Central Perk

duminică, 19 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Recently Introduced Actuarially Unsound Methods Hide Pension Mess in Illinois, Texas, Ohio; $3 Trillion Pension Deficit in Total
New IRS Reporting Rules to Hit eBay and Paypal; Government Crackdown on Trinket Sellers; Campaign Bribes and Tax Policy
Sunday Funnies 2010-09-19 Understanding Taxes
America's Lost Decade - Another One in Progress Now

Recently Introduced Actuarially Unsound Methods Hide Pension Mess in Illinois, Texas, Ohio; $3 Trillion Pension Deficit in Total

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 05:46 PM PDT

It's no secret that Illinois, New Jersey, and numerous other states have massively underfunded pension plans. The problem is far worse than it looks because of ridiculous assumptions like 8% or higher returns.

Moreover, states like Illinois, Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio have gone one step further by recently adopting actuarially unsound methods specifically designed to disguise the mess.

The New York Times tackles the issue in The Illusion of Pension Savings

Earlier this year, Illinois said it had found a way to save billions of dollars. It would slash the pensions of workers it had not yet hired. The real-world savings would not materialize for decades, of course, but thanks to an actuarial trick, the state could start counting the savings this year and use it to help balance its budget.

Texas saved millions of dollars this year after raising its retirement age for future hires and barring them from counting unused sick leave in their pensions. More savings will appear in coming years. Rhode Island also raised its retirement age for future retirees last year, after being told it could save $90 million in the first year alone.

The technique is fairly innocuous in normal times, allowing governments to smooth out their labor costs over many years. But it becomes much riskier when pension funds have big shortfalls, when they need several decades to pay down their losses and when they are cutting benefits for future workers — precisely the conditions that exist today.

"In a plan that is not well funded, I wouldn't recommend it," said Norm Jones, chief actuary for Gabriel Roeder Smith & Company, an actuarial firm that helps Illinois and a number of other states that have adopted the method. He said the firm's actuaries informed officials of the risks and it was the officials' decision to use the technique.

Cuts for workers not yet hired do not save much money in the present — but that's where actuaries can work their magic. They capture the future savings for use today by assuming, in essence, that 100 percent of today's work force is already earning tomorrow's skimpier benefits. When used in actuarial calculations, that assumption has a powerful effect. It reduces the amount a government must put into its workers' pension fund every year.

"Responsible funding methods do not work this way," said Jeremy Gold, an independent actuary in New York who has been outspoken about the distortions built into pension numbers. He said the technique was much like the mortgages with very low teaser rates that proliferated during the housing bubble.

Dubious pension numbers in Illinois are not easily shrugged off after a warning shot fired by the Securities and Exchange Commission in August. The S.E.C. accused New Jersey of securities fraud, saying the state had manipulated its pension numbers to look like a better credit risk, while selling some $26 billion worth of bonds.

Problem is Now

The problem is now. The only way to have savings now is to reduce benefits now.

Three states have acted now, at least in small ways. Colorado, South Dakota, and Minnesota all recently reduced pension benefits. All three states face legal battles.

Please see Uncharted Territory" in WA; Calpers Bargains with Schwarzenegger; "Fairy-Tale Promises" in NJ; "No Choice" in NY; Lawsuits in CO, SD, MN over Pensions for a partial list of the big mess we are in, and what a few states are doing about it.

Illinois, along with Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Arkansas, and for that matter every state but those three, are at best dealing with the current problem by making small changes that will matter 30 years from now.

The math does not work.

$3 Trillion Deficit

According to a report by the American Enterprise Institute, public pensions are underfunded by more than $3 trillion. Please see Interactive Map of Public Pension Plans; How Badly Underfunded are the Plans in Your State? for details.

Changing rules for new pension plan participants is a small step in the right direction, but even getting rid of them entirely would not cure the $3 trillion deficit today.

As always, Illinois refuses to tackle this massive issue, instead seeking solutions to hide the severity of its problems. Texas, New York, California, and New Jersey are not much better.

Hopefully the SEC will have something more to say about never-ending foolishness to mask the huge and growing public pension problems. Whether that stirs any brain waves in Springfield, Illinois or any other state capitols is unfortunately another matter.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

New IRS Reporting Rules to Hit eBay and Paypal; Government Crackdown on Trinket Sellers; Campaign Bribes and Tax Policy

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 03:06 PM PDT

Inquiring minds are interested in 2011 tax policy changes that will affect sellers of merchandise on eBay. John R writes ....

