Outlook for the Norwegian Economy

Norges Bank has recently published Monetary Policy Report 3/2009 (link) and a comprehensive list of figures and charts including major macroeconomic trends in Norway and abroad (link). Time series on unit labor cost, output gap and other macroeconomic indicators are interesting to observe, especially because Norges Bank has been the first central bank in Europe to announce a targeted increase in interest rate to mitigate midterm inflationary outlook. Here (link) is a closer look at NIBOR and monthly interest rate dynamics in Norway (link).

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Housing Outlook Improves – Local Media Agrees

Sales of previously owned homes rose across the country during the third quarter, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors.

Nationally, sales were up 5.9 percent from the third quarter of last year. Previously owned homes changed hands at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.3 million, according to the report. NAR attributed much of the jump to continued affordable prices and a federal income tax credit. Congress and President Obama legislated an extension and expansion of the tax credit program last week.

Home sales rose in 32 states and Washington, D.C., from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter this year. Sales jumped in 45 states, and in Washington, D.C., from the second to the third quarter.

There was no lack of media enthusiasm for the news on Tuesday as local media outlets across the country finally picked up on the good news…

1. Home sales up nearly 79.6% in October in Orlando

2. Pittsburgh home prices rise in third quarter

3. US Home Sales Rise to Two-Year High

4. Home prices seen stabilizing in North Jersey

5. NJ homes sales jump 11 percent in quarter

6. DC Area housing sales jump

7. Las Vegas Home Sales On The Rise

8. Florida home sales up for fifth straight quarter

9. Houston-area home prices rise in third quarter

10. Ohio home sales rose during the third quarter

11. Nashville home sales climb first time in three years

12. Lehigh Valley home sales rise 30 percent in October

13. Illinois Third Quarter Home Sales a Bright Spot in 2009

14. Home Prices Are Suddenly Hot in Some Areas…

Back in June we pointed out a dozen housing markets that were showing pricing improvement. August revealed a dozen more.

While some year over year comparisons continue to show price erosion recent jumps in the national S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index further clarifies that the price drops of the past few years are now over. The 20-city index is now consistently rising quarter-over-quarter.

Three independent sources, the National Association of Realtors, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Case Shiller are now all showing housing price improvement.

Repeatedly we’ve said that the strength of this recovery will be measured in part by how well the housing industry fares. Tuesday was further strong evidence that this recovery continues unabated.

Minimum Wage and Obesity

David O. Meltzer and Zhuo Chen explored the relationship between minimum wage rate in the U.S and body weight (link):

“Growing consumption of increasingly less expensive food, and especially “fast food”, has been cited as a potential cause of increasing rate of obesity in the United States over the past several decades. Because the real minimum wage in the United States has declined by as much as half over 1968-2007 and because minimum wage labor is a major contributor to the cost of food away from home we hypothesized that changes in the minimum wage would be associated with changes in bodyweight over this period. To examine this, we use data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1984-2006 to test whether variation in the real minimum wage was associated with changes in body mass index (BMI). We also examine whether this association varied by gender, education and income, and used quantile regression to test whether the association varied over the BMI distribution. We also estimate the fraction of the increase in BMI since 1970 attributable to minimum wage declines. We find that a $1 decrease in the real minimum wage was associated with a 0.06 increase in BMI. This relationship was significant across gender and income groups and largest among the highest percentiles of the BMI distribution. Real minimum wage decreases can explain 10% of the change in BMI since 1970. We conclude that the declining real minimum wage rates has contributed to the increasing rate of overweight and obesity in the United States. Studies to clarify the mechanism by which minimum wages may affect obesity might help determine appropriate policy responses.”

Join the forum discussion on this post - (5) Posts

The IMF on Asia’s Recovery and its Sustainability

Update: Mr. Singh posts the third and, as far as I know, last installment in the series on Asia’s outlook written on the basis of the Regional Economic Outlook for the Asian and Pacific Region. The topic is perhaps the most interesting of all aspects of Asia’s aggregate economy, the high prevalence of savings and its excess over investment which produces a corresponding external surplus which, I’d might add, is structural at this point. See below for more comments.

In case you had not noticed, the IMF is blogging and it is not “merely” the garden variety IMF staffers they are rolling out to fill the pages; nope here we are treated to the likes of Blanchard, Atkinson, Lipsky, Cottarelli and a host of other of the Fund’s A-listers. Consequently, it would seem that in an already (over)crowded world of econblogging, the IMFdirect blog merits more than a little bit attention.

