We're back in civilization... Wait...you call this civilization? Looks more like Bubble Land again!

Gold is headed towards $1,100...

Bonds are soft...so is the dollar...

Speaking of old friends, Marc Faber says he's long the dollar. Faber thinks the buck is over-sold. It could rise 10% in this last quarter.

But the Fed says it will keep interest rates low for an "extended period." So there is still no sign of the kind of policy turnaround that might send the greenback back up.

Instead, we'll have to wait until the bubble pops!

Oil is over $80...

Republicans are winning elections...

Hey, party like it was 2006...

The Dow is moving back up, too...and so are all the world's markets...led by Asian stocks. China is booming...with its stocks up 4 days in a row...

The rise in gold comes as India's central bank does the smart thing. Central banks need reserves. And historically, the only reserve a central bank can trust is gold. Putting US dollars in your vault - instead of gold - is a little like laying in a supply of lettuce to tide you over in a bad harvest year. Imagine what would have happened if pharaoh had stocked up on radicchio instead of grain? Those 7 lean years would have been a lot leaner than they were.

The Chinese have seen what happens when you rely on dollars for a reserve. You're stuck. Because your reserves can wilt fast.

The Indians have a better idea - they're buying gold.

The metal has outperformed stocks and bonds this year as it heads for the ninth straight annual gain. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index has risen 15 percent in 2009 through yesterday while returns on the benchmark 10-year US Treasury note are down 5.7 percent.

Gold may average $1,125 in 2010, "with strong investment demand anchored by a negative real-interest-rate environment and probable central bank purchases," analysts at Toronto-based Desjardins Securities Inc. said in a report.

And here's another interesting item we found when we got back to an Internet connection: "Companies that become too big, complicated and debt-ridden should be allowed to 'creatively destruct,'" says our friend Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan.

Taleb likens the process to natural selection. "Why is it that there are no land animals bigger than an elephant?" he asks. "Because nature doesn't permit it. Bigger animals die off. Likewise, the market system disposes of companies that are 'too big to fail.' It gets rid of them."

Unfortunately, says Taleb, the US government is impeding this natural process. The government is preventing the bankruptcies of large corporations that would clear the way for a new generation of healthier, more nimble, corporate organisms. Furthermore, these trillion-dollar bailouts are polluting the financial ecosystem with toxic piles of debt.

"We're not destroying debt," Taleb complains. "When you move it into the government, it stays in the government and that's a problem."

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Naturally the Feds Want to Raise as Much Money as They Can
• Life Goes On
• There is More to Wealth than Money
• Global Credit Shortage is Over According to European Central Bank
• Central Banks’ New Money is Piling Up

Our views are different, but not extra-terrestrial. Once upon a time, not so long ago, they were even respectable. The gist of our message two weeks ago was that debt is dangerous. It feels good at first. But give a society too much debt - either in its private sector or the public sphere - and someone's going to get killed. That's why the present situation is such a delight to serious economists; it offers more data points. We get to see how much straw the feds can add before the poor camel's back breaks.

What's the best way to get through a debt crisis? Straight through was our advice last week. For at least a thousand years, the business cycle went round and round without help from central bankers or economists. It is only since these geniuses have been on the case that really serious problems have arisen. The Panic of 1920 - in which the US government did nothing but cut taxes and spending - was quickly forgotten. The Panic of 1929, on the other hand, was followed by massive rigging and jiving by the authorities. It took 20 years and a world war to overcome; today it is still remembered today as the Great Depression.

Martin Wolf, speaking, gravely, for the world's intelligentsia in The Financial Times last week, proclaimed that: "the only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not rescuing it." But he is wrong; of all the many blessings economists may bestow upon a grateful people, improving the economy is not one of them. An economy is a natural thing. It can be improved by the striving of entrepreneurs, the prudence of bankers, and the sweating of field hands. But when it comes to the macro-economic policy, forbearance is the quality that pays. Any initiative on the feds' part inevitably makes things worse.

The Bubble Era, like the Great Depression, was largely -but not completely - the result of government initiative. Artificially low interest rates - intended to counter the modest downturn of 2001 - sent the wrong message. Consumers - notably those in Britain and America - bought things they couldn't afford. Producers - notably those in Asia - made things for which there was no real market. Debt piled up. Mountains of it.

As consumers bought more and producers made more the economy grew. But much of the economic "growth" of the 2001-2007 period was fraudulent. It was based on debt spending, not on genuine increases in purchasing power. Debt pretends to be real money. It looks like the real thing, but it is not. It stimulates the economy like counterfeit money. It causes production and consumption, but of the wrong sort. Former Reagan era Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman estimates the level of "counterfeit GDP" at $4 trillion in the US alone.

