My Predictions

Although I originally began this blog with the idea of keeping track of inflation and potential results for prices and prosperity in general, I haven’t engaged in prediction. My focus has been on commentary. We are, however, at a point that offers some interesting prospects for the future and I though it might be interesting and possibly helpful to suggest a possible set of outcomes.

Specifically, at this point in late 2012 the governments in the major economies have either implemented or are poised to implement some massive monetary flooding, which they call “easing.” The U.S. Federal Reserve officials have announced an open ended $40B a month scheme that will continue until either employment begins increasing or the end of time, whichever comes first. In Europe, the European Central Bank is ready to create unlimited amounts of money, claiming that it has to reduce the spread in government bond prices (between Spain and Italy, who have had to pay high interest rates, and Germany’s very low rates). China is expected to begin more “easing” in that it is currently seeing a much deeper and more significant drop in economic activity than the government seemed to expect. Apparently they thought that they were a separate, insulated entity. In response, just as any Western mixed economy government would do, the Chinese are moving toward spending newly made-up money. Japan has just begun its own easing program and England began theirs a few months ago. There is a great orgy of money creation in progress.

Those countries with “strong” currencies are also involved. They really don’t want to see their competitive position undercut by having other currencies diving in comparative cost, making their own products much more expensive on the world market. One example is that Switzerland’s central bank been buying euros for several months to keep their currency in line. As has been said by others, there is something akin to the arms race growing where every country inflates their currency in competition with the others. This process could also lead to protectionism, with higher tariffs and import controls.

As long as our economic problems are seen as the consequences of low consumption or low demand (and demand is seen as just money and not production related), we can always expect that the government response will be to create more money. There is some fear of the new money increasing consumer prices beyond a certain level (generally at an annual rate of 2% - some poison is good for you apparently). This concern is an interesting hold over from a point where government economists had a closer contact with reality. But there is little concern about the prospects for unacceptable levels of price inflation. It is the case that the upward pressure on prices from constant increases in the money supply tends to be less when production levels are low.

Consequently, we can expect that we will soon see a lot more money being created and put into the larger, more industrialized economies and interest rate will remain extremely low.

The amount of money that actually comes into the U.S. economy is a question for which I have no good answer. There is certainly some, but not as much as you might think when you hear the Fed brag about its easing. The money created by the Fed for QE1 and QE2 is mostly still sitting at the Fed in the deposit accounts for member banks receiving 0.25% a year.

 

The money supply has continued to grow, but the pace is not as fast as one might expect.

 

You can see in the graph that the average dollar amount of growth every year has been somewhat consistent. That means that the percentage rate of growth is falling. To just keep the constant percentage rate, this graph would need to show a much larger constantly increasing dollar amount, as the total grew each year.

As a result, consumer prices have moved upward modestly in the last few years (by comparison) and asset prices are mixed (housing downward and equities upward, but less than the CPI). Only bond prices have moved upward, as the Fed has moved to force down long-term interest rates as well as short-term. Long-term rates are very low, especially considering the need for capital in our economy. There is no connection today between savings, investment, interest rates, and the capital markets.

In these conditions, I wonder what the Fed believes that more “quantitative easing” or lower interest rates, could achieve. They talk about lowering unemployment as if the problem is that jobs are not being created for of financial reasons. Here we have an excellent example of theoretical, rationalist thinking that doesn’t consider even the possibility of looking at the real world. At present, there is no connection between the interest rate (including the supply of money) and investment/growth decisions. For a business, the difference between 3% and 2.5% on a long-term, profitable investment is insignificant. The real question for businesses is whether the project could be profitable. Some companies have invested when they have cash on hand. Many are considering a merger or acquisition, which doesn’t add to our productive capacity (although it might improve efficiency). But U.S. companies see no justification in future profitability to make the investment needed to put over two million people to work. The Fed and the Government, and Romney and the Republicans just don’t see that.

Another upcoming set of events in the U.S that could have a negative impact on our economy is the end of the Bush tax cuts and the spending cuts required by law. These events, both scheduled for January 1, 2013, won’t improve the capital and investment situation, although the rate of growth of government debt will slow some. At least in the short-term, if the tax cuts do end and the rate of spending slows, the immediate result will be a drag on the U.S. economy.

