Showing posts with label Peter Schiff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Schiff. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Peter Schiff on Gold and Silver



I haven't written about Gold or Silver in quite a while... largely because the market has been in a state of basic equilibrium.

That may be about to change.

Peter Schiff offers an excellent analysis on why those who believe in Gold and Silver believe the market may be about to move dramatically.

For your consideration. Although real short term I personally I believe Friday will bring a significant raid to try and drive the price down.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.



Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Tues Post #2: Peter Schiff on Bernanke's recent public lectures


==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Wed Post #2: Inevitable - Part Deux


Back on March 8, 2010 we posted that the swirling economic ill winds continue to blow strong in Europe and we ignore what is going there at our own peril.

We wrote that there was an inevitable shift occurring in the great economic crisis of 2008 - 2010 (now 2011).

The first wave caused individual people and companies to face bankruptcy. The looming second wave now threatens entire governments.

Sovereign Debt is the key issue of this decade.

And unlike the Russian financial crisis of 1998, in which Russia was allowed to default on their debt, or the Argentine economic crisis of 1999-2002, when Argentina declared default in 2002, the main players in the European Debt Crisis - the PIIGS nations - will not be allowed to default.

The reason that European Sovereign Debt cannot be allowed to fail and default is because the five largest US banks hold trillions of dollars of credit default swap Over The Counter (OTC) derivatives guaranteeing that garbage debt against failure.

If European Debt is allowed to fail, the Western financial world implodes.

Ergo... Sovereign Debt cannot be allowed to fail.

That is why this blog has been such a staunch proponent of precious metals. The only way to stop the implosion of the Western financial world is to engage in Quantative Easing to infinity.

Today is seems we can now clearly see the inevitable starting to play out.

Early this morning Forbes wondered aloud if a big European bank come close to failing last night?

European banks, especially French banks, rely heavily on funding in the wholesale money markets. Did a major bank have difficulty funding its immediate liquidity needs?

The question was asked because last night The US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Swiss National Bank, and the Bank of Canada moved in a coordinated action to provide liquidity to the global financial system.

Peter Schiff summarized what these actions mean:

Today’s unprecedented announcement by the world’s most powerful central banks was a loud and clear bell ringing to buy precious metals. The move, disguised as an attempt to help the fragile state of the global economy, is in reality a move to prop up failing banks in Europe and the US.

By reducing interest rates paid for dollar swaps, central bankers are in effect increasing the quantity of global dollars in circulation.

This is the pure definition of inflation: increasing the money supply. And today it was increased profoundly.

Schiff contends this may be one of the most important economic events of the year.

As Goldman Sachs made all too clear today, this is merely the beginning as more and more inflationary actions have to be undertaken by central banks to save banks from being crushed by untenable debt loads.

Whether they succeed in overturning the deflationary tsunami is unknown. What is certain is that they will bring fiat currencies to the verge of viability (and beyond) in trying.

Q.E. to infinity has begun.

Sovereign Debt cannot be allowed to fail as the US dollar will weaken, inflation will rise, and Gold/Silver will soar.

It is as inevitable as the fate of this mouse...


==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Peter Schiff on deflation and the US Fed's printing press


==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Saturday Post #2: Peter Schiff on interest rates and how a Silver breakout is coming


==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

"They wouldn't dare"


After the financial crisis of 2008, as the greatest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s set in, Canada's economy fared remarkably well.

So well, in fact, that many Canadians are oblivious to all this talk of a 'Great Recession' around the world.

Everyone is aware of the 2008 Financial Crisis... but few appreciate how severe the underlying credit crunch was.

And that's because Canadians never really felt that crunch.  The banking sector in Canada insulated our citizens from the worst of that crunch.  Because of the emergency level interest rates brought in by the Federal Government... because the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) dramatically lowered the requirements to qualify for a fully backstopped mortgage... and because CMHC insurance fully guaranteed mortgages given out by Canadian banks, those Canadian banks  kept on lending money to Canadians.

As a result Canadians kept on buying. 

But the availability of cheap credit has driven Canadian household debt levels to record highs. Household debt as measured against disposable income currently sits at a record high of 147%.

As Canadians have piled into massive consumer spending, and buying as much house as they could afford under emergency level historic low interest rates, there is this perception that the Bank of Canada will never raise interest rates because they wouldn't dare upset the economy.

This, of course, if pure nonsense.

Echoing this sentiment is the chief economist for  RBC Global Asset Management, Eric Lascelles.
  • “There is a popular misconception that the Bank of Canada cannot afford to raise interest rates because this would prove too damaging for mortgage holders. The opposite is in fact true. The reality is that the Bank of Canada cannot afford to delay raising interest rates, for precisely the same reason. The longer the bank delays, the more marginal borrowers will enter the market and be walloped when rates rise, and the further home prices will go above their equilibrium levels, only to tumble later.”
You can clearly see how the domino's will inevitably fall here.

Once the Bank of Canada raises its key lending rate from the current “astonishingly cheap” one per cent, costs of servicing mortgage and other debts will rise. 

These increased costs will sap consumer spending, housing prices will fall as lower-tier buyers are forced out of the market by diminished affordability, and the endless annual increases in real estate values will cease.

Just as so many Australian's (as we saw in yesterday's Aussie TV clip) were dependant on rising real estate, so are many Canadians. And as lower-tier buyers are forced out of the market by diminished affordability, the vicious catch-22 cycle will begin.  The lack of buyers will increase inventory.  Increased inventory will create competition for what buyers remain.  And a 'high supply, limited buyers' condition will start collapsing the market.

The Reserve Bank of Australia first started raising their interest rates back in October 2009.

By January 2010 it was evident the Australian collapse has started.  As Mish Shedlock observed:
  • "The day of reckoning has finally arrived for Australia. A day of reckoning awaits Canada, China, and the UK as well. It's too late now to do much of anything except: exit the Australian stock market, get out of the Australian dollar, pick up some popcorn and stay on the sidelines and watch the collapse unfold."
Since January 2010 the Australian collapse has picked up speed. Yesterday's Australian TV clip quoted a stunned Aussie who said "I don't think anyone saw it coming."

That will be our future.  So many do not see what is coming. And right now we're still telling ourselves, "they wouldn't dare raise interest rates."

But as the chief economist for RBC Global Asset Management noted... they most certainly will.

The risk is clearly greatest of all for those who have just purchased a home since the 2008 financial crisis.

All the people who were lured by emergency level interest rates over the last 3 years are, on average, earlier in their career, and their income has not yet fully blossomed. They often begin with little equity in their dwelling, having neither contributed much equity up front, nor made many mortgage payments, nor have they enjoyed the fruit of rising home prices.

Their debt load is likely at its lifetime peak.

As Lascelles’ notes, the outcome of rising rates will be quite painful these buyers.

The only remaining question is... do these buyers represent a systemic risk similar to the devastation on the U.S. economy of its housing collapse?

