Posts
October 16, 2012
After watching the debate last night, I had a bunch of questions I thought were important but that were never asked. Here are three of them:
1. Why has the economy (GDP) been trending down for the past two years and the stock market moving up?
The answer of course in that the government has been pumping money into the banks (TARP, QE1, QE2, Twist Program and now QE3 with no limit as to the amount of money they will print.) This money goes to the banks and then the banks use this money to invest in the market (stocks, bonds, foreign investments, etc.). This 65% increase in “green paper” or money has driven the stock market up about 71% from the bottom in February 2009. This is illusionary wealth also called a bubble and like all bubbles, it will pop.
And just to make sure this money will go into assets that raise the value of the market (or what government economist’s call the “wealth effect”) which is suppose to make us run out and spend money; the Federal Reserve has instituted a Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) to make sure no one saves and is forced to go into the market to earn any interest.
2. How can the government continue to keep spending and driving up debt when mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Other Mandatory spending -like VA benefits, welfare, etc. – and the interest on the debt equal the entire revenue?
In 2012, the government spent $2.5 trillion on mandatory items and interest and received $2.5 trillion in revenues (taxes, tariffs etc.).
That leaves Zero money left for all other discretionary spending ($628t) and defense ($680t). This is more than a trillion dollars a year which means we will likely not even have enough revenues to pay for mandatory spending next year unless the economy picks up.
Follow up question:
So to get to a balanced budget, are you going to cut discretionary spending (education, homeland security, perks for your constituents, etc.) or Defense Spending (even though defense industries are scattered in every State to ensure Congressional votes)?
You know the answer. No and No.
3. Economic data has been very weak and deteriorating; yet this past month, two unbelievable things have happened to make me confused:
A. The Federal Reserve Chairman has been saying for some time that the economy has been slowly improving; and that based on the data, the Federal Reserve stands ready to assist (meaning QE3) if the data shows the economy is slowing further. Yet, two weeks after saying this for the umpteenth time, the Fed surprises the market with potentially the biggest injection of money ever! What about the data? I thought we were improving?
B. The data. This month the data, in contradiction to the Fed action, has been unbelievable: unemployment has dropped, retail sales have jumped significantly higher, housing starts have jumped significantly higher, etc.
We know you have “economic models” to predict the numbers, but the data does not fit the description of the economy provided by the Federal Reserve Chairman prior to injecting money into the banks (QE3). Does this mean the economy is getting worse and the models will reflect the real economy in a month or two or have the models just gone wacky?
Well, I know I’m over the time limit and it’s my opponents turn to talk so I’ll stop.
Showing posts with label inflation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inflation. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Will The Fed Print More Money?
April 12, 2012
This is an important issue right now, especially in this election year. Consensus is mixed, depending on one’s view of the “recovery”, but the market appears to have melted up in anticipation of the Fed injecting more money into the economy. Then, when the minutes of the last Fed meeting were released on March 19th, the consensus of the committee was that the economy was slowly improving but they acknowledged that employment was still a concern. Therefore, additional accommodation (printing money) by the Fed may not be necessary. However, since then, the market has begun to sell off and one reason is its disappointment with the Fed’s position to not inject more money right now. Do you think the Fed really means this? Here are some thoughts from the different sides of this argument.
The Keynesians (mostly Democrats) View
In a recent article in the New York Times, Paul Krugman argued the following:
1. Because the Fed expects low inflation and high unemployment, the Fed should be much more accommodative in order to accelerate the recovery. If we don’t, we will choke off the recovery.
2. The reason we would not be more accommodative is the Republican’s misplaced fear of inflation.
3. But, we can’t worry about inflation; we should be more worried about employment. In fact, inflation of 4-5% would be a good thing. Not a bad thing.
The Keynesian-Lite (mostly Republicans) View
In a recent report written by Brian Wesbury of First Trust, he argued the following:
1. The Fed has finally admitted the economy has improved and took QE3 off the table. There is no need to print additional money.
2. Monetary policy has been accommodative, but monetary policy is not the driving force behind the market, profits are…and profit growth will continue.
3. The Fed will start raising interest rates before its stated date of late 2014. Increasing rates will keep inflation in check.
Capitalists/Austrian Economists View
1. The economy is still in recession as none of our problems have been solved. But, the Fed has already printed too much money and is prolonging the recession with additional injections of money. The only think they have accomplished is unsustainable debt and they are laying a foundation for inflation.
2. We have printed and spent $8.5 trillion dollars in the past four years. This money has raised nominal GDP. That’s because GDP is a mathematical model in which every new dollar created adds (arguably because nominal GDP has risen only $1.4 trillion) a dollar to GDP. But now the money has been spent, we have the debt and real growth has not occurred (8 million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure, banks under capitalized, interest expenses exceed 10% of income (tax revenues), wages have not kept up with inflation, sovereign, corporate and personal debt, etc.)
3. Now however, the pace of new money creation has slowed for the past two months. Because the money created with credit has been spent, the Fed has to create more money each year than it created in the previous year or the total amount of money supply contracts…. which contracts GDP.
4. Also, Bernanke and the Fed believe we are in a cyclical recession (normal, shallow) versus a systemic recession (major, caused by structural changes.) Therefore, they believe they can fill the spending “gap” with government spending which draws consumers back into the market and ends the recession. This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
Conclusion
This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
We have below trend growth and stagnant incomes and we have an election year. Do you think the politicians will print more money and kick the can down the road past the election or opt for austerity and a return into recession? I think the answer is they will print more money, but they need “an excuse” to do so (i.e., a bad jobs number or a market sell off or a war or?) because some voters are worried about our ever increasing debt. Therefore, we are now on a path toward more money, more debt or a deeper recession.
This is an important issue right now, especially in this election year. Consensus is mixed, depending on one’s view of the “recovery”, but the market appears to have melted up in anticipation of the Fed injecting more money into the economy. Then, when the minutes of the last Fed meeting were released on March 19th, the consensus of the committee was that the economy was slowly improving but they acknowledged that employment was still a concern. Therefore, additional accommodation (printing money) by the Fed may not be necessary. However, since then, the market has begun to sell off and one reason is its disappointment with the Fed’s position to not inject more money right now. Do you think the Fed really means this? Here are some thoughts from the different sides of this argument.
The Keynesians (mostly Democrats) View
In a recent article in the New York Times, Paul Krugman argued the following:
1. Because the Fed expects low inflation and high unemployment, the Fed should be much more accommodative in order to accelerate the recovery. If we don’t, we will choke off the recovery.