In the past week, the dual post coverage by Mr. Anoop Singh of the recent Regional Economic Outlook for the Asian and Pacific Region caught my attention in particular. In the first, Mr. Singh invokes among other things the puzzle of Asia’s relatively sharp recovery given the notion that the region is largely dependent on exports to grow. Two reasons especially are important here. One is the simple fact that as these economies moved into the crisis with bulging coffers (especially on the reserves vis-a-vis the rest of the world), the room for fiscal manoeuvre was greater and it was used decisively. According to calculations by the IMF, the collective stimulus programs in the Asia-Pacific region added 1.75% to GDP growth in the first half of 2009 and it makes the programs even more generous than those observed in the OECD and other emerging markets. Secondly, Asian economies has benefited from the, so far, V-shaped comeback by part of the global economy and key regions who are likely to grow smartly in h02-2009.

In general, Mr. Singh’s analysis appears cautiously tied to the great unknown of 2010 where it appears that we will see whether all those battered economies of the world will be able to hold their own in a world where quantitative easing from central banks and lax fiscal policies are withdrawn rather than enacted. Here, Singh’s remarks echo the general discourse where the the underlying tone is one of skepticism. A long period of risky asset buoyancy coupled with upbeat economic data releases have proved before to be crying wolf of an impending recovery and policy makers are advised to take this into account.

It is hard for me to disagree with Mr. Singh that the green shoots observed in the Spring of 2009 seem way too shaky a foundation on which to build a narrative of recovery. Yet, this is exactly what has happened and the famous inflection point will be reached when we discover that the recovery observed thus has been because of and not despite monetary and fiscal stimulus which makes the enforcement of exit strategies going into 2010 a very interesting experiment in the making. Some will make it, some won’t and some will inevitably fall back into recession (not just in Asia).

However, the most important part of Singh’s argument and indeed the most important part of IMF’s analysis in general is the question of whether Asia’s economic trajectory, in a post stimulus/recovery context, will be driven by domestic demand or not? To put it in the most reductionist form. Will Asia be a provider of net capacity to the global or economy or not? If yes, it would mean that a post crisis Asia had truly emerged as something new in the form of a force of a real addition to total demand. If not, it would mean that Asia would revert to old tricks and habits of relying on exports and foreign asset income to propel growth in national income.

Now, leaving the question of the number of export dependent economies the world economy can muster neatly to the side, I am not so optimistic here on Asia’s contribution to the rebalancing of global imbalances through a net expansion of domestic demand. Yet, let me also immediately qualify here that I am not very comfortable with talking about Asia/Pacific in one both because of the obvious heterogeneity amongst the economies, but more importantly; also because I am not really an expert here. I have done the analysis on Japan though and on this I can say with unequivocal certainty that we won’t we seeing any provision of excess domestic demand from this side.

Ultimately of course, Japan is of little real importance here and so is the rest of Asia really. What really matters on this topic is China and all the hopes currently pinned on her shoulders in the form of the ability of the economy to pull the global economy out of the mire. Traditionally, this has boiled down to a rather technical discussion about the RMB and an almost perennial Becketian wait for the shackles to break and an appreciating RMB to solve all problems. While I concede that the RMB should rise, it won’t solve any of the underlying problems inherent in China’s investment driven economy. Basically, chalk it down to culture and institutional specificity in the origin, but the simple fact remains I believe that just as China may evolve to become the economy we all hope and believe her to become (say in a 2020 context) the one child policy will have done its work so to speak and China will be sporting an OECD like age structure and is likely to even surpass many of OECD’s economies.

This is no recipe for an axis of rebalancing and although China will be the main story to follow for the immediate future I think we should look elsewhere to find the potential rebalancing candidates. This may indeed involve other parts of Asia (India for instance and Indonesia), but in the current discourse the likes of China, Japan (and Korea) hold little promise in terms of providing a decisive engine for rebalancing through sustainable growth in domestic demand which exceed the investment rate.

In this sense I remain cautious on the overall sustainability of the recovery in Asia mainly because of my skepticism towards the sustainability of overall global momentum where I acknowledge that I may be very wrong. Watch out for 2010 and all those exit strategies is what I say and particularly for the “post fiscal stimulus” world. This also means that I am more than a little bit skeptical on the prospects of a sustained recovery across Asia driven by domestic demand, especially in relation to Japan and China.