Interestingly Lascelles discounts this outcome.  Despite that fact that many will face higher rates when they renew, Lascelles argues that by the time many do renew the impact will be mitigated by three years of rising household incomes.

A downturn saved by a rebounding economy? Didn't American economists predict that same outcome in the United States?

In 2007 many well known economists in America (like the infamous Ben Stein in the clip below) were adamant that the few who would be affected by resetting mortgages at higher interest rates would not adversely affect the overall real estate market. 

And in the summer of 2011, a similar sentiment seems to exist in Canada.

Not only will interest rates will rise, but the mantra of "they wouldn't dare" will give way to "I don't think anyone saw it coming"... just like it now has in Australia.

And just like we see in Australia today, the impact here will be more severe than expected.


==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Once again Jim Rogers succinctly summarizes the situation...


Rogers is talking about Greece. The key problem with Greece and why it matters to North America is that so many North American banks have huge exposure to Greek debt.  If Greece defaults, those banks lose massive amounts of money.

And in this segment below we see the root of the economic problem in North America... we're too busy blaming China for our woes as opposed to understanding why we can't bring the manufacturing of products we consume back to North America. 



==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Peter Schiff talking about Greece and the form that QE 3 will take



==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Peter Schiff on Quantitative Easing and QE to infinity


 Great analysis by Peter Schiff on the ending of QE2 and QE to infinity.

==================
Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.
Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Peter Schiff on CNBC: Inflation, the collapsing US Dollar and rising interest rates in other countries


Peter Schiff comments on the sweeping inflation raging around the world and the impact it is going to start having on the US dollar. As we have been talking about on this blog for the past year, inflation - not deflation - is going to be our central story.

Speaking of other nations raising interest rates, Russia unexpectedly raised their prime rate again. It now stands at 8%.

And as Schiff says... higher rates will becoming to North America before long.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Schiff on Bernanke and debt ceiling warning

Peter Schiff discussing Ben Bernanke's warning to Republicans to raise the debt ceiling.
==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Mr. Toad's Wild Ride...

What a wild day in the markets. As I mentioned in the wee hours of the morning (see last post), "I will be stunned if the immediate response is not a gigantic spike in precious metals later today."

Silver soared to $29.25 from yesterday's close of $27.72, a huge spike, up almost $1.60.

Then there were two formal attempts to engineer a price sell off.

By the time the day was done, Silver settled at $26.80, down almost $1 from yesterday's close.

As I said on the weekend, the watchword for what lies ahead is volatility. We are going to see violent swings in all areas.

For the inflation vs deflation fans, yesterday Peter Schiff and Robert Prechter carried out a 15-20 minute debate on Schiff's radio show. While both agreed that the US is doomed, Schiff argued for inflation and Prechter argued for deflation. It was a very civil debate and far more in depth than anything you might hear on CNBC.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Will QE2 prevent a Vancouver Housing Collapse?

One of the big questions I am hearing locally is whether QE2 will prevent a collapse in real estate here in the Village on the Edge of the Rainforest.

Of course not.

As I have already mentioned, in the normal cycle of classical Capitalism the expansion of credit/debt and rising assets leads to mal-investment and rampant speculation: overbuilding, overcapacity, over-indebtedness and leveraged bets that misprice risk.

This is precisely what occurred in the 1995-2000 stock market bubble and the 2002-2007 housing/real estate bubble; mal-investment, over-indebtedness, overbuilding and mispricing of risk on a grand, unprecedented scale.

All around the Western World the correction has taken hold, with the exception of Canada and Australia.

In the normal scheme of things, all this bad debt would be written off and the assets would be sold/liquidated. Holders of those assets and the debt based on those assets would both suffer losses or even be wiped out. All the overbuilt/overpriced properties and overcapacity would be sold for pennies on the dollar, and the liabilities (debt) wiped off the balance sheet along with all the inflated assets.

There is no other way to clear the market for future growth.

The Canadian Government has been successful in delaying the reckoning with the record levels of stimulus the Conservatives dumped into the economy in 2009.

The effects of wasteful misallocation of capital cannot be fixed by policies that encourage the wasteful misallocation of capital. But those policies can often help to prop up unsustainable patterns of activity in order to "kick the can down the road."

This is what we have done in Canada, in general, and particularly in Vancouver.

Stimulus can postpone major economic adjustments, but often that makes the ultimate adjustment even worse. And ours is only getting worse.

Put simply, policies and investment practices that are effective and friendly to the short-term can often be destructive and violent to the long-term, particularly when those policies and practices encourage the misallocation of capital.

Everyone is in a tither about how the average price of a single family house in Vancouver rose in October to top the $1 million mark again.

But as we have already discussed, those numbers are skewed.

In October 2010 west side Vancouver SFH sales totaled 161.

One mansion in Shaughnessy sold for $17.5 million along with a handful of other sales in the $3 million to $5 million range.

The $17.5 million Shaughnessy house alone juiced the west side detached average price by $108,695.

Take that away and the average drops to under $950,000.

Will QE2 also juice the market and lead to an increase in sales?

Well it appears the real estate boosters don't think it will.

The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) came out with a statement on November 5th (the day after QE2) that 'revised' their forcast for national sales activity downward by 4.9% for 2010 and predicts sales will collapse further in 2011, down by another 9%.

But that's nationally. In BC the CREA sees sales dropping by another 15% in 2011.

That's 15% less than this year's totals where we have spent half the year with sales down by 40% from 2009.

Sounds like a "NO" to me on a rebound from QE2.

With sales hovering at their lowest levels in the last 10 - 15 years, a prediction of another 15% drop is not what I would call 'bullish'.

QE2 may juice the stock market for a while, but it will not save the Vancouver real estate market.

What it will do is keep interest rates from rising in the short term, which will prolong the slow melt.

Meanwhile for your Sunday viewing pleasure: three video clips.

The first is the trailer for the documentary "Inside Job". I had a chance to watch it last night in the only theatre in Vancouver it's playing at (Tinsletown) and it's worth checking out. It didn't explain the crisis as fully as I would have liked, but it does a really good job.

Next is a 7 minute clip featuring Peter Schiff on inflation and QE2. Schiff is bang on with his assessment and this clip is destined to be central to another round of "Peter Schiff was right" videos once this episode fully plays out.

Finally there is a repost of a 45 minute documentary titled 'Overdose: The Next Crisis' for those who may not have seen it the first time around.

Enjoy your Sunday!

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Riddle me this

The big debate in the financial world right now is "how large will next week's second round of American Quantative Easing be?"

it's the wrong question for a variety of reasons and I hope to touch on them at some point during the week.

The mantra being repeated over and over is the looming threat of deflation. The supposed intent of QE 2 is to lower interest rates to promote job growth and avoid the apparently growing threat of deflation. But the very idea that the economy is weak because interest rates are too high is laughable.

One of the greatest elements that threatens deflation, as the US Federal Reserve is quick to point to, is falling real estate prices.

But here's a question for you.