2. The reason we would not be more accommodative is the Republican’s misplaced fear of inflation.
3. But, we can’t worry about inflation; we should be more worried about employment. In fact, inflation of 4-5% would be a good thing. Not a bad thing.
The Keynesian-Lite (mostly Republicans) View
In a recent report written by Brian Wesbury of First Trust, he argued the following:
1. The Fed has finally admitted the economy has improved and took QE3 off the table. There is no need to print additional money.
2. Monetary policy has been accommodative, but monetary policy is not the driving force behind the market, profits are…and profit growth will continue.
3. The Fed will start raising interest rates before its stated date of late 2014. Increasing rates will keep inflation in check.
Capitalists/Austrian Economists View
1. The economy is still in recession as none of our problems have been solved. But, the Fed has already printed too much money and is prolonging the recession with additional injections of money. The only think they have accomplished is unsustainable debt and they are laying a foundation for inflation.
2. We have printed and spent $8.5 trillion dollars in the past four years. This money has raised nominal GDP. That’s because GDP is a mathematical model in which every new dollar created adds (arguably because nominal GDP has risen only $1.4 trillion) a dollar to GDP. But now the money has been spent, we have the debt and real growth has not occurred (8 million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure, banks under capitalized, interest expenses exceed 10% of income (tax revenues), wages have not kept up with inflation, sovereign, corporate and personal debt, etc.)
3. Now however, the pace of new money creation has slowed for the past two months. Because the money created with credit has been spent, the Fed has to create more money each year than it created in the previous year or the total amount of money supply contracts…. which contracts GDP.
4. Also, Bernanke and the Fed believe we are in a cyclical recession (normal, shallow) versus a systemic recession (major, caused by structural changes.) Therefore, they believe they can fill the spending “gap” with government spending which draws consumers back into the market and ends the recession. This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
Conclusion
This recession is far more serious than a temporary gap in consumer spending.
We have below trend growth and stagnant incomes and we have an election year. Do you think the politicians will print more money and kick the can down the road past the election or opt for austerity and a return into recession? I think the answer is they will print more money, but they need “an excuse” to do so (i.e., a bad jobs number or a market sell off or a war or?) because some voters are worried about our ever increasing debt. Therefore, we are now on a path toward more money, more debt or a deeper recession.
Monday, November 21, 2011
What Is The End Game For The European Debt Crisis?
Can Europe get out of its sovereign debt crisis by adding more debt? No. Can Europe grow its way out of its current debt problem? No. It will have a difficult time growing its economy at all next year.
To make matters worse, they have a banking system that is leveraged three times higher than the U. S. banking system. But, we’re not sure because of the lack of transparency in the banking system. For example, they do not have to mark their “toxic” bonds to actual, current market prices. They can price them just about where they want. The rules were changed to keep the banks from becoming insolvent. Just like the U.S.
But unlike the U.S., they cannot do what we did to keep the banks solvent. Their government structure and the limited power of their central banking system prohibit it. This could change with new legislation but it would take time and they would have to overcome the opposition from Germany. Germany has already experienced hyperinflation caused by runaway money printing (i.e., in 1923, Germany’s inflation rate was running at 10,000% per year.)
We all know what happened to Greece recently and the moral hazard of that “agreement.” If Greece could get a 50% reduction on $200 billion of debt and additional money to spend, why wouldn’t every other country be entitled to the same?
The result of that agreement has institutional investors selling European debt as fast as they can and are now coming after Italy; next will be Spain, then France.
Italy has $2.7 trillion dollars of debt and they and must rollover $300 billion of it within the next year. They do not have the money to finance this, if they could find buyers, at an interest rate over 5.5%. Last week they sold $3 billion with an interest rate of 6.1%.
As this unfolds, major banks will have to take enormous losses. Estimates are that U.S. banks have a $600 to $750 billion dollar exposure to European banks. This could cause serious problems for American banks.
I do not know exactly how this “debt crisis scenario” will unfold over the next two weeks, two months or two years. Will the ECB get the authority to print money so they can kick the can down the road a bit longer? There is, also, severe pressure on Germany to go along and let the ECB print. Germany will have to foot much of the bill.
Therefore, the end game it seems is either default or inflate their way out of this debt crisis.
Regardless of exactly how it unfolds, I think the banks are due for a serious correction. What is in question is the timing. We may be unable to prevent this European debt crisis from happening, but there are ways to preserve your capital or profit if you know what’s likely to happen ahead of time and can position investments appropriately.
To make matters worse, they have a banking system that is leveraged three times higher than the U. S. banking system. But, we’re not sure because of the lack of transparency in the banking system. For example, they do not have to mark their “toxic” bonds to actual, current market prices. They can price them just about where they want. The rules were changed to keep the banks from becoming insolvent. Just like the U.S.
But unlike the U.S., they cannot do what we did to keep the banks solvent. Their government structure and the limited power of their central banking system prohibit it. This could change with new legislation but it would take time and they would have to overcome the opposition from Germany. Germany has already experienced hyperinflation caused by runaway money printing (i.e., in 1923, Germany’s inflation rate was running at 10,000% per year.)
We all know what happened to Greece recently and the moral hazard of that “agreement.” If Greece could get a 50% reduction on $200 billion of debt and additional money to spend, why wouldn’t every other country be entitled to the same?
The result of that agreement has institutional investors selling European debt as fast as they can and are now coming after Italy; next will be Spain, then France.
Italy has $2.7 trillion dollars of debt and they and must rollover $300 billion of it within the next year. They do not have the money to finance this, if they could find buyers, at an interest rate over 5.5%. Last week they sold $3 billion with an interest rate of 6.1%.
As this unfolds, major banks will have to take enormous losses. Estimates are that U.S. banks have a $600 to $750 billion dollar exposure to European banks. This could cause serious problems for American banks.
I do not know exactly how this “debt crisis scenario” will unfold over the next two weeks, two months or two years. Will the ECB get the authority to print money so they can kick the can down the road a bit longer? There is, also, severe pressure on Germany to go along and let the ECB print. Germany will have to foot much of the bill.
Therefore, the end game it seems is either default or inflate their way out of this debt crisis.
