday report to be solidly negative, and I would not be surprised to see a 0.2 or even 0.3 increase in the official U-3 reported unemployment rate.

More articles from the Market Ticker….

Imagine a help wanted ad in your local paper that reads: Job openings, overweight senior citizens only, preferred ages 60 to 75.

Hard to believe it, right? Well, believe it.

These are essentially the worker characteristics demanded by the employer in question –Santaforhire.com of Newport Beach, Ca., the nation’s largest provider of live St. Nicks for assorted functions around the country.

“We want people who are fat, old, bearded and have that grandfatherly look,” says Bob Mindte, owner of the Santa supplier. There are also openings for a Mrs. Claus, who, like hubby, is expected to possess an expansive girth.

I last caught up with Mindte in early September of 2008. At the time, he lamented that his business that year would probably be down about 10% because of a deepening recession, a rising unemployment rate (just above 6% at the time), skidding home prices and a slumping stock market.

He was wrong. A late flurry of demand for Santas that year enabled his firm to just about equal 1997 figures. In fact, he has enjoyed solid Santa demand throughout the recession and the same applies this year.

“I think we’ve become one of those recession-proof businesses,” says Mindte, whose firm, now in its 11th year of operation, has hired between 1,500 and 2,000 Santas over the years. Customers include such leading retailers as Saks and Nordstrom and the most recent Bush White House.

“We haven’t heard from President Obama yet,” says Mindte, “but it may be he doesn’t want to do anything that his predecessor did.”

At present, there are about 15 million job hunters out there or 24.3 million if you factor in people who’ve left the work force and part-timers who can’t get full-time jobs. You, in fact, may be one of them. If so and you’re looking to make some extra bucks, you just might want to consider a Santa stint. Or perhaps a Mrs. Claus stint.

Don’t laugh. Depending on the time and location, a Santa can earn as much as $300 an hour or $6,000 to $8,000 for a six to eight-week holiday season (November and December). An accompanying Mrs. Claus is paid about half as much as Santa.

Here’s a more specific look at dollars and cents Santa economics. If you’re willing to play St. Nick at a mall, the pay is $1,000 a week. Willing to play Santa at a Christmas or New Year’s eve party? That will net you $300 an hour. Or donning a Santa suit at an office party runs $150 an hour. Ditto appearing as Santa in a TV ad. A private visit to someone’s house in Santa garb will earn you $100 an hour, as will a photo shoot at a photo studio. For outdoor charity collections, the going rate is $50 an hour.

If you’re interested, the time to apply is now because Christmas is less than four months away and the hiring period will soon be over. Incidentally, there are no fees for would-be Santas; they’re all paid by the hiring companies. To get all the particulars, e-mail Mindte at Info@Santaforhire.com.

So the next time you hear someone singing “Santa Claus is coming to town,” they may well be singing about you.

What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com

Read more….

The Daily Reckoning

Bad day for stocks, yesterday. A bad day. Not a terrible day. Not a crash day. Just a bad day.

The Dow fell 140 points. This was baaaad…because it shows that the stock market does not really buy Bernanke’s storyline.

You’ll recall that when we left off last week, Ben Bernanke assured the world that while the recovery was not exactly what he had hoped for, he nevertheless had the situation in hand. He said he had the tools necessary to fix the problem and would do whatever was required.

The initial reaction was positive. The Dow rose more than 160 points on Friday. Some analysts thought the market’s downward trend had been broken. But it needed follow-through on Monday. Instead, the market fell.

The fact is, there is no recovery…and no recovery is possible…and investors are beginning to realize it.

Then what is going on? A “Great Recession,” say some analysts. A “depression,” say others.

There is a good article in The Financial Times that helps understand what is really going on. It’s by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart; you’ve heard of them before, dear reader. They are the ones who researched dozens of episodes of financial crisis and sovereign default throughout history.

Today, they write in the FT about what happens after a financial crisis. Well, what do you think? Do you think you get a “recovery”? Do things go back to normal? Is the recession over quickly and painlessly?

