Will the Phisix Divergence Last?

My source of livelihood has almost entirely been from the local stock market, particularly investing, as I am hardly or rarely a short term trader.

Thus, objective and thorough investigations, assessments and analysis have been IMPERATIVE on me. And as part of my investing philosophy, I try to avoid getting married to a position, in as much as assuming the HIGH RISK role of becoming a stock market CHEERLEADER.

Losing money means my family will starve and this is why I cannot afford to lose money. Therefore such punctilious efforts, on my part, to deal with risks represent what have been known as stakeholder’s problem—where my incentives to attain relevant knowledge are prompted by the degree of my stakes in the financial marketplace. Since I depend on the markets thus I have to know the possible risks attendant to my positions.

And this outlook which I share with you, has not only been based on my battle hardened experience, but also from my candid evaluations of the conditions of the risk environment.

I am not here for an egotistical trip as many have been wont to.

Separating Signals from Noise

I have long been an adherent to the wisdom of the legendary trader Jesse Livermore. I have repeatedly been posting one of my favorite Mr. Livemore’s aphorisms here (bold emphasis mine)

I began to realize that the big money must necessarily be in the big swing. Whatever might seem to give a big swing its initial impulse, the fact is that its continuance is not the result of manipulation by pools or artifice by financiers, but depends on underlying conditions. And no matter who opposes it, the swing must inevitably run as far and as fast and as long as the impelling forces determine.

Simply said, profits are to be made based on underlying conditions which drives the general trend, and importantly, serves as the critical source of big swings.

And this is why I give heavy emphasis at the unfolding events based on the big picture. Unlike most practitioners, I am hardly swayed by vacillations from ticker tape activities.

Yet, ticker tape activities and the big picture frequently represent the noise and signal problem

Nassim Nicolas Taleb in his forthcoming book wonderfully explains the psychological impact from noise and signal[1]

we are not made to understand the point, so we overreact emotionally to noise. The best solution is to only look at very large changes in data or conditions, never small ones.

Just as we are not likely to mistake a bear for a stone (but likely to mistake a stone for a bear), it is almost impossible for someone rational with a clear, uninfected mind, one who is not drowning in data, to mistake a vital signal, one that matters for his survival, for noise. Significant signals have a way to reach you. In the tonsillectomies, the best filter would have been to only consider the children who are very ill, those with periodically recurring throat inflammation.

There was even more noise coming from the media and its glorification of the anecdote. Thanks to it, we are living more and more in virtual reality, separated from the real world, a little bit more every day, while realizing it less and less. Consider that every day, 6,200 persons die in the United States, many of preventable causes. But the media only reports the most anecdotal and sensational cases (hurricanes, freak incidents, small plane crashes) giving us a more and more distorted map of real risks. In an ancestral environment, the anecdote, the “interesting” is information; no longer today. Likewise, by presenting us with explanations and theories the media induces an illusion of understanding the world.

And the understanding of events (and risks) on the part of members of the press is so retrospective that they would put the security checks after the plane ride, or what the ancients call post bellum auxilium, send troops after the battle. Owing to domain dependence, we forget the need to check our map of the world against reality. So we are living in a more and more fragile world, while thinking it is more and more understandable.

The bottom line is that many people get confused when working to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff or when filtering signal from noise. People with lesser stakeholdings are likely to emphasize on the noise which usually signify as “an illusion of understanding the world” and or embrace steeply biased (but unworkable and highly flawed) theories.

The Dopamine Fetish

I would also add that part of the psychological-neuroscience aspect in dealing with markets has been about dopamine neurons.

People’s dopamine neurons, or brain chemicals, gets fired up when rewards attained are GREATER than expected. In contrast, REGRETS are symptoms of depressed dopamine neurons. Thus short term thinking and short term trading have MOSTLY been about the fetish for dopamine trips.

A study on neuroscience suggests that dopamine flows are pervasive during early stages of a ballooning bubble, reflecting desire for profit. However as the bubble peaks, dopamine flows tend to culminate in a cessation just before the market burst[2]

Monetary policies by central banks also whet or induce dopamine powered speculative behaviors[3].

The lesson here is that we should manage our dopamine flows rather than allowing dopamine neurons to dominate the risk-reward tradeoffs that confront our investing decisions. This is basically about Emotional Intelligence (EI)

Let me further add that the technical construct of the Philippine Stock Exchange has been skewed to inculcate upon the public of the upside bias for issues listed on the markets, as well as, the component index.

The rational for this seems to be part of the political designs to exhibit economic booms.

Take shorting. While shorting has been legalized, rigorous procedural and regulatory compliance requirements have made shorting impractical. So we have a facility that has hardly been used.

And since market participants only earn from an UPSIDE price move, thus logically, the dominant entrenched PSYCHOLOGICAL bias would be for the public to yearn for the stock market to go only in one direction—UP.

Next, complimenting the psychological and physiological aspect, monetary policies have also been rewarding speculative activities at the expense of savings and production.

So intensifying speculative activities extrapolates to the herd effect in motion.

Where the basic function of the stock market has been about the cost of buying future income stream relative to insecurities (risk and uncertainty), such functionality has been negated or substituted by rationalizations for price chasing momentum.

Writes Kevin Dowd, Martin Hutchinson, and Gordon Kerr at Cato Forum for monetary policies[4],

Low interest rate policies not only set off a malinvestment cycle but also generate destabilizing asset price bubbles, a key feature of which is the way the policy rewards the bulls in the market (those who gamble on the boom continuing) at the expense of the sober minded bears who keep focused on the fundamentals, instead of allowing the market to reward the latter for their prudence and punish the former for their recklessness. Such intervention destabilizes markets by encouraging herd behavior and discouraging the contrarianism on which market stability ultimately depends. A case in point is the Fed’s low interest rate policy in the late 1990s: this not only stoked the tech boom but was maintained for so long that it wiped out most of the bears, who were proven right but (thanks to the Fed) too late, and whose continued activities would have softened the subsequent crash. The same is happening now but in many more markets (financials, general stocks, Treasuries, junk bonds, and commodities) and on a much grander scale. Such intervention embodies an arbitrariness that is wrong in principle and injects a huge amount of unnecessary uncertainty into the market.

In essence, the inflationary boom psychology has been distorting economic reasoning.

Add to this the leash effects of bailout policies.

The bottom line is that inflation fueled bull markets have become a religion to many.

And advises to undertake prudent positions—based on appraising the risk environment that may adversely affect one’s portfolio—has been seen as sacrilege.

Short Selling Not Recommendable; Contagion Risks

I also do NOT recommend shorting in the Philippines for the following reasons

-the cost to undertake shorts positions have been enormous relative to prospective gains (if a short position is required the best is to do it from overseas)

-a full blown BEAR market for the Philippines has NOT been yet established, although the RISKS from such scenario seem to be STRENGHTENING.

-global regulators have periodically been intervening. The degree of intervention mostly through bailout policies comes with such INTENSITY such that these can TORCH shorts on short notice. A good example has been Europe’s LTRO which singed Euro shorts at the start of the year[5]

-global regulators have innate biases against short sellers. They have done so lately through direct market interventions, such as drastic imposition of shorting bans which forces short covering to investors at a loss. A great example has been the shorting bans on Europe stock markets in mid-2011[6] in the political belief that speculations, and NOT insolvency, have been the fundamental problem that besets the Eurozone. Yet in spite of the bans, European stock markets continue to bleed PROFUSELY. This represents a vivid example of the “illusion of understanding the world” by political agents who always try to shift what has truly been their mistake to the markets.

