Bubble Signs at the PSE: Raising Capital Through Pre-selling Model

Current developments in the marketplace also suggest of the high tolerance of speculative activities or of greater risk appetite or where markets simply don’t buy earnings in the traditional sense.

Bloombery as Trendsetter

From Finance Asia[1],

Bloomberry Resorts has raised Ps8.84 billion ($209 million) from its first follow-on share issue since it listed through a reverse takeover late last year, after fixing the price just above the mid-point of the range.

The Philippine company, which is set to become the first licence holder to open an integrated casino resort in Manila’s new Entertainment City gaming hub early next year, attracted strong demand from international investors in particular and sources said the deal was multiple times covered throughout the price range. In fact, the subscription level and the quality of the book were deemed strong enough for the bookrunners to close the fully marketed deal two days early…

Bloomberry holds one of the four licences to build integrated tourism resorts in Entertainment City that were awarded in 2009, and started construction on its Solaire Manila project in July last year. Phase one, which will include 300 gaming tables, 1,200 slot machines, one 500-room hotel, seven specialty restaurants and a number of other food and beverage outlets, is scheduled to open in the first quarter of 2013.

In short, Bloombery [PSE: BLOOM] which has YET to generate cash flows has successfully raised Ps8.84 billion from local and global investors.

As of Friday’s close, BLOOM’s market capitalization surged to a surreal 87,343,301,226 which beat property giants Robinsons Land [PSE:RLC] 72,215,173,283 or SM Development Corp [PSE:SMDC] 59,757,133,523

So how was the company valued?

Again from Finance Asia,

At the final price, Bloomberry is valued at an enterprise value-to-Ebitda multiple of about 7 to 7.1 times, which puts it at a sizeable discount to all the Macau casino operators. However, even at the top of the range, the Philippine company was pitched only at an EV/Ebitda multiple of 7.8 times, which compares with a valuation range of 7.5 times to 10.4 times for the Macau players and explains why some investors were comfortable to pay the maximum price.

Ebitda or earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization[2]???

Ebitda has been the prominent financial metric used to value technology[3] companies during the height of the dot.com bubble.

This simply shows that many people hide behind numbers. Financial metrics, valid or not, have been used either as marketing instruments or as justification for buying actions.

In reality, the BLOOM case represents nothing more than a promise to build. The difference is that this promise has been backed by a prominent name, tycoon Enrique Razon.

Mr. Razon deftly capitalized on the bullish market sentiment through a “fast break play”: he bought Active Alliance at 3.3 per share[4] last February, backdoor listed BLOOM and sold part of the portion of his shares to the public at 7.5 per share for a whopping 127% gain in just THREE months!

Yet like the dot.com boom, I believe that BLOOM’s highly successful “pre-sellling” strategy (similar to pre-selling condo units) would set a trend for succeeding IPOs or secondary listings or follow on offerings.

We should not forget that the dot.com bubble was highlighted by an IPO boom[5]

Volume, Money Flows and Profit Taking

And of course, a continuing boom will likely to attract volume. The US Global Investor suggests that the recent improvements in trading volumes may attract foreigners.

The US Global Investor writes[6],

increasing trading volume in the Philippine stock exchange, explaining why the Philippine market has outperformed Asian peer’s year-to date and the last year. Morgan Stanley research shows $829 million new money has flowed into the Philippine stock market so far this year, encouraged by better macro economic indicators and strong corporate growth prospects.

Rising volumes signify effects rather than causes. The yield chasing phenomenon as consequence of easy money policies here and abroad has been driving the domestic markets and will continue to spur interest from foreigners.

As governments of developed economies continue to debase their currencies, discreet capital flight into asset markets and currencies of ASEAN economies and other emerging markets, may become an entrenched trend.

Second, what they refer to as new money could probably mean money from “new” investors. That’s because the popular concept of money “flows” in stock markets are fallacious[7].

For every peso of traded, this means that the peso exchanged from the buyer of a specific security goes to the seller of that security. So there are no money flows. Perhaps there are more “new” retail investors today as “old” investors take profits or go cash.

All that has been discussed above demonstrates growing symptoms of market’s response to bubble policies. Today’s record or near record lows in nominal interest rates[8] are policies designed to promote consumption (and speculation) via a negative real interest rate regime.

In a bubble cycle, systemic distortion of prices means that markets neither manifest earnings nor the real economic performance, but one of malinvestments and rampant speculations.

In predicting the continued rise of the Phisix in 2010 I wrote[9]

The point is inflationism creates an illusion of prosperity by inflating asset bubbles in domestic market such as in the Philippines or in the Asian region, which eventually would exact toll on the society. The normative outcome of any bubble bust would be high rate of unemployment, output and capital losses, political turmoil, aside from a lowered standard of living via more incidences of poverty.

That illusion is now being interpreted as real progress.

And as a final note, given the recent dramatic record run up, we should expect natural profit taking process to follow. And perhaps such profit taking will take cue from weakening commodity prices (CRB) and stock markets abroad led by the S&P 500 (SPX). This is likely to be a temporary event, or another episode where steroid propped financial market clamors to be fed with more steroids of inflationism.

Perhaps the weekend elections in the Eurozone could also spice things up.

---

[1] FinanceAsia.com Bloomberry re-IPO raises $209 million May 3, 2012

[2] Thismatter.com Enterprise Value

[3] Brennan Linda L. Social, Ethical and Policy Implications of Information Technology p.161 Google Books

[4] Philstar.com Razon-led Active Alliance hikes capital February 7, 2012

[5] Wiki Mises.org IPO Boom Dot-com bubble

[6] US Global Investors Do Emerging Markets Win, Place or Show in Your Portfolio? Investor Alert May 04, 2012

[7] See The Myth Of Money Flows Into The Stock Markets, April 5, 2009

[8] Asian Development Bank ASIA BOND MONITOR APRIL 2012 p.29

[9] See Why The Philippine Phisix Will Climb The Global Wall Of Worries June 7, 2010

Are Booming Sales of Home Safes signs of the Next Crisis?