The fraud was discovered, though misunderstood, when sub-prime debt began to implode. The economy had been kissed hard; millions of houses had been built, bought and sold. Now, owners couldn't pay for them. All of sudden, the counterfeit money began to shrivel up. Lenders, investors, and householders all began to de-leverage; paying down the debts as fast as they could, defaulting on those they couldn't.

Rather than come to the obvious conclusion, that they should never have meddled with the economy in the first place, the feds began rescue operations on a breathtaking scale. The British government increased spending to 140% of revenues. America now runs a stimulus program nearly equivalent, in economic impact, to WWII. Not since 1945 have the two pages of its ledgers - debits and credits - told such different stories, with almost $2 of spending for ever $1 in tax receipts. Britain will add almost 50% to its government debt in the next three years. David Stockman expects the publicly held US national debt to almost double in the next five years.

Even at those levels, many economists think the government should do more. Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman is one. Richard Koo is another. They've warned that the US (and by extension much of the rest of the world) could suffer a Lost Decade, like Japan, if the government slacks off before consumers have finished de-leveraging. At least they understand what is going on. Too bad they missed the point of it. The problem is too much debt, not too little spending. Leveraging up the public sector doesn't help. Even government debts must be paid - if not by the borrower, then by the lender. The feds are smooching more ardently than any debt lover in history; next, we get to see who dies...or at least who defaults.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner,
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Why Weren’t Economists On Top of This Thing?
• Where Do the Feds Get Any Money?
• Keynesians Believe Governments Have to Manage Economy in Macro-Economic Way
• US Economy Still on Runway as Recovery Won’t Fly
• Cash is Created When the Feds “Monetize the Debt” by Buying US Treasury Bonds

It's More Than Half Full.

Ok, Bill, let's review those wonderful days from whence we sprang, so fraught with the advantages of having nothing. So potent with opportunity. It was the middle of the '70s when we started our careers. Inflation was high and rising. The Soviets were seen as a major threat. Japan was beating our brains out and buying everything, even if nailed down (like Pebble Beach and New York skyscrapers). I had to borrow money at 15% (or more) to buy paper in order to meet customer demands for printing. And guess what? The banks got into trouble and called loans willy-nilly. (My bank even called my mother and threatened her to pay my loan - against written agreements - and she did. Evil sons of bitches. The more things change... And they delightedly did fail! Not that I hold a grudge.)

There were multiple successive and deeper recessions. Gold was rising as the dollar was seen as a joke. Howard Ruff (a good friend to both of us when we were starting out!) and almost every newsletter writer were telling people to buy gold and freeze-dried food to protect themselves against a near certain economic, if not apocalyptic, catastrophe. Unemployment was high and rising for a decade.

The correct answer to the question, "Where will the jobs come from?" back then was "I don't know, but they will." And it is the correct answer today.

In 20 years, no one will want to come back to the halcyon days of 2005. Our kids (all 13 of them) are getting ready to live through what will be the most exciting period in human history. There will be a century's worth of change, measured by the standard of the 20th century, just in the next ten years, and then we will double that pace in the next ten after that. Medical miracles that will mean our kids and grandkids will live a lot longer than their dads, although I intend to be writing well into my 80s, like our mutual hero Richard Russell.

There will be whole new industries developed in the US. How do I know that? Follow the money. The rest of the world spends a fraction on research and development that we do. Where do you go if you are looking for venture capital?

Do I care if the Chinese and the "developing" worlds are far better off, relatively speaking, than the US in 20 years? Not a whit. Good on them. I hope they make discoveries and inventions and new businesses that benefit us all. But we are not going into some long dark night. We, and our kids, get to choose how we respond to what is the reality of the day.

Our nation had to almost hit the wall in 1980 before a Volker could come along and force us to take the pain of recessions to beat back inflation. And we will have to come perilously close to the wall this time before we take action as a nation. Way to close for comfort. Maybe you are right, and we have a soft depression. I hope not, but even so, the world will be better, far better, in 20 years, with far more opportunities than today.

It was not fun starting new businesses in the '70s and early '80s. But we did. I remember coming to Baltimore and being (literally) afraid to get out of the car to visit your offices in the slums. But that was what you could afford. A far cry from the chateau in Ouzilly.

I lived in a small mobile home. Tiffani was born there, and we converted part of the kitchen to be her bedroom. (Yes, I was white "trailer trash.") But I got up every morning just like you did and killed as many alligators as I could. The rest had to wait till the next day.