Not at all. Instead, there is rarely anything you would recognize as a “recovery.” Things do not go back to normal because they weren’t normal before the crisis. Crises are caused by abnormal conditions – usually too much credit, too much debt, too much spending and too much speculating. Then, when the bubble blows up, it typically takes a long time for the economy to get back on its feet.

Over the following ten years, unemployment usually stays higher than it was before the crisis.

Growth rates are usually lower.

And ten years after a blow-up in real estate house prices are still usually BELOW where they were when the crisis hit.

But what if the feds really get on the ball and try to turn things around? Then, watch out!

We read an article on dying yesterday. Here’s a question for you, dear reader. Would you rather live in a recessionary economy or die in a booming one? We’ll take the recession. Probably most people would. Heck, make it a depression.

There are a lot of illnesses for which there are no cures. Still, people will spend a fortune…and endure unspeakable treatments…in the hopes that they will be the one in a thousand who survives.

So too are people ready to believe that Dr. Bernanke can cure what ails the US economy. We don’t think so. Because we don’t think the economy is “sick.” We think it is healthy…and finally correcting the mistakes of the Bubble Epoque.

Leading economists and the feds have believed, for example, that there was some problem of “liquidity” that was temporarily blocking the flow of cash and credit. They believed the problem could be solved by making more money available. That was why the Fed bought an extra $1.4 trillion of the banking sector’s suspicious “assets.” They wanted to make sure the banks had money to lend.

Well, now the banks have plenty of cash. Businesses too have record holdings of cash. Even households are rebuilding their cash accounts.

But who’s borrowing? Who’s spending? Who’s buying new houses, for example? (New house sales are currently taking place at the slowest rate ever measured.)

CNN: “Credit if finally available, but no one wants it.”

And more thoughts…

Why don’t people borrow?

Because it’s not a liquidity problem. It’s a debt problem. A solvency problem. And it won’t go away by making more cash and credit available. Instead, all those bad decisions, bad loans, and bad investments have to be cleaned up. And that takes time. And while the economy is de- leveraging, people are becoming more cautious…more risk-averse…more modest in their expectations.

What do Rogoff and Reinhart say about governments’ efforts to fix these problems? What does history show?

They say the feds often make the situation worse.

Not only do governments typically pour bad money after good, they also disrupt the process of correction. Insolvent banks are kept alive. Big businesses that ought to go broke and be sold off are instead propped up…the lights are kept on by government subsidies, preventing new competitors from occupying the space. Consumers and investors keep waiting for the promised “recovery”…for the cure…for the fix. Instead of quickly adjusting to the new circumstances, they delay…they hesitate…they postpone unpleasant changes.

They might quickly sell a house at a loss, for example. They could then go on with their lives. But when they hear the feds tell them they have a new program in the works…or a new stimulus bill in Congress…or new action by the Fed…what are they supposed to think?

“Maybe I should wait and see if this new effort does the trick…” they say to themselves. “I’ll feel like a real fool if I sell now and then the feds get a new bull market going.” “Maybe I should wait before accepting a job at a lower salary; it says in the paper that the economy should recover by summer…”

The economic setbacks of the 19th century were sharp, but fairly short, affairs. The contribution of modern economics has been to stretch them out and make them worse.

*** How about China? Won’t growth in China and the other BRICs lead the whole world out of its funk?

We wouldn’t count on it.

First, the Chinese economy has been growing at near double-digit rates for the last ten years. It didn’t stop the crisis and so far it hasn’t helped the developed nations – at least the US – get out of it.

More important, China is probably getting itself into a big mess too. All we know is what we read in the paper on the subject. But what we read is that the spectacular growth China has enjoyed so far was made possible by freeing the private sector. But now the Chinese government is muscling the entrepreneurs out of the way.

“Now…it is state-run Chinese companies that are on the march,” says The New York Times.

Railroads, mining, airlines, manufacturing, hotels, yogurt… The Chinese government either owns it, controls it, or invests in it.