In the US, home safes or vaults seem to be in fashion

From Smart Money

In an era marked by financial turbulence, it's probably not surprising that safes have become a popular commodity, with some manufacturers, retailers and installers reporting sales increases of as much as 40 percent from a few years ago. But the bigger eyebrow-raiser is what has happened to those iconic gray-steel boxes of yore: They've undergone an extreme makeover -- or several of them. Taking the place of those old square combination jobs are a range of custom safes, from boutique showpieces to decoy models for the family den -- not to mention the truly offbeat (a hideaway lockbox resembling, ahem, a pair of men's underwear) and the seriously safe (an in-home vault with a price tag of more than $100,000). And that's not even getting into the ever-broadening array of color choices (champagne marble, anyone?) "None of our safes should be hidden in a closet," says Markus Dottling, principal at Dottling, a German specialty-safe manufacturer whose museum-worthy designs can cost more than the average American house.

One thing that isn't driving the safe boom, apparently, is crime. Indeed, U.S. burglary rates have been plunging for years. Still, experts say that many savers and investors feel a lingering sense of insecurity in their finances -- a hard-to-shake fear borne out of the jolting recession and, at times, wobbly recovery -- which is helping to spur the new safeguarding mentality. Tyler D. Nunnally, founder and CEO of Upside Risk, an Atlanta firm that researches investor psychology, says sticking tangible assets in a safe can be a natural reaction to volatility in the markets. "People dislike loss twice as much as they like gains," he says. "They want to protect what they have." Growing numbers of these fearful types simply don't trust their banks to protect them: In a Gallup poll last year, a record-high 36 percent of Americans said they had "very little" or "no" confidence in U.S. banks. (In 2008 and 2009, when the financial crisis was peaking, that figure stood at 22 and 29 percent, respectively.) And growing concern about identity theft has made some people more eager to keep their assets in a form they can see and count, says R. Brent Lang, an investment manager in Surrey, British Columbia: "By acquiring one password, someone can wipe out all your digital wealth," he says.

That’s because many people seem to be taking measures to protect their wealth. “Don’t trust their banks”, “insecurity in their finances” “identity theft” and “crime” has been cited as reasons for the dramatic shift in the perception of risks.

Yet mainstream experts will see “stashing or hoarding cash” as “negative” for the economy which is hardly accurate. As the great Professor Murray N. Rothbard explained in What has Government Done to Our Money? (bold emphasis mine, italics original)

Why do people keep any cash balances at all? Suppose that all of us were able to foretell the future with absolute certainty. In that case, no one would have to keep cash balances on hand. Everyone would know exactly how much he will spend, and how much income he will receive, at all future dates. He need not keep any money at hand, but will lend out his gold so as to receive his payments in the needed amounts on the very days he makes his expenditures. But, of course, we necessarily live in a world of uncertainty. People do not precisely know what will happen to them, or what their future incomes or costs will be. The more uncertain and fearful they are, the more cash balances they will want to hold; the more secure, the less cash they will wish to keep on hand. Another reason for keeping cash is also a function of the real world of uncertainty. If people expect the price of money to fall in the near future, they will spend their money now while money is more valuable, thus "dishoarding" and reducing their demand for money. Conversely, if they expect the price of money to rise, they will wait to spend money later when it is more valuable, and their demand for cash will increase. People's demands for cash balances, then, rise and fall for good and sound reasons.

Economists err if they believe something is wrong when money is not in constant, active "circulation." Money is only useful for exchange value, true, but it is not only useful at the actual moment of exchange. This truth has been often overlooked. Money is just as useful when lying "idle" in somebody's cash balance, even in a miser's "hoard." For that money is being held now in wait for possible future exchange--it supplies to its owner, right now, the usefulness of permitting exchanges at any time--present or future--the owner might desire.

In short, since people don’t know the future and where the perception of the risk of uncertainty are being amplified, the increased demand for money represents people’s satisfaction.

However the mainstream would then use “lack of aggregate demand” or insufficient consumption as further justification for government intrusion. In reality, today’s uncertain environments have been caused by excessive and obstructive role of governments.

Record gun sales (Telegraph) and gold seen as the "best investment option" (Gallup) seem to correspond with the growing demand for home safes or vaults. All these add up to highlight heightened uncertainty.

Add to this a bleak report which noted that the US government may be preparing for a “civil war”.

From Beacon Equity Research,

In a riveting interview on TruNews Radio, Wednesday, private investigator Doug Hagmann said high-level, reliable sources told him the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is preparing for “massive civil war” in America.

“Folks, we’re getting ready for one massive economic collapse,” Hagmann told TruNews host Rick Wiles.

“We have problems . . . The federal government is preparing for civil uprising,” he added, “so every time you hear about troop movements, every time you hear about movements of military equipment, the militarization of the police, the buying of the ammunition, all of this is . . . they (DHS) are preparing for a massive uprising.”

Hagmann goes on to say that his sources tell him the concerns of the DHS stem from a collapse of the U.S. dollar and the hyperinflation a collapse in the value of the world’s primary reserve currency implies to a nation of 311 million Americans, who, for the significant portion of the population, is armed.

Uprisings in Greece is, indeed, a problem, but an uprising of armed Americans becomes a matter of serious national security, a point addressed in a recent report by the Pentagon and highlighted as a vulnerability and threat to the U.S. during war-game exercises at the Department of Defense last year, according to one of the DoD’s war-game participants, Jim Rickards, author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis.

Where government interventionism and inflationism has been intensifying, all designed to protect the interests of vested interest groups (unions), cronies (such as green energy, banking system, and others) and the welfare and warfare state, then the risks of a political economic meltdown grows.

I hope that Americans will come to the realization that interventionism and inflationism are economically unsustainable policies and promptly act to reform the system before disaster strikes. Remember, what happens to the US will most likely ripple across the globe.

Nevertheless, as for everyone else, while we should hope for the best, we should prepare for the worst.

Al-Qaida as Bogeyman

Writes journalist Eric Margolis

Al-Qaida was never the vast, worldwide terror organization that President George W. Bush claimed. As I witnessed, it was always tiny, no more than 200 men. Al-Qaida’s original goal was to fight the mostly Tajik and Uzbek Afghan Communists and their Soviet masters.

Al-Qaida became an ally of Taliban in this anti-Communist struggle. But Taliban had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. As the renowned journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave reported from Afghanistan, Taliban’s tribal chiefs tried to oust firebrand Bin Laden from their nation.