And that is the legacy our kids have. They know what it is to wade into the swamp every morning. Never quitting. In thinking about this, you may be the father I respect the most. You have raised your kids to be multi-lingual children of the world. What a work ethic. How did you get them to scrape window shutters at your chateaus? (I actually saw this, and my kids marveled.

Thereafter I threatened to make them go live with you when they did not act right!)

You have given your kids the opportunity to follow their dreams, even demanded that they do so. And such dreams they (and mine) have. Will they succeed? Who knows? But they will go at it with gusto, in a world with more opportunities than you and I ever imagined 40 years ago. And, oh boy, were we optimists back then. How else could we have done what we did? If we believed the rhetoric that the world was coming to an end, would we have dared to venture out?

You cannot have raised your kids to be such bold adventurers without instilling in them a certain high level of optimism. I am going to out you, Mr. Bonner. You present yourself to your readers as a bona fide end of the world pessimist. But you are a really and truly a closet optimist. Your whole business empire (and what an empire it has become!) is based on finding people who are optimists, in the sense that they think they can actually get people to send them money for what they write. Which they do! Even if it is to read why the world will come to an end, which it thankfully never does.

You are right in this: it is personal gumption that makes or breaks us. There are those who started out with less than we did (hard to imagine but true) and made a lot more. And there are those who started out with far more and made less. But there are very few who are happier than either of us. Or luckier.

Our kids? It is not the times which dictate the man (or daughter!), but the response of the man which dictates his own time. Today has a brighter future for someone young than any other time in history, whether they are in the US or Brazil or China. They just have to seize it.

And as our kids do just that, and as the millions of kids of those who read us do so, and the billions of kids who are just now getting ready to bust loose all work to achieve their dreams, the world is going to be a far more fantastic place. Smooth ride? Not a chance. We didn't get one, and in thinking through history, there have not been many smooth rides. Why should we think we will get any better? Our kids will just have to live with our generational (and individual) iniquities, government debt and all, and figure out how to master their own fates. But if I had a choice to take the '70s or today? In less than a heart's beat I choose today. And I bet you would too!

Regards,

Bill Bonner and John Mauldin
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Baby Boomers Figure They Will Have to Work Longer than Expected
• Baby Boomers Are Ill-Prepared for Retirement
• Children Growing Up in a Different World
• Rare Coins as an Informal Way of Estate Planning
• Jules Begins His Last Year of School in Boston

Another national emergency! Terrorism...the banking crisis...now Swine Flu.

Why it is an emergency, we don't know. Our sister, living in Virginia tells us that several of her grandchildren have come down with the Swine Flu. It doesn't seem to bother them anymore than any other flu.

But every emergency is an opportunity. The feds don't want to waste it. Instead, they swing into operation with a rescue plan. It will end up costing billions...hundreds of billions...or maybe even trillions. We don't know what they've got in mind. But we know what will come of it. It will end up extending the power and influence of the government. So far, the feds are the only real winners from any of these crises. Federal outlays, as a percentage of GDP have shot up from less than 20% of GDP in 2000 to more than 26% in 2009.

Will it do any good? Public health is not central banking. And it's not economic planning. Force everyone to wear a surgical mask and maybe lives would be spared. Or, maybe not. Without the immunity of occasional bouts of flu, who knows? Maybe people would be more susceptible to the next disease. The American Indians were almost wiped out...because they had no immunity to European diseases.

Interesting...

Ain't nature amazing? Disease works like an economic correction. It winnows out the weak...and it toughens up survivors. Allowing people to get sick is a little like allowing them to go broke. It keeps the whole system from softening up...from becoming more vulnerable. It protects people from moral and biological hazard. In other words, it's the correction that really provides protection...the disease itself, not the cure. Or, to put it another way, it's the crash that is beneficial, not the rescue.

David Einhorn, one of the few people to make money in the crash of sub-prime debt:

"The financial reform on the table is analogous to our response to airline terrorism by frisking grandma and taking away everyone's shampoo. It gives the appearance of 'doing something' and adds to our bureaucracy without really making anything safer."

The Wall Street Journal reports that even bankruptcy can be a good thing. "Household Debt Can Hasten Recovery...when it goes unpaid," says a headline.

The whole idea of a correction is to wash out mistakes. If people can pay their debts down, the mistakes are corrected. The system is strengthened. If they can't, the process of correction can happen faster. Bad debts are written off quickly. Then, a real recovery can begin. Either way, the system comes back in better shape.

Too bad the feds are getting in the way!

