As an update to a previous post, I'm proud to announce that Truth and Paul Krugman have crashed into one another. It's in regards to Healthcare.gov, but hey, when worlds collide, it's only right to recognize it.So let's look at the timeline (my emphasis):AND NOW .... Drumroll please!Nov. 20 - "But the future of the reform depends not on policy per se but on whether the IT issues can be fixed well enough soon enough, a subject on which I have zero expertise."There we go...Krugman has no clue. He had no business saying that anything would work. It took almost 2 months, but he got there.
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate hut at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups—Henry Hazlitt
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Paul Krugman's "capitulation" on Obamacare
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Quote of the Day: Gold Standard from the Fringes to the Mainstream
The gold standard once thought as a ‘barbaric relic’, is like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes.
When the gold standard has been mentioned as “no longer unthinkable” by the lefty New York Times, we understand that the public's outlook of gold as money has moved from the fringes into the mainstream.
Today’s quote from Martin Hutchinson and John Foley (hat tip Jeffrey Tucker Mises Blog- yes vindication for Henry Hazlitt)
But further chipping at the dollar’s credibility, further downgrades of United States credit or other harmful results from years of very low interest rates could bring more people around to the idea of a new reserve currency. A return to the gold standard remains unlikely, but it’s no longer unthinkable.
Prices signals have been working their way to affect the public’s psychology where…
…Denial, apparently, has been transitioning into acceptance.
It seems like the psychological Kubler Ross Grief cycle process at work here. The higher gold prices are, the more the public will embrace the thought of the return of the gold standard.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Corn Prices Drifts near Record Highs Amidst Stock Market Turmoil, Signs of Stagflation?
Recently, prices of corn raced to record highs, although downside volatility has dominated the past few days. Nevertheless corn still drifts at near record levels.
Chart from Ino.com
Bloomberg’s chart of the day posits that demand has been outpacing supply as the alleged main reason.
From Bloomberg,
Corn demand is accelerating beyond farmers’ ability to boost yields, depleting stocks and adding to price gains as consumption in China and ethanol factories grows.
The CHART OF THE DAY shows gains in farm productivity have trailed demand that expanded more than fourfold since 1961, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. Consumption accelerated in the past decade on Chinese demand for feed and corn starch and increased use in the U.S. for ethanol output.
Corn futures climbed 86 percent in the past 12 months, more than any other grain traded in Chicago, after dry weather limited the 2010 U.S. crop and as flooding in the past two months delayed planting, threatening prospects for this year. July delivery corn rose to a record $7.9975 last week.
“It’s a huge problem,” Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist at the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, said from Rome. “This is primarily U.S. ethanol and starch in China, and then you have the feed where you have stronger growth, again in China, but across the world.”
Consumption demand represents an oversimplistic tale.
There are many questions to ask
To what degree of consumption has been artificially boosted easy money globally?
How much of the imbalances or diversion of resources have been due to subsidies to ethanol?
To what degree has restrictive trade policies (locally or internationally) has contributed to hampering of the supply side?
To what degree of local based regulations has contributed to boosting the demand side?
Why has there been a generalized increase in food prices if consumption has only been the major factor involved?
There are many more.
It’s easy and popular to attribute consumption growth to China, but China has been in the process of inflating her ballooning bubble economy, which means whatever growth we see, a large segment of which must be artificial.
Only when China’s bubble implodes shall we see the true extent of the consumption ‘growth’ story.
Lastly high corn prices as stock markets undergo selling pressures seem much like symptoms of stagflation.
From Tradingeconomics.com
Even in the US, statistical inflation figures has been going higher.
Yet the mainstream keeps denying them. Data from recent news, as producers and consumer prices indices, reveals that prices have risen beyond the expectations of the ‘experts’. This even comes in the face of the questionable method of computing for inflation indices.
Incidentally, denial makes up the 2nd stage of the Kubler Ross grief cycle. This denial is especially strong for those blighted with ideological (political and economic) biases.
It will take more pain for these people to finally reach the state of acceptance or reality, especially for those who insist to live in a self-designed world.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
War on Commodities: Intervention Phase Worsens and Spreads With More Credit Margin Hikes!