Starting next year Paypal will have to start reporting to the IRS. The selling limits will be 200 items or $20K before they report. This tax change was part of the '08 stimulus.

Reporting on 200 items annually is a real killer. That's a mere 17 items a month. We've already shut our eBay business down. It's simply not worth the effort.

Most eBay/auction site margins are extremely low. Thus, I wonder how many people will set up a business, keep the books, pay state and federal taxes, just to make a few bucks.

Thanks,
John

New Form 1099-K will debut for 2011 tax year

John is discussing eBay Sellers and Tax Changes

Tax time is upon us again, and this year the IRS has a bit of a warning for eBay sellers: next year you'll be on the hook for the taxes you owe.

Enter the 2011 Form 1099-K

Though sellers won't have to change their filing habits in 2010, a new Form 1099-K for 2011 promises to change income reporting by online sellers. The draft Form 1099-K for 2011 implements payments reporting to the IRS for PayPal and credit card merchants, much as already happens with forms W-2 or 1099-MISC for employees and independent contractors.

Starting in 2011, therefore, sellers will be expected to report gross payments via online or credit card payments that coincide with reported 1099-K amounts, then to make adjustments to account for expenses and cash equivalents, fees, chargebacks, refunds, and so on.

Details and Caveats

As a practical matter, if you're an eBay seller, this will affect you unless your gross sales are under $20,000 for the year or you receive fewer than 200 transactions. Reporting for small sellers at this level is not required.

Otherwise, if you exceed this volume, you'll be required to provide tax identification information (SSN or EIN number, for example) to payment processors like PayPal and will be expected by the IRS to account in your return for the amounts reported on your 1099-K form(s).

The 1099-K form wasn't introduced for the 2010 tax year, so as you do your taxes this year, enjoy the last year you'll report eBay income as a purely voluntary matter.

Government Crackdown on Trinket Sellers

How many hobbyists like John will just say the hell with it? If enough do, it could impact eBay's earnings. Imagine selling 20 items a month, earning a few hundred dollars a year or less in profit, and having to spend time and money keeping track of all the costs associated with the effort.

I am not trying to justify non-payment of taxes, I am simply looking at this from a practical standpoint.

Corporate Earnings Reported to Shareholders vs. Corporate Earnings Reported to the IRS

Just for grins, take a look at big corporation earnings reported to shareholders as compared to earnings as reported to the government. Which one is fiction and which one is real?

Is either legitimate? I doubt it, and in opposite directions. If I am correct, where should government be spending its time and energy?

Loopholes for the Little Guy vs. Loopholes for Large Corporations

Every conceivable loophole, no matter how small, is closed for the little guy, while major corporations have tax avoidance loopholes worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

For example, multinational corporations get to defer profits on taxes held overseas.

Adding insult to injury, there have been semi-regular "tax holidays" where corporations get to repatriate offshore accounts at low rates, to the major advantage of large corporations and huge disadvantage of small US based corporations.

Such policies encourage the flight of jobs and money from the US.

So, here we go again, cracking down on the little guy in attempts to pick up pennies to balance the budget, ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars over the years to large corporations.

Campaign Bribes and Tax Policy

Please note that I am in favor of lower corporate taxes as long as it is done fairly (right now multinationals and large corporations have huge advantages) and as long as we can afford it.

Instead, we have a system that rewards capital flight, rewards job flight, and punishes small businesses relative to larger corporations.

This mess happens because lobbyists for large corporations write our tax code, with politicians taking campaign contributions (bribes) in return for the favor.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Sunday Funnies 2010-09-19 Understanding Taxes

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 01:18 PM PDT

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

America's Lost Decade - Another One in Progress Now

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 12:48 AM PDT

The US used to point the finger at Japan's "Lost Decade" saying "It won't happen here." But it did. Median wages are nearly 5% lower in real terms than in 2000, the poverty rate is at a 15 year high, and the S&P 500 is about 20% lower than it was a decade ago.

Pleased consider the Wall Street Journal article Lost Decade for Family Income

The downturn that some have dubbed the "Great Recession" has trimmed the typical household's income significantly, new Census data show, following years of stagnant wage growth that made the past decade the worst for American families in at least half a century.

The bureau's annual snapshot of American living standards also found that the fraction of Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008—the highest since 1994. Some 43.6 million Americans were living below the official poverty threshold, but the measure doesn't fully capture the panoply of government antipoverty measures.