A decent correction should carry off those who made the biggest mistakes - in the present case, the firms on Wall Street that wagered billions on a bigger and bigger bubble. But instead of letting them go broke, the feds rewarded them.

Wall Street profits are a 'gift' from the state, says George Soros.

But wait, what kind of gift is this? If you give $100 to your neighbor, that's a gift. But what if you tax your neighbor on the left $100 in order to give the money to your neighbor on the right? That's a gift too...but of a special kind. You're 'redistributing the wealth,' you might say.

And what if you do a quantitative easing? You know, you print up a $100 bill and give it to your neighbor? That's a gift too.

Yeah, thanks a lot.

Meanwhile, the recession is said to have come to an end in the US. GDP growth is positive, say the papers. But if this is a recovery, let's hope it comes to an end soon.

Existing house prices continued to fall in September.

Unemployment continued to worsen. "Signs of recovery don't extend to jobs," says the WSJ.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Naturally the Feds Want to Raise as Much Money as They Can
• The Fed Cut Rates – But How Low Will They Go?
• Feds Buy Houses
• Feds Have Used the Correction to Increase Their Power and Add to Their Wealth
• AIG to Receive $85 Billion Loan from Fed

Last week, stocks went up. Stocks went down. Not much was proved one way or another. The week ended in a draw, as near as we can tell.

But we think we are making progress in understanding what is going on. The private sector is de-leveraging. Now, it's the public sector doing the heavy lifting. It is leveraging everything it can.

Leverage in the private sector led to the banking crisis/bear market of 2007-2009. Debt always leads to trouble. Next up: a crisis in the public sector.

But wait...hold on...not so fast...we haven't reached the end of the private sector crisis yet! Bank lending is still falling. House prices are still falling. Unemployment is still falling. Soon, stock prices will be falling again too...

First, let's see what's in the headlines. Last week there was a lot of press about the pay czar and his efforts to limit compensation in the companies that the feds bailed out. The public and the news media love this sort of thing. It's a battle between the greedy rich and the public interest, or so they believe. The public hates bankers. But they don't want to see just pay capping; they want to see knee-capping. We'd like to see it too. Or maybe public flogging. Or at least a lapidation or two.

But our true sympathies are with the greedy CEOs. After all, they stole the money fair and square. They should be allowed to keep it. The feds wanted to leverage up the financial sector by giving money to the banks. What'd they expect? The bankers took it.

Yes, the financiers are paid outrageous amounts of money - far beyond anything they are worth. In fact, if you studied it carefully, you'd probably discover that their net contribution to the betterment of mankind is now negative.

The bankers are betting that the money they were given by the feds will be worth less next year than it is this year. So they exchange it for everything and anything, confident that when it comes time to pay it back it will be even easier to come by than it is now.

So far the bet has gone their way. Copper has doubled. Gold is up 20%. Stocks markets all over the world are up 60%. Foreign currencies, too, have beaten the dollar.

Will the wager against the dollar continue to pay off? Well, that's the big question. If so, you should stay in stocks, gold and commodities. If not, you should move to cash.

But it hardly matters to the gamblers. They're playing with someone else's money! If the bets go well, they pay themselves huge bonuses. If they go badly...well...hey...gimme a bailout!

In the long run, bets against the dollar are almost sure to turn out okay. All paper currencies go to zero, eventually. But in the short run, who knows? The whole world is betting against the greenback. With such a massive short position against the buck, it would be just like Mr. Market - aka Mr. Mischief- maker -- to send the dollar up.

But you can't blame the bankers. They're performing a very valuable service. They are helping to separate fools from their money. Too bad we taxpayers are the fools....

Among all the whiners and kvetchers about bankers' huge bonuses hardly a single one draws the obvious conclusion:

That them that deserve to go bust should be allowed to do so.

"I remain of the view," writes Martin Wolf, a bit pompously, in The Financial Times, "that the only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not rescuing it."

He's welcome to his opinions. And if he used his own money to bail out the bankers we would have no objection. In that case, it would just be a futile and foolish act. Instead, he insists upon using our money...which raises the charge from stupidity to larceny.

Another message that came through last week was that the real economy is not improving. Good news came in from several quarters. But the news that really counts - housing prices and jobs - was bad.

"It's all bad. That's all we know," said John Stepek, editor of MoneyWeek. "People ask if we're going to have inflation or deflation. The bulls think we're going to have inflation. The bears bet on deflation. But I'm not sure it matters. We're probably going to have both.