Why, when real estate prices were rising, didn't the Federal Reserve (or our own Bank of Canada) raise interest rates to bring them down?

Now that they are falling, the US central bank (as well as the BOC) feels compelled to lower rates to prop them up.

If falling real estate prices threaten deflation, why was there not concern about an inflation threat when real estate prices were rising?

Under the new way CPI is calculated, housing is neither inflationary or deflationary.

In his weekly Op Ed column, Peter Schiff has a theory. He thinks the spectre of deflation is a red herring;

  • "All this deflation talk is a red herring. The true purpose of QE 2 is to disguise the decreasing ability of the Treasury to finance its debts. As global demand for dollar-denominated debt falls, the Fed is looking for an excuse to pick up the slack. By announcing QE 2, it can monetize government debt without the markets perceiving a funding problem. If the truth were known, a real panic would ensue. So, the Fed pretends buying treasuries is simply part of its master plan to boost the economy, even though, in reality, it is simply acting as the buyer of last resort."

Monetization of the debt under the guise of economic stimulus. More on this as the week goes on.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Prechter Vs Schiff (Deflation vs Inflation)

Those of you who visit this site regularly know that we have harped ad nausem on the belief that the economic collapse that took place last year was a deep, economic earthquake... the repercussions of which we are still coming to grips with.

Will the ecomonic collapse and massive fiscal stimulus trigger high inflation and interest rates? Or is the economy in a spiral leading to further deflation and low interest rates for years to come?

In the past this blog has profiled the viewpoints of Bob Prechter and Peter Schiff. One is regarded as the leading deflationist speaker, the other considered the leading inflationist pundit.

Over the last two weeks two different interviews were conducted by Jim Puplava; one with Prechter and one with Schiff. The interviews gave these two a chance to clearly present their views and supporting evidence.

If you are so inclined, click on the links above to listen to the full interviews.

In summary, Prechter's key point is that there is an ocean of unpayable debt which must result in a deflationary collapse and depression (huge unemployment, big hit on the standard of living, etc.).

Schiff agrees that there is an ocean of unpayable debt, but disagrees on what the outcome will be. He expects a dollar collapse and an inflationary depression (huge unemployment, big hit on the standard of living, etc.).

Interestingly there is a lot more agreement between the “deflationists” and the “inflationists” than you would think.

Prechter claims that the creditors will not allow the Federal Reserve to “print its way out of the debt” and that the key evidence for this is that the Fed has tried really hard to keep from doing anything to really, really tick off its creditors.

Schiff claims that the Federal Reserve will keep “printing debt” until the creditors refuse to buy any more and that is when the printing goes into high-gear and there is a currency collapse (dollar plummets) and the inflationary depression really kicks in.

Personally we lean more towards Schiff's take on things.

Schiff claims that the government and Federal Reserve have been printing money and causing inflation non-stop for decades. That's how we ended up in the massive bubble conditions that currently exist (or, in the case of the US, are in the process of bursting). More importantly there's nothing to stop the American government and the Federal Reserve from continuing this process. Schiff cites very powerful reasons for the government to continue including:

  • Allowing the government to spend money without having to raise taxes.
  • Inflation allows the government to tax assets (when sold) which have not gone up in value (for example when you sell a house), and
  • Inflation automatically drives tax payers into higher brackets increasing their tax burden.

Prechter, on the other hand, claims a major shift has taken place in the last year with credit contracting and a major change attitude to avoid debt.

Prechter claims the amount of monetization so far is puny compared to shrinkage in the amount of credit outstanding and that even if all of the bad debt was replaced with 100 dollar bills it would not create inflation because it would just replace what was formally in place.

Schiff's outlook seems to be more based on data and natural reasoning about cause and effect and is more in sync with the experience of the last few decades. Prechter, on the other hand, has been more accurate on what has happened the last 18 months or so. To date Schiff has been wrong in the short-term about the dollar and inflation.

So what can we conclude?

Neither seems to understand why USA creditors (China, Japan, etc) keep buying USA debt and neither has a grip on what will trigger these nations to step back.

Yet this is the key to the current economic situation. Everyone wants to know when and/or if it will change suddenly.

Regrettably there is no clear winner of this controversy right now, although we favour Schiff's outlook.

We are nearing two crucial points that will occur towards the end of this year. They could tell us which way things are going to go.

The first is that the Federal Reserve funds for monetizing debt is scheduled to run out in October. The Federal Reserve will then either have to:

  • Stop buying treasuries and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debt. This may very well cause interest rates to launch into the stratosphere triggering another major contraction in the markets. This will result in the dollar rising in a flight to safety. If this happens Prechter is proved right.
  • Announce another round of monetization and have the creditors belly ache but keep on buying treasuries. If this happens the jury is still out.
  • The Federal Reserve will announce another round of moneitization and have the creditors refuse to keep buying treasuries resulting in a dollar collapse. If this happens Schiff is proved right short term.
  • Secretly continue monetization (with perhaps a delayed reaction resulting in a dollar collapse).

The second crucial point will come when year over year commodity prices start rising in Q4 (unless there is another crash). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) should stop falling and start rising. These events will probably keep the U.S. Dollar on its downward collapse.

Any significant resumption of CPI rise will prove Schiff right short term. Prechter's outlook doesn't really allow for this, although he gives himself test of requiring all prices to rise to new highs.

At this point we will have a clear picture of whether Inflation or Deflation lies on the horizon.

Of course, both may be wrong and the ocean of debt may be supportable. In that case the North American economy will just muddle through indefinitely, with GDP growth and super low interest rates allowing the USA to work its way out of debt (or at least sustain the debt).

Personally we don't see that happening.

The key to the whole situation is the reaction of USA creditors to the continued piling up of USA debt.

How how long will they just grin and bear it?

Ultimately that is the bottom line.

Personally we can't see any outcome other than that the USA will continue to pile up and monetize debt. Eventually this will lead to a major dollar collapse when times get really, really bad.

How to plan and prepare depends on your assessment of the situation.

We truly do live in interesting times.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.


Please read disclaimer at bottom of blog.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Great Inflation Debate (Part 2)

Continuing from yesterday...

The Chinese, the Japanese and the Russians have three of the biggest piles of US bonds in the world.

What would you say if you owned $800 billion worth of bonds? Wouldn't you tell the world what a great investment they were?

...and then sell them quietly, when no one was looking?

Most observers fear this exact scenario. And if it starts to happen the US Federal Reserve will be forced to do what they don't want to do. They'll have to buy their own bonds in great quantities to keep rates down. Then, they'll have to buy more...because others will be selling them. Finally, they'll have to monetize a huge percentage of them...ultimately causing inflation rates to soar.

That's the scenario you don't ever hear the US Federal Treasury talking about. Sure they say they can yank the stimulus money quickly if the economy turns around. But that is only one scenario that scares inflationists. There are many others.

And last week Peter Schiff outlined some of those other concerns in an article in Canada's MacLeans Magazine. You can read the full article here. I highly encourage you to take the time to read it.