Today, what’s left of al-Qaida numbers no more than 25 men in Afghanistan, according to US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Yet President Barack Obama cites the alleged al-Qaida "threat" as the reason for keeping US forces in Afghanistan and keeping Pakistan under semi-occupation. That was the real purpose for releasing these letters. Al-Qaida has become an integral part of US politics.

Al-Qaida is being used as a bogeyman by America’s Republicans to defend bloated US military spending and defend torture as having led to finding bin Laden. My sources tell me a huge bribe led the US to bin Laden, not torture.

Wars or the threat of wars would have to be contrived in order to justify military spending (and inflationism) that benefits the very influential and powerful military industrial complex.

Today's "imperial" wars has basically been in realization of former President Dwight Eisenhower's admonitions in 1960. In a speech Mr. Eisenhower forewarned

[bold emphasis mine]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

This could likely be one of the “unseen” factors, if not the main factor, behind the recent territorial claims dispute in Southeast Asia.

Achieving Financial Independence

Self development guru and author Michael Masterson lists Eight Rules for Financial Independence

Mr. Masterson at the Early to Rise writes, (italics mine, bold original)

When I decided to become rich, I began to keep a journal of thoughts I had about making money, losing money, and building wealth.

One chapter of that journal had to do with financial independence. And the eight rules I came up with then are the same rules I follow today:

1. You can't truly trust anybody but yourself with your money.

2. The harder someone tries to convince you to trust him, the less you should.

3. However good a track record someone has, never believe that he/she can't suddenly start your losing money. In fact, if you are like me, the moment you invest will be the moment his/her track record starts falling apart.

4. All markets rise and fall. Don't ever believe anyone who assures you that they can predict the future.

5. If you don't learn to spend less than you make, you will never have peace of mind.

6. Most of what you buy when your income is above $100,000 is discretionary. Don't fool yourself into thinking you need a big house or a fancy car.

7. In making financial projections for yourself or a business, always create three scenarios: one that shows what things will look like if everything goes as hoped; one that shows what will happen if things are mediocre; and one that shows what will happen if things fall apart.

8. Know that the third scenario is optimistic.

Add these up, and you will come to one inevitable conclusion:

The only way to be truly financially independent is to have multiple streams of income, each one of them sufficient to pay for the lifestyle you want to live.

The above mostly signifies common sense, contingency planning. determination and persistence all of which constitutes self-discipline.

Yet the most important point by Mr. Masterson is that “you cannot anybody but yourself.” This resonates with my latest advice:

What can be given are information relevant to attaining knowledge and skills. What can NOT be given is the knowledge that dovetails to one’s personality for the prudent management of one’s portfolio. Like entrepreneurship this involves a self-discovery process.

And most importantly, what can NOT be given are the attendant actions to fulfill the individual’s objectives.

Bottom line: Attaining financial independence starts with the self (Latin “Ï”), or the ability to think independently.

Quote of the Day: Unintended Consequences of Regulations

Unregulated, a business’s reputation is its most valuable asset. A regulated business does not have the same problem, so long as it obeys the regulations. Regulations replace the overriding need for a business to protect its reputation, and it is no longer solely concerned for its customers: the rule book has precedence. And the more regulation replaces reputation, the less important customers become. Nowhere is this more obvious than in financial services…

The regulators assume the public are innocents in need of protection. They have set themselves up to be gamed by all manner of businesses intent on using and adapting the rules for their own benefits at the expense of their customers. These businesses lobby to change the rules over time to their own advantage and hide behind regulatory respectability, as clients of both MF Global and Bernie Madoff have found to their cost.

That’s from Alasdair Macleod at the GoldMoney.com

Actually this has represented more of the anatomy of crony capitalism and too big too fail corporations. Interventions upon interventions, through regulations, ultimately leads to politically captured industries.

Gold Standard Years: Era of Relative Stability

Author and Bloomberg columnist Amity Shlaes defends the performance of the gold standard from mainstream critics.

The record of gold’s performance in all economies over the past century is not all “terrible.” Especially not in relation to areas that concern us today: growth, inflation or the frequency of bank crises. The problem here may lie not with the gold bugs but with those who work so hard to isolate them.

Gold’s Real Record

Conveniently enough, the gold record happens to have been assembled recently by a highly credentialed team at the Bank of England. In a December 2011 bank report, the authors Oliver Bush, Katie Farrant and Michelle Wright review three eras: the period of a traditional gold standard (1870-1913); the period of a gold-standard variant, the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard (1948 to 1972); and a period of flexible exchange rates (1972-2008).

The report then looks at annual real growth per capita worldwide, over many nations. Such growth, they find, was stronger in the recent non-gold-standard modern period, averaging an annual increase of 1.8 percent per capita, than in the classical gold-standard period before 1913, when real per- capita gross domestic product increased 1.3 percent annually. Give a point to the gold disdainers.

But the authors also find that in the gold exchange standard years of 1948 to 1972 the world averaged annual per- capita growth of 2.8 percent, higher than the recent gold-free era. The gold exchange standard is a variant of the gold standard. That outcome doesn’t tell you we must go back to the gold exchange standard yesterday. But it does suggest that figuring out how the standard worked might prove a worthy, or at least not a ridiculous, endeavor.

Gold shone in other ways. In a gold-standard regime, money is backed by gold, so it’s impossible, or at least more difficult, for governments to inflate. Naturally the gold standard and Bretton Woods years therefore enjoyed lower rates of inflation compared with the most recent era. The gold standard endures a reputation for causing more banking crises than other monetary regimes. The Bank of England paper suggests gold stabilizes banks: The incidence of banking crises in the non-gold-standard period is higher than the incidence in the two gold periods.

“Overall the gold standard appeared to perform reasonably well against its financial stability and allocative efficiency objectives,” wrote Bush, Farrant and Wright.

Stable Markets

Markets and countries enjoyed relative stability in gold- standard years, and capital in those years flowed to worthy growth-generating projects. The main sacrifice in gold regimes that the authors identify is that governments lose authority to micromanage domestic economies. But given governments’ records, that may not be such a bad thing, either.

The gold standard essentially distilled or detached money from politics, by placing tethers on the spending abilities of politicians.