The inflation-adjusted income of the median household—smack in the middle of the populace—fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%.

Lost Decade Lowlights

Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008
Poverty level is the highest since 1994
43.6 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold
Inflation-adjusted income of the median household fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009
The number of 25-to-34-year-olds living with their parents rose 8.4% to 5.5 million in 2010 from 2008
Child poverty rose to 23.8% for kids under six in 2009, compared to 21.3% a year earlier

Census Bureau Charts

Here are a few select charts from Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in
the United States: 2009, Issued September 2010.

click on any chart for sharper image

Real Incomes 1967 to 2009

Real income for most groups is back to 1996 levels, a couple years higher for Asians.

Poverty Rates 1959 to 2009

In general, the chart shows the "War on Poverty" was a failure regardless of what political party was in office. The odd pair of Clinton and Nixon did the best, while Carter and George W. Bush the worst. Reagan and George H. Bush both had roller coasters ending about where they started, while Ford essentially experienced a flatline.

Since the start of the "War on Poverty" in 1964, President Johnson did the best in absolute terms. However, a war on poverty via a "Guns and Butter" policy including an insane War in Vietnam can hardly be considered a success.

Ironically, and as is typical of government programs, we made far better progress before the "War on Poverty" started. Since then, some 46 years later, we are just about where we started.

Descent Into Poverty

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports on a Descent Into Poverty For Millions

Ramsey County human services planner Jim Anderson didn't need Thursday's census report to know that poverty has climbed sharply since the economy collapsed in 2008.

Last month he turned away 59 adults with 126 children seeking emergency shelter for families.

In a report that confirmed what experts like Anderson have sensed, the U.S. Census Bureau said Thursday that the nation's poverty rate shot to 14.3 percent last year, the highest in 16 years, and that one in five American children were living below the poverty line.

With one in seven Americans in poverty, demand for emergency financial help has skyrocketed. Advocates across the Twin Cities say that homeless shelters are overflowing, food shelves are strapped and church basements are filling up.

Nikkei Monthly Chart

For the Japanese Nikkei Index it has been two lost decades going on three.

S&P 500 Monthly Chart

For the S&P 500 it has been one lost decade going on two.

Given the structural problems in the US, there is no strong reason to think this decade will be much better than the last.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Seth's Blog : Are you responsible for what you market?

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

Are you responsible for what you market?

Let's assert that marketing works.

The money and time and effort we put into marketing goods and services actually works. It gets people to change their minds. It cajoles some people into buying and using and voting for things that they otherwise wouldn't have chosen. (If it doesn't work, save your money).

If it works, then, are you responsible for what happens after that?

If you market cigarettes aggressively, are you responsible for people dying of lung cancer?

I think there are two ways to go here:

1. You're not responsible. The marketer is like a lawyer representing the obviously guilty client. Everyone is entitled to a lawyer, and it's up to the jury to decide. The lawyer's job is to do the best she can, not to decide on the outcome. Market the best you can and let buyers take responsibility.

2. You are responsible. Your insight and effort cause people to change, and without you, that change would never happen.

I'm not sure there's a middle ground. Either we should applaud the folks lobbying on behalf of causes we despise, the pornographers selling products that degrade our society and the politicians spinning and lying to get elected (because all these people are doing is giving us a choice for which we're responsible) or we should take responsibility for stuff we sell.

My take: if you're not proud of it, don't sell it.

• Email to a friend •

•

sâmbătă, 18 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

One Sided Policies

Posted: 18 Sep 2010 04:17 PM PDT

Here is an email from Robert who is wondering about the Fed's ability to inflate, and the consequences if they try. Robert writes ...

Hello Mish,

Something is bothering me.

I thought there would be inflation after the US government and FED's actions, but there has been no inflation. I was wrong and you were right. I understand why and I also agree with the concepts of "peak credit" and "peak consumption," as far as the West goes at least.

But this seems to mean that the government can sell vast quantities (1 -2 trillion per year) of debt directly to the FED and to other parties with few observable short or intermediate term consequences.

If everyone agrees that the economies of the West will be weak for many years (for a host of reasons) and everyone also agrees that the dollar will be the reserve currency for years to come then:

1) What is the problem with running 1.5 trillion dollar deficits per year as far out as the eye can see? ( I am not being facetious.)

2) What is the problem with using federal-government borrowed money to bail out state and local governments to keep them from near implosion and the likely associated social problems?

If I am missing something, what is it?