[This post, which I published last May 10, seems to have vanished from my inventory of articles. Perhaps this could be an unintentional omission as part of the patching of the technical glitch, or the alternative, I don’t like to think about it. Nevertheless I am reposting it, but with slight revisions. Anyone who has a copy of the old post pls resend to me benson.te@gmail.com. Thanks]
So the mainstream picks up on the war being waged on commodities.
For politicians it’s all been about political correctness, thus any deviances or incorrectness must be faced with 'discipline'.
Bloomberg’s Matthew Lynn writes, (bold highlights mine)
The battleground that matters most for the banking and finance industry right now is the profits it is making from commodities trading.
Over the last few days, prices have been bouncing all over the place, a reminder for everyone of just how unstable the market in food and raw materials has become.
Now there is a backlash building. The banks should take note of that. If they don’t, they could easily be driven out of this business -- and they will only have themselves to blame.
Investors held a record $412 billion of raw-material assets at the end of March, almost 50 percent more than a year earlier, according to estimates by Barclays Capital. Trading in futures and options contracts is rising rapidly. For banks and fund managers, it is a lucrative business. And the more volatile it is, the more profitable it gets.
Not everyone is happy about that. Last month, Barclays Plc was targeted at its annual general meeting for its trading profits in food commodities. The World Development Movement, a London-based group, claims that Barclays may be making as much as 340 million pounds ($554 million) a year from “food speculative activities.”
That may be exaggerated, but there will be plenty of sympathy for that view. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has blamed speculators for pushing up food prices. The European Union’s financial services commissioner, Michel Barnier, is even calling for limits on trading in commodities...
It would be easy to dismiss those protests as nothing more than the complaints of a few anti-business fringe groups and grandstanding politicians. Easy, but wrong. In reality, there is a serious issue here. Speculation in commodities isn’t like trading in financial instruments. People don’t eat Nestle SA shares. They don’t need Treasury bills to keep their factories running. The prices of those instruments can jump around like crazy without it affecting people’s lives.
But when the price of wheat or copper soars, it makes a big difference. Some people can’t afford to eat anymore because food is too expensive. Companies that used to be profitable start losing money and firing workers because the cost of their raw materials has risen so much. If they think the banks are to blame for that, they will be angry.
As I have been saying governments have been so predictable;
First governments inflates, then blames everybody else.
Then they apply propaganda to justify their actions.
Next they’ll impose price controls in the hope that edicts will be able repeal economics.
Eventually reality catches up and the facade collapses.
And as we have been pointing out inflation and price controls are like (fraternal) twins. Fraternal because both emanate from government policies, however one aspect is monetary while the other is administrative or fiscal.
Now the propaganda-price control stage is getting clearer
And this has been part of the slew of propaganda being tossed out by the Fed which for me constitutes part of the ‘signaling channel’ conditioning for the next QE.
Here is a Fed study which attempts to show that the link between US dollar and inflation has been fading.
From the Wall Street Journal Blog,
Currency weakness leading to higher import prices is a hallowed cause-effect connection for economists. But it’s a link that may be eroding...
Certainly, import prices have increased as the dollar has weakened. Over the year ended April, the trade-weighted value of the dollar fell about 6%, while the prices of non-oil imports increased 4.3%.
Much of the price gain, however, reflects higher costs for imported commodities and supplies. The prices of imported capital and consumer goods — items that feed more directly into broader U.S. inflation measures — are up only about 1% over the past year.
Economists at the Fed have looked into the link between exchange rate and import prices. What they found is the pass-through effect from a weaker currency eroded from the 1980s into the early 2000s.
What’s behind the looser link?
One reason, the economists theorize, is that a greater share of imports are goods with prices less sensitive to currency movements. For instance, Apple — not the forex market — sets the price of iPads.
Also, companies are more able to hedge against currency moves or shift production and supply sources around the globe.
Another reason for the erosion is China dominance of the U.S. import market.
With all the gobbledygook, we should start believing them. Unfortunately technical gibberish won’t supplant the law of economics. Printing more money relative to actual output of goods and services will lead to HIGHER prices.