At least, this would be my humble argument here a murky Monday morning in Copenhagen. In any case, you might want to punch the IMFdirect blog into your RSS reader, just to make sure that you know what the IMF is up on a daily “research” basis.

It is interesting that Mr. Singh chooses to put his focus on corporate governance and, by derivative, the inability of Asian households to extract value from companies through dividends (because companies pay none) and the reluctance of households to leverage their assets to consume. The solution, according to Mr. Singh, is an improvement in institutional quality and essentially a two-pronged strategy in which corporate governance and financial market development are evolved, essentially, into a more Anglo-Saxon variety (or at least, this is underlying narrative I take from it).

This is also where I have, rather decisively, to part ways with Mr. Singh. It is not that I don’t recognize the basic intuition but the implicit idea that it would serve Asia, and the rest of us through rebalancing, better by moving in the way of an Anglo-Saxon institutional setting is too simple a discourse; in fact, I think it is flawed.

Consequently, I think it is important to note that while it sure may seem inefficient for all these savings to be sitting around in the coffers of companies as well as in the asset holdings of households, they do actually serve a purpose. More specifically, they finance investment elsewhere and through this, they act as an important contribution to national output in the absence of growth in domestic demand. Now, I am full well aware that it is exactly this we would like to change, but can we?

To some extent I am sure we can, but for example in Japan I can tell you that you better forget, very quickly, about any kind of surge in domestic demand (because of demographic reasons) and in this way, the excess savings over investment become important for the maintanance of output growth. Is this the same for China?

Hardly at this point, but the inflection point is coming nearer due to the one child policy.

In fact, if you extrapolate to the entire Asian edifice I think it is safe to say that if you peel away the excess investment that creates the external surpluses the nature and momentum of growth that could be sustained on the basis of domestic demand alone would dissappoint and make Asia’s recovery, well not a recovery at. And in this of course lies the rub.

Mobile phones and economic development

The CMIE Consumer Pyramids data shows that in all their income categories, more than 50% of households have a mobile phone. It is only in their bottom category `Lower Middle Income – II’ that only 37.5% of households have mobile phones. From `Higher Middle Income – III’ upwards, the incidence is above 80%. If you had asked anyone in 1999 or 1989 whether this could be done by 2009, the answer would have been in the negative.

With broadband Internet, in contrast, India has not got such breakthroughs.

The September 2009 issue of Finance & Development has a story on the impact of mobile phones for development. In India, there is a lot of merit in using new technologies and players to break with the comfortable stagnation that’s enveloped finance.

The Economist has a beautiful section on mobile phones and development: on Chinese progress on network hardware, broadband, on the impact on development, a retrospective, looking forward, and an enthralling piece on the cost reductions by firms in developing countries. Now all we need is for Indian finance to go the way of Indian telecom (and airlines).

Anand Giridharadas, writing in New York Times, describes new developments in distance education. India is the place in the world which would be the biggest beneficiary from distance education, given the combination of lots of young people and a dismal education system. This does require broadband to go the way mobile phones have. I often joke that the task of an economics undergraduate education in India should be to get a person to the point where he or she can read my blog :-) (and cynics respond saying that most of the teachers of economics in India can’t parse my blog).

Anne Eisenberg has an article in New York Times about researchers at UCLA trying to use cell phones to do medical diagnosis. Given the ubiquity of cell phones in India, these could be useful lines of attack for us.

And A Pony

The whole health care reform thing totally baffles me. Where do all these idiots (and yes, you ARE idiots) who support health care reform think the money is going to come from for all these improvements? Cost savings?? Sorry, idiots, but if savings were already available, insurance companies would have  already gotten them, and kept them for themselves. Is that not completely obvious? Its GONNA cost more, and its GONNA cover less.

There is a way to get more for less, but it requires that people understand and accept that free markets actually work. And yet there are so many people who are convinced that somehoww health care is some kind of magic market where the laws of economics don’t fly, where pigs do fly, and where everyone can get all the health care they want for almost
no money.

And a pony.

US Job Growth Likely By Christmas

Now that the US recovery is in full swing, many continue to asked “when will this newfound economic growth produce new jobs?”

This past week all eyes were on job numbers. And there were some encouraging signs.

First, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. announced on Wednesday that planned layoffs at U.S. firms fell for a third straight month in October to a 19-month low. Announced job cut rates are now at levels that are below average.

