Then, word came that even Alan Greenspan thinks a recovery is underway.

"This is what a recovery looks like," said the maestro. That settled the matter as far as we are concerned. Alan Greenspan didn't see history's biggest financial bubble until it exploded in his face. In the following few words we undertake to show that Greenspan is as blind as ever.

"Great time for US consumers, America is on sale," says an item at YahooFinance. The "discounts are unbelievable," adds a blogger known as Frugal Rhode Island Momma. All across the nation, merchants are no longer selling the merits of their products; they're selling price. McDonald's advertises its "dollar meals." Hotels have cut room prices by 20% in the last year. House prices are down about 30% since 2006. Sellers are offering bargains and they want buyers to know it. "Sold for $365,000 in 2006. Now $195,000," says a typical house ad.

Foreigners have noticed too. Colleagues in London say they are thinking of moving to Florida where they will get far more for their money. The dollar falls; foreign purchases go up. Stocks, for example. In the first quarter, foreigners were unloading US shares. Now they're buying more than $100 billion worth per month.

It is a deflationary world, at least that part of the world between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel. The CPI in the United States is negative and falling faster than at any time in 59 years. Households can only be induced to spend money by cutting prices. "Cash for Clunkers" cut prices on new cars by about 20%. As soon as it ended, so did auto sales. Most new house sales could be traced to a tax credit - which reduced the down payment by at least 20%. That program is scheduled to end in November.

And now, the White House frets about jobs. Unemployment is supposed to be a lagging indicator, but this time it seems to have dropped out of the race all together. Still, Congressional elections are coming up. Unemployed voters are surly and unreliable. So, the Obama administration is considering a $3,000 tax credit to bribe businesses to hire them. If the typical employee costs his firm about $40,000, this effectively reduces the cost of labor by 7.5%.

It's beginning to look more and more like the Roosevelt years. By the end of this year, all the jobs created during the bubble era - 2002- 2007 - will have been eliminated, making it the first decade with no job growth since the '30s. We're expecting a fireside chat any day.

Typically big businesses cut workers in a recession. Then, when the economy recovers, small businesses are quick to take them back. But this is unlike the typical post-war recession. This time, deprived of capital as well as customers, small businesses don't have a chance. Neither does a genuine recovery.

The authorities still do not understand what is going on. They are used to fooling most of the people most of the time. They think they can dupe them again - with bailouts and boondoggles. But real demand has vanished as households try to pay down their debt. That is not going to change anytime soon. Not while the federal government is sabotaging a genuine recovery. It's savings - capital - the US economy needs. A capitalist economy in which the capitalist have no capital won't work. Why is there no capital? Because the feds take it.

Supplying cash-for-this and cash-for-that is an expensive proposition, especially when tax receipts are falling. The money has to come from somewhere. As it turns out, the feds borrow it from the very people who are trying to rebuild their personal balance sheets. Of the $1.6 trillion the US government will borrow this year, the biggest single lender is the private sector, chipping in $700 billion. But instead of being put to use in a way that might stimulate a real recovery - providing credit for small business and consumers - it is taken up by the US government and then frittered away.

The banks are happy to play the government's game too. They can borrow overnight money from the Fed at only one quarter of 1%, annualized. But lending to small business is hard work. And it is risky. Why bother? The US Treasury will pay them 4 % for lending back to the government, long term. This is practically free money to the banks. Both the bankers and politicians end up ahead - with a bigger piece of the economy under their control.

Meanwhile, the real economy staggers. "Drought of credit hampers recovery," summarizes The Wall Street Journal. The United States needs to create a million and a half new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. Currently there are 15 million people without jobs already...and a couple hundred thousand more unemployed every month. And if this recovery continues long enough there won't be a single person left in America who still has a job.

Even if the economy could be stabilized, it will leave millions without jobs - more or less permanently. Add the people working reduced hours, and those who have been looking for work so long they are no longer counted, and their families, and you have a quarter of the population without money to spend. That's why this slump is not going away any time soon. As in Japan in the '90s, we may have to live with this depression for the rest of our lives.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Normally Small Businesses Lead the Economy Out of Recession
• The Business Bankruptcies and the Personal Bankruptcies
• Where, Exactly, is this Economy Headed?
• Feds Can’t Cause a Genuine Recovery Simply by Throwing Money into Economy
• There is No Real Economic Recovery Taking Place

Your editor scratched his chin over this question while thumbing through a copy of the Financial Times over the weekend in the shadow of the le Grand Arche de la Defense west of Paris. You know the one. It's a modern, shiny, gleaming version of the Arch de la Triomphe.

Just why we chose to stay in the business district of Paris rather than down in the middle of the city...well it had to be a cost saving decision. It certainly wasn't aesthetic. This is Paris without the charm, pretty trees, and rich smelling coffee. In fact, with all the glass buildings and paved pathways, it could be any city anywhere during any credit boom. It's just another example of finance dominating the global economy.

And that returns us to the big question as we open the week. The financial markets have clearly rallied. If it's true that markets lead economies, markets are telling us that things are going to get much better. The FTSE index of emerging markets is up 99% from its March lows. The S&P 500 is up nearly 60%. And gold itself is up 25%, with much of that move coming in the last few weeks. This is what happened in 2003, all asset classes went up simultaneously, riding the global money tide.