From the article:

  • Many scoff at the idea that China will suddenly say “no more” to buying U.S. debt. After all, the two countries have had a mutually beneficial relationship for years. China lends money to the U.S. and the U.S. buys masses of consumer goods from China. What’s more, it’s a long-standing relationship and many doubt that China would want to upset the status quo. Schiff sees no logic in that argument. “That they’ll keep lending indefinitely makes about as much sense as the argument that real estate prices have been rising, so they’ll rise forever,” Schiff says. “Nothing that is unsustainable will go on forever.”

    But the thing is, China doesn’t have to entirely cut off the U.S. to cause problems. Even if China decided to pull back slightly there would be consequences. The U.S. would still find itself short of the cash it needs to pay its bills, and like a homeowner who misses a mortgage payment, it would have to find that money somehow.

    Regardless of precisely how and when this all unfolds, the dollar will inevitably become less valuable and interest rates will rise as the U.S. scrambles to attract new lenders. That will translate into inflation and higher interest rates for the average person, too. The cost of living will go up and the value of people’s savings will decline. Canada would likely get dragged into the mess too, just as it was affected by the current downturn in the U.S. The question is how severely this will all hit.

Finally there is the law of unintented consquences.

That's the wild card element that scares inflationists the most.

We'll look at that tomorrow.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.

Disclaimer: The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content, including advertisements, shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a position in any company or advertiser referenced above. Any action that you take as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Peter Schiff 5: Will we do the right thing or will it be Hyper-Inflation?

.
Part 5, the final part, of our series condensed from a speech Peter Schiff’s gave on March 13, 2009 to the Austrian Scholars Conference.

Our problems existed because the government, with their policies, undermined our productive capacity, undermined our ability to save, undermined our ability to manufacture and nurtured and cultivated the consumer bubble. Their policies created this service sector economy. And now it has collapsed.

The government’s plan to deal with the economic crisis? (1) They want to bail people out, and (2) they want to stimulate the economy.

But government bailouts are the worse thing that you can do. They want to bailout companies that should fail, that should be bankrupted. Bankruptcy is a good thing. It's the way the market cleanses the economy of companies that shouldn’t be there.

Why shouldn’t they be there? Because they are not generating profits. They are not effectively utilizing resources. Those resources need to be freed up but right now they’re being held hostage. We need to free them up so that we can use them productively.

They say we can’t let General Motors go bankrupt because some auto workers will be unemployed. Well, we don’t want work just so that someone can have a job. We want work so that we can produce something. We want the value.

Keeping those jobs just to preserve them doesn’t make any sense, not if they’re unproductive or inefficient.

We need to let companies go bankrupt.

And if we let General Motors go bankrupt, does that mean it’s the end for the automotive industry? Does that mean all those plants in Detroit are going to sit idle? That all those skilled workers are just going to sit there and nobody is going to try and hire them?

Of course not.

What would happen if we let GM go bankrupt is that some entrepreneurs would step up and buy up the assets out of bankruptcy. Then they would no longer be encumbered with big labour union contracts and interest on debt. They would be able to buy the assets without the liabilities and organize them in such a way that they could produce cars profitably.

In addition to letting companies go bankrupt, the government is viewing this whole crisis incorrectly.

The President keeps saying we need to restore credit.

He keeps saying credit is the lifeblood of the economy. We need credit so Americans can go out and buy more stuff. But the last thing we need right now is for Americans to buy more stuff. We need to start making things for the rest of the world.

China needs cars. Look at all their people who ride bicycles. They have lots of our money now, let’s start making cars – profitably – for them.

Bailouts are another problem. The government wants to bailout Wall Street investment banks. Why? Let them fail. What do we need them for? Why do we need Goldman-Sachs? Why do we need Morgan Stanley? Let them fail.

Everyone is trying to blame all of our economic problems right now on the fact the government let Lehman Brothers go out of business. Meanwhile they’ve bailed out everyone else and we are still in this gigantic mess.

Maybe it’s not because they let Lehman fail. Maybe it’s because of all the other bailouts!

But no… now they want to make us believe that because they let Lehman’s fail, they can’t let anyone else fail.

The reality is we don’t need all these investment banks. And if they go away it’s not going to mean that brokerages are going to stop, that investment banking is going to stop. All it means is... that work is going to be done by somebody else.

There are many smaller firms out there would could fill the void. But the government is rewarding the incompetent people and punishing all the competent ones.

Meanwhile look at all the bonuses being paid using bailout money. How can these executives be entitled to multi-million dollar salaries when their companies are failing? They should get paid based on what they are doing. Let them fail, let them go out of business.

So what, exactly, is the government trying to do with the stimulus?

The government is trying to recreate the conditions that lead to the crisis.

When they talk about stimulating the economy, they’re not talking about stimulating economic growth... they’re talking about stimulating spending. They want us to go back to the auto showrooms, back to the mall and buy more stuff.

And they want us going deeper into debt to pay for it.

And if we’re not willing to accumulate the debt on our own, well then the government will do it for us. And they sincerely believe this is the secret. If they can just spend enough money, then the economy is going to magically grow again.

That’s all nonsense.

The only reason it worked in 2000 (and it didn’t really work then), is because we were able to borrow the money from the rest of the world and spend it. And we were able to live in the delusion that we were getting richer even when we were getting poorer.

We believed this because we looked at our asset prices (real estate and stocks) and we saw the prices going up and we said “hey, were actually getting wealthier”.

But we weren’t getting richer because we were spending money at the same time instead of saving money. We would borrow on the asset value and spend it consuming.

And as we spent money, the government counted that money as GDP. And as long as our GDP was rising then we thought our economy was growing.

But the whole time our GDP was going up, we weren’t measuring how much our wealth was going up. We were measuring how much our wealth was dissipating. We thought we were okay because some appraiser said that our house was worth more. Or the stock market was still going up.

All that was an illusion. Because when the bubble burst, our real estate wealth disappeared and our stock market wealth disappeared.

And now that those bubbles have burst, there’s no way to go back to it.

We can't go out and borrow any more money against the value of our real estate... because the real estate value is gone, collapsed.

We can't go out and borrow any more money against the value of our stocks... because the stock market value is gone, collapsed.

Restoring credit by bailing out the banks won't work.

And it doesn’t matter that the stock market is rising again. Because you’re going to have ups and downs, but stocks are still too expensive. These rallys are doomed to collapse again because, based on any kind of historic measure of value, the P/E’s are high and the yields are low for our companies.

Stocks are overpriced, even today.

Houses are overpriced, even today.

Our assets are still overpriced despite the fact that they have fallen.

Our whole economy is phony.

Why? Because the malinvestments we have now is this entire service sector economy.

We have built an economy based on the idea that we can borrow and spend in perpetuity. And that’s just as phony as the idea that real estate prices will always rise.

So we have a lot of Americans working in jobs they really shouldn’t be in.