Then on Thursday Monster’s employment index was reported to rise an additional point in October to 120 indicating an ongoing improvement in job demand. The Monster Employment Index is a comprehensive monthly analysis of U.S. online job demand.

And finally, initial jobless claims are clearly on the decline, down 20,000 in the Oct. 31 week to 512,000 (prior week revised 2,000 higher to 532,000). The four-week average is down for the ninth straight week, 3,000 lower at 523,750 for a 25,000 decrease from late September.

So just when will this strong recovery start producing new jobs?

The answer is likely found in the significant decline in the number of jobs lost since March. As can be seen from the linear trending in the chart below, if the current economic climate stays intact, it is quite likely that we will actually see job growth starting sometime in December.

East Europe after 1989

I have an article in Financial Express where I look back economic development in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years, and compare and contrast with India.

In recent weeks, a lot of very interesting writing, looking back at 1989, has come out. My suggestions for further reading follow. Readers of age 40 and below should try particularly hard to read these and other materials so as to comprehend these earth-shaking events. These events matter because they have had a huge influence on the world that we see today. And, they matter because they help us think more effectively about the drama that will come about in China in coming years.

  1. 1989! by Timothy Garton Ash in The New York Review of Books. Am eagerly waiting for part 2 of this. Also by him in The Guardian: This tale of two revolutions and two anniversaries may yet have a twist (May 2008) and 1989 changed the world. But where now for Europe? (now).
  2. A great story of the big day by Alison Smale.
  3. The unknown war by Matt Welch on reason.com. We feel this intuitively, but the statistics are stunning:

    In 1988, according to the global liberty watchdog Freedom House, just 36 percent of the world’s 167 independent countries were `free,’ 23 percent were 1partly free,’ and 41 percent were `not free.’ By 2008, not only were there 26 additional countries (including such new `free’ entities as Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia), but the ratios had reversed: 46 percent were `free,’ 32 percent were `partly free,’ and just 22 percent were `not free.’ There were only 69 electoral democracies in 1989; by 2008 their ranks had swelled to 119.

  4. A beautiful section from The Economist:
    Walls in the mind;
    So much gained, so much to lose;
    The man who trusted his eyes;
    A globe redrawn;
    Less welcome;
    Keep calm and carry on;
    Wall stories;
    Down in the dumps
  5. The peaceful revolution of 1989 by Adam Roberts in The Independent.
  6. Brain drain in reverse behind fallen Berlin Wall by Carter Dougherty, in the New York Times.
  7. A slideshow by Erik Berglof which summarises the Transition in crisis? report released by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development.
  8. My take on the new dangers that we face today.

Health Care: The Three Legged Stool

A few years ago, Arnold Kling, an economics professor at George Mason University, presented an interesting description of the type of health care system that Congress is planning to impose on all Americans. With Medicare’s unfunded liabilities in the multiple tens of trillions of dollars, it is like the Titanic sailing full speed ahead with icebergs all around. It is ultimately going to sink. There is no avoiding it on the current path. The proposed health system will add many trillions more in unfunded liabilities. It is the equivalent of adding more passengers to the Titanic and more icebergs to the freezing water.

The utopian vision underlying the plan is a world where everybody can have everything without paying the price. Dr. Kling described an “iron trilemma” in healthcare, but I think that it can be modified and generalized for any type of social program. It is like a three legged stool that needs all three legs to stand. The first leg in the modified version is access. The system must be designed so that nobody is excluded. The second leg is the goods. Participants must be able to get the latest, greatest and best quality stuff available. The third leg is cost. The overall financial burden of the system must be minimized.

It is obvious that you cannot have all three legs at one time. If everybody has access to everything, including the most expensive procedures, goods and services, then the cost will be sky high. If everybody has access and the overall costs are minimized, then, necessarily, expensive goods and services must be cut out, no matter how much some individuals desire them. If, instead, the system provides the expensive goods and services, then in order to keep the overall costs low, some people must be excluded from access to those services. Whichever pair is chosen, the stool must fall over. The three legs, universal access, unlimited consumption and low cost, cannot exist together. The claim that the proposed system will increase the number of people covered without decreasing quality and availability of medical goods and services to each and, at the same time, significantly cut the cost of health care in America is absurd. It is an impossibility. Something has to give.