Lastly I do NOT wish or DESIRE for a bear market.

Because of the limitations to take on hedge positions, bear markets or even phases of consolidation with a downside bias or volatility translates to income drought for me or most market participants (see the structural bull market bias above)

While I am an optimist who believes that the Phisix will reach 10,000 sometime in the future, I am also a REALIST who understands that external forces have a HUGE influence to actions of the local stock markets and that NO trend goes in a straight line.

In suggesting of the countercyclical trend amidst a secular trend I wrote in March[7],

I am not certain whether we will see a repeat of the discontinuities similar to the 1986-1997 bull market cycle or will suffer more than the past cycle before reaching my goal or if the Phisix will proceed to double. What needs to be monitored are drivers of the current trends and the whereabouts of the present boom cycle based on internal and external dynamics.

In short, the PHISIX, despite the secular trend, is VULNERABLE to a CONTAGION risk.

Could this week’s Phisix Divergence Represent an Anomaly?

The local benchmarket, the Phisix, majestically bucked the global stock market carnage last week.

As one would note, the Phisix has not only outperformed the region, the local benchmark basically defied gravity.

China and Malaysia joined the Phisix, as outliers, with hefty gains amidst a sea of red.

Yet such divergences have given the dopamine to Pollyanna trippers the ammunition to declare “bottom” for the market.

I have yet to be convinced.

The gist of the weekly gains or 52% of the Phisix came from Thursday’s activities.

Ironically, the sizable gains occurred in the backdrop of staggering US and global markets.

Media and experts has alluded to reports of sturdy domestic economic growth[8], the hints of a possible upgrade[9] by US rating agency Moody’s on the credit standing of the Philippines and the closure of milestone impeachment trial[10] with a conviction of the accused which favors the administration as reasons for this.

I beg to differ.

I raised this concern on this last Thursday[11]. The Phisix went down to as low as 67 points at the early session, dragged by the selloffs in the US and Europe. But suddenly, aggressive and systematic buying of heavyweights (blue chips) throughout the day pushed the Phisix to close at almost at the peak (76.81) at 73 points. The pendulum swing from loss to gain represented an astounding 2.8%!!!

Buyers seem to have, ironically, been resolutely aggressive to push up prices in an environment of MOSTLY falling stock market prices globally, perhaps in the assumption that local stocks will soon experience a strong surge.

Or is it?

The weekly performance of the heavy cap issues reveals that gains of the Phisix were mostly seen through Ayala Corp (AC), JG Summit (JGS), Banco De Oro (BDO), Metrobank (MBT), SM Investments (SM), International Container (ICT), PLDT (TEL) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).

The logical part for any buyers under such scenario would be to make use of the dour sentiment to take advantage of price declines to bargain hunt. Yet these have not been the case.

Let me lay out my suspicions.

I do not think that these has been due to general market sentiment, although pushing up the PHISIX index succeeded to give a boost to the general market sentiment.

Thursday closed with a mixed showing between advancers and decliners with the latter having a slight edge. On a weekly basis advancers took a slight lead over decliners showing modest improvement in the market breadth or sentiment.

Second my naughty thoughts suggests that Thursday actions was likely executed to create an impression of economic ‘confidence’. I am not so sure why though. Perhaps to squelch demand for signing waivers for top officials.

Buyers suddenly became price insensitive. The likelihood is that non-market entities may have been responsible for aggressively pushing up Big Caps. I would suspect that these may have been government institutions such as the SSS, GSIS or others.

While it is true that Thursday a net foreign buying, the bulk of these buying can be traced to cross trades at DM Consunji.

Besides, net foreign buying data may not reveal of the real extent of activities that took place. Foreign buying can represent overseas based subsidiaries or branches of locally owned corporate vehicles or tycoons, as well as, foreign based politically allied corporations.

Of course I may be wrong and that there may have been special factors driving up the Phisix.

But if my suspicions are valid then such interventions are likely to produce short term effects.

As example the Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) $13.3 billion[12] interventions DID bring down the Yen for about a month. However the Yen has been regaining lost grounds since. This effectively has neutered tax payer financed interventions. In short $13.3 billion down the drain.

Another question that begs to be asked is WHY the PHSIX alone?

While Malaysia did post hefty weekly gains next to the Phisix, the Malaysia’s benchmark (FBMKLCI:IND, green) has almost missed out the recent bull market. On the other hand, Thailand (SET:IND, orange) and Indonesia (JCI:IND, red) which shared or alternated the lead with the Phisix, since last year, has wilted significantly.

Yet it can be observed that ASEAN’s stock markets have been nearly been moving in nearly synchronous fashion UNTIL the peak in May of this year.

This only means that last week’s gains by the Phisix either represents an ANOMALY or that the Phisix LEADS Asia.

My bet is on the former.

The Decoupling Myth

I have been saying that current environment have been dominated by POLITICAL uncertainty which for the Philippines and ASEAN represents a CONTAGION risk.

If global markets stock markets have been pricing in a bust or the unwinding of malinvestments which is being transmitted to the global economies, then it would dangerous, if not reckless, to presume immunity or “decoupling” where trade and investment linkages of ASEAN economies have been deepening relative to the world.

ASEAN economies have largely been exposed to developments abroad through merchandise trade (exports and imports).

The Philippines merchandise trade represents over 50% of GDP, while Malaysia and Thailand are over 100%.

This means any meaningful economic slowdown in the region or in the world will negatively impact economic growth.

Add to this the potential slowdown effect on remittances and supply chain networks.

The deepening of financial globalization also means the integration of emerging Asia’s capital markets[13] with the world (left chart) and with intra-region (right pane).

In short, the false notion of DECOUPLING will likely melt in the face of a global recession or when a full blown financial crisis, if such phenomenon transpires.

Let me be clear, the conditional term is an IF, while global economies have indeed been slowing down, a global recession or worldwide contagion from euro’s financial crisis has yet to become evident in Asia.

Of course a decoupling COULD happen if there should be massive inflation or even hyperinflation from any of these major economies. However, under the current circumstances this is unlikely to happen.

This means that for those in the belief that the Philippines can decouple from the world, the following chart should be a helpful reminder…

2007-2008 signifies as the contagion based bear market.

Neither has there been an economic recession during the said period nor did earnings fall materially. But the Phisix entered a full blown BEAR Market and lost about 50% peak-to-trough as a result of an exogenously driven financial crisis in 2007-2008.

Of course 2008 is different from today. In fact, today has been worst compared to the 2008 crisis. In 2008 the crisis was limited to the banking, property and mortgage industry. Today the crisis dynamics has shifted to envelop banks AND sovereigns. Not to mention that world wide government debts have surged[14] and that US fiscal deficits have skyrocketed (at $1.327 trillion or 8.2 times larger than 2007[15]).

Yet for those who should insist on decoupling, then I wish you the best of luck.