Regardless of exactly how it unfolds, I think the banks are due for a serious correction. What is in question is the timing. We may be unable to prevent this European debt crisis from happening, but there are ways to preserve your capital or profit if you know what’s likely to happen ahead of time and can position investments appropriately.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Zero Interest Program Is Doing Great Damage To Our Economy
Today, The Federal Reserve Indicated they would extend Zero Interest Rates beyond Mid-2013. This Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is doing great damage to our economy. Here are a few reasons why:
1. ZIRP punishes savers and forces people to take on additional risk in order to earn needed income. Also, we need savings in order to get investment capital
2. ZRP hurts pension funds and insurance companies who depend on interest income to pay pensioners and cover insurance losses
3. ZIRP distorts prices and encourages malinvestments and new bubbles
4. ZIRP allows banks to make money from the carry-trade (by borrowing from the Federal Reserve at zero and then buying long-term Treasury bonds and capturing the difference in interest) basically risk free. We know the banks need the money.
5. ZIRP is not the way to get consumer spending back to bubble levels because the consumer credit cards are maxed out.
Also, the Federal Reserve is making things even worse with their latest “Twist” program.
This program has the Fed selling its short-term bonds (because demand is high due to world turmoil) and buying long-term bonds (10-30 years in maturity.) This is their attempt to drive down long-term interest rates to “help” the housing industry through lower mortgage rates. Someone should tell them that mortgage rates have been low for several years.
An even bigger problem is inflation. America’s $15 trillion in debt is currently financed at very low rates with an average maturity of less than five years. What happens when inflation hits and drives interest rates to the point where we cannot afford to refinance the debt we currently have? Look at the interest rates Europe is paying to get an idea (Greece two year bonds at 200% and Italy’s 10 year bonds at 8%.) Multiply that by $15 on our way to $20 trillion dollars.
What do you think is going to happen when the Federal Reserve stops buying Treasuries (the way they keep the rates down) and lets the market set interest rates based on time preference (how much interest one is willing to pay to buy the product now versus sometime in the future) and risk.
Be aware of what you can do in the current environment and prepare for higher interest rates in the future.
1. ZIRP punishes savers and forces people to take on additional risk in order to earn needed income. Also, we need savings in order to get investment capital
2. ZRP hurts pension funds and insurance companies who depend on interest income to pay pensioners and cover insurance losses
3. ZIRP distorts prices and encourages malinvestments and new bubbles
4. ZIRP allows banks to make money from the carry-trade (by borrowing from the Federal Reserve at zero and then buying long-term Treasury bonds and capturing the difference in interest) basically risk free. We know the banks need the money.
5. ZIRP is not the way to get consumer spending back to bubble levels because the consumer credit cards are maxed out.
Also, the Federal Reserve is making things even worse with their latest “Twist” program.
This program has the Fed selling its short-term bonds (because demand is high due to world turmoil) and buying long-term bonds (10-30 years in maturity.) This is their attempt to drive down long-term interest rates to “help” the housing industry through lower mortgage rates. Someone should tell them that mortgage rates have been low for several years.
An even bigger problem is inflation. America’s $15 trillion in debt is currently financed at very low rates with an average maturity of less than five years. What happens when inflation hits and drives interest rates to the point where we cannot afford to refinance the debt we currently have? Look at the interest rates Europe is paying to get an idea (Greece two year bonds at 200% and Italy’s 10 year bonds at 8%.) Multiply that by $15 on our way to $20 trillion dollars.
What do you think is going to happen when the Federal Reserve stops buying Treasuries (the way they keep the rates down) and lets the market set interest rates based on time preference (how much interest one is willing to pay to buy the product now versus sometime in the future) and risk.
Be aware of what you can do in the current environment and prepare for higher interest rates in the future.
Friday, September 23, 2011
“Print ‘Till You Drop” Update
In Scenario One: “Print ‘Till You Drop” I estimated the market would continue to drop until monetary policy (the Federal Reserve printing money) or fiscal policy (Government spending and borrowing money) began to re-inflate the economy and consequently the markets. The timing of the turnaround would be dependent on the “pain” felt by investors and politicians. My estimate was +/- Labor Day because it takes time to implement these programs and the election cycle begins to heat up.
Also, my assumption was a new stimulus program would be initiated (and one was introduced by President Obama as a “Jobs Program” for $445 billion) and a new Quantitative Easing (QE3) program from the Federal Reserve. The political mood is against more stimuli at the moment, but the Republicans can’t resist tax cuts so I assumed about $300 or $350 billion would get through the Congress. Net/Net: we basically have two options: Re-inflate the economy and markets (print ‘till you drop) or revert to a capitalist system (small government and a privately run economy.)
Since there is little chance we will go back to a capitalist system, my assumption was that the government would be “accommodative.” This assumption appeared to be correct when the debt ceiling was raised with almost no cut in spending until 2013. Then, a month ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke extended the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) through at least mid-2013 and a statement that the Fed would remain “accommodative.” He re-iterated that statement when he was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.
In the meantime, it was leaked that the Fed would, at minimum, initiate a “Twist” program. This program would sell about $400 billion of short-term treasuries and buy $400 billion of long-term treasuries in order to drive down long-term interest rates and help the housing industry refinance. This program would not increase the money supply (sell 400, buy 400) so it would not help re-inflate GDP or the markets. In fact, Since QE2 ended, money supply would actually contract because he did not replace the $600 billion in new money he printed for QE2. As you know, contraction takes away from GDP and thus the markets.
By the way, by itself, “Twist” will not help the housing situation either. It will also cause the yield curve to flatten (not much difference in interest rates between two year bonds and 30 year bonds) which takes the profits out of lending.
Many thought, me included, that the Fed would “surprise” the markets with additional easing or money printing. For example, stop paying banks interest for excess reserves held at the Fed which would force the banks back into the lending business. Also, to push additional money into the financial system to cause inflation (help GDP, help the markets, reduce value of the dollar to help with exports.)
On Wednesday, the surprise was that the Fed did not agree to create more money. Evidently, we have not reached their pain threshold yet. However, within hours of the Fed announcement, European markets began to fall apart again. World GDP growth rates were reduced, including the U.S. So, the question becomes: is this enough pain or do we have to wait until the next Fed meeting in November? Or is the political will to spend more money just not there?
Also, my assumption was a new stimulus program would be initiated (and one was introduced by President Obama as a “Jobs Program” for $445 billion) and a new Quantitative Easing (QE3) program from the Federal Reserve. The political mood is against more stimuli at the moment, but the Republicans can’t resist tax cuts so I assumed about $300 or $350 billion would get through the Congress. Net/Net: we basically have two options: Re-inflate the economy and markets (print ‘till you drop) or revert to a capitalist system (small government and a privately run economy.)