We have a lot of Americans who work in retail, who work in shopping centres, who work in restaurants, who work in financial services. We have a whole lot of Americans working in jobs they really shouldn’t do because we are too broke to patronize their businesses.

We need more Americans making stuff, producing things.

What do we produce right now?

And in order to have American labour available for productive capacity, they have to leave those jobs. Somebody has to loose their job in the service sector in order to get a job in goods production. And to get the jobs in goods production, we need the capital. I mean you can’t produce anything without machines, without tools. And where is that going to come from? You need Americans to have savings. Someone is going to have to borrow the money to make those investments. You need people to save their money.

If no one has any savings to lend, then we are going to have to convince someone in another country to take their savings and lend us that money for our productive purposes (and not just to lend it to us to spend).

It’s not like the 1800s when we ran huge deficits.

Bach then we borrowed money to make investments, to build infrastructure, to build factories, to build farms… to build a productive economy. We invested the money, we didn’t just spend it on stuff. When you borrow money and invest it in productive capacity, then you have a real asset. And the asset can generate real revenue. That’s what we did. We produced things that the British and French could buy, that’s how we made enough money to pay back what they lent us.

We became the world’s wealthiest economy because we borrowed to produce.

What we have done recently is to borrow to consume.

So how can we possibly pay this money back?

So if we want to build a viable economy, and we don’t have our own savings, we’re going to have to convince the Chinese and the Japanese to build factories here. But why would they want to do that? With the high regulations we have right now, with the high taxes we have right now, we’re just not competitive.

So the only way we are ever going to rebuild a sound economy in the United States is if we stop all the stimulus and stop all the bailouts and let the free market work.

What we have to understand is that what is going on, the recession, is the solution not the problem.

The problem was the bubble inflating, blowing up. Not the deflation.

We have to allow the pain, no matter how unpleasant it is. We have to understand that anything we do to delay this is going to make it worse.

And Obama and Berananke are making the exact same mistakes as Bush and Greenspan did in 2000, only on a much grander scale. The bailouts are preventing the solution from being allowed to work.

It’s the same philosophy. Nothing has changed. This might as well be the third Bush term because Obama is doing the same exact stuff. They are arguing the economic growth is a function of people spending money and we need our government to stimulate the economy. Therefore we should bailout the people who fail and punish the people who succeed, and that we should have a zero interest rate with the Fed cranking out money.

It’s the wrong direction.

We need to allow these companies to fail, and allow Americans to stop spending (through the pain of recession). The credit crunch is a good thing. The fact that credit is being denied to Americans is a good thing. It’s a good thing because credit is scarce. Credit isn’t unlimited; it’s a function of savings. And if we want to have a real economy, if we want to have production, then savings need to go to producers.

Well they’re not going to go to producers if they’re being squandered by consumers.

They’re not going to go to producers if the government is borrowing all the money.

So what do we need? We need the government to eliminate the deficit and go to a surplus. We need the government to stop spending money and depleting our savings. We need consumers to stop spending money and rebuild their savings.

We need a recession.

We need one badly. And we need to have the government say to us, “Yes. This is the price we pay for years of indulgence and reckless spending, now comes the sacrifice. And there is nothing the government can do about it.”

We also need sound money. Unfortunately the means we need high interest rates.

That’s what we need but Obama and Bernanke is giving us what Bush and Greenspan gave us. And it’s going to fail.

And what is it going to give us? What are going to be the consequences of what we are doing now?

What I think is going to happen is that, ultimately, people like the chinese and the rest of the world - the saudis and the japenese and everyone else, they are going to figure this out. And they are not going to want to play this game anymore.

You know, we have them conned right now.

In my book, crash proof, I compare it to Tom Sawyer. You know there was that passage in Tom Sawyer where Tom gets everyone in the neighbourhood to whitewash his fence. And he gets them to pay for the privilege of doing his chores. When Mark Twain wrote that passage he probably had no idea that it would form the basis of the entire world economy.

We have got the world painting our fences. Like they don't have their own fences that need painting.

But the world is not going to accept this con. You've had Hillary Clinton, when she went over to China, a couple of weeks ago to get them, to beg them to buy our bonds.

She'd tell them, we're all in this together. And basically this is what she tells the Chinese:
"You need to take money away from your citizens and loan it to us, so that we can give it to our citizens, so they can use it to buy products made in your country, to keep your people employed."

That's the deal that we are making with them.

Now what the Chinese should say to Clinton is:

"you know what, I have a better idea. Why don't we just leave our money with our own people, and then they can use the money to buy their own products. That way we get to keep our stuff."

You know, the way it is right now, we get all the stuff and all they get is the jobs.

What good are jobs without stuff?

That's slavery.

So they're gonna figure it out. And what's gonna happen is they're not going to buy our bonds and the Fed is going to start buying all the bonds, and the dollar is going to plunge.

And this crisis is going to end up being a currency crisis. And when it becomes a currency crisis.. then... you're going to have higher consumer prices, and you're going to have higher interest rates.

Right now we are creating a lot of inflation and people are talking, they're saying "it's not inflation, it's deflation".

That's all nonsense.

Real estate prices are falling because they are too high. Stock prices are falling. But that's not deflation.

That's just falling prices.

There is no contraction of the money supply, it's growing like crazy.

But the expansion of the money supply is not immediately showing up in rising prices for commodities and consumer goods because there are other temporary factors pushing prices down at the same time inflation is pushing prices up.

You've got deleveraging, you've got bankruptcies, going out of business sales, you've got a lot of companies liquidating their inventory and you have the dollar strong.

Paradoxically, while this was happening as this crisis began, money flowed into America instead of fleeing America. Ultimately it will flee, but currently it is flowing into America.

Can you imagine? It's as if there was this giant explosion and everyone is running towards the blast... that's what's going on with all this money flowing in.

We caused the explosion. It's our system that has collapsed. And people are plowing their money into our system as a safe haven.

And we are rationalizing to ourselves right now. We look around the world and say, "well people are coming to America because as bad as it is every place else it's so much better here." But that's nonsense. That's just what we justify, just like we tried to justify the real estate bubble. Or the internet bubble. It's all nonsense.

Why is it so bad in the rest of the world right now? It's because they loaned us so much money and we can't pay them back.

And now they're losing, based on their bad loans.

What's really causing the global credit crunch and making things so bad in the rest of the world is that we're borrowing so much money right now that were crowding out everyone else.

The fact that people are loaning us so much money means that private businesses around the world can't get capital.

Why?

Because it's all going to the US government, that's why.


So... the world is suffering. And the world is suffering, not because our economy is collapsing and we can't buy their stuff anymore, but because they are foolishly trying to prop up our economy.

And, when they figure this out, then were really going to get an economic crisis.

Because when they figure this out, they will stop proping our economy up. China and the rest of them will stop buying our treasury bonds. And when the dollar starts to plunge - and it will - then we are going to see prices rising sharply for consumer goods and we will see interest rates rising.