---

[1] Taleb Nassim Nicolas Noise and Signal — Nassim Taleb Farnam Street, May 29, 2012

[2] ChangingMinds.org The Neuroscience of Financial Bubbles

[3] See How US Federal Reserve Policies Stimulates the Public’s Speculative Behavior, May 8, 2012

[4] Dowd Kevin, Hutchinson Martin, and Kerr Gordon The Coming Fiat Money Cataclysm

and the Case for Gold

[5] Marketwatch.com Euro hits 3-month high on LTRO hopes, February 24, 2012

[6] Wall Street Journal, Europe Short Bans Extended, August 26, 2011

[7] See Phisix: The Journey Of A Thousand Miles Begins With A Single Step, March 12, 2012

[8] ABS-CBNnews.com.ph PH eco grows 6.4% in Q1; highest in ASEAN, May 31, 2012

[9] Businessmirror.com.ph Moody’s raises PHL to ‘positive’ May 29, 2012

[10] See The Lessons and Validity of Public Choice Theory Applied to the Chief Justice’s Corona Impeachment, May 29, 2012

[11] See Phisix: Very Impressive Day or Month End Close for May 2012, May 31, 2012

[12] Bloomberg.com Japan Adopts Stealth Intervention As Yen Gains Threaten Exporter Earnings February 7, 2012

[13] ADB ONLINE Asia Capital Markets Monitor August 2011

[14] Zero Hedge, Presenting Dave Rosenberg's Complete Chartporn, June 1, 2012

[15] Weiss Martin Lehman-Type Megashock Looming, Money and Markets May 21, 2012

Political Paralysis Paves Way to Bubble Bust Conditions

If politics continue to shackle central bankers, then the risks of a slowdown transitioning to a recession will get magnified.

The lucid example of political deadlock hounding the markets from the EU seems best captured by this Telegraph report[1]

The head of the European Central Bank hit out at the political paralysis gripping the region as he warned the eurozone's set-up was "unsustainable"

Mario Draghi said the central bank could not "fill the vacuum" left by member states' lack of action as it was claimed the zone is on the point of "disintegration".

Amid escalating talk of a potential bail-out for Spain, the president of the ECB said the central bank was powerless to stop the debt tornado. "It's not our duty, it's not in our mandate" to "fill the vacuum left by the lack of action by national governments on the fiscal front," he said.

Over at the worsening economic conditions in China, political debates over policy have once again been best illustrated by this comment from a former central banker turned representative for a think tank[2]

Americans and Europeans like it. Investors like it because they want to speculate on stocks. The whole world is hoping China will relax policy," Xia told Reuters.

"We will fall into a trap if we do. We will not be that stupid," Xia said, adding that the government should only stimulate economic growth in a "balanced and modest" way, while forging ahead with structural reforms to sustain growth over the longer term. China stimulus unnecessary, risks long-term damage

As a reminder, the current issue here has NOT been about a supposed “squeeze” on government spending and the supposed effects of low levels of capital from it.

The bank runs in the PIGS dismisses this false and self-contradictory logic, Spain experienced 100 billion capital flight during the first 3 months[3], as bank runs have been symptomatic of the fear of devaluations on the heightened prospects of a severance of EU ties.

The monumental capital flight has produced negative interest rates on the treasury yields of Switzerland[4] (see above) and also in Denmark.

Instead, the issue here has been the unwinding of MASSIVE malinvestments from EXCESSIVE government spending (welfare, bureaucracy, bailouts, and etc…) that has not only produced unsustainable loads of debt, but also resulted to the CROWDING out of the private sector investments. When government confiscates scarce private sector resources through taxation and spends it, the private sector losses ‘capital’ and opportunity from which to undertake productive activities. This is known as OPPORTUNITY costs; something which becomes a monumental blackhole to mainstream logic, whose ideas are premised on the laws of abundance.

Of course, add to this the misdirected resources from private the sector, particularly the real estate industry, whom had been induced by bubble ‘convergent interest rate’ policies.

The capital flight from crisis affected Euro nations has also been affecting the US where volatile money flows could exacerbate the current boom-bust dynamics. Add to this policy actions to address on such flows[5].

Yet the predicament of crisis afflicted EU nations has essentially been about vastly diminished competitiveness from asphyxiating bureaucracy and choking regulations, particularly in the labor markets[6].

Accounts of massive tax avoidance from current tax increases only debunk the supposed solution of increased government spending. Greeks have shown that they have not been amenable to paying NEWLY IMPOSED taxes[7].

If people truly believed that government spending is the solution then they would have volunteered payment for taxes. In reality, both the intensifying tax avoidance and capital flight defeats the silly statist illusory elixirs.

Even China today has been revealing signs of emergent bank runs[8] and such bank run seems to coincide with the recent depreciation of the yuan relative to the US dollar. This increases signs of uncertainty over China’s bubble economy.

Yet in general, current uncertainty has been aggravated by the political paralysis which has led central bankers to dither from pursuing further inflationist policies.

This Reuters article entitled “Central Banks to hold fire... for now[9]” nails it.

The intensifying euro zone crisis and uncertain global growth outlook have raised hopes for a policy response from major central banks but, while it could be a close call, they are likely to resist pressure to act in the coming week.

When central banks and the banking system stops or withholds from further inflating, the ensuing market reaction from a PREVIOUS inflationary Boom would be a Bubble Bust.

As the great dean of Austrian school of economics explained[10]

For the banks, after all, are obligated to redeem their liabilities in cash, and their cash is flowing out rapidly as their liabilities pile up. Hence, the banks will eventually lose their nerve, stop their credit expansion, and in order to save themselves, contract their bank loans outstanding. Often, this retreat is precipitated by bankrupting runs on the banks touched off by the public, who had also been getting increasingly nervous about the ever more shaky condition of the nation's banks.

The bank contraction reverses the economic picture; contraction and bust follow boom. The banks pull in their horns, and businesses suffer as the pressure mounts for debt repayment and contraction…

This, then, is the meaning of the depression phase of the business cycle. Note that it is a phase that comes out of, and inevitably comes out of, the preceding expansionary boom. It is the preceding inflation that makes the depression phase necessary.

Pieces of the jigsaw puzzles have been falling right in place into the boom bust picture.

And another thing, if there should be a global recession it is not certain that this will be deflationary, as this will depend on how central bankers react. The term deflation has been adulterated by deliberate semantical misrepresentations.

Not all recessions imply a monetary deflationary environment as alleged by a popular analyst. The US S&P 500 fell into TWO bear markets 1968-70 and 1974-1975 even as consumer price inflation soared (blue trend line).

If in case the same phenomenon should occur where stagflation becomes the dominant economic landscape, then a bear market in stocks will likely coincide with a bull market in commodities.

Yet for now everything remains highly fluid with everything dependent on the prospective actions by policymakers

As of this writing, reports say that the EU has been preparing for the $620 ESM Rescue fund for July[11]. If this is true then perhaps, this means the ECB will begin her next phase of massive monetization of debt.

Let me reiterate my opening statement of last week[12]

Like it or not, UNLESS there will be monumental moves from central bankers of major economies in the coming days, the global financial markets including the local Phisix will LIKELY endure more period of intense volatility on both directions but with a downside bias.

I am NOT saying that we are on an inflection phase in transit towards a bear market. Evidences have yet to establish such conditions, although I am NOT DISCOUNTING such eventuality given the current flow of developments.

What I am simply saying is that for as long as UNCERTAINTIES OVER MONETARY POLICIES AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTS PREVAIL, global equity markets will be sensitive to dramatic volatilities from an increasingly short term “RISK ON-RISK OFF” environment.

And where the RISK ON environment has been structurally reliant on central banking STEROIDS, ambiguities in political and monetary policy directions tilts the balance towards a RISK OFF environment.

