Friday, March 20, 2009

The Miracle of Inflation

Inflation: The Miracle Cure

I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's the only thing left that can get us out of our current financial system death spiral.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

To date the Fed has used every trick in it's toolbox without much affect. There's only one tool left that can pull off such a whiplash recovery; inflate and inflate with a vengeance. Because at this point academic debates over what constitutes “true market value,” and "mark to market accounting, are all very interesting, but way too late in coming. Lectures on good fiscal hygiene are useless now. It's time for steroids.

Inflation with a vengeance does very much seem to be the current mindset. We're still experiencing deflation overall in my opinion, but once the remedy kicks in I strongly believe we're headed for stagflation (as is predicted in the article as well).

I continue to believe that any recovery in our economy will be offset by an even bigger recovery in the price of oil. That will not be a good thing for us (or our stock market in inflation adjusted terms), not a good thing at all.


IEA says oil capacity crunch looms at end of 2013

LISBON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The International Energy Agency fears that an expected recovery in oil demand from 2010 and oil project cancellations due to low crude prices and the credit crisis will mean no spare oil capacity at the end of 2013.

The price of oil on that day was $44.15 and it was considered to be a low price. In 1998, we would have been shocked and horrified to see $44.15. I just want to point that out.

He added that supply from producing oil fields will decline dramatically, and that to offset the decline by 2030 "we need 45 million barrels per day of new capacity, or the equivalent of 4 Saudi Arabias".

Good luck on that one.

I'm not a complete pessimist though. I was born in 1964. I consider myself very lucky. Had I been born centuries earlier, the appendicitis I had as a kid may have killed me. Had I been born decades earlier, I may have died in World War II. Had I been born years earlier, I may have died in Vietnam.

In 2030, I'll be 66 years old. I probably won't have that much lifespan left in me by that point. By the looks of it, I won't be peaking alone though. Peak oil? Peak resources? Peak debt? Peak global population? Mad Max might not be fiction after all.

March 20, 2009
What's driving up price of oil?

"The government is basically printing money to buy back all this paper, and it devalues the dollar," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. Flynn said the rise in oil, however, shouldn't be taken as a sign that the economy is on the mend.

He's preaching to the choir.

There are at least three camps.

1. There is the camp that can look at stock prices and cheap energy for the past 100 years and extrapolate future prosperity. Let's call this camp the optimists.

2. There is the camp that can look at rising debt over the past 100 years and extrapolate future anti-prosperity. Let's call this camp the realists.

3. There is the camp that can look at rising debt over the past 100 years and also see that cheap energy is not something we can count on going forward. Let's call this camp the pessimists.

When I turned bearish in 2004, I was firmly in Camp #2. I didn't care about the price of oil at the time. It was a side topic to me. At some point in the last few years, I became a believer in Camp #3 though.

Here's a scary thought. What if we're calling Camp #3 the pessimists but history later shows that they were actually the optimists? Things are certainly much worse than I thought they'd be. Further, we're throwing trillions of dollars at the problems. Let's say the fundamental problem is a lack of future cheap energy though. Perhaps someone could explain to me how spending what's left of our prosperity on better roads will help to solve that problem?

Ah, who am I kidding? A lack of future cheap energy cannot be the fundamental problem. At best, it is just one fundamental problem. There are plenty of other fundamental problems too and that is why I am a bear.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are at least three camps.

A few thoughts. First, 100 years of increasing debt is not quite accurate. Debt as a percentage of GDP was greatly reduced as a result of widespread defaults during the Great Depression. After WW2, household debt levels were extremely low, while government debt was at a historic high. When WW2 ended, households gradually took on more debt, while government debt as a percentage of GDP shrank. Household debt as a percentage of GDP reached ~ 45% in the 1960s and remained at that percentage until the early eighties. The Reagan public debt expansion was dwarfed by a huge expansion of household debt. Loading households down with debt became our most profitable industry, at least until the oil started running out!

Second, more and more people are pitching a tent in Camp #2. Even Hussman has become more bearish despite the huge decline in the stock market. Hussman, it seems, has suddenly started to worry about the debt load on our eCONomy. So much of our apparent prosperity was indeed an illusion. But there is nothing illusory about the debt, it's the real deal.

Third, I expect more and more people to start pitching a tent in Camp #3. I'm guessing we currently have enough resources to support the global economy for some reasonable period of time. That said, I have serious doubts that we can sustain perma growth for decades to come.

Lastly, let's hope we lonely Camp #3ers don't turn out to be optimists. As odd as it sounds, here's to pessimism!

Stagflationary Mark said...

mab,

I'm reasonably convinced debt has increased over the last 100 years as a percent of GDP if one factors in all debt using proper accounting standards. You are probably right though, much of the debt pain has probably come in my lifetime.

I'd really like to see a chart that shows true national govt debt + state govt debt + local govt debt + corporate debt + housing debt + auto debt + credit card debt + payday loan debt + stock margin debt going back 100 years that's adjusted for inflation and population. I'd be willing to bet that it would make me cringe.

Anonymous said...

Stag,

I'd be willing to bet that it would make me cringe.

I'm guessing this chart is making the fed cringe:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CMDEBT&s[1][transformation]=ch1

A few data points for household liabilities as a % of GDP (hh liabilities from the Fed Flow of Funds, Table B1):

1945 - 13% What's a little debt?
1955 - 34% It's still manageable.
1965 - 49% Prosperity!
1975 - 46% We need more hh debt!
1985 - 56% That's more like it!
1995 - 68% Now we're cookin!
2005 - 98% This eCONomy rocks!
2008 - 100% WOOHOO! Aced it!
2010 - ???? RIP, :(

Stagflationary Mark said...

mab,

I was looking at that very chart from that very location when I was thinking up a reply. No joke! I then thought about AIG, California, Social Security, Medicare, and so on, and so on.

You know what? I think I am upgrading to Camp #3.1415....

Our debt isn't rational.

Anonymous said...

Stag,

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Interesting tables:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

As far I can tell, almost all credit growth and asset booms since the Great Depression stem from huge expansions in government debt. It appears that government debt expansion is like discovering a huge gold mine. Although we have never tried to reflate from this level of debt before. Or against the deflationary forces of 2 billion Asians clawing their way up the economic ladder.

Our eCONomy can no longer function without the government. That fact (if it is a fact) seems to go all the way back to the FDR nanny state.

Stagflationary Mark said...

mab,

Great links!

I'm trying to reconcile the data, much like I would my checking account. I'm having a really hard time though.

Obama budget deficit could hit 1.845 trln dlrs
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ithVH4Ug3oRQrgZI01k0DKW6fQnQ

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US budget deficit could hit 1.845 trillion dollars this year under the budget proposed by President Barack Obama, quadrupling the 2008 record shortfall, a new forecast showed.

Anonymous said...

Stag,

I know you've posted a similar chart(s), but our recent moon shot of debt really spooks me. To me the debt IS the problem, and yet, the proposed solutions always boil down to adding more debt.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/ScfNYcSLnMI/AAAAAAAAFwk/nf2WEo87pWA/s1600-h/Total+Credit+Market+Debt+vs.+GDP.png

Multiple choice:

Q: What goes up?

a) must go up further
b) must plateau and stay up
c) must (never) come down
d) must never be discussed

Stagflationary Mark said...

mab,

I'm going with d) must never be discussed.

Behold the Horror of Red Ink.

This was a simple explanation which everyone could understand, and because Malone was not a simple person he perceived that he had better let it suffice. -The Horror at Red Hook, H.P. Lovecraft