Since there is little chance we will go back to a capitalist system, my assumption was that the government would be “accommodative.” This assumption appeared to be correct when the debt ceiling was raised with almost no cut in spending until 2013. Then, a month ago, Fed Chairman Bernanke extended the zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) through at least mid-2013 and a statement that the Fed would remain “accommodative.” He re-iterated that statement when he was in Minneapolis a few weeks ago.
In the meantime, it was leaked that the Fed would, at minimum, initiate a “Twist” program. This program would sell about $400 billion of short-term treasuries and buy $400 billion of long-term treasuries in order to drive down long-term interest rates and help the housing industry refinance. This program would not increase the money supply (sell 400, buy 400) so it would not help re-inflate GDP or the markets. In fact, Since QE2 ended, money supply would actually contract because he did not replace the $600 billion in new money he printed for QE2. As you know, contraction takes away from GDP and thus the markets.
By the way, by itself, “Twist” will not help the housing situation either. It will also cause the yield curve to flatten (not much difference in interest rates between two year bonds and 30 year bonds) which takes the profits out of lending.
Many thought, me included, that the Fed would “surprise” the markets with additional easing or money printing. For example, stop paying banks interest for excess reserves held at the Fed which would force the banks back into the lending business. Also, to push additional money into the financial system to cause inflation (help GDP, help the markets, reduce value of the dollar to help with exports.)
On Wednesday, the surprise was that the Fed did not agree to create more money. Evidently, we have not reached their pain threshold yet. However, within hours of the Fed announcement, European markets began to fall apart again. World GDP growth rates were reduced, including the U.S. So, the question becomes: is this enough pain or do we have to wait until the next Fed meeting in November? Or is the political will to spend more money just not there?
Monday, August 1, 2011
We Again Kicked the Can, But the Road is Now Going Down Hill
The “Debt Deal” will likely pass the House and Senate today. It does not reduce the budget or spending very much. Here’s why. The base line or assumption is that the budget will grow about 7% every year (that means a 7% increase is priced in.) So, if the 2011 budget is 3.6 trillion, next year the budget will start out at $3.6 plus $250 billion or $3.85 trillion (assuming no more wars, etc.)
Therefore, in 2013 when the debt ceiling is reached again, the deficit will be $16.6 trillion rather than the $14.2 we have today; and the budget for 2014 will start at $4.1 trillion. Unless we have a national discussion about why we are spending this much money and reach a national consensus, we will continue to let politicians keep spending and monetizing our debt. If you create enough inflation to make previous debts meaningless, is that a default?
At the same time, the global economy, at a minimum, is contracting or slowing down. Therefore, the euphoria that passing the debt ceiling brings will be very short lived. We will have to immediately focus on the economy again and jobs. And there seems to be only one thing the government knows how to do, spend money and pass regulations. Also, it is only 15 months until election so stimulus and QE3 will have to be set up and implemented quickly.
Unfortunately, what we really need is for the government to get out of the way.
Therefore, in 2013 when the debt ceiling is reached again, the deficit will be $16.6 trillion rather than the $14.2 we have today; and the budget for 2014 will start at $4.1 trillion. Unless we have a national discussion about why we are spending this much money and reach a national consensus, we will continue to let politicians keep spending and monetizing our debt. If you create enough inflation to make previous debts meaningless, is that a default?
At the same time, the global economy, at a minimum, is contracting or slowing down. Therefore, the euphoria that passing the debt ceiling brings will be very short lived. We will have to immediately focus on the economy again and jobs. And there seems to be only one thing the government knows how to do, spend money and pass regulations. Also, it is only 15 months until election so stimulus and QE3 will have to be set up and implemented quickly.
Unfortunately, what we really need is for the government to get out of the way.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Update on Scenario One
July 8, 2011
Scenario One still remains the most probable of my four scenarios. However, if the government or the Central Bank deviates from the “expected” course (from a capitalist point of view) other scenarios might become more probable.
Also, here are some assumptions to consider:
1. The following chart uses the S&P500 index to illustrate this scenario because it is easy to visualize.
2. My assumption is that money supply drives the economy or GDP (and there is a lag time involved here.) Increasing GDP drives business revenues and profits which then drive stock prices.
3. Money supply will slow up beginning in June but will expand when re-election fears really kick in and new “government help” adds stimulus (money creation weather it’s spending or tax reductions unless paid for) to drive up GDP in time to help with re-elections.
4. Serious spending cuts will be postponed until after the election.
Following is a brief description of each point on the chart.
Point 1. Housing bubble bursts and banks become insolvent. The government decides to save the banks by using taxpayer money to “keep them solvent” rather than demanding that the banks try to convert their bonds into equity. Recession is underway.
Point 2. March 2010. The massive increase in money supply which artificially and temporarily increases GDP begins, but results in malinvestments or bubbles. For example:
a. Interest rates reduced to zero and held there
b. Stimulus Programs begin (over $800 billion in stimulus spending and unpaid for tax cuts) plus $1.5 trillion in deficit spending,
c. Mark-to –Market accounting rules revised (allowing banks to increase the ”value” of their mortgage bonds to boost their equity and reserve requirements,
d. Central Bank buys “toxic bonds” from the banks (QE1) increasing ”excess reserves” at banks to $1.1 trillion from $4 billion,
e. November 2010, QE2 begins ($600 billion more pumped into banks but most of it ends up in foreign banks)
f. Money supply increases at double digit rates for 28 of last 29 months (see assumption 2 above.)
Point 3. May 2011. There is a “short-term” stock market top and correction due to anticipated contraction of the pace of money supply and other headwinds including slowing global growth and debt problems. For example:
a. Stimulus ending in June
b. QE2 ending in June (a and b both will contract money supply which will reduce GDP)
c. Debt ceiling “argument” (raise limit by $2-3 trillion and get more fiscal stimulus or austerity) deadline by August 2
d. Reductions in U.S. GDP (Central Bank reduces growth rate in June) and Global GDP rates
e. Increasing inflation rates (headline and core)
f. Housing still a big problem
g. Unemployment slowly getting worse
h. Earnings (Qr 2) in July should be at or near expectations but analysts are already cutting earnings for second half of 2011. It will be a negative for the markets if companies do not confirm current growth rates for second half.
Economy and markets will become more volatile and trend lower until the government “solves” the problems with more money creation, which is what I expect. Or some kind of austerity program including reduced spending is put in place, which I do not expect. However, if austerity happens, my Scenario Two (continued decrease in economy and markets) would come into play.