---

[1] Armistead Louise Eurozone is 'unsustainable' warns Mario Draghi, Telegraph.co.uk, May 31, 2012

[2] See HOT: China’s Manufacturing Activity Falls Sharply in May June 1, 2012

[3] CNBC.com Spain Reveals 100 Billion Euro Capital Flight, June 1, 2012

[4] Bloomberg.com Switzerland Govt Bonds 2 Year Note Generic Bid Yield

[5] See The Coming Colossal Bernanke Bubble Bust May 30, 2012

[6] See Germany’s Competitive Advantage over Spain: Freer Labor Markets, May 25, 2012

[7] See Is Greece Falling into a Failed State? May 28, 2012

[8] See Is China Suffering from Bank Runs too? June 2, 2012

[9] Reuters.com Central Banks to hold fire... for now, June 2, 2012

[10] Rothbard Murray N. Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure, Mises.org

[11] See HOT: EU Readies $620 ESM Rescue Fund for July, June 3, 2012

[12] See The RISK OFF Environment Has NOT Abated, May 27, 2012

On Gold’s Fantastic One Day $60 move

Speaking of the “illusion of understanding the world” of giving emphasis to “noises” especially on ticker tape activities, gold’s magnificent one day surge amidst collapsing stock markets have breathed life to the quack theory that gold stands as refuge to deflation in a world of paper money.

Stock markets collapsed alright, but Spanish and Italian sovereign bonds RALLIED.

The euro posted a huge .56% bounce on Friday too, which coincided with both the rally of Spanish-Italian bonds and gold.

The guys at Zero hedge offers this explanation[1]. (bold emphasis mine)

But Italian and Spanish bonds rallied. It seems EUR96 was the line in the sand that the ECB (or their proxy banks) decided was enough for Spanish 10Y bonds and that was where they were defended to (though we are suspicious why ECB would step in now after 4 months absence). There was eventually some notable divergence between underperforming Spain and outperforming Italy by the close (+40bps on the week vs +27bps). We suspect that much of the sovereign outperformance was a combination of Sovereign CDS-Bond basis traders (buying bonds and buying protection in Spain to lock in that wide spread) and a replay of the short financial credit, long domestic sovereign credit trade (as in banks will underperform the sovereign if things hit the fan/wall). That is the flow that was evident when looked at across markets.

My guess: the stealth contingent Emergency Liquidity Assistance[2].

This may yet be a precursor to the $620 billion EMS + the potential ECB cut of rates (most likely this week) and massive monetization of bonds possibly in support of the EMS.

Sorry for the chill: Gold’s rally was hardly about deflation.

---

[1] Zero Hedge Euro VIX Jumps As ECB Pumps, June 1, 2012

[2] See ECB’s Stealth Mechanism to Bailout Banks: Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA), May 25, 2012

HOT: EU Readies $620 ESM Rescue Fund for July

Following Friday’s carnage (tables from Bloomberg), European governments have floated a target date for the expanded bailout mechanism.

From the Bloomberg,

The European Union is targeting July 9 as the start date for its permanent euro-area rescue fund, the 500 billion-euro ($620 billion) European Stability Mechanism, an EU official said.

Parliaments across the 17-nation currency union must ratify the fund before it becomes available to counter the financial crisis spawned in Greece. Until it receives 90 percent of its expected capital allotment, officials must turn to the temporary European Financial Stability Facility, a 440 billion-euro fund with 240 billion euros available.

The start date depends mainly on the outcome in Germany, where lawmakers may vote as late as the first week of July. Considering the national approvals required, euro officials hope the July 9 target date will hold, said the official, who declined to be named because the planning isn’t public.

The ESM is the centerpiece of Europe’s $1 trillion firewall to stave off financial contagion from the debt crisis that has wreaked havoc on markets and pushed Greece, Portugal and Ireland to seek bailouts. The ESM represents the euro area’s capacity for further aid programs, since the rest of the firewall is made up of 300 billion euros already committed to the rescue effort.

It’s been a self-reinforcing and seeming interminable bailout-crisis-bailout-crisis feedback loop.

As the French would say “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose”.

The key question is will the market see this as “enough” to temporarily stanch the hemorrhage? We will see.

Doug Casey: End of the Nation State

Investing guru, and anarchist philosopher Doug Casey believes that today’s nation states is on path to the dinosaur age

Mr. Casey writes at the Casey Research, (bold highlights mine)

Mankind has, so far, gone through three main stages of political organization since Day One, say 200,000 years ago, when anatomically modern men started appearing. We can call them Tribes, Kingdoms, and Nation-States.

Karl Marx had a lot of things wrong, especially his moral philosophy. But one of the acute observations he made was that the means of production are perhaps the most important determinant of how a society is structured. Based on that, so far in history, only two really important things have happened: the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. Everything else is just a footnote.

Let's see how these things relate.

The Agricultural Revolution and the End of Tribes

In prehistoric times, the largest political/economic group was the tribe. In that man is a social creature, it was natural enough to be loyal to the tribe. It made sense. Almost everyone in the tribe was genetically related, and the group was essential for mutual survival in the wilderness. That made them the totality of people that counted in a person's life – except for "others" from alien tribes, who were in competition for scarce resources and might want to kill you for good measure.

Tribes tend to be natural meritocracies, with the smartest and the strongest assuming leadership. But they're also natural democracies, small enough that everyone can have a say on important issues. Tribes are small enough that everybody knows everyone else, and knows what their weak and strong points are. Everyone falls into a niche of marginal advantage, doing what they do best, simply because that's necessary to survive. Bad actors are ostracized or fail to wake up, in a pool of their own blood, some morning. Tribes are socially constraining but, considering the many faults of human nature, a natural and useful form of organization in a society with primitive technology.

As people built their pool of capital and technology over many generations, however, populations grew. At the end of the last Ice Age, around 12,000 years ago, all over the world, there was a population explosion. People started living in towns and relying on agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering. Large groups of people living together formed hierarchies, with a king of some description on top of the heap.

Those who adapted to the new agricultural technology and the new political structure accumulated the excess resources necessary for waging extended warfare against tribes still living at a subsistence level. The more evolved societies had the numbers and the weapons to completely triumph over the laggards. If you wanted to stay tribal, you'd better live in the middle of nowhere, someplace devoid of the resources others might want. Otherwise it was a sure thing that a nearby kingdom would enslave you and steal your property.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of Kingdoms

From around 12,000 B.C. to roughly the mid-1600s, the world's cultures were organized under strong men, ranging from petty lords to kings, pharaohs, or emperors.

It's odd, to me at least, how much the human animal seems to like the idea of monarchy. It's mythologized, especially in a medieval context, as a system with noble kings, fair princesses, and brave knights riding out of castles on a hill to right injustices. As my friend Rick Maybury likes to point out, quite accurately, the reality differs quite a bit from the myth. The king is rarely more than a successful thug, a Tony Soprano at best, or perhaps a little Stalin. The princess was an unbathed hag in a chastity belt, the knight a hired killer, and the shining castle on the hill the headquarters of a concentration camp, with plenty of dungeons for the politically incorrect.

With kingdoms, loyalties weren't so much to the "country" – a nebulous and arbitrary concept – but to the ruler. You were the subject of a king, first and foremost. Your linguistic, ethnic, religious, and other affiliations were secondary. It's strange how, when people think of the kingdom period of history, they think only in terms of what the ruling classes did and had. Even though, if you were born then, the chances were 98% you'd be a simple peasant who owned nothing, knew nothing beyond what his betters told him, and sent most of his surplus production to his rulers. But, again, the gradual accumulation of capital and knowledge made the next step possible: the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution and the End of the Nation-State

As the means of production changed, with the substitution of machines for muscle, the amount of wealth took a huge leap forward. The average man still might not have had much, but the possibility to do something other than beat the earth with a stick for his whole life opened up, largely as a result of the Renaissance.