I am not convinced that the supposed mandatory cuts in spending are particularly important economically. Some people try to make this situation seem cataclysmic by quoting a cut of over a trillion dollars. That is fraud, since that is a ten-year number. As is always the case with government cuts, they are loaded mostly into the latter years. I think that the 2013 number is closer to $69B, which is for the full year. When you are talking about a multi-trillion budget and a deficit of over a trillion dollars, sixty-nine billion is an accounting error.

But saying “cuts” is intended to be misleading. The Congress didn’t pass a cut in spending. They authorized a reduction in the expected growth of spending. It was a cut from what they thought current laws would require the government would spend. There is not going to be a cut in spending. Let me repeat: These are not cuts in spending but small reductions in the growth of spending. Even so, there may be some companies that will feel an impact in their expected revenue from government contracts. But, economically, compared to the total level of spending and the prospect of more “easing”, big deal.

Combined, the tax cut, possible cuts in the growth of spending, and the Fed’s money flood, mean that there will be less money in people’s pocketbooks, but more, potentially, in the banking system. Remember that the way the Fed’s money gets into the economy is via bank loans. If the banks continue to maintain their stricter standards there is not going to be a significant increase in bank loans. In fact, the current trend is for lower corporate profits, meaning that businesses will be less credit worthy than before (and stock prices should decline, instead of booming). In addition, ever since the beginning of the “Great Recession,” bank regulators have been constantly checking on the “quality” of bank loans. Unless regulators are willing to loosen the strings, banks aren’t taking any riskier loans. I don’t see much of the Fed’s new money getting into the economy. That is not to say that there won’t be an effect. As in the past, there is a tendency to some money to find its way into assets.

In addition, the final Dodd-Frank regulations have yet to appear and the costly ObamaCare provisions are coming into effect. All businesses, but especially banks, are legitimately confident that their costs will increase significantly and their range of action considerably curtailed. Startup businesses have declined. dramatically. For the economic/cultural pessimist, there is much support in the U.S.

In Europe, the central bank is being pushed into acting because the market for Spanish and Italian government bonds demands much higher returns to compensate for higher risk. Personally, I think that there is no uncertainty. Neither Spain nor Italy will be able to repay their bonds in the coming years. (I equate being given worthless money with not being paid.). So the higher rates are certainly justified. But enough of the euro country governments don’t like that. The higher rates mean that Spain and Italy would have to face their insolvency soon, which would be a big problem for the other euro government countries. So the euro block is pushing the central bank to create money to avoid reality. In this case the money will go directly into government spending and will have very negative consequences. Not the least consequence will be a lessening of the pressure on Spain and Italy to solve their problems. (Spain is expected to need the euro bank bailout. No one is currently talking about Italy, but its economy is heading the same direction.) By creating money to buy government bonds the European Central Bank is defaulting on the loans by directly creating inflation and thus reducing the purchasing power of the money that bought the bonds. Everyone in Europe is ignoring that fact. In addition, there will be a lot of upward pressure on prices and everyone will feel the cost. But, most of all, the importance of freeing their economies and being fiscally responsible can be evaded. The ultimate result will be greater disasters.

I expect that China’s new money will be similar to earlier efforts, which went primarily into government owned and controlled businesses, shrinking the portion of the economy that is private. It may also be more of a “consumption” orientation, which will mean less of a push in industrialization, and a move toward Western ideas of a consumer driven economy. That government decision would necessarily reduce the growth rate even without the normal consequences of asset booms and busts.

If more “easing” won’t help solve the unemployment problem (who cares about actual production?) and thus won’t help with economic activity, what will it do?

Well, the U.S. economy isn’t going to grow much, if at all. In fact, it could contract. If the new money just sits at the Fed as before, we needn’t worry about hyperinflation. The money supply will grow, but not significantly faster than before, although those numbers should be watched carefully.