"The point is, whichever we have, it's going to be the bad sort. Neither inflation nor deflation is necessarily bad. Prices have to adjust. That's how the market conveys its signals. When prices rise, it tells producers to get busy and increase output. When prices fall, it tells them to lay off. In the natural order of things prices usually fall. Or, they should fall. This is 'good' deflation. It just means that producers are becoming more efficient, as they should. There's good inflation too - when prices rise due to increased real demand. When people earn more money, they can buy more things; prices rise.

"But what we're going to see is bad. Bad inflation. And bad deflation. It is the result of monetary problems and mismanagement. And it is going to send all the wrong signals and inevitably make things worse. First, the deflation is bad because it is result of a massive de- leveraging accompanied by a write-down of debt and assets. It's a depression. Or a major recession. Or a 'great contraction.' Call it what you will. It's a deflation in which prices fall...and it's not going to be any fun.

"Then, there's most likely going to be bad inflation too - caused by the central banks printing too much money. This is bad inflation because it is just an increase in the quantity of paper money, not an increase in real demand.

"We don't know exactly what is coming. But whatever it is, it will be bad."

Another big item in last week's financial press was the "Cash for Houses" scheme. The feds give new house buyers an $8,000 tax credit. But since not all new buyers buy because of the credit, the actual cost to the government per additional new house purchased is much higher than 8 grand. For each additional house purchased because the credit taxpayers are paying as much as a quarter of the entire cost of the house.

And now there is a proposal to extend and broaden the credit. Soon it may be "Cash for Everything."

This sounds crazy, but there are a lot of economists who think more stimulus is necessary. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, for example. And Richard Koo, mentioned here last week. They've seen what happened in Japan. And they see that the real economy is not recovering as they hoped it would. Now, they warn that America might have a "Lost Decade" if it doesn't continue to stimulate the economy.

How long must it continue bailing out and stimulating? Until consumers have finished de-leveraging, they say. How long will that take? Maybe another 5 years, by our calculation...maybe much longer.

But wait...the whole problem is too much debt, right?

Yep.

But the only way the government can stimulate is by going further into debt, right?

Yep.

And isn't the budget deficit already at $1.6 trillion...or 11% of GDP...the most it has been since WWII?

Yep.

Well, then where's the benefit? Won't the public sector have to de- leverage too?

Bingo!

How does the public sector deleverage?

Two possible ways - honestly...and dishonestly. It can pay down its debts to a level at which they can be carried even if interest rates go up sharply. They did it after the War Between the States...after WWII...and even during the Clinton years. Believe it or not, when the Congressional Budget Office looked ahead in 2001, it saw a budget SURPLUS for 2008 of more than $600 billion. Surpluses had been coming in for years during the Clinton administration. They thought it would keep going like that. Instead, 2008 saw a DEFICIT of nearly $500 billion.

The higher the debt and deficits go the harder it is to pay them down honestly. Eventually, the feds reach the point of no return...like a guy who's so deep in debt he can't possibly work his way out. Then, you get another crisis...either in the form of default...or (hyper) inflation...or both.

Tomorrow, we're off on the road to the Andean highlands...

No phone. No internet. No fax. No Blackberry. No iPhone.

We've got cows to round-up, wrestle, and vaccinate.

In the meantime, we'll leave our "Crash Alert" flag flying...and send a message as soon as we can...

Until then,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• The More Money in a Financial System the Less Each Unit is Worth
• Warren Buffett: People Do Not Make Money by Betting Against the US Economy
• The Feds Are Trying to Avoid Deflation
• The Battle Between the Forces of Inflation and Deflation Wages On
• Inflation or Deflation?

The quote comes from Ben Franklin. But it was recalled to us neither by America's president, nor Britain's Prime Minister. Instead, the Telegraph in London reported it from the mouth of Cheng Siwei, a "top member of the Communist hierarchy."

What goes around comes around. The Anglo-Saxons have forgotten what makes a successful economy. The Chinese have remembered.

Just look up Warren Harding on Wikipedia. The first entry you will find is not the 29th president of the United States of America, but a rock climber with the same name. But what do you expect? History is nothing but a long list of disasters in chronological order. Historians love calamity. And they reserve their highest accolades for those who cause them. The same is true in financial history. Those who make it big are those who make it worse.

It is safe to assume that no one working at the Federal Reserve or at the White House has a picture of Warren Gamaliel Harding over his desk. Yet, if American presidents were ranked on the basis of how well they faced up to financial disaster, Warren G. Harding might be somebody. His handsome face would be carved on Rushmore. His likeness would grace the $100 bill. Harding was the last American president to deal honestly with a major financial crisis. Every president since has tried to scam his way out of it.