And this has been the key reason why politicians, their allies and captured institutions everywhere have worked fervently and in complicity to mangle or contort gold’s relatively better track record and or even discreetly attempted to expunge gold’s role from the pages of history books.

As the champion of sound money Professor Ludwig von Mises once wrote,

The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary unit's purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties. Furthermore, it prevents rulers from eluding the financial and budgetary prerogatives of the representative assemblies. Parliamentary control of finances works only if the government is not in a position to provide for unauthorized expenditures by increasing the circulating amount of fiat money. Viewed in this light, the gold standard appears as an indispensable implement of the body of constitutional guarantees that make the system of representative government function.

The mainstream may deny it, but the way governments, through central banks, have been rapidly and intensely emaciating (or put bluntly destroying) their currencies, we shouldn’t discount that prospective reforms to the current US dollar standard system could partly include the return of gold, or that gold may play a bigger role in the monetary system.

Former World Bank President Robert Zoellick suggested this in 2010, but he may have been pressured by some quarters that prompted for a swift abdication of his earlier position.

Nevertheless the only way to bring back stability is to depoliticize money. This could be attained by first removing the monopoly privileges of government over money and by allowing for currency competition. So markets will determine whether gold will reassume its role or whether other forms of currency systems will emerge.

In Defense of Speculation

Riding to the defense of speculators, Terry Duffy, the executive chairman of exchange operator CME Group Inc. recently said, (hat tip Professor Mark Perry)

When the Dow goes above 13000, Google goes above $600 per share and everybody celebrates, who do you think did that? The U.S. equity market is 100% speculators

Rightly so.

Speculation happens not only when prices go up, but speculation also occurs when prices go down or stay stagnant.

As I previously wrote, Because we are uncertain of the future, all of us speculate.

Let me further quote the great Ludwig von Mises, (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p.50-51) [bold emphasis mine]

The term "speculate" was originally employed to signify any kind of meditation and forming of an opinion. Today it is employed with an opprobrious connotation to disparage those men who, in the capitalistic market economy, excel in better anticipating the future reactions of their fellow men than the average man does. The rationale of this semantic usage is to be seen in the inability of shortsighted people to notice the uncertainty of the future. These people fail to realize that all production activities aim at satisfying the most urgent future wants and that today no certainty about future conditions is available. They are not aware of the fact that there is a qualitative problem in providing for the future. In all the writings of the socialist authors there is not the slightest allusion to be found to the fact that one of the main problems of the conduct of production activities is to anticipate the future demands of the consumers.

Every action is a speculation, i.e., guided by a definite opinion concerning the uncertain conditions of the future. Even in short run activities this uncertainty prevails. Nobody can know whether some unexpected fact will not render vain all that he has provided for the next day or the next hour.

Politically controlling markets doesn’t solve the knowledge problem based on the issue of scarcity and human action or the “anticipation of the demands of the consumers”. Instead, interventions worsen them.

Proof?

Venezuela should be a vivid example the abject failure of price controls

From the New York Times

Venezuela is one of the world’s top oil producers at a time of soaring energy prices, yet shortages of staples like milk, meat and toilet paper are a chronic part of life here, often turning grocery shopping into a hit or miss proposition.

Some residents arrange their calendars around the once-a-week deliveries made to government-subsidized stores like this one, lining up before dawn to buy a single frozen chicken before the stock runs out. Or a couple of bags of flour. Or a bottle of cooking oil.

The shortages affect both the poor and the well-off, in surprising ways. A supermarket in the upscale La Castellana neighborhood recently had plenty of chicken and cheese — even quail eggs — but not a single roll of toilet paper. Only a few bags of coffee remained on a bottom shelf.

Asked where a shopper could get milk on a day when that, too, was out of stock, a manager said with sarcasm, “At Chávez’s house.”

At the heart of the debate is President Hugo Chávez’s socialist-inspired government, which imposes strict price controls that are intended to make a range of foods and other goods more affordable for the poor. They are often the very products that are the hardest to find.

“Venezuela is too rich a country to have this,” Nery Reyes, 55, a restaurant worker, said outside a government-subsidized store in the working-class Santa Rosalía neighborhood. “I’m wasting my day here standing in line to buy one chicken and some rice.”

Venezuela was long one of the most prosperous countries in the region, with sophisticated manufacturing, vibrant agriculture and strong businesses, making it hard for many residents to accept such widespread scarcities. But amid the prosperity, the gap between rich and poor was extreme, a problem that Mr. Chávez and his ministers say they are trying to eliminate.

They blame unfettered capitalism for the country’s economic ills and argue that controls are needed to keep prices in check in a country where inflation rose to 27.6 percent last year, one of the highest rates in the world. They say companies cause shortages on purpose, holding products off the market to push up prices. This month, the government required price cuts on fruit juice, toothpaste, disposable diapers and more than a dozen other products.

“We are not asking them to lose money, just that they make money in a rational way, that they don’t rob the people,” Mr. Chávez said recently.

But many economists call it a classic case of a government causing a problem rather than solving it. Prices are set so low, they say, that companies and producers cannot make a profit. So farmers grow less food, manufacturers cut back production and retailers stock less inventory. Moreover, some of the shortages are in industries, like dairy and coffee, where the government has seized private companies and is now running them, saying it is in the national interest.

Again, the knowledge problem or the failure to anticipate consumer demands in the absence of market based prices, due to suppression of capitalist speculations through political edicts, has led to shortages, black markets and worsened standard of living.

This is another classic example of how noble intentions (or feel good political biases) clashes with economic realities.

Or as an old saw goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote of the Day: Mathematics Diminishes Economics

Mathematics, seemingly so precise, inevitably ends in reducing economics from the complete knowledge of general principles to arbitrary formulas which alter and distort the principles and hence corrupt the conclusions.

That’s from the great Murray N. Rothbard, who discussed the origins of the methodology of praxeology or human action from J.B. Say.

Outside the promotion of self-esteem, mathematics via econometrics and or statistics serves as intellectual cover to what is truly heuristics based biases.

Ron Paul: Central Bankers are Intellectually Bankrupt

Zero bound rates, QEs, currency swaps and other forms of monetary interventionism, which are all bailout mechanisms, function as political redistribution of resources that benefits a few, particularly, the politically privileged class, at the expense of society.