Point 4. Labor Day or possibly sooner (for example by the August debt ceiling limit) depending on our central planners (government and the Central Bank) the money supply will again increase raising GDP (with a lag) and then revenues, profits and markets. This up turn will last longer (with corrections along the way.)
a. My guess, debt limit increased with promise to cut spending starting in 2013 (after next elections)
b. As economy drifts lower, the pressure will be on government to “do something.” Therefore, I expect a new stimulus program (significant tax cuts because Republicans will have to vote for them and Democrats will get their stimulus because we will borrow the money displaced by the tax cuts)
c. New QE3 program (large) so central bank can continue to buy bonds and keep interest rates low (for housing, employment, etc.) This may be called something else so it can be framed differently for public consumption.
d. Timing of new stimulus for 2012 elections will become important to allow for lag time and momentum prior to elections.
Point 5. Top of Bubble (Sept-Dec 2012 +/-) caused by the huge increase in money supply added over the years and the malinvestments that have occurred as a result of this increased money supply. This bust will cause a very deep recession illustrated by the S&P500 going back down to 600-650 area.
Point 6.January 2015. Long period of stagflation with low, real GDP growth rates of 1-2% and high interest rates due to inflation.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Update On Scenario One
This remains the most probable scenario at this time (of my four total scenarios.) However, other scenarios are possible depending on what the government and central banks do (more money creation or money contraction) and what banks do (possible trillions in credit to consumers which is money creation) and how individuals react (credit defaults, savings, leverage, etc.)
1. March 2010 (massive increases in money supply which artificially and temporarily increases GDP but results in malinvestments or bubbles)
a. Interest rate reduction
b. Stimulus Programs
c. Mark-to –Market rules revised (allowing banks to increase value of mortgage bonds)
d. Central Bank buys “toxic bonds” from banks (QE1) increasing ”excess reserves” at banks to $1.1 trillion from $4 billion.
e. November 2010, QE2 begins ($600 billion more pumped into banks but most of it goes into European banks)
f. Money supply increases at double digit rates for 28 of last 29 months
2. May 2011
a. Stimulus ending in June
b. QE2 ending in June (both a and b will contract money supply which will reduce GDP)
c. Debt ceiling “argument” (raise limit by $2-3 trillion or austerity) deadline by August 2
3. Labor Day (+/-) or possibly sooner depending on our central planners (government and the Central Bank
a. My guess, debt limit increased with promise to cut spending starting in 2013 (after next elections) Raising the debt limit is priced into the markets now.
b. As economy drifts lower, pressure for government to “do something.” Therefore, I expect a new stimulus program (significant tax cuts because Republicans will have to vote for them and Democrats will get their stimulus because we will borrow the money displaced by the tax cuts)
c.New QE3 program (large) so central bank can continue to buy bonds and keep interest rates low (for housing, employment, etc.) This may be called something else so it can be framed differently for public consumption.
d.Timing of new stimulus for 2012 elections will become important to allow for lag time and momentum prior to elections.
4. Top of Bubble (then significant recession)
5. S&P500 down to about 650-600
Monday, February 28, 2011
Of Course There Is Inflation. Why Haven’t We Seen It?
Every month we get an inflation report. We know gas prices have almost doubled in the past two years and food prices have risen significantly, but according to Fed Chairman Bernanke, we are not seeing any significant inflation. What gives? Why is the government reporting such low inflation numbers?
One reason is the way inflation numbers are reported and the way information is played out in the media. For example, inflation for January was +0.4% and +1.6% year-over-year. First of all, it was just “slightly” higher than expected. OK, it doesn’t sound that bad I guess. But what if it would be reported that + 0.4% annualized is +4.8%. Or that over the past year, inflation has risen steadily from a year ago. Or that inflation has risen 26.5 % since 2000 or 164.1% since 1980. In other words, there is not much context to the report and therefore, it is minimized.
Another reason is that the media is obsessed with speed rather than content so rather than a discussion about inflation or its content, they will simply move on to new information tomorrow. Besides, they think everyone is bored any way once they have heard the number.
Another reason is the way inflation moves through the economy. In the early stages of inflation, it generally rises slowly because the numbers are small in the beginning and people do not think that inflation is here to stay so why worry. If it persists, people begin to change their minds. Once they think inflation is here and growing, people begin to react and it begins to rise more rapidly. Since it’s a compounded percent, the longer it goes, the faster it rises.
We have an unusual situation also, The money supply has been increased dramatically (the cause of inflation) but many people including many economists and the Federal Reserve have been or are worried about deflation (definition is money supply contracting) because of lower sales, lower prices in some cases and consumers not spending as they did in 2007. Never mind that consumers haven’t de-leveraged themselves yet from historic levels in 2007.)
Also, the huge increase in money supply has gone to the banks for the most part. They do not need borrowers to make money. They have been putting the money into assets (bonds, stocks, etc.) and investing overseas. We do not count a rising stock market or heavy buying of bonds (which drives interest rates down) as inflation. Yet that is what is happening. So it appears that we are creating an asset bubble at this time, just different than the tech bubble or housing bubble.
We are also exporting much of our inflation to the Chinese: exchanging our higher cost of production for their low cost imports.
One last reason is the huge Federal debt. Imagine what “investments” could be made by the private sector if we didn’t have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to foreign countries.
That’s some of the reasons we are not “seeing” inflation. We are not looking for it. But it is here and it will be rising throughout the year.
One reason is the way inflation numbers are reported and the way information is played out in the media. For example, inflation for January was +0.4% and +1.6% year-over-year. First of all, it was just “slightly” higher than expected. OK, it doesn’t sound that bad I guess. But what if it would be reported that + 0.4% annualized is +4.8%. Or that over the past year, inflation has risen steadily from a year ago. Or that inflation has risen 26.5 % since 2000 or 164.1% since 1980. In other words, there is not much context to the report and therefore, it is minimized.
Another reason is that the media is obsessed with speed rather than content so rather than a discussion about inflation or its content, they will simply move on to new information tomorrow. Besides, they think everyone is bored any way once they have heard the number.
Another reason is the way inflation moves through the economy. In the early stages of inflation, it generally rises slowly because the numbers are small in the beginning and people do not think that inflation is here to stay so why worry. If it persists, people begin to change their minds. Once they think inflation is here and growing, people begin to react and it begins to rise more rapidly. Since it’s a compounded percent, the longer it goes, the faster it rises.