And that’s what’s been happening.
Yet if you look at their chart which tries to identify the so-called decoupling, it simply is not there, see the trend lines I drew—red nominal imports; blue trade weighted US dollar.
The immediate effects may not be as strong as the previous, but it doesn’t mean the current divergences should translate to a deepening trend.
One development which may induce this temporal decoupling would be by intervention via the financial markets, which is what the governments been doing now.
The charts above reveal that prices of non-commodity imports have been rising.
Then Northern Trust notes,
Prices of consumer goods excluding autos increased 0.4% in April and are up 0.6% from a year ago. Prices of autos have risen 1.8%, while that of capital goods have increased 1.0%. The import price index of manufactured goods posted a 5.5% increase in April.
At the present time, the upward trend of non-oil import prices reflects the impact of a weak dollar. It is conceivable that these prices will be more threatening as demand gathers steam.
So politicians in realizing these, appears to be in an intense denial, thus the transition towards the psy-war and intervention phase.
It should be a reminder that denial and anger is part of the human psychology when undergoing substantial stress.
This can be seen in the Kubler-Ross Grief cycle.
Of course the intervention phase, so far, has not been directed at the consumer level, but as pointed out by Mr. Lynn, rather through the financial markets.
The desperate attempts to control commodity prices have been worsening.
Notes Tyler Durden of Zerohedge.com, (bold emphasis mine)
CME goes full retard, and is now seriously threatening to destabilize the clearing structure of the market with what appears a panicked margin hike every single day in one or more commodities. Among today's products impacted RBOB and RBOB crack spreads, up by 21% and 50%, respectively, as the CME makes it all too clear which products the Obama memo said need to be killed post haste.
Changing rules of the game won’t change the outcome.
As the great Professor Ludwig von Mises presciently wrote, (highlights mine)
The public discussion of economic problems ignores almost entirely all that has been said by economists in the last two hundred years. Prices, wage rates, interest rates, and profits are dealt with as if their determination were not subject to any law. Governments try to decree and to enforce maximum commodity prices and minimum wage rates. Statesmen exhort businessmen to cut down profits, to lower prices, and to raise wage rates as if these matters were dependent on the laudable intentions of individuals. In the treatment of international economic relations people blithely resort to the most naive fallacies of Mercantilism. Few are aware of the shortcomings of all these popular doctrines, or realize why the policies based upon them invariably spread disaster.
These are sad facts. However, there is only one way in which a man can respond to them: by never relaxing in the search for truth.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
FEAR Index: 1987 versus 2008
From Mr. Wilson: ``The indicator is derived from prices of options on the S&P 100, as its name suggests. The current version, introduced five years ago, uses S&P 500 options and includes more contracts in the calculations. Their readings tend to be similar. The VIX closed yesterday at 62.90.
``In 1987, the old VIX behaved differently than it has this year because the plunge in stocks was ``a far quicker affair,'' Michael Shaoul, chief executive officer of Oscar Gruss & Son Inc., wrote yesterday in an e-mail. ``There was nothing like the same degree of economic problems at the time and no concerns about the global banking system outside of the fact that equity markets had crashed.''
``The old VIX peaked at 103.41 on Oct. 11 as the S&P 100 swung between a 3.2 percent gain and an 8.1 percent loss. The high was well below its record of 172.79 on Oct. 20, 1987, the day after the so-called Black Monday crash.”
From Chartrus.com: 1987 Crash
My comment: It is quite obvious that 1987 was a shocker. From the chart perspective, there was hardly any clue that a crash would occur.
This compared to 2007-2008, which had been in a slomo descending bear market until October. In other words, the 2008 bear market had essentially conditioned the public about deteriorating market and fundamental dynamics.
And if we go by “The Kübler-Ross grief cycle”:
The recent market crash could represent as the “Acceptance phase” or in stock market lingo “capitulation” phase.
Thus, the difference in the VIX index of 1987 and today was one of expectations.: people got dumbfounded by the precipitate “one day crash” behavior of 1987 (hence the sudden realization of vulnerability) whereas the 2008 crash had partly been a process of the Kübler-Ross grief cycle applied to the stock market.