By the time Harding took office in '21 the Panic of 1920 was taking the unemployment rate from 4% to nearly 12%. GDP fell 17%. Then, as now, the president's subordinates urged him to intervene. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover wanted to meddle - as he would 10 years later. But Harding resisted. No bailouts. No stimulus. No monetary policy. No fiscal policy. Harding had a better approach; he cut government spending and went out to play poker:

"We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend Republican capacity...it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life.

"Let us call...for a nationwide drive against extravagance and luxury, to a recommittal to simplicity of living, to that prudent and normal plan of life which is the health of the republic."

Within a decade, Harding's views were collectibles. But in 1921, he still saw the economic world as a moral world ordered not by man, but by God. This was not the result of long study or deep reflection on his part. He was probably the dummy everybody said he was. As Keynes pointed out, politicians are always in thrall of some dead economist. At least Harding was in thrall to the good ones.

"No statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature," he announced. "Our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government..."

Harding was not the first to see the economy as a 'natural' order...one that you disturbed at your peril. A Taoist named Zhuangzi, who lived about the same time as Alexander, observed: "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

Later, economists of the Scottish enlightenment, notably Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson elaborated. Smith, like Harding, saw the economy ordered by the invisible hand of God. Ferguson saw markets as a 'spontaneous order,' which were the "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design".

The same basic insight led Irving Fisher - the greatest economist of the 1920s - to come up with his debt-deflation theory of depressions. After people had borrowed, they needed to pay back. Busts followed booms; there was no getting around it.

Warren Harding may never have been the brightest bulb on the White House porch, but intuitively he understood that proper macro-economic policies were more the product of virtue than of genius. Debt led to trouble; that's all he needed to know.

Keynes came along a few years later. Keynes was a genius; everybody said so. And he had an answer for everything. Nature? Government could do better. Debt? Don't worry about it, he said. Why not just let capitalism sort itself out? Without government intervention, it will only get worse, said Keynes.

But Harding had already proved him wrong. Harding did the very opposite of what Keynes recommended. Instead of increasing government spending, he reduced it. He cut the budget almost in half. He slashed taxes too...and cut the national debt by a third.

Japan at the time struggled with the same downturn. But it had no Harding at the helm. Instead, its masters prefigured Keynes, trying to stay the correction using price controls and other interventions. The result was a long-drawn-out affair that lasted until 1927 and ended in a bank crisis. In America, meanwhile, by 1922 unemployment was back down to 6.7%. By 1923 it was down further - to 2.4%.

This lesson was entirely lost on the world's economists. When the next crisis hit a decade later, they turned to Keynes. Of course, it turned out to be a moral world after all. They got what they deserved.

Regards,

Bill Bonner,
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• A Brief Lesson in Sarah Palinese
• The Percentage of the U.S. Economy Devoted to Consumer Spending Went Up and Up
• Barack Obama and His Nobel Peace Prize
• Alan Greenspan Bears Blame for Intensity of Financial Crisis
• Politics and Investment Intertwined

There were hundreds of them...different shapes...different sizes. A businessman in a pin-striped suit, briefcase in hand, concentrating on his sales report; he almost stepped in front of a motorcycle. A salesgirl, grotesquely overweight...yellow hair streaked with brown...wishing she hadn't had so much to drink the night before. A lawyer daydreaming about his secretary. A man who would have rather been fishing...still in his waxed coat. A woman annoyed about something. A heavy construction worker, his legs splayed outward as he walked. A tense young woman who dared not look up. A woman worrying about her son. A man thinking about buying a new car. One man trying to remember a line from a song he learned 30 years ago. Another talking to herself. One looked like a doctor taking an afternoon stroll. Another was stark raving mad.

All of them walking along...from one place to another...shuffling along...the living towards the dead.

We were thinking of our children. What a different world they grow up in. And yet, it is still the same too. A man might have been stuck on a London street 50 years ago...and hundreds of years ago he might have watched the same shopkeepers and carpenters walk by, each caught in his own thoughts like a fly in a spider's web.

Our old friend John Mauldin wrote to say that his mother's experience was not much different than ours. She joined the WACs during the war...met John's father...and then nature took her course.

But both John and your editor had a big advantage in life. We both caught the upswing.

Not so with our children. They inherit a different world. America was the world's leading nation in the '50s and '60s. And it was growing in power and wealth - rapidly. We grew up with it. Things were getting better and better...we were sure we'd live much grander, richer, and more exciting lives than our parents. The sky was always the limit!