We have an unusual situation also, The money supply has been increased dramatically (the cause of inflation) but many people including many economists and the Federal Reserve have been or are worried about deflation (definition is money supply contracting) because of lower sales, lower prices in some cases and consumers not spending as they did in 2007. Never mind that consumers haven’t de-leveraged themselves yet from historic levels in 2007.)
Also, the huge increase in money supply has gone to the banks for the most part. They do not need borrowers to make money. They have been putting the money into assets (bonds, stocks, etc.) and investing overseas. We do not count a rising stock market or heavy buying of bonds (which drives interest rates down) as inflation. Yet that is what is happening. So it appears that we are creating an asset bubble at this time, just different than the tech bubble or housing bubble.
We are also exporting much of our inflation to the Chinese: exchanging our higher cost of production for their low cost imports.
One last reason is the huge Federal debt. Imagine what “investments” could be made by the private sector if we didn’t have to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to foreign countries.
That’s some of the reasons we are not “seeing” inflation. We are not looking for it. But it is here and it will be rising throughout the year.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Are Bonds (Fixed Income) at a Tipping Point? Part Duo
The first of November, my Market Update asked if bonds were at a tipping point because they were not responding as Fed Chairman Bernanke wanted (lower interest rates, lower dollar and increased commodity prices.) I also said that we would know more within the next few months.
Since then, the 10 year Treasury has moved down very slightly or about 20 basis points (0.20). However, the yield curve has steepened (short rates down and long rates higher.) Not what Bernanke wanted (unless he wanted to make the environment for bank profits better.)
The dollar has been rising not falling. But the problem is that other countries are not going to simply sit back and let the U.S. devalue the dollar (to improve exports), so they have responded by devaluing their currency in order to compete. This currency war can’t go on forever, but in the meantime, it is destructive.
Commodity prices are about the same.
It seems that there is no definitive answer yet, but there is a lot of new money going into the banking system and the banks have three choices of what to do with the money:
1.Sit on these new assets and collect the overnight interest rate from the Federal Reserve, or
2.Lend this money out to companies and individuals who want to borrow money. There is not much of this going on because banks are sitting on nearly a trillion dollars of excess assets, (maybe banks don’t want to lend or maybe borrowers don’t want to borrow.) or
3.Buy assets with this money (bonds, stocks, commodities, foreign investments, etc.) Contrary to what many people think, banks do not need to lend money to borrowers to make profits, they can invest the money here and abroad, wherever they can make the most money.
Another thing that seems to be going on here is that we have not seen much inflation (by government statistics) in spite of all the new money that’s been created. The reason many people think is that inflation will not happen until those trillions of dollars in excess assets get turned into trillions of dollars of credit.
So, think about this, if the economy does turn around or people think it has turned around; and suddenly want to use credit, would those trillions of dollars of credit turn into instant inflation? If so, that may not be good for the bond (fixed income) market as investors will want to be paid for the inflation risk.
Since then, the 10 year Treasury has moved down very slightly or about 20 basis points (0.20). However, the yield curve has steepened (short rates down and long rates higher.) Not what Bernanke wanted (unless he wanted to make the environment for bank profits better.)
The dollar has been rising not falling. But the problem is that other countries are not going to simply sit back and let the U.S. devalue the dollar (to improve exports), so they have responded by devaluing their currency in order to compete. This currency war can’t go on forever, but in the meantime, it is destructive.
Commodity prices are about the same.
It seems that there is no definitive answer yet, but there is a lot of new money going into the banking system and the banks have three choices of what to do with the money:
1.Sit on these new assets and collect the overnight interest rate from the Federal Reserve, or
2.Lend this money out to companies and individuals who want to borrow money. There is not much of this going on because banks are sitting on nearly a trillion dollars of excess assets, (maybe banks don’t want to lend or maybe borrowers don’t want to borrow.) or
3.Buy assets with this money (bonds, stocks, commodities, foreign investments, etc.) Contrary to what many people think, banks do not need to lend money to borrowers to make profits, they can invest the money here and abroad, wherever they can make the most money.
Another thing that seems to be going on here is that we have not seen much inflation (by government statistics) in spite of all the new money that’s been created. The reason many people think is that inflation will not happen until those trillions of dollars in excess assets get turned into trillions of dollars of credit.
So, think about this, if the economy does turn around or people think it has turned around; and suddenly want to use credit, would those trillions of dollars of credit turn into instant inflation? If so, that may not be good for the bond (fixed income) market as investors will want to be paid for the inflation risk.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Do We Really, Really Want To Pay Off Our Debts?
November 30, 2010
Last year America spent $3.5 trillion, collected $ 2.3 in taxes, giving us a deficit of $1.1 trillion for the year. We are currently projected to have another $1.2 trillion dollar budget deficit in 2011 and for many years to come.
Our current “public” debt (amount the Treasury owes through note and bond sales) is $13.7 trillion (with a vote to raise this amount coming in the next few months.)
To pay off our debts, we would have to balance the budget (cut spending to the amount we receive in taxes) which would require cutting the current budget by $1.2 trillion or 31%; plus, $1 billion more to begin to make payments on the debt of $1 billion per year.
At a repayment rate of $1 billion per year (and maintain a balanced budget), we could pay off $1 trillion of the debt in only 1,000 years and the entire debt in only 14,000 years. (with a budget surplus of $1 billion per year)
I know this is simple math and doesn’t take into account the drop in GDP that would result from a drop in government spending or any reductions in taxes, or new wars or?
If we chose to pay off the debts by raising taxes, we would have to move all tax rates up by 48% if we adhered to budget projections. For example, the lowest tax rate, 10%, (income up to $16,750) would go to 58% and the top tax rate, 35% (income over $373,650) would have to move up to 83%. Assuming everyone paid, that would cover the deficit.
Here are three other possible choices we have:
1.Default (government reduces value of dollar significantly)
2.Inflate our way out of our debt (keep printing dollars, like we are doing now) until we can pay back the debt in near worthless dollars
3.Grow our way out of this problem by rapid GDP growth (but we would have to go back to a capitalist economy to get entrepreneurs, technology and productivity going again.)
Which choice do you think we will end up taking? Which choice are you preparing for?
Last year America spent $3.5 trillion, collected $ 2.3 in taxes, giving us a deficit of $1.1 trillion for the year. We are currently projected to have another $1.2 trillion dollar budget deficit in 2011 and for many years to come.
Our current “public” debt (amount the Treasury owes through note and bond sales) is $13.7 trillion (with a vote to raise this amount coming in the next few months.)
To pay off our debts, we would have to balance the budget (cut spending to the amount we receive in taxes) which would require cutting the current budget by $1.2 trillion or 31%; plus, $1 billion more to begin to make payments on the debt of $1 billion per year.