Robert

Fed's Primary Mission Failed

Hello Robert

First off, congratulations for understanding the Fed's attempt at producing inflation has failed. Many do not see it that way, but it depends on the definition of inflation, and an understanding of what the Fed is really attempting to do.

The Fed's primary goal is not to get prices to rise (regardless of what they say), but rather to get banks lending, consumers spending, and businesses hiring. The Fed and Congress have failed on all three scores.

One Sided Policies

The Fed did not produce inflation, but there is a huge price to pay to pay for the Fed's One sided policies.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
When the rich make a mistake they get bailed out.
When the poor make a mistake they get tossed to the dogs.

One needs to look at things not just from the recent "stabilization" of banks, but as an ongoing affair that has killed the middle class. Inflation was running rampant (in terms of credit in general and mortgage lending in particular). Wages did not keep up with prices and people plowed into assets as a means of savings.

The bailouts did not produce inflation, but the middle class bailed out the banks and got nothing in return but higher taxes, fewer services, and looking ahead, years of stagnation.

Moreover, the bondholders (such as China, Japan, and PIMCO) were made whole, while the homeowners are still mired in debt. Adding to the misery, banks lord it over on homeowners with total nonsense about the morality of walking away.

We will all suffer the consequences of these one sided moral-hazard policies for a decade to come. Quantitative easing, bailouts, extend-and-pretend schemes, and the alphabet soup of lending facilities all have very real consequences.

Near-term or intermediate-term (a few years out) inflation are not likely in the mix, but the distortions caused by the Fed and Congress will still affect us for a decade to come. Those distortions (caused by one-sided policies that favor banks and the wealthy) have killed and will continue to kill the middle class.

Robert, that is what you sensed, even if you could not put your finger on it.

Those who missed it should read Myths About "What's Economically Important" for a discussion about how and why credit, not prices is the key to the mess we are in.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Fort Worth, Texas Insolvent

Posted: 18 Sep 2010 02:24 AM PDT

The Star-Telegram reports Fort Worth pension bubble will blow up in our faces.

To understand why Fort Worth's pension system is such a financial disaster, look at one month's list of recent retirements.

In January, a 53-year-old policeman retired with an annual benefit of $90,312 for life, plus $256,000 in a lump sum payment. Another policeman, 57, got almost $74,000 annually, plus $313,000 in a lump sum. A 54-year-old firefighter got an annual pension of $90,130, plus $178,000 in cash.

With an average age of 50 for the police and 54 for the firemen in this group, they're likely to spend more years in retirement than they worked. An analysis for the City Council, presented in July, projected that the retiring policemen would collect $3.1 million in pension pay.

You don't have to be an actuary to know that this pension plan will end badly. The technical phrase is "trending toward insolvency."

Except that the city is on the hook for all the promised benefits. Taxpayers will have to pony up hefty contributions for years, even generations, and the city may have to cut services to afford it. The pension for city employees is currently projected to pay out $432 million more than it brings in over the next 30 years.

And that's the optimistic scenario. If investment returns average 7 percent, rather than the dreamy 8.5 percent in the assumptions, the unfunded liability could approach $1 billion.

The pension will require $60 million in city funds next year, and it's already a drag on a strapped city budget that has to close swimming pools and libraries and impose furloughs. Every year, the pension hole grows, because the benefits keep piling up.

"This is the elephant in the room," Mayor Mike Moncrief told the council in late July. "Not only for this budget, but for all the budgets to come."

The city manager appointed an ad hoc committee to look at the pension problem. It had a few businessmen, but most were employees -- a mix of police, fire and general workers. Imagine they had a little conflict?

They recommended that the city contribute an additional 6 percent of employee pay into the plan.

This is what it always comes down to: corrupt politicians pandering to public unions to win votes for reelection. Moreover, the result is always the same, greedy public unions wanting to raise taxes to pay for their exorbitant wages and benefits.

Fort Worth is now bankrupt. The only solution is to fire the city manager, declare bankruptcy, and resolve the issue of benefits in court.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Daily Snapshot: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

Your Daily Snapshot for
Saturday, September 18, 2010

Your Weekly Address: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

The President explains how the most dire warnings about the Citizens United case have been proven valid as Republicans in Congress have blocked legislation to fix it. Watch the video.

Today's Schedule

All times are Eastern Daylight Time

8:40 PM: The President and the First Lady attend the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Inc.’s Annual Legislative Conference Phoenix Awards Dinner. The President delivers remarks (audio only)

Indicates Events that will be livestreamed on WhiteHouse.gov/live.