One of the assumptions is that, under the government plan, waste and fraud will be cut out and greedy profiteers will be reined in. An obvious question comes to mind. If the government is able to root out waste and fraud and greed, why has it not done so with Medicare/Medicaid, the government monetary system, the military, banking, the education system, the bailout fiasco, cash for clunkers, and on and on. Politicians have not done so, and will not in the future, because they benefit greatly from fraud, waste and greed. Saying that government cuts waste and corruption is either a blatant attempt to distort the facts or it is an indication that they are totally out of touch with reality. Either one of those characteristics in our leaders does not bode well for the American people.

The overall cost of the present system is very high because of the interaction of the legs of the trilemma. Employer based insurance and government insurance programs cover a significant portion of the population. There is significant access. Government mandates on insurance plans have forced them to cover a host of very expensive treatments for uninsurable events and diseases. New, expensive treatments are being developed all of the time, which participants, insulated from the true cost, strenuously demand. The participants get the goods. Government’s injection of hundreds of billions of dollars into the health system has caused a rapid inflation in the prices of health services, and has distorted the supply and demand for them. The overall costs, the third leg, must be high.

The central planner’s paradigm is the fundamental error in the present health care discussions, the idea that some smart person can and should design a universal system which will fit every person in the country. In reality, health care is merely a market for goods and services. Nobody plans a market. It is made up of the billions of interactions of the participants as they attempt to achieve what they value the most. Since nobody can know what each individual values most, what sacrifices he or she is willing to make for the things desired, what goals they have for themselves and their families and the assumptions they make about the present and future environment, nobody can make decisions for them better than they can make for themselves. Individuals make tradeoffs every day about what they want and the costs they are willing to incur. The cost tradeoff must be on an individual basis. The aggregated cost of the system is absolutely irrelevant. When people make their own decisions, markets work; they attempt to get the most value for what they give. They try to maximize benefits and minimize costs.

Think about it. Our food supply system is incredibly complex, involving hundreds of millions of people with widely varying tastes and budgets, hundreds of thousands of separate farmers, merchants, traders, and restauranteurs, all with their own objectives and needs, and vastly different geographic areas. No central busy-body plans our meals for us, yet Americans get fed every day at a very reasonable price. The overall cost is low because individuals are responsible for their own expenses and decisions. The same could happen with health care if all of the government induced distortions were removed, including pretax employer based insurance plans that get dropped when changing employers, mandated coverage for all insurance plans, which eliminates low cost alternatives to consumers, anti-competitive and monopolistic government programs, and the use of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money, which inflates prices and distorts the true markets beyond recognition.

Many people bring up the fact that there are families who are so poor that they cannot afford health care, and conclude that the health care system should make special provision for them. They are appropriate targets for the charity of individuals and charitable organizations, and through the centuries, those charitable people and organizations have cared for poor, the disabled, the destitute. Charity is most certainly important, and it is right and good for individuals and organizations to help the poor. Health care and charity, however, are vastly different entities. Mixing them confuses the issues of both and hurts the poor more than it helps.

Our three legged stool in health care is tipping over because it cannot possibly stand over time. If health care in America is to stand strong again, we must throw out the stool and the socialist ideals that support it. We must let Americans stand on their own two feet and take individual responsibility to pay for whatever level of health services and/or insurance that they desire and can afford.

Interview With Ian Gordon

TRACE MAYER: Welcome back to episode #55 the RunToGold.com Podcast, I’ve got with us today a special guest, Ian Gordon from the Long Wave Group. Welcome Ian.

IAN GORDON: Thank You very much for having me.

TRACE: Great. To start off with the latest news, why do you think that the gold price is taking this rapid jump of about of $60  per ounce over the last week.

IAN: I have never really that concerned about the “machinations” at work. I am extremely bullish on the gold price basically because I think the world is falling into the deflationary depression of the 1930’s and because of that I do not really worry about what is happening in the short or intermediate term. I think we are going to see much higher prices anyway. But I guess if I was to give you an answer I suspect it might be that India is buying the International Monetary Fund gold.

TRACE: 200 tons!. Usually that is trotted out by the gold cartel as “Oh, we are going to sell the IMF Gold and the price will go down. But in this case, India bought about half of what was available. I suppose that China is probably waiting in the wings to buy the remaining amount. Why do you think it is that India is willing to allocate this small percentage of their foreign reserves to purchase the IMF’s gold.