At a repayment rate of $1 billion per year (and maintain a balanced budget), we could pay off $1 trillion of the debt in only 1,000 years and the entire debt in only 14,000 years. (with a budget surplus of $1 billion per year)
I know this is simple math and doesn’t take into account the drop in GDP that would result from a drop in government spending or any reductions in taxes, or new wars or?
If we chose to pay off the debts by raising taxes, we would have to move all tax rates up by 48% if we adhered to budget projections. For example, the lowest tax rate, 10%, (income up to $16,750) would go to 58% and the top tax rate, 35% (income over $373,650) would have to move up to 83%. Assuming everyone paid, that would cover the deficit.
Here are three other possible choices we have:
1.Default (government reduces value of dollar significantly)
2.Inflate our way out of our debt (keep printing dollars, like we are doing now) until we can pay back the debt in near worthless dollars
3.Grow our way out of this problem by rapid GDP growth (but we would have to go back to a capitalist economy to get entrepreneurs, technology and productivity going again.)
Which choice do you think we will end up taking? Which choice are you preparing for?
Expect The Federal Reserve To Downgrade the Economy
November 22, 2010
On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve releases the minutes of last Federal Open Market Committee Meeting. We know they decided to begin QEII (Quantitative Easing, part two also called printing money.) Therefore, we can assume they felt the economy was either not improving enough or sliding backward. Consequently, we should expect the minutes to show that:
1.The economy will not grow at the 3.5 to 4% rate used in previous discussions
2.The unemployment rate (one of their mandates) will not improve as quickly as they thought
3.Price stability (there other mandate) or inflation will remain low for longer than they thought at the last meeting (because QEII is a lot of new money.)
Also, Bernanke recently talked about the need for more government stimulus. That’s got to give you confidence---confidence that our monetary managers intend to inflate our way out of our debts.
On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve releases the minutes of last Federal Open Market Committee Meeting. We know they decided to begin QEII (Quantitative Easing, part two also called printing money.) Therefore, we can assume they felt the economy was either not improving enough or sliding backward. Consequently, we should expect the minutes to show that:
1.The economy will not grow at the 3.5 to 4% rate used in previous discussions
2.The unemployment rate (one of their mandates) will not improve as quickly as they thought
3.Price stability (there other mandate) or inflation will remain low for longer than they thought at the last meeting (because QEII is a lot of new money.)
Also, Bernanke recently talked about the need for more government stimulus. That’s got to give you confidence---confidence that our monetary managers intend to inflate our way out of our debts.
Federal Reserve Says We Should Only Focus On The Benefits
November 3, 2010
The Federal Reserve today announced that it will create $600 billion to buy bonds over the next eight months ($75 billion of purchases per month.) Also, that we not worry about the extraneous things and focus instead on the benefits. These bond purchases will:
1, Lower interest rates to help with home purchases, business loans, etc.
2. Lower the dollar to help exports by making U.S. exports cheaper
3. Increase commodity and equity prices giving a nudge to inflation
I could give a list of reasons why this will not work, but I want to focus on two other major problems.
One, the Fed has blinders on. It is focused only on the “positives” and not the “negatives.” For example, lower interest rates could be a buying incentive if consumers wanted to spend. Evidently, a rate of 2.65% for ten years is too high. The Fed also needs to look at the people who are hurt by this policy. Savers, at these low rates, are being punished. We need savings so we can invest in growth.
Two, the Fed is only focused on short-term results. They may get some of the results they want; but long-term, the debasing of the dollar will reduce buying power and cause inflation.
The policy has been decided and will now be implemented. We have to determine how it will affect our business plans and our portfolios.
The Federal Reserve today announced that it will create $600 billion to buy bonds over the next eight months ($75 billion of purchases per month.) Also, that we not worry about the extraneous things and focus instead on the benefits. These bond purchases will:
1, Lower interest rates to help with home purchases, business loans, etc.
2. Lower the dollar to help exports by making U.S. exports cheaper
3. Increase commodity and equity prices giving a nudge to inflation
I could give a list of reasons why this will not work, but I want to focus on two other major problems.
One, the Fed has blinders on. It is focused only on the “positives” and not the “negatives.” For example, lower interest rates could be a buying incentive if consumers wanted to spend. Evidently, a rate of 2.65% for ten years is too high. The Fed also needs to look at the people who are hurt by this policy. Savers, at these low rates, are being punished. We need savings so we can invest in growth.
Two, the Fed is only focused on short-term results. They may get some of the results they want; but long-term, the debasing of the dollar will reduce buying power and cause inflation.
The policy has been decided and will now be implemented. We have to determine how it will affect our business plans and our portfolios.
Which Is More Important, Tuesday’s Election or Wednesday’s Fed Meeting?
November 1, 2010
Tuesday, Americans will decide whether we should continue spending at the current, yearly rate of $2.2 trillion of tax money plus another $1.5 trillion of borrowed money or whether we should reduce spending and shrink government. Research polls indicate the latter.
Wednesday, the Federal Reserve will meet to decide how much money they will print in an effort to keep interest rates artificially low, “re-inflate” the housing market and incentivize consumer spending. The trillions spent to date have not worked. There is no reason to believe this round of money printing will work either. However, many support it because they believe the “government” must do something.
The more important of the two days is Tuesday. Runaway fiscal policy is the more dangerous policy. The economy needs time, not more spending, to deleverage and get to equilibrium.
The markets at this point, may have priced in much of the election results (unless there is a surprise) and at least some of the expected $1 trillion in new money to be printed. Then, there will have to be a reassessment. Prepare and adjust your portfolios as required.
Tuesday, Americans will decide whether we should continue spending at the current, yearly rate of $2.2 trillion of tax money plus another $1.5 trillion of borrowed money or whether we should reduce spending and shrink government. Research polls indicate the latter.
Wednesday, the Federal Reserve will meet to decide how much money they will print in an effort to keep interest rates artificially low, “re-inflate” the housing market and incentivize consumer spending. The trillions spent to date have not worked. There is no reason to believe this round of money printing will work either. However, many support it because they believe the “government” must do something.
The more important of the two days is Tuesday. Runaway fiscal policy is the more dangerous policy. The economy needs time, not more spending, to deleverage and get to equilibrium.
The markets at this point, may have priced in much of the election results (unless there is a surprise) and at least some of the expected $1 trillion in new money to be printed. Then, there will have to be a reassessment. Prepare and adjust your portfolios as required.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Should we be worried about future deflation or inflation?