Seth's Blog : The power of buttons and being normal

[You're getting this note because you subscribed to Seth Godin's blog.]

The power of buttons and being normal

Taxi drivers in New York were worried about adding credit cards to their cabs. The fee (5% of so) would cost them too much, they said.

It turns out that tips are up, way up. They're actually making far more money now.

Why? Because most of the machines offer a shortcut for the tip: $2, $3 or $4.

You can decide to be a cheapskate and hit the $2 button. Except...

Except that if you had paid cash, you probably would have tipped 75 cents for that $4.25 ride. It takes a few more clicks to type in 75 cents, and hey, $2 is the lowest and it's a more 'normal' amount.

It's a three second decision that happens over and over. People really like cues.

• Email to a friend •

•

vineri, 17 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

US Economy Hits Brick Wall

Posted: 17 Sep 2010 01:12 PM PDT

The latest Gallup Survey shows U.S. Unemployment at Highest Level Since May

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 9.4% in mid-September from 9.3% in August and 8.9% at the end of July. This finding makes it far more unlikely that there will be a significant decline in the U.S. unemployment rate prior to the midterm elections.

Unemployment Rate - Not Seasonally Adjusted

Underemployment thus remains unchanged at 18.6% so far in September compared with late August, though up from 18.4% at the end of July. Underemployment peaked at 20.4% in April and has yet to fall below 18.3% this year.

Underemployment - Not Seasonally Adjusted

Gallup classifies American workers as underemployed if they are either unemployed or working part time but wanting full-time work. The findings reflect more than 18,000 phone interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older in the workforce, collected over a 30-day period. Gallup's results are not seasonally adjusted and tend to be a precursor of government reports by approximately two weeks.

As might be expected given declining consumer confidence and continuing negative news about the job market nationally, the percentage of underemployed Americans who are "hopeful" that they will be able to find a job in the next four weeks fell to 43% in mid-September from its 2010 high of 47% at the end of August.

No Unemployment Rate "Hail Mary" Likely

With only three weeks left until the government's final unemployment report before the midterm elections, Gallup's underemployment measure suggests that an immediate, measurable improvement in the nation's job situation is unlikely. Further, Gallup modeling of the unemployment rate component implies that the government will report little to no change in the nation's 9.6% unemployment rate in September, or possibly even a slight increase to 9.7%.

Overall, Gallup's behavioral economic data suggest that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was right when he noted early this summer that the U.S. economy seemed to hit a wall in June. Economic confidence and consumer spending have declined since the end of May. At the same time, unemployment and underemployment have stagnated at very high levels.

The discrepancy between the Gallup survey and the BLS survey can partially be explained by the fact Gallup does not seasonally adjust numbers but the BLS does. Moreover, the BLS discards "marginally attached workers" (those who want a job but did not look in the last month), but Gallup does not.

Please see article for additional charts.

Because employment has hit a brick wall, as expected, I also expect to see a slaughter in November with Republicans picking up 45 seats or so in the House, enough to take the podium away from Nancy Pelosi. Thank God!

Bear in mind, I am not a Republican. Rather I am a Libertarian backing candidates who closely align with those philosophies. I wrote in Ron Paul in the last presidential election.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Myths About "What's Economically Important"

Posted: 17 Sep 2010 10:23 AM PDT

Day in and day out I hear it from readers who insist that we are not in deflation and will not be in deflation because prices are rising and continue to rise.

Still others tell me it is illogical for a deflationist to like gold.

When I counter with a discussion about credit conditions I tend to get a blank stare or a comment like "I do not care about credit conditions. I own my home. What I care about are rising prices of food and energy."

When I counter with falling asset prices and zero percent interest rates on savings accounts I am likely to get as statement like "Who cares, I rent?", or perhaps "The poor have no assets or savings, all they care about is food prices."

Really?

Such comments come from those who are not thinking clearly about what's important. Here's why:

In a fiat credit-based financial system, when credit is plunging businesses are not hiring. There are currently 14.9 million unemployed who want a job but do not have a job because businesses are not hiring. There are 2.4 million "marginally attached" persons who do not have a job yet want a job, but are not considered unemployed because they stopped looking. There are 8.9 million part-time workers who want a full time job but cannot get one because businesses are not hiring. There are countless millions of college graduates who are underemployed, working at WalMart, delivering pizzas, or attempting to sell trinkets on eBay, because businesses are not hiring. There a still millions more in college hoping for a job upon graduation who will not get one because businesses are not hiring. This is all related to the ongoing credit contraction.