This has served as the operating manual or the standard operating tool for crisis management applied by central bankers around the world, which has not been limited to the US, Europe and Japan.

And Ron Paul rightly denounces such policies as guided by “intellectually bankruptcy”.

Writes Ron Paul at the Financial Times

The financial crisis has fully exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the world’s central bankers.

Why? Central bankers neglect the fact that interest rates are prices. Manipulating those prices through credit expansion or contraction has real and deleterious effects on the economy. Yet while socialism and centralised economic planning have largely been rejected by free-market economists, the myth persists that central banks are a necessary component of market economies.

These economists understand that having wages or commodity prices established by government fiat would cause shortages, misallocations of capital and hardship. Yet they accept at face value the notion that central banks must determine not only the supply of one particular commodity – money – but also the cost of that commodity via the setting of interest rates.

Printing unlimited amounts of money does not lead to unlimited prosperity. This is readily apparent from observing the Fed’s monetary policy over the past two decades. It has pumped trillions of dollars into the economy, providing money to banks with the hope that this new money will spur lending and, in turn, consumption. These interventions are intended to raise stock prices, lower borrowing costs for companies and individuals, and maintain high housing prices.

But like their predecessors in the 1930s, today’s Fed governors behave as if the height of the credit bubble is the status quo to which we need to return. This confuses money with wealth, and reflects the idea that prosperity stems from high asset prices and large amounts of money and credit.

The push for easy money is not new. Central banking was supposed to have ended the types of periodic financial crises the US experienced throughout the 19th century. Yet US financial panics have only got worse since the centralisation of monetary policy via the creation of the Fed in 1913. The Depression in the 1930s; the haemorrhaging of gold reserves during the 1960s; the stagflation of the 1970s; the dotcom bubble of the early 2000s; and the current recession all have their root in the Fed’s loose monetary policy.

Each of these crises began with an inflationary monetary policy that led to bubbles, and the solution to the busts that inevitably followed has always been to reflate the bubble.

This only sows the seeds for the next crisis.

Read the rest here

I would add that this dogmatic approach to central banking seems almost a religion, where any opposition to them is seen as blasphemy.

Nevertheless, inflation is a policy that cannot not last.

Study Says Resveratrol has Anti-Ageing Properties

From Kurzweilai.net

A new study by nine universities and government organizations led by David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School supports the hypothesis that the metabolic benefits of the red wine ingredient known as resveratrol are largely due to its actions on the SIRT1 gene.

“Resveratrol improves the health of mice on a high-fat diet and increases life span,” said David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School. The question was how.

By producing mice in which the SIRT1 gene can be completely turned off in adults, the researchers discovered that those SIRT1-deficient adult mice don’t enjoy the benefits of resveratrol.

Dosage effects resolved

The study also provides insight into another important aspect of the resveratrol controversy. Doubts had arisen in part because the red wine ingredient seems to act in different ways at different doses. The study by Sinclair and colleagues clears those details up, too. They show that resveratrol targets SIRT1 directly at moderate doses and hits other targets at higher ones. Importantly, SIRT1 is required for resveratrol’s benefits irrespective of dose. Based on the findings, Sinclair emphasizes the value of finding the lowest effective dose of resveratrol, and perhaps any drug, to avoid off-target effects.

Medical breakthroughs that may extend people’s lifespans poses as another "800 pound gorilla in the room" for welfare states.

And maybe this also means I should shift from beer to red wine.

Cartoon of the Day: Political Insanity

Hilarious one (but true) from Cato’s Dan Mitchell

The above aptly represents the aphorism “Doing things over and over and expecting different results.”

Quote of the Day: Emotional Inequality

Why should exhibiting those particular feelings be primary in making the case for a free society? Other passions are part of the morally-healthy package: Admiration for those who have achieved a lot. Anger at those who violate rights. Respect for those who exhibit independence and integrity. And of course empathy for those who are struggling with poverty. But empathy for the poor is not more morally special than respect for integrity or anger at bullies and tyrants, and it is a mistake to single it out for special foundational political status. Instead, political theorists concerned with the moral foundations of liberal society should be concerned with general principles of moral character that enable individuals to live freely.

That’s from philosopher Stephen Hicks discussing one the flaws of social justice oriented bleeding heart libertarians (hat tip Professor David Henderson)

Art Markets: Record $120 Million for “The Scream”

Image from Wikipedia.org

From Yahoo

Edvard Munch's painting "The Scream," one of the world's most recognizable works of art, sold for $120 million at Sotheby's on Wednesday, setting a new record as the most expensive piece of art ever sold at auction.

The sale at Sotheby's Impressionist and Modern Art auction featured other works by Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali and Joan Miro, but Munch's vibrant piece was the centerpiece of the auction in a salesroom packed with collectors, bidders and the media.

The vibrant pastel from 1895 was conservatively estimated to sell for about $80 million at Sotheby's, but two determined bidders drove the final price to $107 million, or $119,922,500 including commission, during a 15-minute bidding war.

One of four versions by the Scandinavian painter, which was being sold by Norwegian businessman Petter Olsen, "The Scream" easily eclipsed the old auction record held by Picasso's "Nude, Green Leaves and Bust," which went for $106.5 million at Christie's two years ago.

I have been pointing out that symptoms of bubbles have not been limited to towering skycrapers, but also to art and wine prices.

The record sale of “The Scream” which coincides with today’s easy money (zero interest rate) environment and central bank QEs, I believe has been highlighting this.

Nevertheless “The Scream” whose artist Edvard Munch described as…

I was walking along a path with two friends – the sun was setting – suddenly the sky turned blood red – I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence – there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city – my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety – and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature.

…seems to be a propitious theme in today’s sharply volatile politically influenced markets, as driven by serial bubble policies, unwieldy debt, politically desperate actions manifested through rampant inflationism and financial repression.

Anxiety channeled through the "sense of an infinite scream passing through nature" seem to be part of the world we are living in.

Black Holes Show How Limited Man’s Actions Are

From Yahoo.com

Scientists have witnessed the rare spectacle of a supermassive black hole devouring a star that had ventured too close -- an event that occurs about once in 10,000 years, they reported on Wednesday.