There is a lot of worry these days about weather we are in deflation, slipping into deflation or about to enter into an inflationary environment. It obviously makes a big difference in future planning and how investments are allocated. As you can imagine, there are very different views among the different economic philosophies.
Before I get philosophic differences however, I need to provide a simple definition of inflation and deflation. Very simply, inflation means an increase or inflation of the money supply (more money units) and deflation means a contraction in the money supply. In the case of inflation, an increase in money units means that each unit is worth less or one’s purchasing power is diminished. Therefore prices increase. Inflation, the way the word is used today means an increase in prices. Therefore, the cause of inflation is usually misdiagnosed. I’ll talk more about this in other posts. So lets look at the different viewpoints.
Keynesian/Demand-Side View
The big government economists (Keynesians and demand-side economists) are worried that the money spent to date (the stimulus and fiscal and monetary policy) is not enough to fill the spending gap left when consumers and businesses reduced spending.
Influential economists like Paul Krugman, have said all along that the stimulus packages have not been large enough to fill the gap in spending and that now we need a much bigger stimulus package in the neighborhood of $1 trillion more dollars if we are going to turn this economy around. If we do not get that kind of spending, we will slip into a deflationary death spiral that is very difficult to get out of. Therefore, we could end up like Japan in the 1990’s with 10 years or more of almost no growth.
Their definition of deflation is falling prices (due to lack of demand) and they see falling prices everywhere (housing prices, food prices, car prices, etc.) He doesn’t see falling computer prices over the years as detrimental or deflation however. He also does not mention how we are going to repay the loans.
Keynesian/Supply-Side ViewThe opposite position is taken by the less government economists (Keynesians and supply-side economists) who see a marginal improvement in GDP growth, which they have extrapolated into a V shaped recovery. They are worried about the coming inflation because of artificially low interest rates and high debt levels.
They see inflation (a rising consumer price index or CPI) everywhere. They think that unless the Fed raises interest rates very soon and begins to take money out of the system, we will get severe inflation within the next year to eighteen months. Interest rates should be raised to one percent higher then the nominal growth rate of GDP (growth rate before inflation.) So if the economy is growing at 3-4% as they expect, interest rates should be at 4-5% not zero.
Their definition of inflation is a rising CPI index (which is the symptom of inflation, not the cause.) The CPI index as you know is a basket of goods and services the government uses to measure price changes.
Capitalist ViewThe almost no government economists (Capitalists, Austrians, Objectivists) have a much different definition of deflation and inflation. They see deflation and inflation as it was originally defined: expansion or contraction of the money supply. Their view is that the government has been and continues to pump money into the economy (print money), which will be inflationary. However, consumers are currently over-leveraged (too much credit vs. disposable income) and must reduce spending and increase savings in order to b ring their financial lives into balance. This slowdown in spending looks like deflation (prices are being reduced by almost every store advertising.)
Therefore we are currently in a period of de-leveraging, not deflation and until the consumer starts spending again (by using or reducing his savings or expanding his credit) we will not enter an inflationary phase. But based on the money that has been added and expected to be added to the economy, we could be in for serious inflation.
Conclusion
Therefore, your current position should be focused on a de-levering economy, which will take considerable time and considerable pain. However, if the government pumps too much money into the economy (a debatable number) or credit becomes too easy again, too soon, it will be time to reposition yourself for inflation.
Before I get philosophic differences however, I need to provide a simple definition of inflation and deflation. Very simply, inflation means an increase or inflation of the money supply (more money units) and deflation means a contraction in the money supply. In the case of inflation, an increase in money units means that each unit is worth less or one’s purchasing power is diminished. Therefore prices increase. Inflation, the way the word is used today means an increase in prices. Therefore, the cause of inflation is usually misdiagnosed. I’ll talk more about this in other posts. So lets look at the different viewpoints.
Keynesian/Demand-Side View
The big government economists (Keynesians and demand-side economists) are worried that the money spent to date (the stimulus and fiscal and monetary policy) is not enough to fill the spending gap left when consumers and businesses reduced spending.
Influential economists like Paul Krugman, have said all along that the stimulus packages have not been large enough to fill the gap in spending and that now we need a much bigger stimulus package in the neighborhood of $1 trillion more dollars if we are going to turn this economy around. If we do not get that kind of spending, we will slip into a deflationary death spiral that is very difficult to get out of. Therefore, we could end up like Japan in the 1990’s with 10 years or more of almost no growth.
Their definition of deflation is falling prices (due to lack of demand) and they see falling prices everywhere (housing prices, food prices, car prices, etc.) He doesn’t see falling computer prices over the years as detrimental or deflation however. He also does not mention how we are going to repay the loans.
Keynesian/Supply-Side ViewThe opposite position is taken by the less government economists (Keynesians and supply-side economists) who see a marginal improvement in GDP growth, which they have extrapolated into a V shaped recovery. They are worried about the coming inflation because of artificially low interest rates and high debt levels.
They see inflation (a rising consumer price index or CPI) everywhere. They think that unless the Fed raises interest rates very soon and begins to take money out of the system, we will get severe inflation within the next year to eighteen months. Interest rates should be raised to one percent higher then the nominal growth rate of GDP (growth rate before inflation.) So if the economy is growing at 3-4% as they expect, interest rates should be at 4-5% not zero.
Their definition of inflation is a rising CPI index (which is the symptom of inflation, not the cause.) The CPI index as you know is a basket of goods and services the government uses to measure price changes.
Capitalist ViewThe almost no government economists (Capitalists, Austrians, Objectivists) have a much different definition of deflation and inflation. They see deflation and inflation as it was originally defined: expansion or contraction of the money supply. Their view is that the government has been and continues to pump money into the economy (print money), which will be inflationary. However, consumers are currently over-leveraged (too much credit vs. disposable income) and must reduce spending and increase savings in order to b ring their financial lives into balance. This slowdown in spending looks like deflation (prices are being reduced by almost every store advertising.)
Therefore we are currently in a period of de-leveraging, not deflation and until the consumer starts spending again (by using or reducing his savings or expanding his credit) we will not enter an inflationary phase. But based on the money that has been added and expected to be added to the economy, we could be in for serious inflation.
Conclusion
Therefore, your current position should be focused on a de-levering economy, which will take considerable time and considerable pain. However, if the government pumps too much money into the economy (a debatable number) or credit becomes too easy again, too soon, it will be time to reposition yourself for inflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)