Now, America is in decline. China's economy grows while hers declines. The Far East has savings, while she has none. The Asia nations are net exporters, making huge profits...while American industries are judged too old, too expensive, and too highly regulated to compete. Americans have debt up the kazoo, while their competitors have little. A young person in America has to look forward to supporting 70 million retired baby boomers...and paying for their drugs, their food, their wars, and their bailouts.

For our children - ours and John's - the situation on a personal level is different too. Coming from poor families, we could look forward to much more wealth and material success than our parents ever knew.

We came back to Ireland this week for a reason that our parents would never have dreamed of. Your editor has set up a family office. It is a very modest affair by family office standards. The typical family office manages a fortune of $100 million, according to The New York Times. We may not even be on the same planet with these rich families; but we are in the same universe. That is, we try to think about...and manage...our wealth as rich people do...as a family legacy or an endowment, not as a retirement fund.

What wealth we have accumulated - even if it is paltry - will be held by a family-owned corporation. Then, the corporation, run largely by the adult children, manages the assets - from our base in Ireland.

Your editor, freed from the responsibility of managing his own money will be free to wander and think...like a vagabond, a gypsy, a refugee, an itinerant mendicant...forced to sup on whatever is at hand and take lodging wherever he can find it - but favoring the Four Seasons and Chateau Margot when they are available.

Whatever else this does, it puts the children in a very different situation from their parents. Instead of starting out with nothing, they're starting out with something. While this would seem to be a big advantage to them, it has huge hidden disadvantages. Like America itself, they are in danger of finding themselves slipping downhill. Instead of expecting things to get better, they may find it hard even to hold onto what they've got. Instead of the "Morning in America" that Ronald Reagan promised, they may find that it seems more like evening, both in their personal as well as their national lives.

"From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations," say the French. The grandfather begins without a coat. His grandson ends that way.

But what to do? Spend it all now...so the children begin with the same clean slate we had? Move to Brazil or India - countries with more obvious upside?

In the deep, cosmic end, it probably doesn't matter. The advantage to starting out on an upper rung of the ladder may be about equal to the disadvantage of having to worry about falling off. Who can know?

Every man has to play the cards he's been dealt. What else can he do? He may have a humpback or a beautiful voice. He may have had a hard upbringing or a soft head. He may have a fortune worth of poetry in his soul but not dime in his pocket. As far as we can tell, every young man starts out even. Each one begins life in the same place - where he is. And every generation takes what it is given, and makes the best of it.

The real advantage in life is having the gumption to get on with it; no one knows where that comes from.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• The Family Office
• All You Need is Love… and Work
• Dinner in White
• Life is a Long Hike
• Global Warming and the Children of Israel

But wait...what's this? The average maturity of that debt has come down from more than 5 years to only 4. And according to the Office of management and Budget, if the US continues on its present course, net interest will rise to 5% of GDP in 2019 and 10% in 2034.

And that assumes there is no big increase in interest rates...and that the economy recovers as planned. If either of those things fails to happen, the situation will degrade fast.

Imagine if the government were forced to refinance debt at double-digit interest rates - as it was in the late '70s. Net interest could go to 5% of GDP within months.

We're in a depression, not a recession. Depressions take longer to sort out. But they are also far more treacherous. Because there are always periods when things seem to be going "back to normal," only to go back down again as soon as investors turn bullish.

Richard Koo, author of The Balance Sheet Recovery, recalls how it was during Japan's long, dark passage:

"We had these false starts... The economy would begin to improve and then we'd say 'oh my god, the budget deficit is too large.' Then we'd cut fiscal stimulus and collapse again. We went through this zigzag for 15 years."

Koo understands what is going on, more or less. Companies and households are paying off debt. He and Paul Krugman believe the feds have to continue pumping money into the system or they're going to have a "lost decade," just like the Japanese.

You have to keep the stimulus money flowing "until the private sector de-leveraging is over," he says.

By our calculations, it will take 5-10 years for the private sector to de-leverage. By that time, the feds will have added trillions in debt to public finances. Since they can't finance that much from private domestic savings, and since foreigners will be wary about lending that much even if they had it, the Fed itself will have to pony up the money. This will put the dollar in further danger...along with the entire global financial system.

Koo may be right - as far as his thinking takes him. He should think a little further. The problem is debt. Too much debt in the private sector caused bear markets and a bank crisis. Too much debt in the public sector will cause big problems too - a default...and hyperinflation. Worse than a depression.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• U.S. Government Must Roll Over $3.4 Trillion in Debt Over Next Four Years
• Government Debt Bubble is What Directly Precedes Inflation
• What’s the Best Way to Get Through a Debt Crisis?
• Household Debt Represents Spending Taken From the Future
• In Europe, Banks Borrow Money and Lend it Back to the Government

Since it peaked in 2007, the UK stock market lost 60% of its value. As of yesterday, it had recovered half of what it had lost.