When credit is plunging so do yields on treasuries and in turn yields on savings accounts. Those on fixed incomes attempting to live off interest income are screwed. Indeed, many are rapidly draining their principal because they collect no interest.

Those who have a job, pay for those who don't. Food stamp usage is soaring and now costs over $60 billion dollars a year.

When credit is plunging, consumers are not shopping, business earnings are under pressure, and wages stagnate or in many cases outright decline. Even those with jobs and no debt have been affected by deteriorating credit conditions. Public employees had escaped this debacle so far, but that is about to change in a big way, with huge implications.

When business earnings are under pressure or when business owners face uncertainty over consumer spending trends, businesses cut back on benefits, especially health care. Those with health cares benefits are asked to chip in more of the costs. This too is a function of deflation.

When profits are weak and business uncertainty high, stock prices do not act well (at least in the long run). Those with 401Ks or personal investments are affected.

With credit falling and wages stagnant or falling, anyone in debt is likely to have a harder time paying back that debt. Foreclosures rise so do bankruptcies and divorces. Entire families have gone homeless.

So, What's Really More Important?

Expanding credit (inflation) created an enormous housing bubble, a commercial real estate boom, a rising stock market, and an enormous number of jobs.

Contracting credit (deflation), burst the housing bubble, burst the commercial real estate bubble, burst the stock market bubble, resulting in millions of foreclosures and bankruptcies, millions of broken homes, millions on food stamps, 26.2 million unemployed or partially employed, and countless additional millions who are underemployed.

People notice food and energy prices because they tend to be somewhat sticky. Everyone has to eat, heat their homes, and take some form of transportation at times, but is that what's important?

No!

In the grand scheme of things, nominal increases in food and energy prices are but a few grains of salt in the world's largest salt-shaker compared to the massive effects of rising or falling credit conditions.

Yet, every day, someone writes to me complaining about the price of milk (or something else) going up 30 cents or whatever telling me that is "inflation" or that is what is most important.

Inflation/Deflation Definitions Once Again

Inflation is a net expansion of money and credit, with credit marked to market.
Deflation is a net contraction of money and credit, with credit marked to market.

Those are my definitions. I cannot force anyone to accept those definitions but they do explain what is happening quite nicely.

Conclusion

Those who think prices are what matters, even those who have no debt and no assets, are simply missing the boat about the importance of credit expansion and credit contraction in fiat credit-based financial system. As shown above, a credit contraction affects everyone, in many ways, and in far more important ways than simple price changes.

The stimulus and bailouts helped the financial economy (for a while), but not the real economy. Because credit dwarfs money supply, trillions of dollars of so-called stimulus vanished into thin air, with no lasting impact on the jobs market.

The inflationists and hperinflationists who ignored credit and focused on money supply alone (or consumer prices) never saw the plunge in interest rates coming or the massive pounding in global equity markets.

Those who knew a credit implosion was coming, got treasury yields correct, the equity crash correct, the rise in the dollar correct, and the strength in gold correct.

Gold does well in times of economic stress, especially in the senior currency - in this case the US dollar. It is the only commodity whose long term trendline is intact from 2000. Gold is money and as money it should do well in deflation in the country of the senior currency. It did.

In credit-based system, especially where credit dwarf money supply, credit itself (and the value of credit marked-to-market on the balance sheets of banks) is of paramount importance.

Those who insist inflation is about prices, as well as those who view inflation as an increase in money supply alone (ignoring credit), are going to continue to get the economic picture wrong.

If you are focused on prices or money supply alone, you are focused on the wrong thing.

In a fiat credit-based economy, where credit dwarfs money supply, changes in credit is what's important, not changes in money supply, not nominal changes in prices.

It's as simple as that.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

duminică, 19 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Seth's Blog : Are you responsible for what you market?

Are you responsible for what you market?

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 18 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Daily Snapshot: The Republican Corporate Power Grab

Seth's Blog : The power of buttons and being normal

The power of buttons and being normal

More Recent Articles

vineri, 17 septembrie 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

duminică, 19 septembrie 2010

More Recent Articles

sâmbătă, 18 septembrie 2010

More Recent Articles

vineri, 17 septembrie 2010

Pagini

Persoane interesate

Arhivă blog

Subscribe to