Matter-sucking black holes normally lurk dormant and undetected at the centre of galaxies, but can occasionally be tracked by the scraps left over from their stellar fests.

"Black holes, like sharks, suffer from a popular misconception that they are perpetual killing machines," said researcher Ryan Chornock from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts.

"Actually, they're quiet for most of their lives. Occasionally a star wanders too close, and that's when a feeding frenzy begins."

If a star passes too close, the black hole's gravitational pull can rip it apart before sucking in its gases, which are heated by the friction and start to glow -- giving away the silent killer's hiding place.

A computer simulated photo from Nasa (Yahoo/AFP)

Scientists can only watch in awe.

While it is true that contemporary scientists have been experimenting with man made black hole machine via the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to study several theories which I earlier pointed out, such as the Higgs boson “elementary particles cause matter to have mass”, validity of the Grand Unification Theory (are electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force a single manifestation?), existence of the superstring theory (quantum gravity) and dark matter and dark energy, yet they cannot explain much of why black holes exists, the role it plays, or how a catastrophic disaster (Armageddon) can be avoided.

Yet the solar system where planet earth belongs to faces the same black swan risk from black holes as any planetary or star systems.

As I wrote in 2010 (emphasis original)

Yes, you may forget the farcical anthropogenic climate change, because the forces of nature would be exponentially be way far far far far more powerful and potent than the outcome from any of our collective destructive actions.

Besides, as remarked by the scientists interviewed in the TV documentary program, like any part of nature, our world operates on its own cycle. This means that the “ice age” could be just around the corner in some thousands of years to come, while the sun will expire on its own, by running out of fuel to burn, in about 5 billion years, and that today’s “aging” earth, even without the sun’s demise, will likely meet its end on its own.

And the sad part is that there is nothing mortal man can do to stop it. Every species or anything else that is part of nature will cyclically become extinct.

What’s my point in showing this?

Comedian George Carlin in this video has rightly been saying that too much self importance has been given in what man can do over the environment, such that we make a political spectacle/fuzz out of it.

In reality, humans represent only an iota in the overall spectrum of the universe.

Also our knowledge has been severely constrained to comprehend nature in its entirety, in as much as even understanding human action, the digital age notwithstanding.

In short, parlaying limited and presumptive of knowledge of the environment into public policies are fraught with the risks of unintended consequences. The existence of black holes only underscores this.

Growing Number of Wealthy Americans Renounce Citizenship

While Filipinos have been dreaming of emigrating to the US and acquiring US citizenship, the number of wealthy overseas Americans giving up their citizenship have been ballooning, due to increasingly repressive tax laws.

From Bloomberg,

Rich Americans renouncing U.S. citizenship rose sevenfold since UBS AG (UBSN) whistle-blower Bradley Birkenfeld triggered a crackdown on tax evasion four years ago.

About 1,780 expatriates gave up their nationality at U.S. embassies last year, up from 235 in 2008, according to Andy Sundberg, secretary of Geneva’s Overseas American Academy, citing figures from the government’s Federal Register. The embassy in Bern, the Swiss capital, redeployed staff to clear a backlog as Americans queued to relinquish their passports.

The U.S., the only nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that taxes citizens wherever they reside, is searching for tax cheats in offshore centers, including Switzerland, as the government tries to curb the budget deficit. Shunned by Swiss and German banks and facing tougher asset-disclosure rules under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, more of the estimated 6 million Americans living overseas are weighing the cost of holding a U.S. passport.

“It started with the fallout from UBS and non-U.S. banks feeling it’s too risky to deal with Americans abroad,” said Matthew Ledvina, a U.S. tax lawyer at Anaford AG in Zurich. “It will increase because Fatca will require banks to track down people, some of whom will make voluntary disclosures before renouncing their citizenship.”

Renunciations are higher in Switzerland because American expatriates expect extra scrutiny of their affairs after the UBS case and as the U.S. probes 11 other Swiss financial firms for aiding offshore tax evasion, said Martin Naville, head of the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce in Zurich.

This is another example of the law of unintended consequences at work. Worst, these could be symptoms to the road to serfdom.

Facebook Launches Organ Donation Program

Facebook will use its social networking platform to facilitate a global organ donation program.

From abcnews.go.com

Conversations over the dinner table with his med-student girlfriend helped Mark Zuckerberg formulate his latest big idea — harnessing the power of Facebook to help eliminate the critical shortage of organs for patients desperately in need of life-saving transplants.

And it was his friendship with Apple founder Steve Jobs, whose life was extended by years following a liver transplant, in part, that spurred the 27-year-old Facebook founder and CEO to help put that idea into practice.

“Facebook is really about communicating and telling stories… We think that people can really help spread awareness of organ donation and that they want to participate in this to their friends. And that can be a big part of helping solve the crisis that’s out there,” Zuckerberg told ABC’s Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview at the company’s headquarters.

Starting today, users in the United States and U.K. will be able to add that they’re organ donors to their Timelines, and if they’re not organ donors, they can find links to official organ donation registries and instantly enroll.

This has just been one of the many social benefits that accrue from the information age and from laissez faire capitalism.

Paul Krugman Haunted by Debate with Ron Paul

Well, Paul Krugman seems to be haunted by his recent debate with Ron Paul.

Mr. Krugman writes,

A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.

Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.

This has been Mr. Krugman’s second post on the debate [earlier post here], whereas Mr. Ron Paul has not said a word since.

Ron Paul, as Bob Wenzel rightly observed, has clearly gotten into Krugman's head.

Eurozone’s Farce Fiscal Austerity Programs

I have been saying that the so-called fiscal austerity in the Eurozone has been a farce.

The European Central Bank has continually been bailing out the region’s banking system through inflationism or via the massive expansion of the ECB’s balance sheet.

Meanwhile European governments have been raising taxes matched by partial budget cuts and politically label this as “austerity” programs. [The left, using deliberate semantical distortions, misleadingly blames such failures on the markets].

What has been really happening has been a transfer or a redistribution of resources from both the private and the public sectors into the politically privileged banking system. Taxes have been increased or are in the process of being raised to pay for the bailouts of the banks.

In genuine austerity programs, resources would be made available for the productive use of the private sector. This means growth in the private sector relative to a reduction of government expenditures.