And if we think we have problems now wait till we see how much worse they get when we throw rising consumer prices and rising interest rates into the mix.

And there is nothing the government is going to be able to do about it.

You know, right now, unemployed people are getting the benefit of lower prices. Imagine when you are out of work AND your prices are going up.

Because that's what's going to happen. And then this is going to be a real economic crisis. And we are going to be in for some very, very difficult choices.

And unfortunately, the worse case scenario, is one that is looking increasingly more likely, which is hyper-inflation.

Hyper-inflationwill come when no one will lend us money.

The Fed will have to buy up all the bonds in order to keep interest rates down and to maintain deficit spending. And then the velocity of money will really start to pick up, and no one is going to want our money, not even American citizens will want it.

And they will try to spend it as quickly as they can. I mean the government will try and keep it together a little bit longer, with regulation. Maybe we will have capital controls. Maybe they will make it illegal for Americans to do what I am doing with my clients right now, which is buying foreign currencies, foreign stocks.

Maybe they will make it illegal to buy gold. As prices really start to escalate, private parties will try to make contracts, with payment in gold or other currencies. Maybe the government will make that illegal.

There might be stores where people don't want to accept dollars, because their value is dropping too rapidly.

The government will make that illegal.

And that means we will have a black market. If you want to buy something, you will have to buy it on the black market. Just like they did in the Soviet Union. The only reason you could buy anything there was because you did it illegally.

A lot of these things are going to happen. I think early on, probably in Barack Obama's first term of office, I think were going to have price controls. I think prices will be rising so rapidly, maybe even by next year, that they are going to impose price controls on a number of products. Probably energy, probably gasoline, probably milk, bread. I mean we are repeating all the mistakes of the 1930s, we might as well repeat all the mistakes of the 1970s.

So when the put on price controls, what that's going to lead to? Shortages? Blackouts? Long lines for gas? Long lines for food?

Civil unre... I mean a lot of things are going to happen.

People say we can't repeat the mistakes of the 1930s... well that's exactly what we are doing.

I mean, the popular notion is that we had a depression because Hoover was so irresponsible that he trusted the free market and he did nothing.

And because he did nothing, we had a depression.

And then Roosevelt rode to the rescue and saved the day with big government.

Well, the reality of course is that we had a depression because we had a Federal Reserve that was too easy in the 1920s and created a boom and when the boom bust, Hoover ignored the good advice of his secretary of the treasury (which is maybe the last time the secretary of the treasury ever gave anyone any good advice) and instead of allowing the free market to work, he came up with all kinds of crazy things to bail people out and prop things up and distort prices and fix wages and all kinds of things, that created the depression.

And then Roosevelt came in and proceeded to make it worse. And everything that Roosevelt did exacerbated it and made the depression 'Great'.

And we eventually got out of it after the second world war, but how can anyone say we got out of it because of Roosevelt?

We got out of it despite Roosevelt.

We would have got out of it a lot faster had Roosevelt not just expanded the failed policies of Hoover.

And that is very similar to what is happening now.

You got Bush, who is the Hoover, now, of this generation, who was associated with the free market but was anything like the free market.

And now we have Barack Obama, like Roosevelt, coming in to save the economy with big government.

Of course, the government is already huge, maybe he hasn't figured that out.

When Hoover left office, I think the federal budget was about four billion dollars.

That was the whole thing.

And Roosevelt doubled it to about 8 Billion.

Now we're 3 Trillion. That means the government is huge.

Of course when Roosevelt came in, we had a sound economy beneath the surface. I mean we had a productive economy, we saved, we made stuff, we exported, we didn't have a huge social welfare state, no body got cheques from the government. We were in much better shape.

If they did that much damage to a sound economy, imagine what they can do with the one we got now?

Plus back then we had real money, we were on the gold standard.

Now look at us.

I mean, look at the problems we had in the 1970s. Still we had a fundamentally sound economy then.

We had a bubble in the 60s, the same stock market bubble, we printed too much money, we went to Vietnam, we went to the moon, we had the war on poverty, the government created too much money... and they gave us the 1970s.

That was the payback for the 1960s.

But then in the 1980s, we got some sensible government. We shrank goverment and we raised interest rates.

We went for sound money and smaller government.

But what do we have today?

We have a huge trade deficit but we have no domestic savings. And we're already loaded up with debt. And the only hope we have of artificially stimulating our economy is that we borrow the money from the rest of the world.

We don't have it, on our own.

So, when the world stops financing this, and it's gonna come to an end. And we're gonna have to make some hard choices. Is it going to be hyper-inflation or are we gonna do the right thing?

But the rest of the world, and a lot of people think this is never going to happen - and I've had a lot of arguments, and people call it decoupling - they say "this is never gonna happen"... or "when America stops consuming, the whole world is finished".

They're not finished. We're not the engine of the world's economy. We're the caboose. And if you decouple the caboose, the cars move faster.

Ya know, were not doing the world any favours consuming their stuff. It's vendor financing. But people say 'we're their best customer'. We're not. We're the worst customer because we don't pay.

Your good customer pays you.

And in the world of trade, you pay for imports with exports. And if you don't have anything to export you, you don't pay. And that's what we have, we issue an IOU.

And when the world finally lets the dollar collapse, and they will, our purchasing power isn't going to vanish, it's going to be re-distributed.

Other currencies are going to rise. And people in other countries, people who are working in factories right now in China, people who are making products and just shipping them abroad and waving goodbye, all of a sudden... they will be able to afford them.

The Chinese will be able to turn in their bicycles and buy automobiles. Because steel will be cheaper, because cars will be cheaper, because the value of their wages will rise, because their currency will gain purchasing power.

It's Americans who will be buying the bicycles. Because, all of a sudden, cars will be too expensive for us. Gasoline will be too expensive for us. Because we will be bidding with currency of much less value.

And that's what's gonna happen. The world is not going to suffer because we don't buy their stuff, they're gonna benefit because now theirs going to be more stuff for them.

I mean, right now, because the world lends us so much money, there's a capital shortage.

Wouldn't the world be better off investing their savings productively in their own countries? Rather than just giving their savings to us?

Wouldn't they be better off enjoying the fruits of their own labour rather than labouring while we enjoy the fruits?

It's obvious and wery shortly now they are going to realize that.

And when they do hyper-inflation, and all that comes with it, is gonna happen.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Peter Schiff 4: The Dominos fall

Laurel Magri: lying deceptive, manipulative whore.
Part 4 of our series condensed from a speech Peter Schiff’s gave on March 13, 2009 to the Austrian Scholars Conference.

By 2006 everyone thought Real Estate couldn’t go anywhere but up and nobody questioned the Triple A ratings that Wall Street had given these extremely high risk mortgages when they were packaged up and ‘securitized’.

Then, in early 2006, prices in America started to fall when some potential US homebuyers concluded that home prices were becoming fundamentally overvalued. As a result you had falling demand in a few bubbly cities such as San Diego and Miami.