Then the game changed totally with the American and French Revolutions. People no longer felt they were owned by some ruler; instead they now gave their loyalty to a new institution, the nation-state. Some innate atavism, probably dating back to before humans branched from the chimpanzees about 3 million years ago, seems to dictate the Naked Ape to give his loyalty to something bigger than himself. Which has delivered us to today's prevailing norm, the nation-state, a group of people who tend to share language, religion, and ethnicity. The idea of the nation-state is especially effective when it's organized as a "democracy," where the average person is given the illusion he has some measure of control over where the leviathan is headed.

On the plus side, by the end of the 18th century, the Industrial Revolution had provided the common man with the personal freedom, as well as the capital and technology, to improve things at a rapidly accelerating pace.

What caused the sea change?

I'll speculate it was largely due to an intellectual factor, the invention of the printing press; and a physical factor, the widespread use of gunpowder. The printing press destroyed the monopoly the elites had on knowledge; the average man could now see that they were no smarter or "better" than he was. If he was going to fight them (conflict is, after all, what politics is all about), it didn't have to be just because he was told to, but because he was motivated by an idea. And now, with gunpowder, he was on an equal footing with the ruler's knights and professional soldiers.

Right now I believe we're at the cusp of another change, at least as important as the ones that took place around 12,000 years ago and several hundred years ago. Even though things are starting to look truly grim for the individual, with collapsing economic structures and increasingly virulent governments, I suspect help is on the way from historical evolution. Just as the agricultural revolution put an end to tribalism and the industrial revolution killed the kingdom, I think we're heading for another multipronged revolution that's going to make the nation-state an anachronism. It won't happen next month, or next year. But I'll bet the pattern will start becoming clear within the lifetime of many now reading this.

What pattern am I talking about? Once again, a reference to the evil (I hate to use that word too, in that it's been so corrupted by Bush and religionists) genius Karl Marx, with his concept of the "withering away of the State." By the end of this century, I suspect the U.S. and most other nation-states will have, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist.

The Problem with the State – and Your Nation-State

Of course, while I suspect that many of you are sympathetic to that sentiment, you also think the concept is too far out, and that I'm guilty of wishful thinking. People believe the state is necessary and – generally – good. They never even question whether the institution is permanent.

My view is that the institution of the state itself is a bad thing. It's not a question of getting the right people into the government; the institution itself is hopelessly flawed and necessarily corrupts the people that compose it, as well as the people it rules. This statement invariably shocks people, who believe that government is both a necessary and permanent part of the cosmic firmament.

The problem is that government is based on coercion, and it is, at a minimum, suboptimal to base a social structure on institutionalized coercion. I'm not going to go into the details here; I've covered this ground from a number of directions in previous editions of this letter, as well as in Crisis Investing (Chap.16), Strategic Investing (Chap. 32), and, most particularly Crisis Investing for the Rest of the '90s (Chap. 34). Again, let me urge you to read the Tannehills' superb The Market for Liberty, which is available for download free here.

One of the huge changes brought by the printing press and advanced exponentially by the Internet is that people are able to readily pursue different interests and points of view. As a result, they have less and less in common: living within the same political borders is no longer enough to make them countrymen. That's a big change from pre-agricultural times when members of the same tribe had quite a bit – almost everything – in common. But this has been increasingly diluted in the times of the kingdom and the nation-state. If you're honest, you may find you have very little in common with most of your countrymen besides superficialities and trivialities.

Ponder that point for a minute. What do you have in common with your fellow countrymen? A mode of living, (perhaps) a common language, possibly some shared experiences and myths, and a common ruler. But very little of any real meaning or importance. To start with, they're more likely to be an active danger to you than the citizens of a presumed "enemy" country, say, like Iran. If you earn a good living, certainly if you own a business and have assets, your fellow Americans are the ones who actually present the clear and present danger. The average American (about 50% of them now) pays no income tax. Even if he's not actually a direct or indirect employee of the government, he's a net recipient of its largesse, which is to say your wealth, through Social Security and other welfare programs.

Over the years, I've found I have much more in common with people of my own social or economic station or occupation in France, Argentina, or Hong Kong, than with an American union worker in Detroit or a resident of the LA barrios. I suspect many of you would agree with that observation. What's actually important in relationships is shared values, principles, interests, and philosophy. Geographical proximity, and a common nationality, is meaningless – no more than an accident of birth. I have much more loyalty to a friend in the Congo – although we're different colors, have different cultures, different native languages, and different life experiences – than I do to the Americans who live down the highway in the trailer park. I see the world the same way my Congolese friend does; he's an asset to my life. I'm necessarily at odds with many of "my fellow Americans"; they're an active and growing liability.

Read the rest here.

When we follow the money, we will come to realize that the evolution of political economic dynamics have already been indicative of the impending degeneracy and forthcoming obsolescence of the incumbent nation (welfare-warfare) states.

The foundations of the industrial age political system, which operates on a modern day industrial age (top-down) platform based on modified parasitical relationship via “democracy”, is apparently being gnawed by internal structural incoherence, systemic flaws and its rigidity or failure to adjust or adopt with changes of technology, market trends, environment and time.

The manifestations of which has been today’s self perpetuating financial crisis. Eventually self-fulfilling debt based collapse will likely culminate the end of the nation (welfare-warfare) state.

The deterioration of nation state will be compounded by rapid advances in technology where the information age will continue to usher in dramatic and radical changes in commerce and social lifestyles.

Where the printing press destroyed the “monopoly” of knowledge held by the elite, the advent of the internet connectivity, which has paved way for the emergence of geographically noncontiguous communication (information not limited by space or vicinity of one’s physical reach), has been neutralizing the top-down flow of communications emanating from the current construct of political institutions. That’s why centralized government have frantically been waging war with the web, desperately trying to censor and regulate the flow of information

Horizontally flow of communications has been democratizing information which should lead to the Hayekean knowledge revolution. And consequently, the knowledge revolution will provide the ideological underpinning for the transition towards decentralized societies.

The transformation may not be smooth nor peaceful, as there are multitudes of entrenched interest groups living off or benefiting from the current system. But again, unsustainable systems simply won’t last.

Along with visionary author Alvin Toffler, Professor Gary North, Professor Butler Shaffer and guru Doug Casey, I do share the view that decentralization’s ball has began rolling.

Austerity in Spain?

Juan Carlos Hidalgo at the Cato Institute investigates claims that Spain has been suffering from “austerity”

Writes Mr. Hidalgo, (bold emphasis mine)

There is a wide consensus that Spain’s economic troubles are the result of an enormous housing bubble—even bigger than the one that hit the U.S.—that burst in 2008. Just the year before, Spain boasted healthy fiscal indicators: a general government budget surplus of 1.9% of GDP and a gross consolidated debt of just 36.2% of GDP. However, once the bubble burst, government revenues collapsed and stimulus spending was injected into the economy, resulting in a fiscal deficit of 11.2% in 2009 and a gross debt that has increased over 30 percentage points of GDP in just 4 years.

Paul Krugman and The Economist argue that this evidence shows that, unlike Greece, Spain wasn’t fiscally profligate. However, the devil is in the details. Spain did run budget surpluses prior to the crash, but those surpluses weren’t caused by restrained government spending, but by ballooning tax revenues (thanks to a growing housing bubble). If we look at total government spending in the last decade, we can see a steady and significant rise until 2009:

* Using GDP deflator.
Source: European Commission, Economic and Financial Affairs.