All over the world, the story is about the same. Markets have recovered half or more of what they gave up.

The US is a laggard. While the S&P is up 60%, the Dow isn't yet at the halfway point. Some foreign markets, meanwhile, have 100% + gains.

Fund managers who missed the rally are kicking themselves. They've failed to keep up with the benchmarks.

Even before the market headed up in March we echoed Richard Russell's words: "One of the surest phenomena in the financial world is the bear market bounce," he said. We also guessed that the bounce would go to about half the previous losses. We based that on what had happened after the Crash of '29.

Well, we're still not there. But an analyst from Morgan Stanley tells us that markets tend to do better than that. The typical bounce is about 70%, says he.

Whew! That's a pretty serious bounce. If we'd known it was going to be that big we would have encouraged dear readers to bet on it. Instead, we judged it a dangerous countercurrent...like a back eddy or rip tide. Yes, it can take you places...but not necessarily where you want to go!

Our outlook here at The Daily Reckoning is very long term. We don't like betting on countercurrents...even important ones. Instead, we like to go with the flow...and keep going with it until it arrives at its end.

That's not as easy as it sounds.

In 1999, it looked like the bull market had come to an end. We thought so. We told readers to get out of stocks...and stay out. Gold was a better place to be.

Investors made nothing in stocks for the next 10 years. In real terms, the stock market decline began in January 2000. Prices went down. They bounced...such a big bounce that it looked like a genuine new bull market. But after inflation, there wasn't much left. Adjust for purchasing power and investors were worse off every year. Even now, after a 7-month bounce and a 45% gain, Dow investors are still down 30% to 40% from the highs set in 1999.

Dave Rosenberg...

"The only thing we really learned in this extremely flashy, seven-month, 60%, nine-point multiple expansion-led rally, is that momentum investing never did become extinguished this cycle. It is really a fascinating commentary on human behavior that so many 'investors' are lamenting about how 'the train has left the station' without them. Please, give us a giant break! The train has left the station countless of times in the last 10 years but obviously none of these trips lasted very long because the reality is that equities have failed to generate any positive return over this time interval.

"As for the here and now, there is another reality. Price gains in the stock market have generally occurred with low volume. There are limited buyers - hedge funds and flash traders - but no sellers (not yet, anyway). And, we saw in yesterday's decline that volume climbed across the board, and the number of high-volume selloffs is a major red flag that should not be ignored."

The typical major bear market lasts 15-20 years. The last one began in 1966. It wasn't until 1982 - 16 years later - that the next major bull trend began.

This bear market is already 10 years old. Perhaps it will end in 2015. Maybe in 2020. We don't know when. We only know how it will end - in misery.

Now, despite 10 years of stinkin' returns, investors still believe in stocks. They still hope to find the 'next Google.' They still punish fund managers who hold back. They still read the financial press. They still watch CNBC. They still want to know what stock to buy.

Yesterday, they bid up the Dow 131 points. The price of stocks to gold is about 10 to 1. When this trend began ten years ago, we predicted that the Dow and gold would go all the way to 1 for 1. We guessed it would happen at the 3,000 to 5,000 level. We'll stick with that prediction until it proves correct...or it makes us look like a fool.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• In a Bear Market Most Stocks Go Down, So What Do You Do?
• Your Second Chance to Escape the Bear Market
• Is the Bear Market Rally… the Suckers’ Rally
• All the World’s Stock Exchanges are Now Officially in Bear Markets
• A Bull Market That’s Missing Parts

"House prices here in Ireland are still too high," judged our man on the scene. Chris is our main man at the family office - where our own family money is managed.

"Everything is still much too expensive to buy. The prices don't really make sense when you compare them to the rents. I found a beautiful cottage, with direct access to the beach. It's lovely. It has whitewashed stone on the outside with a real thatched roof. On the inside, it has been completely renovated and modernized, but in very good style. Three bedrooms. Idyllic setting. Just what I was looking for.

"If that house were put on the market, the asking price would probably be about 400,000 euros. But I can rent the place for only 700 a month. It's crazy. Prices probably have a lot further to fall."

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• A Nice House With No Mortgage
• The Kitchen is the Place to Be
• Obama Plans to Do Away With Ireland’s Tax Advantage
• The Bonner Family Are Taking a Month Off to Paint Window Shutters
• A Great Place for a House in Southern Maryland