IAN: Well, I think that gold as money is going to shift to the wealthy countries and it is shifting out of the United States because the IMF is essentially run by the United States and is moving to the wealthy countries of the east. And that is where the wealth of the world is moving as well.  I think that for a country like India it has to put more of its reserves and it already has cause it only has a minuscule amount into gold because other reserves are in the dollar and you know what is been happening to that. Basically anyone invested in the dollar is being badly hurt.

TRACE: Exactly. I could not agree with you more on these points. Now with the Long Wave Group you focus on long-term waves and particularly on the Kondratieff Winter. And actually we met at a Cambridge House Investment Conference and I think we were both presenting there. And I think we have a pretty similar viewpoint on what is happening. “What is the Kondratieff Winter and the theory that under girds a lot of your work.

IAN: Okay my work is developed around Kondratieff Cycle that was promulgated by Nikolai Kondratieff, a Russian economist in the mid-1920’s.  It is a long economic cycle and he based his theory on prices, on the movement of trade, on money movements and inflation and so on. And he came up with this idea that capitalism really underwent this long cycle of expansion and contraction.  That the cycle lasted about 60 years, so first half of the cycle is really the expansion phase, and the second half is the contraction phase, and the last quarter of that contraction phase essentially is the depression- a deflationary depression stage in the cycle.

TRACE: Now, just an interesting tangent what ever happened to Mr. Kondratieff?

IAN: Well, Stalin sent him to gulag and he died in about 1938 in the Gulag. I mean some people had it that he was executed but what I read was that he actually just died in the gulag.

TRACE: It would be funny if it were not so sad that we had these political leaders, really just criminal gangs that strut around in their costumes, and yet when somebody comes along and does have a theory, like Galileo for example, and it explains how the world really works then the common response to that is to shove them in the gulag. And Mister Kondratieff was not any different than a lot of the very insightful thinkers that we have seen over the last century.

I noticed from your report that I read, “All That Glitters Is Gold” that you say:

The velocity of money will essentially come to a standstill … In deflation, as in the 1930s, those few people with money curtail their spending in the knowledge that prices will be lower tomorrow.

Could you please expound on that?

IAN: Most people today are basing their assumptions on the Federal Reserve printing and assuming that that monetary printing is going to lead to inflation. And most of the bullish gold analysts are bullish because they see inflation coming in to the economy. We are of the opposite view. We believe that we are going to have deflation and in fact massive deflation in the economy. And to have inflation you have to increase the money supply.  But to have an increase in the money supply the money has to transfer to the people who want to spend it. And to spend it as fast as you can because what they see ahead of them is just rising prices so they buy today rather than pay the high price tomorrow.

What happens in deflation is people do not spend but instead hoard money because they see lower prices tomorrow and they would rather wait for the lower prices.  A deflationary environment always sort of happens when the economy is really really bad. And we are going into the Kondratieff Winter or deflationary depression stage and people are scared.  Because they are scared they are not going to be spending money but the Federal Reserve and the central banks around the world want them to do. They are going to be hoarding the money which we see with the banks. The banks are not lending money out and they are hoarding it to improve their capital base.  So we do not get the fast movement of money in this kind of environment and therefore the velocity of money slows tremendously.

TRACE: And actually I think I have used the term “FROZEN”. But to take the other side of the argument, which I will do here, is not all of the these bank reserves just pent-up demand that will is like flood waiting to happen as soon as the dam bursts. Is not that not the argument of the inflationists. As soon as all these bank reserves finally burst through the dam and they begin lending again then we are going to have tremendous inflation and gold is sensing this future inflation and that is the reason it is rising. How do you respond to that type of argument?

IAN: Well, we have only just begun the real payback period. You know the whole purpose of the Kondratieff Winter or  deflationary depression part of the cycle is the washing out of the debt has been built up throughout the cycle. And our present cycle started in 1949 but the main build up of debt occurs in what I call the autumn of the cycle.

And the autumn started in 1982 and that is where the banks really started to make money available to consumers and corporations so there was a huge amount of borrowing that goes on starting in 1982 but it really reached its peak essentially in 2007. And that big borrowing was lent to people who will never have the ability to pay it back. And we can see it in the housing crisis that is now going on  in the United States and which we will see go through it in Canada even though most Canadians have believed that w ill not.

When that happens, all that debt starts to come out of the system. So that is money coming out of the system. And so the banks have been hit hard once on the sub-prime mortgage debacle. They are going to get hit hard again on other kinds of debt like commercial real estate. We are already seeing credit card debt starting to hurt some. So there is a massive amount of debt that is going to have to be taken out of the system.