Government spending in nominal terms increased at an annual rate of 7.6% from 2000 to 2009. Ryan Avent at The Economist says that “the push for austerity began in 2010,” and thus we have to look at nominal spending after that year, when according to Avent, it fell “substantially” due to austerity measures. In reality, it went down by just 1% in 2010 and a further 3.6% in 2011. If these cuts seem “substantial” to Avent, then a yearly average increase of 7.6% for almost a decade must be staggering.

Moreover, if we look at spending in real terms, using constant euros from 2000, there hasn’t been any decrease in the level of government spending.

If we look at government spending as a share of the economy, Spain appears as fiscally prudent: Spending was 39.2% of GDP in 2000 and exactly the same figure in 2007. However, as has been noted by Juan Ramón Rallo, Ángel Martín Oro and Adrià Pérez Martí of the Juan de Mariana Institute in a recent Cato study, “the data should be interpreted with caution, given that the GDP was growing at an artificially high rate.” The point is proven by the fact that when the economy came to a halt in 2008 (it grew by just 0.9%), government spending as a share of GDP leapt 2.3 percentage points to 41.5% in just one year. Government spending as a share of the economy remained constant during much of the 2000’s not because the government was spending too little but because GDP was growing too fast.

Moreover, once the crisis kicked in, government spending as a share of GDP reached a peak at 46.3% in 2009 (due to a combination of still more stimulus spending and a contracting economy). It later fell to 43% in 2011, still a higher share than in 2008. Government spending in Spain has indeed come down in the last two years, but not in a dramatic fashion as some people would have us to believe.

What about taxes? As has been the case in Britain, France, Italy and Greece, in the last two years the Spanish government increased taxes to tackle the soaring deficit: personal income tax rates went up in 2010 and two new brackets of 44% and 45% were introduced for higher incomes. Tax credits to self-employed workers were revoked. The VAT rate went up from 16% to 18% and excise duties on tobacco and gasoline were also raised. All these tax increases took place before the large tax hike introduced this year by the conservative government of Mariano Rajoy, which turned Spain into one of the highest taxed countries in Europe (and explained at length in this Economic Development Bulletin).

In short, austerity in Spain, described by Paul Krugman as “insane,” consists mostly of significant tax increases and timid spending cuts.

So Spain’s economy has been enduring economic strains hardly from spending cuts but mainly from HEFTY TAX INCREASES, rigid labor regulations and the welfare state.

On asphyxiating labor environment the Economist noted last February,

Spain’s labour laws, which date back to the Franco era, have condemned half the workforce to unemployment or to temporary jobs while the rest enjoy ironclad contracts and huge redundancy pay-offs. The new law blurs this insider/outsider divide and may thus get more people into stable employment. The decree comes on top of a January agreement by unions and employers to limit pay rises over the next three years. Mr de Guindos thinks most Spaniards see the need for labour reform. But its success in terms of growth may depend on unions’ choice between protecting jobs and keeping up their members’ pay.

The same statist FALSEHOODs have been thrown to Greece, where supposed “devaluation” from an “EU exit” would have posed as “elixir” to Greek economic woes.

Yet the ramifications from such absurd mainstream propaganda has been to SPUR a stampede out of the Greek banking system or systemic “bank run” or “capital flight” into safe havens as Germany and the US, as Greeks feared the loss of savings from forcible conversion of their euros to “drachmas”.

And the same tax hike prescriptions from statists has led Greeks to drastically avoid paying taxes.

In short, statist medicines have been blowing up right smack on their faces.

Yes, polls have it that 80% of Greeks want to stay in the Euro!!!

Statist imbeciles engage in deceptive phraseology to promote their political religion. As George Orwell once wrote,

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible... Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness… Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them…The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

False prophets, these statists, are.

Is China Suffering from Bank Runs too?

Writes the Zero Hedge, (bold highlights original)

The balance sheet recession that seems to have correctly diagnosed the problem facing Japan (and now Europe and the US) - explicitly causing debt minimzation as opposed to profit maximization - seems to be taking hold. However, it appears this death-knell for credit-created growth is now being seen in China - as AlsoSprachAnalyst interprets "people are not borrowing, but selling assets to pay down debts, and/or holding cash". What is most worrisome is that while the focus of the world has been on European bank runs (for fear of bank failure and redenomination risk), 21st Century Business Herald now notes that these bank runs have spread to China's industrial and construction-heavy city of Wuyishan. Queues were seen on various branches of China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China, and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China.

Bank runs represent as symptoms of a deflating fractional reserve banking inflated bubble. If the above account is true and escalates further, then serious challenges lie ahead, not only for China, but for the world.

Shrinking American Millionaires

This is not about increasing number of Americans fleeing the US. Instead this about Americans enduring sharp losses from stock market investments.

From CNBC.com

America’s millionaire population declined last year for the first time since the financial crisis, according to a new report.

The population of U.S. millionaire households (households with investible assets of $1 million or more) fell to 5,134,000 from 5,263,000 in 2011, according to The Boston Consulting Group’s Global Wealth study.

Total private wealth in North America fell by 0.9 percent, to $38 trillion.

The ultra-rich were the largest losers in dollar terms. Households in North America with investible assets of more than $100 million saw their wealth decline 2.4 percent. Their population declined slightly to 2,928 from 2,989.

The main reason for all this wealth loss? Stocks.

With the wealthy today increasingly dependent on stocks for wealth, last year’s stalled stock market shrunk the population of millionaires and nicked the fortunes of existing millionaires. According to BCG, the amount of wealth held in equities declined 3.6 percent last year.

Globally, the picture looked a little brighter. Virtually all of the growth in global millionaires came from emerging markets last year. While the United States lost nearly 130,000 millionaires, the rest of the world added 175,000 millionaires. There are now 12.6 million millionaire households globally, according to BCG.

That’s a study made last year.

Before yesterday’s stock market rout, US equities have been performing relatively better than the world.

Chart from Bespoke Invest

The S&P has been gradually reclaiming dominance and has outperformed the MSCI World index in late 2011 until May 30th.

This means that if emerging market millionaires are exposed to stock investments too, then the above dynamic may have partly been reversed.

And I think that with many global stock markets entering bear market territory, the number of shrinking millionaires could be a global phenomenon.

Paper money ‘wealth’ is being extinguished.

Quote of the Day: Change is the Core for Great Civilization

Wait!

It’s NOT the kind of pernicious “CHANGE” peddled or promoted by politicians and their political zombie followers seen in media or in mainstream institutions where (emotionally packaged) ‘change’ for them means that people need to think more collectively and become conformists which implies the surrender civil and individual freedoms to become tacit ‘serfs’ in ‘service for society’ (society here is a euphemism for political overlords).

Instead, the changes which makes society prosper is when people are allowed to think and act DYNAMICALLY—where danger, failure and losses are seen as virtues rather than a curse, as these represent crucial elements for discovery, learning and importantly creative destruction, all of which adds to the betterment of civilization.

Jeffrey Tucker at the Laissez Faire Books in magnificently expounds on these…

The impulse to create environments that are hyper-cushioned and protected does not prepare anyone for effective functioning in real life. That’s because this type of environment has nothing to do with the real world. No matter how much we regulate, manage, create safety nets and otherwise build systems that remove obvious dangers from the word, the structure of the universe guarantees that the future is always unknown. Uncertainty does exist and cannot be eradicated. Change happens, and we have to be prepared to adapt to it. Nothing that happened in the past can necessarily be repeated in a changed future.