I heard someone point out that since the first “easing” the Dow has risen 4000 points and since the second “easing” nearly 3000. I am sure that the Dow and other indexes will raise some more. The Dow has already gone up a few hundred points since the Fed announcement. What would a push by the Fed be without a serious increase in asset prices? Commodity prices could also rise. Some are saying that industrial commodities, such as copper, will not because industrial production is tending to fall. But the money being created will go somewhere. You just need to keep an eye out to see where that is.

So, if you want to put your money somewhere, based upon recent history, there you are! Just be careful about your timing and don’t lose perspective about the causes of the asset price rise and its duration. Be ready to short.

Of course, economic events are really harder to predict than that, especially in a controlled economy. Something will happen that we don’t foresee and things will happen differently than we expect. One thing we do know, whatever happens, it’s unlikely to be good.

Long-term, the consequence of all of this “easing” is to probably bring the day of reckoning closer, possibly by years. With unemployment staying down, Social Security and Medicare spending will continue to widen the gap between tax income and spending. The demands upon the Treasury will increase, meaning more debt. The low levels of production will mean that wealth is not being created and our personal wealth and standard of living will continue to fall.

I think that money can be made from the chaos and misallocation of resources. You just have to pick your method based upon the circumstances and pay attention to the situation.


P.S. I just listened to Yaron Brook on the Mike Slater show (via a notification from Lassiez-Faire). He says so much of what I just mentioned. I really did work it out before. But he says it well.

More Reasons Why Oil Prices are Going Up

For all of you “oil price equals inflation” enthusiasts, watch what happens with Japan’s nuclear power industry. Reports are that after April of 2012 Japan will have no working reactors. They will have all shut down permanently for various, mostly irrational, reasons. To still provide power, Japan will have to import fossil fuel, oil, to the tune of about $30 B a year. Think that won’t have some impact on international oil prices?

Coal fired power plants in the U.S. are expected to be shut down over the next few years because of environmental regulations. Where that power will come from is not clear as far as I can see, at least publicly, but oil may play some role (I would like to hear form someone with accurate information).

Those people in the U.S. who are losing their coal-fired power plants will see a double attack on their standard of living. Not only will their electric bills go up by an estimated 40% to 60%, but their bill for fuel for their car will stay high or also go higher. Who will they blame?

In other words, for various reasons, mostly having to do with government regulations, we are going to see a necessarily higher demand for oil over the next few years. If the large developing nations, especially China (I have written about China’s potential difficulties, so its oil demand is not a sure thing.), continue to demand more oil, and the nations of the world continue to restrict the oil industry’s attempts to find, develop, and produce from oil exploration (government owned “oil companies” are not competent to fill this need), we will see oil prices stay high, very high. As of this writing, oil prices are about $90 a barrel for light crude. (The price is lower than it was because a few countries, including the US, released oil from reserves. This is a short-term bandaide and will only mask the problem until they stop releasing oil or can’t release any more. No one is moving to free the oil companies.) If China continues its present demand level, we can expect to see oil prices rise. If China has economic problems (as I think it will) then oil prices will merely stay near their present levels as all of these regulations and irrationalities play out.

Japan, Disasters Natural and Economic

Let’s start, not with economics, but with the scare of the century: nuclear energy.

Japan has now demonstrated that it is no more advanced or science savvy than any other country in the world. Its politicians are picking up on the irrational fears of a portion of the population and have begun pushing the country toward energy policies that will not only take them away from the safest and (if allowed to be) cheapest energy source, but will lead the country toward bankruptcy much faster than their current pace.

One thing that really astounds me, angers me, too, is that the media and popular frenzy over the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant has apparently overshadowed the real, desperate plight of hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens.

Further there is such a disparity between the real and, at best (worst?), potential danger. Where is the disaster? Think of it, all of the deaths and missing from the earthquake and tsunami versus all of the deaths and missing from the nuclear accident. Wait, what deaths? What missing. So the actually dead and missing from the actual disaster have been shuffled aside because of uneducated, poorly founded, hysterical fear of a potential. (At this time three employees of the electric company have died, two from the tsunami. I have not seen a report as to the cause of the third death.) Even the property damages are not comparable. The tsunami destroyed, obliterated, thousands of homes, businesses, and all of the infrastructure for over five hundred thousand people. Around the power plant, all of the homes and belongings are there, and, at this point, there has been no scientific suggestion that the contamination from radiation that there might be is anything but short lived. Some of the radioactive material that has been mentioned has a half-life of a few months and much of the material that has reached the ground around the plant will be washed away. Of course, we will not know the actual damage until the problems at the power plant have been solved. But that is what is missing here, knowledge. We have hysteria, not thought.