You look at the United States and there is about $58 trillion of government debt.  W have abut $44 trillion of consumer, corporate and financial debt. And about half of that debt is going to be washed out in the winter. I thought of conservatively estimated that it will be about $22 trillion but I suspect it is going to be more.

But $22 trillion, the Federal Reserve does not have the power to print that kind of money so that even if they did print $22T then we would simply be at the same place we are now. We would not have really increased the money supply.  Well that is really what is going to happen is that were going to have a massive decrease in the money supply and the amount of deflation like we did in the 1930’s because the debt problems are the same. It was not as bad as then as it is today. And in fact, back in the early 1930’s we had a 30% deflation occurring in the United States. And I see a similar kind of situation happening this time.

TRACE: Now, this is an interesting issue that I address right off the bat in my book The Great Credit Contraction. And it is, what is money? And so I actually like to distinguish money from currency. Currency being the tool or instrument that we use on our ordinary daily transactions. And currency can either be money, money substitutes or an illusion.

Money has to be a tangible assets such as gold, silver, platinum, etc., and a money substitute would be, say a gold certificate like we had in 1933. And an illusion is just some made up little green paper tickets or digits in some database such as Federal Reserve Notes or Canadian Dollars or whatever these fiat currencies are.  Deflation under the Austrian school of economics definition is a decline in the money supply, or I would say the currency supply.

Could we have the illusions actually increase in supply to help support more of these gigantic inverse liquidity pyramid that is on top of it OR is your argument that even if the Federal Reserve tries to increase that the currency supply, which are illusions, that the capital will still go lower into something safer and more liquid, primarily gold, and that there is nothing they can do to stop this and therefore the evaporation of the liquidity pyramid because the earning capacity of the worldwide economy just is not substantive enough to support the service of all the debt.

IAN: We have all seen Exter’s inverse pyramid and I have a copy on my website. I know you have developed your own inverse liquidity pyramid and both have in common that at the bottom of the pyramid is gold. Gold is the ultimate currency that people have trusted. And that is really what we are already seeing with the move to gold. There is not any inflation. Yet, there has been a massive move to gold causing the gold price to close in on $1,100 per ounce. So people are buying gold and hoarding gold because they are fearful of what is transpiring.

TRACE: So we see for example the evaporation of auction rate securities, commerical mortgage backed securities or money marketsand those like cash instruments we are seeing people move into are either Treasury Bills or going a step further like the Indians and saying just give me two hundred tons of physical gold bars in my hand.

IAN: Exactly.

TRACE: Fear is definitely a powerful motivator. Now, I would like to tease out another one the quotes from that report you sent me:

Once the debt bubble is unwound, it is deflation in nature because it is painful and results in bankruptcies on both side of the ledger.  Actually, it takes money out of the system and during our Kondratieff Winter, trillions of dollars of debt will be expunged.

Now we talked a little bit about the latter part but how about the former.  When you talk about it resulting in bankruptcies on both sides of the ledger, what exactly do you mean?

IAN: I mean both the creditors and the debtors are going to be bankrupt. And we have already seen that. We have seen the creditors like the major banks both in the United Kingdom and in the United States being severely impeded by the credit bubble bursting. And we have seen the debtors being severely hurt as well. We have seen General Motors go bankrupt, Chrysler go bankrupt, and that is just the beginning because as they say, the next shoe has to drop. What we have seen really in this recovery phase in the markets and so on is very similar to the recovery phase that we saw 1929 to April 1930.

When the Federal Reserve of that time was really frightened by the crashing stock market and they pushed money into the banking system at a horrendous rate.  According to Murray Rothbard in his book, America’s Great Depression, in one week the money supply was increased by 10%. And they brought down interests rates in 6 weeks from 6% to 3.5%.

That got the things going again and it got particularly the stock market going again so we got a recovering stock market from November 1929 to April 1930. And essentially 50% of the losses that occurred before that were recovered.

But the whole thing is that the debt that was underpinning the economy had not been paid back.  So the real fragile state in the economy was the debt bubble. That had occurred throughout the 1920’s and it is in the same position today. So we have had a recovery in the stock market and I believe that recovery is over. And we are now going to the next level down in stocks much as as we did after April 1930.