This is especially true in the economic environment. In a growing and developing economy, there is no stasis. Nothing is the exactly the same one day to the next day. There are constant changes in prices, resource availabilities, consumer tastes, worker availability and, especially, in technology. If a system cannot accommodate these, it is useless.

In a growing economy, there are profits and losses, success stories and bankruptcies, amazing triumphs and terrible losses and, most of all, there are surprises around every corner. Every day is an opportunity for something newer and better.

The government talks of stabilization, but there is no stability in a developing economy. Change, change and more change is the central character. Institutions rise and then must be torn down and replaced by new institutions.

This is the core of what builds a great civilization. It is not safety and stability but open-endedness, the opportunity for discovery and reinvention — that is the driving force of social and economic development. This also happens to be the very thing that bureaucracies and regulations oppose. They shut opportunity and constrain innovation. They tend to want to preserve what is outmoded and put fetters on what is emerging.

But here is the irony: If we think of history as the competition between controlled safety under despotic rulers and open-ended uncertainty under freedom, societies that embrace freedom win out every time. Freedom leads to growth and long-run triumph.

The above should apply not only to commerce but to all aspects including regulations as well.

Read the rest here

Austrian Capital Theory and the Market Process

The beauty of Austrian economics is of its emphasis on the nitty-gritty of the market process. And capital theory, which has largely ignored by the mainstream, plays a sine qua non role in the market process

Professor Peter Lewin eloquently discusses the Austrian Capital Theory at the Freeman Online (outside titles, all bold emphasis are mine; green brackets my comments)

The Austrian Theory

The best known Austrian capital theorist was Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, though his teacher Carl Menger is the one who got the ball rolling, providing the central idea that Böhm-Bawerk elaborated. Böhm-Bawerk produced three volumes dedicated to the study of capital and interest, making the Austrian theory of capital his best-known theoretical contribution. He provided a detailed account of the fundamentals of capitalistic production. Later contributors include Hayek, Ludwig Lachmann, and Israel Kirzner. They added to and enriched Böhm-Bawerk’s account in crucial ways. The legacy we now have is a rich tapestry that accords amazingly well with the nature of production in the digital information age. Some current contributors along these lines include Peter Klein, Nicolai Foss, Howard Baetjer, and me.

The Austrians emphasize that production takes time: The more indirect it is, the more “time” it takes. Production today is much more “roundabout” (Böhm-Bawerk’s term) than older, more rudimentary production processes. Rather than picking fruit in our backyard and eating it, most of us today get it from fruit farms that use complex picking, sorting, and packing machinery to process carefully engineered fruits. Consider the amount of “time” (for example in “people-hours”) involved in setting up and assembling all the pieces of this complex production process from scratch—from before the manufacture of the machines and so on. This gives us some idea of what is meant by production methods that are “roundabout.”

(The scare quotes around time are used because in fact there is no perfectly rigorous way to define the length of a production process in purely physical terms. But, intuitively, what is being asserted is that doing things in a more complicated, specialized way is more difficult; loosely speaking it takes more “time” because it is more “roundabout,” more indirect.)

More Roundabout Production

Through countless self-interested individual production decisions, we have adopted more roundabout methods of production because they are more productive—they add more value—than less roundabout methods. Were this not the case, they would not be deemed worth the sacrifice and effort of the “time” involved—and would be abandoned in favor of more direct production methods. What are at work here are the benefits of specialization—the division of labor to which Adam Smith referred. Modern economies comprise complex, specialized processes in which the many steps necessary to produce any product are connected in a sequentially specific network—some things have to be done before others. There is a time structure to the capital structure.

[my comment business people or entrepreneurs specialize on the products and services they provide and the markets they sell into]

This intricate time structure is partially organized, partially spontaneous (organic). Every production process is the result of some multiperiod plan. Entrepreneurs envision the possibility of providing (new, improved, cheaper) products to consumers whose expenditure on them will be more than sufficient to cover the cost of producing them. In pursuit of this vision the entrepreneur plans to assemble the necessary capital items in a synergistic combination. These capital combinations are structurally composed modules that are the ingredients of the industry-wide or economy-wide capital structure. The latter is the result then of the dynamic interaction of multiple entrepreneurial plans in the marketplace; it is what constitutes the market process. Some plans will prove more successful than others, some will have to be modified to some degree, some will fail. What emerges is a structure that is not planned by anyone in its totality but is the result of many individual actions in the pursuit of profit. It is an unplanned structure that has a logic, a coherence, to it. It was not designed, and could not have been designed, by any human mind or committee of minds. Thinking that it is possible to design such a structure or even to micromanage it with macroeconomic policy is a fatal conceit.

[my comment:

The term “economy” has truly been a misrepresentation.

In the real world, there are millions of heterogeneous interactions, distinctive moving parts, and complex and variegated supply chains, which means commercial activities represent mass spontaneity of people’s actions. They are not centrally organized actions as the word “economy” projects.

Think of it, does the government tell you whom to sell? Does the government dictate upon you on what (and how many) to produce or what services to provide? Does the government tell you which stock to buy or which investment to take?

If none of this applies, then why the heck, the popular impression that government “runs the economy”? Well the answer is that these have long been impressed upon to us by current political institutions meant to ensure our docility to our political masters]

The division of labor reflected by the capital structure is based on a division of knowledge. Within and across firms specialized tasks are accomplished by those who know best how to accomplish them. Such localized, often unconscious, knowledge could not be communicated to or collected by centralized decision-makers. The market process is responsible not only for discovering who should do what and how, but also how to organize it so that those best able to make decisions are motivated to do so. In other words, incentives and knowledge considerations tend to get balanced spontaneously in a way that could not be planned on a grand scale. The boundaries of firms expand and contract, and new forms of organization evolve. This too is part of the capital structure broadly understood.

[my comments:

Statistics signify as information based on aggregates. They do not account for the “knowledge of circumstances” that are “dispersed” “incomplete” or often “contradictory knowledge” or knowledge why people people have chosen through “incentives” to take such actions. Knowledge acquired from interpreting statistics constitute as presumptions and are manipulable to suit veiled agendas.

Statistics and econometrics are instruments mainly used to bamboozle or to overwhelm on the ignorant and the gullible public of the supposed omniscience of central planners. The only thing political actors know is to gorge and lavishly spend on other people’s money, as well as to exercise control over the population under the cover of the farcical “social justice”].

Division of Knowledge

In addition, the heterogeneous capital goods that make up the cellular capital combinations also reflect the division of knowledge. Capital goods (like specialized machines) are employed because they “know” how to do certain important things; they embody the knowledge of their designers about how to perform the tasks for which they were designed. The entire production structure is thus based on an incredibly intricate extended division of knowledge, such knowledge being spread across its multiple physical and human capital components. Modern production management is more than ever knowledge management, whether involving human beings or machines—the key difference being that the latter can be owned and require no incentives to motivate their production, while the former depend on “relationships” but possess initiative and judgment in a way that machines do not.