Granted, one has to recognize that Japan, alone among nations, has some reason to feel more concern about radiation. It has its own history. I do not want to belittle or underestimate the personal feeling many Japanese may and do feel. But I think that the Japanese who are voicing their fears and declaring nuclear energy to be evil have not given their personal connection to radiation proper respect, either. Rationally, you would expect someone to do research and learn about the reality that concerned them. Knowledge is the first and best way to deal with a subject, especially one that has such a scientific foundation. But, no, there is no evidence that the protestors or whimpering, crying “victims” have made any attempt to gain knowledge. They expend all of their energy beseeching the government to protect them and make Japan nuclear free. Instead of knowledge they went for dumb and are unquestioningly giving more power to the politicians, who go for dumb by definition (by choice).

Also ignored is the fact of the unprecedented size of the earthquake and tsunami. The earthquake is one of the largest man has experienced. There hasn’t been an earthquake to rival the recent one for over a thousand years in Japan. The tsunami was equally out of the ordinary. The preparations at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant protected it from a wave three houses high. What it got was one four houses high. One wonders that if the planners had proposed protection from such a massive tsunami, and insisted on funding the required cost, would the government regulators in Japan have allowed such an expense. The entire controlled planning process is ignored.

We see the same type of reaction from hysteria and ideology in California. People are shown on TV trooping down the beech near a nuclear power plant, claiming that if there were to be a big earthquake there, the power plant would suffer the same fate as the one in Japan. Yet, if you were to discover that the power plant has been built with a 8.5 magnitude earthquake and not a 9.0, you would still have to wonder about the protestors. If such a disastrous earthquake occurred along the California coast, the fatalities and missing from the earthquake and tsunami would be enormous. Where is their concern about the actual event? The fact that they are ignoring the obvious real, immediate consequences and worrying about what would be a mere potential, a maybe, indicates that they really aren’t concerned at all, but are engaging in thinly veiled ideological attacks on nuclear power, technology as part of the industrialized world, and capitalism.

At least those people in California can be ignored, since they would be swept out to sea by the tsunami never to be heard from again. They wouldn’t have to worry about potential radiation. But, in Japan, it is disheartening to see such ignorance paraded in a country that was so proud of their educational system and their recognition of technology as an important foundation to their prosperity and liberty. It indicates that the attack on the mind epitomized and lead ay Immanuel Kant has spread far and wide. His influence is not merely a Western phenomenon. When someone says that Western culture is spreading we know now that the spread includes the entire package. (I do realize that the historical culture in Japan isn’t particularly supportive of independent thought and learning. So the Japanese are being intellectually undercut by both influences.)

We can also see the spectacle of supposedly modern Western countries banning Japanese products without regard to the actual area of potential radiation. Apparently the Europeans do not have maps of Japan or have a clue as to its size. It is certain that there is little regard for science or reasoning in Europe, only the appearance of the authorities “protecting” the public. And by protecting, we mean stopping international trade and prohibiting free, voluntary exchange of goods and services. In the name of safety, we get lowering standards of living and a more rapid move toward poverty.

In the face of the reaction of Western Europe, one can hardly criticize a backwards country like Russia or even other Asian countries for similar hysteria.