In the current Eurozone programs, this has not been happening.

Professor Steve Hanke in an interview with Streit Talk explains further, (bold emphasis mine)

Member states haven’t delivered on much in terms of fiscal austerity and certainly not structural reform. Fiscal austerity should be about reducing the size of government…governments are bloated and spending way too much in Europe. Austerity should be almost entirely focused on reducing government expenditures and obviously not on increasing taxes. But there’s a lot of tax increase noise within the so-called austerity programs in Europe, so they just have it all wrong. And, in any case, they haven’t delivered much.

As far as structural reforms go, there have been almost none that have actually been implemented, even in Greece. They’ve talked a lot, and spent most of their time blaming markets or the outside world – the Germans, the Dutch, the Finns, and so on – for the problems that they’ve gotten into. So there’s a lot of finger pointing going on and talk about structural reforms, but they’re half-baked.

And when I say structural reforms, what do I mean? What they have to do is put in place growth-friendly policies and get government out of the way. And that means they have to have something like Presidents Reagan and Clinton did in the United States; they have to reduce government expenditures and reduce regulation and red tape. But they’re not in that business in Europe. Their assessment is: we have a crisis because markets failed and we have to regulate markets more now so that they don’t fail in the future. This is just upside down because the crisis was caused by government failure – mainly the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. These were the great enablers and engines that allowed for the blow-up of the bubble that ultimately burst in the fall of 2008, although there were problems in Europe even in the summer of 2007.

So essentially in both the fiscal austerity and structural reform realms, the packages that they’ve been talking about are really almost fatally flawed. And they haven’t even delivered on what they said they would deliver on in the first place. They’ve been wasting their time moving from one meeting to the next and jumping from one fire to the next. They lack the “vision thing.” The long and the short of it is: will these steps toward fiscal austerity and structural reform stabilize the periphery’s sovereign debt markets? The answer is: of course not.

Politicians of developed nations will increasingly resort to more interventionism channeled through central banks, whom the public understands little about, as a way to shield their skullduggery.

And this is why markets will be sensitive to sharp volatilities, and or susceptible to “pump and dumps”, as market actions will be shaped by the feedback loop mechanism between market actions and political responses and vice versa.

The Kind of Education that will Get a Job in the Information Age

As I have been repeatedly saying, the information change will radically change the way we do things. This will partly include the nature of digital economy businesses which will be reflected on jobs, as well as, many aspects of the employee-employer relationship such as recruitment.

Andrew Coulson of the Cato Institute has this insightful piece of advice for job seekers.

First is to give less importance to college

So many college degrees today are intrinsically worthless that it should really not be possible to find people willing to pay for them

[Edited to add: In the US 1 out of 2 college graduates have been unemployed. In the Philippines 2 out of 5 graduates have been unemployed.]

Next is to build relevant skills through self-learning by using the web. (bold emphasis)

So what’s the alternative if you’re a high school senior seeking higher education? How about this: instead of handing control over that education to someone else, decide what it is you would like to learn over those four years and then… learn it. Thanks to the Web, the material covered in virtually every undergraduate program is readily available at little cost—and the same is true for many advanced programs. And, having learned it, spend a few hundred dollars to create a website or even simply a YouTube channel on which you demonstrate your new skills/understanding. Conduct research. Write it up. Build something. Translate Cyrano into English, maintaining the Alexandrine meter and rhyme. Whatever it is. Then, when you’re ready to apply for work, submit your resume with a link to this portfolio of relevant work.

Employers, ask yourself this question: Would you rather hire someone with a portfolio such as the one described above, visibly demonstrating competency and personal initiative, or someone with a degree that is generally supposed to signal that competency, but that you can’t readily assess for yourself?

My blog is a testament of self-learning acquired through the web. But I am self-employed.

Fighting the Curse of Despotism

Terrific advice from Sovereign Man’s Simon Black

When you step back and look at the big picture, the writing on the wall seems so clear, so obvious. In Western Europe and the United States in particular, bankrupt, insolvent governments will resort to any means necessary in order to maintain the status quo: keeping them in power at our expense.

This means continuing to reduce personal liberty, eliminate economic freedom, vanquish privacy, debase the currency, stifle innovation, eradicate financial opportunity, and destroy the savings and livelihoods of millions of people.

These tactics are not new, this time is not different. Empires on the slide have always resorted to cannibalism– feeding off the productive class in order to keep the party going a little while longer.

In the fourth and fifth centuries (AD), for example, the Western Roman empire resorted to centrally planned labor allocation, price fixing, rapid currency devaluation, capital controls, civil asset forfeiture, and tax rates that were so high that the few citizens who remained welcomed the invading barbarian hordes with open arms.

Most of the smart, productive Romans had already moved on to greener pastures long before. As the situation worsened, more and more people began to leave until there was a mass Exodus of over 90% of western Rome’s population in its final decades.

Similarly, the Ottoman Empire, having reached the zenith of its expansion in the 16th century, established a massive, unsustainable bureaucracy that was far more costly than any other administrative hierarchy in history, including Rome’s.

Soon Ottoman bureacrats began to see the people as existing to provide them with position… rather than their position existing to support the people. Sound familiar?

Huge spending in the Ottoman Empire gave way to a massive public debt (on which they defaulted in 1875), which eventually begat currency debasement, inflation, an absurd tax system, and a substantial reduction in civil liberties.

History shows that freedom is almost always the price that societies pay to maintain the status quo and keep their rulers in power. When the system finally collapses under its own weight, though, things can go from bad to worse as the people cry out for CHANGE.

The French, for example, traded an absolute monarch in Louis XVI for an absolute dictator in Robespierre. Similarly, the Russians traded the empire of ‘Bloody’ Tsar Nicholas II for the Red Terror of Soviet Russia.

As the Russian Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky said in 1937, “The old principle of ‘who does not work shall not eat’ has been replaced by a new one– who does not obey shall not eat.”

Two words: Screw that.

Everybody has a choice to make. On one hand, we can either bury our heads in the sand, pretend that everything is OK, and continue being the boiling frog in the pot… just like the poor schmucks who stuck around Rome until the 5th century getting taxed out of their minds and watching their livelihoods inflate away.