The foregoing provides the barest account of the rich legacy of Austrian capital theory, but it should be sufficient to communicate the essential differences between the Austrian view of the economy and that of other schools of thought. For Austrians the whole macroeconomic approach is problematic, involving, as it does, the use of gross aggregrates as targets for policy manipulation—aggregates like the economy’s “capital stock.” For Austrians there is no “capital stock.” Any attempt to aggregate the multitude of diverse capital items involved in production into a single number is bound to result in a meaningless outcome: a number devoid of significance. Similarly the total of investment spending does not reflect in any accurate way the addition to value that can be produced by this “capital stock.” The values of capital goods and of capital combinations, or of the businesses in which they are employed, are determined only as the market process unfolds over time. They are based on the expectations of the entrepreneurs who hire them, and these expectations are diverse and often inconsistent. Not all of them will prove correct—indeed most will be, at least to some degree, proven false. Basing macroeconomic policy on an aggregate of values for assembled capital items as recorded or estimated at one point in time would seem to be a fool’s errand. What do the policymakers know that the entrepreneurs involved in the micro aspects of production do not?

[my comment:

Macro economics has truly been about heuristics and or of our innate biases that have been embellished by mathematical formalism than about law of scarcity and opportunity costs or about economic reality.

Macro economics understates the ‘economic’ value provided by the market process.

On the other hand, macro economics overstates the illusion of hydraulically driven “economy”.]

Capital and Employment

The folly is compounded by connecting capital and investment aggregates to total employment under the assumption that stimulating the former will stimulate the latter. Such an assumption ignores the heterogeneity and structural nature of both capital and labor (human capital). Simply boosting expenditure on any kind of production will not guarantee the employment of people without jobs. How else to explain that our current economy is characterized by both sizeable unemployment numbers and job vacancies? Their coexistence is a result of a structural mismatch: The structure (that is, the pattern of skills) of the unemployed does not match those required to be able to work with the specific capital items that are currently unemployed.

In fact the current enduring recession is basically structural in nature. It is the bust of a credit-induced boom-bust cycle, augmented by far-reaching production-distorting regulation. The Austrian theory of the business cycle was developed first by Ludwig von Mises, combining insights from the Austrian theory of capital with the nature of modern central-bank-led monetary policy. The theory was later used, with some differences, by Hayek in his debates with Keynes. Over the years its popularity and acceptance have waxed and waned, but it appears to be highly relevant to our current situation.

[my comment:

The market process represents the immensely intertwined and deeply interdependent relationships of methodological individualism, profit-loss tradeoffs, capital theory, consumer sovereignty, property rights, coordination-discoordination of resource allocation, division of labor, specialization and roundabout production, division of knowledge, entrepreneurship, speculation, voluntary exchange, pricing system, spontaneous order, rule of law, market institutions and everything else under the capitalistic or classical liberalism order.

Whereas boom bust cycles signify as symptoms of imbalances brought upon by government inflationism, as well as, distortions emergent or as consequence from various production regulations and mandated proscriptions]

Glancing at the political prescriptions for today’s crisis management, one would notice that “capital” for the mainstream represents a homogenous lump called currency. Print money and everything is supposedly solved. Unfortunately after trillions of printed money, the global crisis has been worsening instead of abating.

Yet little is understood that money is NOT wealth, but a medium of exchange.

And wealth is about purchasing power of money. From this we understand that popular prescriptions of money printing have been economically unrealistic or unfeasible, and therefore, are bound for failure.Worst they are redistributive which favors political actors and their clients (the cronies).

It is not what gullible masses think that matters, rather it is the limitations of economic reality. That’s what Austrian Capital Theory talks about.

HOT: China’s Manufacturing Activity Falls Sharply in May

China’s manufacturing indicator has fallen bigger than expected.

From the Wall Street Journal

China's official Purchasing Managers Index fell significantly to 50.4 in May compared with 53.3 in April, the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing, which issues the data with the National Bureau of Statistics, said in a statement Friday.

The May PMI was also lower than the median forecast of 51.5 from 10 economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires.

The decline is likely to add to market concern about a sharp slowdown in the world's second-largest economy. Some economists say China's economy won't be able to rebound from its recent weakness until the second half of the year when stimulus measures start to show an effect.

A PMI reading above 50 indicates an expansion in manufacturing activity, while a reading below 50 indicates contraction

If China’s PMI falls below 50, then the risks of a full blown recession or financial crisis (bubble bust) gets amplified.

The recent decline of commodity prices appears to be a harbinger for this.

Add to the current market fragility and burgeoning uncertainty is China government’s articulated position of withholding intervention for the moment.

A former Chinese official—Xia Bin, head of the financial research institute at the cabinet's think-tank, the Development Research Centre and a former member of the central bank's monetary policy committee until March recently—even chaffed at West for the clangorous demand for more easing policies and stimulus.

From an earlier Reuters article,

"Americans and Europeans like it. Investors like it because they want to speculate on stocks. The whole world is hoping China will relax policy," Xia told Reuters.

"We will fall into a trap if we do. We will not be that stupid," Xia said, adding that the government should only stimulate economic growth in a "balanced and modest" way, while forging ahead with structural reforms to sustain growth over the longer term.

Be very careful out there.

Quote of the Day: Rules versus Discretion

We talk about "regulation," but the real issue is rules vs. discretion. Regulating by simple clear rules is much better than regulation by discretion, or by rules so complex they amount to discretion. When a zoning inspector can come in after the fact and always find something wrong, it's in invitation to corruption. We are increasingly a country in which "regulation" means that regulators can tell people what to do on a whim, not one in which clear objective rules are imposed.

That’s from University of Chicago Professor John H. Cochrane. It’s really rule of law versus arbitrary edicts, legislation or regulations. Again corruption is an offshoot to the latter.

War on the Internet: 377 Words to use for Uncle Sam to Watch You

Free speech undermines the power of centralized government. So governments will make any excuses to work on repressing free speech.

One way is to make everyone a suspect for politically mandated illegitimate activities as ‘drugs’ or ‘terror’. This by monitoring so called ‘suspicious’ activities, a.k.a. spying. And naturally, where people congregate to share or exchange information, now becomes the hotbed for government intelligence.

A list of 377 sensitive words that you use may trigger Uncle Sam’s monitoring of you.

From Simon Black of Sovereign Man

After vigorous resistance, the Department of Homeland Security was finally forced into releasing it’s 2011 Analyst’s Desktop Binder. It’s a manual of sorts, teaching all the storm troopers who monitor our Internet activity all day which key words to look for.

Facebook, a.k.a. the US government’s domestic intelligence center, is the primary target for this monitoring… though it’s become clear so many times before that various departments, including the NSA and FBI, are monitoring online activity ranging from search terms to emails.

Domestic spying is typically denied in public and swept under the rug. After all, it’s legality has always been questionable… if not entirely Unconstitutional.

Yet month after month it seems, there is new legislation introduced to deprive Internet users of their privacy and make the open collection of data a natural part of the online landscape.

Homeland Security’s key word ‘hotlist’ is really no surprise… they’re just the ones to get caught.

So now we know, at least, what these goons are looking for. Sort of.

According to the manual, DHS breaks down its monitoring into a whopping 14 categories ranging from Health to Fire to Terrorism. It’s a testament to how bloated the department’s scope has become.

Afterwards there is a list of 377 of key terms to monitor, most of which are completely innocuous. Exercise. Cloud. Leak. Sick. Organization. Pork. Bridge. Smart. Tucson. Target. China. Social media.

Curiously, in its ‘Critical Information Requirements’, the manual decrees that analysts should also catalog items which may “reflect adversely on DHS and response activities.”

Absolutely unreal. Big Brother is not just watching. He’s digging, searching, reading, monitoring, archiving, and judging too.

The list of the 377 sensitive words here