TRACE: A few months ago I wrote about the coming market crash.  We have actually already seen the Dow break down below 9 ounces of gold for the Dow, just recently. Now, back to this part about bankruptcies on both sides of the ledgers.  I have written about bankrupting for profit and fair value lying standards with the mark-to-market FASB 157 affecting or being applied in keeping some of these zombie institutions alive.

IAN: Well, I think we are seeing it through sleight of hand. Basically, the values of the derivatives that they have on the books have been sort of pushed under the rug and hidden from view so that we are not really going to be a apprised on what the real situation is in the banks.

TRACE: And that perhaps is one of the reasons that we are seeing the bank reserves so high is that all the banks have an incentive to understate their liabilities under FASB 157 and yet at the same time overstate the assets but really the liabilities that one bank holds are an asset of another bank and therefore all the banks know that everybody is lying. And because of that therefore everybody is sitting on a lot of their capital in the form of bank reserves. Would you say that is a fair assessment?

IAN: I think so. Yes. Absolutely right on.

TRACE: OK. I got another quote I found very interesting in that report you sent out:

When that occurs as in 1873 and 1929, and now there is fear and panic. In all panics, there exists an instinctive will in all of us to survive and succor loved ones. Like always, the the paper money system collapsed and gold replaced it.

And so, in my book The Great Credit Contraction, I addressed the issue of Peak Oil. And so I was wondering exactly how bearish of the general worldwide economy are you?  Obviously you are bullish about the precious metals but how bearish are you on the worldwide economy and perhaps the standard of living for example?

IAN: Well, I am very bearish.  Again we go back to the 1930’s to use that as the measuring stick for what we might expect this time around. And in the 1930’s, the U.S. economy contracted by about 45%, or GDP drop by 45%. Now, I think its going be bigger this time because the debt level is significantly larger now than it was in 1929. But assume that 45% drop from $14T to $8T. So that is a huge, huge drop.

And it means that people are far poorer than they have ever been and an awfully lot of them are not going to be working. In the US in 1933 about 25% of the work force was unemployed and a much larger percentage of the workforce was employed in agriculture.

TRACE: It seems like you are not as bearish as some of people out there. For example, we have extremely complex systems. And when the Federal Reserve intervenes in determining both the money supply and the cost of money through interest rates it amounts to central economic planning. And that central economic planning may have worked when the economy was so simple with for example some thug coming in and saying well you can only sell your cow for a certain amount.

But now we have these hugely complex systems were we drill 5 miles into the ocean to extract oil. And then spray that oil onto our fields as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers to grow our food, and then we put the oil in trucks and to get the food into the supermarket.  We have these hugely complex systems with central economic planning and that central economic planning is now failing. And there is a branch within the peak oil group that talks about die-off.  What Obama is doing now is really trying to duplicate what President Roosevelt did.

President Obama and the Federal Reserve think that they can centrally plan the entire economy.  Under Austrian Economics theory interest rates regulate production over time. And so, when we have the interest rates suppressed for the last 60 years we have produced a lot of things. Particularly the population of the world has increased tremendously.

Especially with peak oil and this complex systems that can fail do you see that we could perhaps have even a worse case scenario like some of those who talk about a die-off situation?

IAN: Well I do subscribe to the theory of peak oil. But again, I think the demand for oil is going to drop precipitously. Simply because non one’s gonna be working. Again if we use the idea that 45% of the U.S economy is going to be halted. That means essentially that the same kind of oil demand is the percentage dropping oil demand is also going to occur in the United States. And we are only picking on the United States because she has the largest economy in the world but we are all going be in be in the same boat.

So the whole world economy is going to drop by that kind of percentage.

TRACE: But not necessarily a precipitous enough drop that we could see 90% of the earth’s population washed away in this winter because of unsustainability?

IAN: Well, you are not going to see that because, as you know, there is a significant part of the world’s population who basically do not have anything anyway. If we go into Africa, or huge parts of China, India, etc. even though they are emerging nations they still have a large percentage of the population that are extremely poor.

So it is the wealthy nations that are really going to be hurt by this downturn and I think in particular, it is going to be WASP nations- United States, Canada, Australia and Great Britain, because that is probably where we saw biggest debt burden incurred.

TRACE: I agree.  I doubt we will see a die-of situation.  Thank you very much.  If people want to learn more about your work and your theory, how can they do that?

IAN: They can visit my website Long Wave Group.  Thank you very much Trace.