Back to Japan, look at what is happening economically because of the earthquake and its consequences. Before the March 11 earthquake, the Japanese government was talking about finding new sources of revenue to cover the growing needs of the elderly and retired. They knew that the current arrangement, and the debt they expected to require would not be sustainable. They were headed for major difficulties. Now, with a small, but significant part of the country almost completely destroyed and over a hundred thousand evacuees living in shelters with their lives completely disrupted, not to mention the businesses of all kinds that no longer exist, plus the other consequences of the disaster, the Japanese government is being asked, demanded, to do much more. The government is being asked to backstop the damages that the utility company that owns the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in paying damages to the people and companies forced to evacuate from the area immediately around the power plant. (One hopes that there were actual dangers involved and not government hysteria.) The government is intent upon cleaning up the areas destroyed by the tsunami, building temporary housing, and, no doubt taking care of the survivors for some time. Communities across Japan are asking that their nuclear power plants be closed, and that the national government provide compensation for the resulting economic cost. The list of new demands on the Japanese government just keeps growing without any regard for reality.

The government is now asking for a supplemental budget from the Diet to cover their initial expenditures. At the same time, the current government is getting a lot of criticism. It appears that the governmental leaders haven’t spent enough or made sufficient promises.

The Japanese government just released figures that show their economy going into recession earlier this year (meaning output is falling). They expect the decline to continue throughout most of the year. So, the government is spending more, borrowing more, receiving less in taxes (or taking a greater percentage of the national and personal income in new, higher taxes) in a declining economy. They think that the governmental expenditure will help turn the economy around. They have not noticed that governmental expenditures haven’t help much over the last twenty years. No one there actually looks at the results of what the government does. They just make demands.

Japan is the world’s third largest economy. On a per capita basis, it is also a prosperous one (national figures don’t mean much, really). That it is in decline means a great deal internationally. It will hurt the Asian economy. It will hurt everyone. We are seeing again how the world economy, world production, is interconnected.

But one thing that you won’t see internationally from Japan is a government credit default. The problems we see in Europe won’t happen in Japan. Greece, Ireland, Spain, and the others have sold their debt, government debt, to a great extent to non-citizens, mostly foreign banking institutions. If Greece were to default on its debt, the problem would be felt in other countries, and we would have an international banking crisis, as we have had in the recent past.

Almost all of the Japanese debt is owned by its citizens, not by its banks (although I am sure that some is), but by individuals. Much is owned by the elderly. No wonder the elderly are dependent upon the government. They invested heavily in government bonds (the Japanese were, are, great savers) and the government has been repaying them by keeping the interest rate very low, about 1.25%! Japan doesn’t have a lot of price inflation, but it isn’t a cheap place to live. Getting 1.25% on your investment has got to make life very difficult.

When the Japanese government gets into trouble, because of all of the obligations it has, the people who will suffer will be its own citizens. The government will not be able to support them, pay their medical bills, or pay them the interest or principle on their savings. It is going to be a very great tragedy. The March 11 earthquake and tsunami will be relegated to secondary importance (Of course, a nuclear accident, with no deaths from radiation, will always be bigger than any other event. Just ask about Three Mile Island!)

When the U.S. gets to the point where its debt is so large that it can no longer support it, we will go more like Greece, and take the world with us.

Social Security and Medicare: "Trust Funds"

A few months ago John Lewis published a “dire warning” about the future of the economy. [http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2009/08/dire-message-of-mr-david-walker.asp] This article concerns the near future proportional increase in retirees, the Baby Boomers, and their impact on the costs of Medicare and Social Security. To say the least, it will make all of today’s arguments regarding the budget superfluous. All of the facts and figures are in the material that Dr. Lewis references. I will not include them here. This post is meant to talk through the things that are going to happen, especially the impact of the “Trust Funds” of Social Security and Medicare.



You will hear some politicians argue quite loudly that, even if there may be a problem down the road, it is not now because both programs have trust funds that will provide money for several years. The date that the government has to begin adding funding to both programs is, thus, some time in the future and they don’t worry about it now.


Well, yes, both programs have “Trust Funds”. That is, both programs have had more money paid into them over the years by taxpayers than the programs have paid out. This “surplus” has been put into a trust fund. Each trust fund has securities in it that may be exchanged for cash as needed, and the cash is then paid out in benefits. So, these politicians are correct, right?


The recent annual report of the Medicare Trust Fund revealed that this program is already spending more than the Medicare Tax is bringing in. The short fall began in 2008. Medicare has begun redeeming “Trust Fund Assets”. Because of the recent short fall, they now expect the “Trust Fund” to be exhausted in 2017.