On the other, we can recognize that the rise and fall of empires is part of history’s normal cycle… that it’s been happening for millennia, and this time is no different. We can look to the rest of the world and understand that, for all of the turmoil, this is one of the most exciting times to be alive and that the world is full of incredible opportunities.

Just like the Romans who left for Byzantium, the Ottomans who left for Europe, the Europeans who left for North America, there are always regions in the world that are rising while others are falling.

It’s the people who get there first after acknowledging reality and basic historical truth that can reap the greatest reward.

“Freedom is almost always the price that societies pay to maintain the status quo and keep their rulers in power” has been a reality then and today, and not limited to Western Europe and the United States. This has been a cycle.

That’s because people hardly learn from the past. People have been constantly duped, indoctrinated and manipulated by political authorities along with their followers and cronies, whom has succeeded to suppress on or adulterate the meaning of freedom, thus, the repeated condemnation of societies.

Yet enlightenment from education serves as the only preventive antidote from such decadence.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote,

Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

The bright side is that the information age has facilitated the intellectual struggle for the cause of liberty to a broader spectrum of audience.

Yet transitions may not be smooth, for the simple reason that there have been many entrenched interests who will resist such changes. Besides, the unviable nature of despotism will lead to its natural collapse.

Nonetheless, as more people get to learn about freedom, the curse of despotism diminishes.

Why Washington has been Brewing a Conflict with China

I’ve said a mouthful about the controversial territorial disputes which I think has been no more than a duplicitous squid tactic meant to promote some hidden political agenda.

Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former Wall Street editor Paul Craig Roberts thinks all these have been surreptitiously designed for the benefit of the US military industrial complex.

Writes Mr. Craig Roberts at the lewrockwell.com

Washington has pressured the Philippines, whose government it owns, into conducting joint military exercises in the South China Sea. Washington’s excuse is that China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries concerning island and sea rights in the South China Sea. Washington asserts that China’s territorial disputes with the like of Indonesia and the Philippines are a matter of United States’ national interests.

Washington has not made it clear what Washington’s stake is in the disputes. The reason Washington cannot identify why China’s disputes with the Philippines and Indonesia are threats to the United States is that there is no reason. Nevertheless, the undefined “threat” has become the reason Washington needs more naval bases in the Philippines and South Korea.

What this is all about is provoking a long-term cold war conflict with China that will keep profits and power flowing into Washington’s military-security complex. Large profits flow to armaments companies. A portion of the profits reflow into campaign contributions to “the people’s representatives” in DC and to presidential candidates who openly sell out their country to private interests.

Washington is going to construct new naval bases in the Philippines and on the environmentally protected Jeju Island belonging to South Korea. Washington will waste tax revenues, or print more money, in order to build the unnecessary fleets to occupy these bases. Washington is acquiring bases in Australia for US Marines to protect Australia from China, despite the lack of Chinese threats against Australia. Bush and Obama are the leading models of the “people’s president” who sell out the people, at home and abroad, to private interests.

Why is Washington ramping up a new cold war?

The answer begins with President Eisenhower’s warning to the American people in his last public address about the military/industrial complex in 1961. I won’t quote the warning as it is available online. Eisenhower pointed out to Americans that unlike previous wars after which the US demilitarized, after World War II the cold war with the Soviet Union kept the power and profits flowing into the military/industrial complex, now known as the military/security complex. President Eisenhower said that the flow of power and profit into the military/industrial complex was a threat to the economic wellbeing and liberty of the American people.

Read the rest here

Promoting free trade with everyone will bring this contentious and politically concocted issue to oblivion.

Japan joins India and China on a Gold Buying Spree

From Chron.com

Gold buying has spread to other Asian countries, like Japan. Lombardi points out that, ever since the Japanese government reported a budget deficit, the Japanese consumer increased its buying of gold bullion to be at a 15% greater pace than last year

“The Japanese consumer bought 15% more gold bullion in 2011 than 2010. Thus far in 2012, this trend has shown no signs of slowing down,” says Lombardi.

While deficits have indeed been a factor, it’s obvious that the string of currency debasement policies by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) has been the main driver. As the BoJ works to undermine her currency, the yen, the Japanese citizenry will continue to flock into gold and or may find refuge in ASEAN assets and currencies, whom has been inflating less.

Video: Steve Forbes says Ron Paul should be the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve

Steve Forbes of the Forbes magazine agrees with Ron Paul's view of the monetary system and endorses Mr. Paul as chairman for the US Federal Reserves (hat tip Bob Wenzel).

Wow. Ron Paul has been "rocking the boat" of the establishment.

Quote of the Day: Why Central Planning Fails

Here is an excerpt of Professor Don Boudreaux’s excellent piece on why central planning fails.

Attempts to centrally plan economies are very much like attempts to fly by dressing like and flapping like a bird: utterly futile because the most that can be observed of any successful economy are a handful of large details (“assembly lines,” “retail outlets”…..). The vast majority (99.99999999999…9 percent) of the details that must work reasonably well aren’t observed by the would-be central planner. What Hayek called “knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place” – knowledge of details spread today across the globe and across billions of different human minds – is not incidental to the successful operation of a modern economy. Utilizing that knowledge – vast, deep, changing, incredibly fine-grained detailed knowledge – is the very key to a successful market economy.

Central planning is as futile as trying to strap on wings and fly like a bird – and potentially as calamitous.

Of course, few people today advocate full-scale central planning of economies. But smaller-scale interventions suffer the same problems as do attempts at central planning: inevitably inadequate knowledge of how to intervene. Asserting, for example, that the key to economic recovery is to “increase aggregate demand” is a fiction borne from observing a true, but only large and inadequate, fact about successful economies: most producers, at any given time, are able to sell most of what they plan to sell. But to leap from this observation to the conclusion that “therefore, government can stimulate economic recovery by increasing aggregate demand” is akin to a human being costumed-up as a bird and leaping off of a mountaintop, flapping away, hoping, hoping, hoping to fly.

The failure of central planning all boils down to one thing: the limits of knowledge.

Video: Ron Paul versus Paul Krugman

A terse modern day version of Hayek versus Keynes debate.

Congressman Ron Paul takes down Paul Krugman. The closing portion of the debate [12:44] on freedom and markets was noteworthy.

(hat tip Professor William Anderson)