The falling demand created relatively high levels of housing supply. This high supply/low demand triggered a modest drop in prices.

And that’s all it took. A modest drop in prices in a few bubble centres.

Had house prices actually continued to rise, many subprime mortgages could have been reset at higher rates without much damage. But when this modest drop in housing prices got going, it started a domino effect that has been catastrophic. Modestly lower prices, along with higher reset rates on the exotic mortgages resulted in a substantial wave of foreclosures.

Suddenly a bloated housing inventory started to overwhelm itself.

As the housing inventory rose, the more downward pressure was reinforced on house prices – a typical supply and demand situation.

When more and more subprime mortgages came up for reset, the reduced value of the property made renewal impossible. And a vicious, perpetuating cycle began.

And that’s all it took. And the entire system collapsed from there.

For years housing prices rose only slightly year over year. Suddenly, in the last five years, they shoot drastically higher. If you plot it on a graph you have a straight line moving upward at a slight angle and then, it curves straight upward.

I used to go on television and talk about housing prices going to fall. And people would say, “that’s not going to happen. That had never happened, certainly not since the Great Depression.” Which was true, but housing prices had never shot straight up like they had in the past five years. That had never happened either. For the first time housing prices were not supportable by rents and incomes. But everyone seems to think it is going to stay up high that it should somehow plateau there.

In many ways it’s kind of funny. Everyone now recognizes that we had lending practices that were too lax, the lack of a downpayment, too many people buying houses and credit was too cheap.

Everyone knows all these things that we did wrong which caused people who shouldn’t have been buying houses, to be able to go out and buy a house. And everyone knows that this artificially drove up the value of houses.

And everyone can agree that we need to go back to a prudent mortgage lending process.

But nobody wants to go back to prudent pricing.

Everyone wants to go back to sound lending principles but leave the bubble prices intact. But that’s impossible. Nobody can afford to pay these high prices without all these lending gimmicks.

The reality is that the best thing that can happen to the lending industry is for these high prices to come down. It used to be that the mission of Freddie/Fannie (before they went broke) was to try and make home ownership affordable. Now their mission is to keep home prices high.

And this is where the government is making a huge mistake.

This keeps homes unaffordable. It makes sure that we have to mortgage ourselves to the hilt to buy a house.

The government’s solution is high prices with low mortgage payments subsidized by the government. The free market solution is low prices. Because if real estate prices go down, you don’t need to borrow that much money to buy a house. And if they do, it doesn’t matter that interest rates go up a bit, because your payment will be lower anyway.

So now we get into the foundation of our current financial crisis. The government still looks at the problem as being one of falling real estate prices. That’s not the problem, that’s the solution.

The problem is that they went up.

Now that the housing bubble has burst and the stock market has collapsed on the backs of this real estate collapse, we are having this massive – necessary – recession which is just getting started. And it has just started, we have barely gotten a taste of it.

Unfortunately all the blame is on the free market. All the blame is on capitalism. People are running around saying “it’s because there wasn’t enough regulation, there was too much greed.” President Bush summarized it by saying “Wall Street got drunk.” And he was right, they were drunk. But so was Main Street. The whole country was drunk.

But what he doesn’t point out is… where did they get the alcohol? Why were they drunk? What was the root of the problem?

Obviously Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan poured the alcohol, the Fed got everyone drunk and the government helped out with their moral hazards, the tax code, all their programs, the incentives, the disincentives, the way they interfered with the free market. It removed the necessary balances that would have existed, that would have kept all this from happening.

But now that it has happened, we have to deal with it.

So we are back to where we were in 2000 after the dot.com bust, only this time the recession we are facing is far more severe.

Tomorrow: The Threat of Hyper-Inflation

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Monday, March 23, 2009

Peter Schiff 2: The Real Estate Bubble

.

Peter Schiff is the President of Euro Pacific Capital and is famed for being the most vocal financial critic who accurately predicted the real estate crash of 2006 and the stock market crash of 2008.

In Schiff's view, mainstream economists still do not understand the fundamentals of the current crisis. He believes that the government's stimulus and bailout policies are misguided and are "sowing the seeds for economic devastation."

What follows is the second in our series which is condensed from a speech he gave on March 13, 2009 to the Austrian Scholars Conference.

The Real Estate Bubble

The internet bubble burst because you had all these companies that were tremendously overvalued. None of these dot.com stocks were paying dividends because none of the companies had a realistic chance of making money. So why would their value go up?

Basically what had happened was the Federal Reserve had been too easy and loose with money in the 1990s. Interest rates were too low and we created too much money. And that facilitated massive investments in the stock market.

So we had all these companies that were able to flourish despite the fact that they weren’t able to make any money. The same thing started to happen in the real estate bubble.

When it comes to real estate, if a property’s asking price or current market valuation bears an unrealistic relationship to what it can be rented for, well, it’s probably not worth what the vendor is asking. If there is no positive cash flow, it’s overvalued.

People began buying property as an investment when rent for the property couldn’t cover the mortgage payments on what was paid for the unit.

Why? Because people were sold on the idea that it didn’t matter that there was negative equity, the property would appreciate in value and that’s where the real money was to be made. Everyone bought into the idea that a property would double in value in a couple of years.

And it made no sense. You couldn’t cash flow the property positive at the value it is currently sitting at now, how is it going to go up in value? It defied the basic law of commerce that says Real Estate is a function of rents.

During the Internet Bubble, if you questioned the wisdom of what was happening, the reply was always, ‘you don’t understand the stock market’.

Now, when anyone questioned the wisdom of what was happening in real estate, the reply was, ‘you don’t understand the real estate market’.

Well... no... I do understand the Real Estate Market, and the values of these properties was grossly overvalued.

People were told rents don’t matter to real estate in the same way they said dividends don’t matter to stocks. What evolved was a rationalization that said all real estate would appreciate, year after year, for no other reason than a belief that real estate appreciates.

Everyone bought into the idea that it was going to go up… year after year… just because.

And it made no sense. Were incomes going up each year? Would you be able to charge 10, 20, 30 percent higher rents each year? No? Then why is the value going to go up 10, 20, 30 percent?

And the answer was… ‘it just will’.

We had the internet bubble because the Fed was too easy with money. And eventually, Alan Greenspan started to raise interest rates, and he burst the stock market bubble. He had seen what had been happening. In 1996 he talked about irrational exuberance and they took him to the woodshed for saying something negative. But he still went ahead and raised interest rates to correct the imbalance.

And, of course, when the stock market bubble burst, a lot of the malinvestments were exposed. A lot of the people working at the dot.com’s had to find real jobs. Because they were wasting their time. Because they were destroying wealth. They weren’t creating anything of value. And so we had a lot of companies who were given a lot of capital who shouldn’t have been given capital and a lot of investors who invested foolishly who were going to loose a lot of money.

It meant that we were going to go through a painful recession, certainly, as we digested and worked off those malinvestments and allowed capital to be reallocated to where it could be productively used: labour, land capital, what ever was involved in these dot.com businesses.