The Social Security Trust Fund is still taking in more money than it is spending, but the recent troubles in the economy have, no doubt, changed the “projected” dates as well.


When the Medicare Administration projects that they will fall short of Medicare claims they will not cover 19% of the annual cost of the program. As these claims are “entitlements”, the shortfall would have to be made up by general Federal Government revenue, or taxes and the proceeds of bond sales. So, according to our politicians, we have 8 years to solve this problem, right? We have even more years to solve the Social Security problem.


Ahhh. Let’s take a look at those “Trust Funds”. That money is invested in securities, right? Well, depends upon your definition. What the administrators were allowed by law to buy with their “surplus” is a special class of Treasury Bonds. These bonds pay interest, which are probably close to market, so they are accumulating assets, right? Okay, we are at the crux of the issue now. The Treasury of the United States sells these special bonds to the “Trust Funds”, and guess what the Treasury did with the money? They put the money into the General Fund, and spent it as they did with all the other tax money and the proceeds from bond sales. And the accounting, you ask? The money from the “Trust Funds” reduced the annual deficit of the Federal Government. The Treasury had to sell fewer bonds.


Administration after administration has been spending the Social Security and Medicare surpluses and pretending that it was general revenue, not some future debt. In many cases the administration crowed about the way it was decreasing the Federal Deficit.


In this case, however, it isn’t like the standard Treasury Bond that no politician expects to ever pay back. These special “Trust Fund” bonds have to be paid back as the two entitlement programs fall short of meeting their required payments from the FICA taxes. In practice, it means that the Treasury will have to sell more standard bonds. Did anyone say Ponzi?


I ask you, what is the difference between taking money from taxes and the proceeds of bond sales and redeeming special bonds for covering Medicare expenditures, and giving the money directly to Medicare after the “Trust Fund” Bonds are depleted? The Trust Funds are a standard government fiction, which allows some (many, most?) politicians to duck the issue.


Social Security is “projected” to need to dip into its “Trust Fund” in the middle of the next decade. Like any government projections, the government planners have foretold of wonderful years of tax collection because the economy will be booming and employment will be below 5%. Even if you count all of the non-employed as tax payers, there are far more than 5% unemployed, and current prognoses, even from the most optimistic government hack is that the employment part of the recovery will be slow. The number of retirees is growing, maybe even faster than expected (for Social Security), thus the outflow is growing at least as fast as expected, but the income is less, probably a lot less. That means that Social Security will begin drawing on its “Trust Fund” sooner, and more Treasury Bonds will need to be sold, more money will be taken from the economy, which means either less capital for investment and slower growth (if any) or more made-up money, i.e., inflation.


All of this will be on top of whatever programs our beloved leader can manage to get passed.


Some of you are eager for the end of the year when the Democratic strangle hold on our government will hopefully be reduced. I tend to think that a mix of Dems and Republicans is a nice safe government. But it won’t help this situation, because it will require a direct look at reality and the willingness and ability to tell the American citizen, especially the older American citizen, that the cupboard is pretty skimpy. The Republicans, who are after all, working to “conserve” the New Deal, have shown just as much willingness to ignore reality as the Dems.




In the meantime we can watch the drama being played out in Japan. Their problems with the same issue are more immediate and proportionally larger than ours. More than half of their population is dependent upon the government pension. Their elderly tends to depend upon their children, but that percentage is declining. The aging of the Japanese population is more rapid than other industrial countries. At the same time the population is shrinking.


The government has been steadily pushing up the retirement age and the age that government pensions begin. Japanese use to retire at age 50, now it is 60. The government pension begins at age 65, up from age 55. So a Japanese has a 5-year period that has to be filled in somehow.


But, get this, the taxes to support the retirees is a combined 30%, down from 40%. Part is paid by the employee and part by the employer. In the U.S. the combined tax is 15.3%.


Where are they going to get the income to support their elderly? The same place we will? We may be seeing real tragedies both at home and abroad. The European countries are heading for the same problem at various speeds, most of them will begin to see major problems before we do.



When we get done with the health insurance thing, whichever way it goes, we need to begin beating upon these people about this coming storm.