And if you think private investors make mistakes, you should see what the government does!

A Daily Reckoning dictum: people make mistakes all the time; but if you want to make a real mess of things, you need taxpayer support.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Similar Posts:

• We Expect No Recovery from the Economy
• Feds See Every Emergency as an Opportunity
• Investors Are Betting On Recovery
• Is Inflation Necessary for Recovery and Growth in the United States?
• The Return of the Cattle Market

More articles from The Daily Reckoning….

Zero Hedge

As part of the Fed’s latest QE iteration, it has already been made clear that despite initial disclosures that the Fed would stay in the 2-10 Year bound of Treasurys, Ben Bernanke is now also gobbling up the very long end of the curve. For all those who are, therefore, still confused why bonds continue to surge to record levels, don’t be: when there is a guaranteed bidder just below you in the face of the Fed, and who you can turn around and sell to at will, there is no pricing risk. The problem, from a bigger stand point, is what happens when the Fed is actively buying up 30 Year bonds with impunity and the much desired (by the Fed) inflation still does not appear? Well, the Fed then, in Michael Pento’s opinion, will begin to purchase stocks and real estate. And as all those who enjoy comparing the US to Japan can attest, outright purchases of securities by the Japanese government is a long-honored tradition in the ongoing fight with deflation in Japan. However, and as the recent BOJ (lack of) intervention demonstrated, Japan never could do anything with the required resolve, and bidding up one stock here and there would never achieve anything. Which is why in this interview with Eric King, Michael Pento makes the case that as opposed to the occasional market intervention via the President’s Working Group, Bernanke will soon make stock purchases an outright policy of the Federal Reserve as its last ditch attempt to engender inflation before the hundreds of billions of Commercial Real Estate and other bank debt start maturing in 2011/2012. Bernanke is running out of time and he knows it. And once the Fed becomes the bidder of last resort in stocks, all bets are off, as the Central Bank will become the defacto only market in virtually every risky category. And the only safe vehicle, once the market then begins to price in Fed driven asset-price hyperinflation, will be gold.

Pento also provides some perspectives on the Fed’s balance sheet, which he anticipates will expand in a “great fashion”, but a much bigger concern to the recent Euro Pacific Capital addition, is the possible surge in M2: “That base money can expand, M2 which is currently running around 8.5 trillion all the way up to nearly 25 to 30 trillion dollars of money supply and that’s enough obviously to send prices through the roof.” All Bernanke needs to do is light the “alternative asset purchasing” match and all those who wonder what left field hyperinflation could come out of, will get their answer.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Pento interview without a requisite smack-down, in this case of Dennis Gartman, whose call to sell gold denominated in euros at the very bottom of the recent gold correction needs no further commentary: EUR-denom gold has jumped well over 10% since Gartman said to get out. Pento adds the following: “There is so much misinformation out there, Dennis Gartman was out there saying gold has lost its inflation hedging properties: this is just ludicrous and insane. I can tell you that gold will never lose its inflation lure, and that’s precisely why I’ve stepped up my purchases of gold., I see what the monetary base is doing, I can clearly see Bernanke’s next step to vastly increase the size of the balance sheet and the monetary base. So for me, it’s 100% an inflation hedge.”

Pento also goes into explaining why housing is facing a “deflationary depression,” and a further collapse in pricing, why inflation benefits only those closest to the money, i.e., the banks and the military complex, why it destroys the middle class (we are sure Buffett ca. 2003 could say something about that too… the current, far more senile and captured Uncle Warren, not so much), the impact on discretionary purchases, on unemployment, real incomes, and all other items which tend to “follow the money.”

Lastly, Pento concludes with an analysis of what would have happened had the government allowed the deflationary depression to occur two years ago, without the tens of trillions in bank bailouts. We protracted, and elongated the depression. But instead of having the benefit of falling prices, you have rising prices.” And if Pento is right, the price rise has only just begun.

Full King World News interview here.

More articles from Zero Hedge….