And it would be a necessary recession. As painful as it might be, it is the free market's way of correcting the imbalances.

And, of course, with all the wealth that was squandered from investors who lost real money, real savings, people were going to have to come to terms with the fact they lost money. People were going to have to try and save and replace that money.

That's part of the way recessions and the free market correct imbalances.

So there was going to have to be a big, painful, difficult recession when the dot.com bubble burst and George Bush came to power in 2000.

But rather than admit that the Clinton era had been a fantasy, that it was a boom and now we had to live through a bust, President Bush squandered a chance to correct the economy. It would have been a perfect opportunity to repudiate what had happened under Clinton, to expose that we had a bubble and to have taken the necessary steps clean up the mess.

And it had to be cleaned up. It wouldn’t be easy but Bush could have taken the chance make sure the economy faces the consequences that come after a boom.

But instead of doing that, the Bush Administration came out and said ‘we need to stimulate the economy’. We need to fight off this recession.

Sounds familiar, right?

So he wanted an economic stimulus. And what was the economic stimulus we got out of Bush? Deficit spending. Cut the taxes and increase government spending. And Alan Greenspan cooperated and slashed interest rates down to 1%. So we had massive money and fiscal stimulus. Massive inflation, this time in Real Estate.

And what was the result? Well… we blew up another bubble that was bigger than the one that was just burst. And not only was it bigger, it was worse.

And during that shallow recession that we had – and Bush was so proud of that – we also had record car/auto sales.

But where did Americans get all the money for all these car sales and all these home sales?

It didn't come from savings... they didn't have any. There hadn't been any time to set aside any savings after the dot.com bust.

So... what did they do? Well... Americans borrowed it all. And why wouldn't they? The Bush Administration monetary policy that was designed to lure Americans into borrowing.

And they did.

And we went into debt. Massive debt which was used to fund a massive spending spree, the biggest spending spree in history. We borrowed Trillions which we used to built houses, remodel houses, we bought cars, appliances, furniture, gadgets, ipods, cell phones and plasma TVs. All sorts of things.

That massive amount of easy credit also further fueled the irrational real estate market.

Making it all worse was the fact that we didn’t make any of this stuff we were buying... we didn't produce any of it. We just borrowed money to buy it all.

And our trade deficit skyrocketed. We started running $60 Billion a month trade deficits for years. And our savings rate went negative. And it went negative even after the government doctored the books and recalculated how we assess savings.

So we had this huge bubble that was much bigger than the Internet stock market bubble. And of course, the major difference was the leverage involved.

When people bought stocks in the dot.com bubble, they pretty much used their own money. Maybe they had a leverage account, but they still had to put up 50% of their own money down.

So when the bubble burst, the losses were pretty much confined to the people that made the bad bets.

That wasn't going to be the case with the Real Estate Bubble because of the amount of leverage involved with all this real estate and consumer debt.

And you could see it all building through 2002, 2003, 2004 & 2005. It was all so obvious. But like I have said, when you are living in a bubble, sometimes it is hard to see reality for what it is.

Tomorrow: The Real Estate Bubble morphs into a Financial Bubble.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Peter Schiff: The Internet Bubble

.
Peter Schiff is the President of Euro Pacific Capital and is famed for being the most vocal financial critic who accurately predicted the real estate crash of 2006 and the stock market crash of 2008.

He writes for the New York Time, the Financial Post and makes numerous appearances on all the US television networks. Currently he is predicting serious inflationary consequences as a result of the massive amount of bailout money being pumped into the economy by governments.

His passionate arguments have proven to be highly prescient and are worth taking a look at.

In understanding the current state of the financial and real estate crisis, it is important to look at how it all got started. So I am going to break up his views and start with the Internet Bubble. From that we will move to the Real Estate Bubble, the crash of the stock market, the bailouts and, finally, to his views on what will happen next.

What follows is condensed from a speech he gave on March 13, 2009 to the Austrian Scholars Conference.

The Internet Bubble

When you are living in a bubble, sometimes it is hard to see reality for what it is.

In 1997, 1998 and 1999 we had the NASDAQ bubble and nobody seemed to be able to figure out that these companies that everyone was touting were not worth what people claimed.

They said we were living in a new era and that the internet had captured everyone’s attention. People were saying that everyone was going to buy everything on the internet.

But hang on a second. There was no difference between the internet (and the potential for commerce) and that of a catalogue or a telephone. If worldwide commerce hadn't shifted to catalogue sales or telephone sales, why were they now going to magically shift to internet sales?

What was going to make the internet different?

Yet the valuations coming out for these new companies were huge (and grossly unrealistic). You would have some new company… say doorknobs.com… and they would start up. Now even if they sold every doorknob in the world, they couldn’t possibly be worth the multiples that the company suggested in their prospectus.

Yet once they went public, their value shot up and there was no possible way they could be worth the multiples that the company was now trading at on the stock market.

Somehow it didn’t matter.

And company after company took flight this way. They would come out with a concept. Draw up a prospectus. Go out and get $5 million in start up funding, not because they were worth anything, but on the promise that investors would reap a huge return when they went ‘public’ and listed on the exchange.

It was crazy. Why would people invest in a company that had no land, no assets, nothing!

And the reply was always, ‘you don’t understand the stock market’.

It wasn't about what a company could produce, it was all about the promotion of the stock.

People were sold the malarkey that this was the way the stock market worked with internet startups. And company after company was like this. Many of these companies never made any money at all.

And how could that come as a surprise?

The central premise of most of these internet companies was that somehow it was more cost effective to Fedex every single item currently for sale in the marketplace to a consumer rather than having the consumer come in, buy it and take it home himself.

That’s crazy.

But it didn’t matter. People were getting rich when these companies were listed on the stock market. And they were getting rich, not because the companies were successful; people were getting rich because investors were buying their stock.

And after the bubble burst, everyone realized how stupid it all was.

But within a year of the collapse of the Internet Bubble, we moved seamlessly into the Real Estate Bubble.

Nobody could see that there were any similarities.

But the exact thing that had happened with the Internet Bubble… now starts to happened with real estate.

And we moved so quickly from the unwinding of one bubble and into another that we simply postponed the unwinding of the consequences until now. And we are still trying to postpone it today with all the bailout money being thrown around.

But this time the damage is so great and the problems so huge that I don’t think there is another economic rabbit they can pull out of their hat at this point. We are just going to have to face it now.

Tomorrow: The Real Estate Bubble.

Whisperer Summary: The key point that Schiff is making is that the internet bubble developed because the fundamental law of commerce was ignored. In the bubble, the value of these companies rose due to irrational speculation. The value did not rise because these companies were producing something and providing a return. And when these companies were promoted, they were promoted on flawed and irrational values. It was a giant gamble because they lacked a real 'value-based' foundation. It was gambling. And when the gambling stopped, the values crashed.

==================

Email: village_whisperer@live.ca