David Rosenberg, who used to work at Merrill Lynch but is now the chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff, says that something is fishy about this rally. It's come, at least in the U.S., as the economy lost another 2.5 million jobs. "Typically, by the time we are up 60%, the economy is well into the third year of recovery; we are not usually engaged in a debate as to what month the recession ended."

Fine, you may be thinking. Employment is a lagging indicator. It will be the last thing that picks up. But it will pick up. In the meantime, how can you ignore what the markets are saying?

One answer might be that the markets are rigged. Or, if that is too indelicate, you could say that the surge of liquidity provided by central banks has allowed banks to load up on assets again, producing paper gains which boosted earnings and justified-in the minds of some insane people-higher valuations for stocks. The bull is back baby! The economy should quite being such a party pooper and get with the program.

For example, during the same time that the U.S. economy has shrunk by about $400 billion in terms of GDP, the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve has grown by over $1 trillion. Japan has the same problem, a shrinking real economy and an expanding central bank balance sheet. GDP has fallen by £16 billion in the UK, but according the FT's Lex Column, the Bank of England has injected ten times that amount into the economy.

What does it all add up to? Why isn't an increase in credit leading to growth in the real economy? All that new money is not leading to a lending boom with renewed business investment that creates jobs and a recovery. Instead, it's leading to forced speculation in the stock market which is driving asset prices higher. This is the famous problem Alan Greenspan had with low interest rates. You can turn the credit spigot on, but you just never know where the money is going to flow.

Right now, it's flowing into stocks. Lex says that since Lehman collapsed, "US banks have increased their assets by 10 percent to $14.2 trillion." Rather than shrinking their balance sheets, the banks seem to have escaped the push for regulatory reform and actually loaded up again on free money for a credit-fuelled bender. Leverage is in vogue again, as are risk assets.

But we have no reason to believe this is going to end any differently than the last leveraged boom. We know how those end. We've seen bubbles popping steadily since 2000. First it was Internet and telecom stocks. Then emerging markets. Then common stocks. Then the commodities sector got pounded. And don't even get us started on how bad an investment sovereign government bonds issued by debtor countries are going to be.

All of that might sound unnecessarily grim for an Australian-based investor wandering the streets of Paris in late September. Can't we manage to say anything positive? Well....yes, we can! For example, last night's dinner of simple farm-style chicken in the shadow of the Sorbonne was...well it was excellent.

But what about investing? If you're going to have a plan for the next five years that takes into account this attempt to reflate the financial economy, there are a few things worth keeping in mind. First, it's going to fail, and probably spectacularly so. That failure will be accompanied by an even greater expansion of government debt.

For example, the Times of London is reporting that Britain's net debt is growing at a rate of nearly six thousand pounds per second. Tax receipts are plunging. And politicians, jack asses that they are, are actually making even more promises to deliver things they can't begin to pay for now.

We think they key idea in all of this is that you're going to witness a transfer of ownership in the underlying capital assets of the global economy. The big question is will you profit from it or be victimised by it? We reckon that if we're right-and if you can anticipate the general progression of events-you can stay one step ahead of the curve.

Easier said than done, right? So for the remainder of the week, we're going to go back and review our proposal for a "Permanent Portfolio." It will be based on a forecast of more debt deflation...and then rapid inflation.

Yes, it sounds tricky. But this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. Tomorrow, we'll take you back to one of the first "Great Inflations" Europe experienced and show you how it literally capitalised a new entrepreneurial class for the next three hundred years. Until then!

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• If Unemployment Numbers Get Better So Will the Economy
• The More Money in a Financial System the Less Each Unit is Worth
• Financial World Has Every Reason to Encourage Government Stimulus
• A Recovery of Some Kind in Global Trade
• Possible Second Round of Panic Hitting Financial Markets

We were thumbing through the transcript last night over some sashimi and a beer and highlighted this passage from Dr. Steve Keen: We are told that for example debt doesn't matter because if a company takes out a certain level of debt, say a very low level of say 10% debt to equity, that's irrelevant to the company's value because the person buying shares in that company can take out 90% debt to equity ratio."

"Therefore you're told the Modigliani-Miller proposition, after the two morons who got the Nobel prize for it, was that the level of debt that a company takes out does not affect its value. And those sorts of propositions are strewn through conventional economic theory, and of course people like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke are experts in that very same theory."

See? Bernanke...Greenspan...morons, all of them! Debt does matter. And so do deficits. Just this morning we read that U.S. President Barack Obama will ask the Senate to lift America's statutory debt limit to $13 trillion. It's at $12.1 trillion at the moment.

The lower legislative body of the Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, passed a measure lifting the debt ceiling earlier this year. But it used a parliamentary trick to do it in a manner which did not require a roll call vote. No jack asses had to go on the record.

The Senate is different. There are just 100 of the grumpy old men and women. And to increase the debt ceiling to accommodate annual deficits of over $1 trillion for the next ten years (it's $1.6 trillion this year) the Senator will have to go on record. Spending other people's money is generally easy (and probably kind of fun). But not when you have to publicly commit to it and "own" the debt. No one wants to own it, even though everyone wants to benefit politically from the spending (sound familiar?)

The investment fallout from the record U.S. debt and deficits is continued pressure on the dollar and $1,000 gold. Old yeller metal dragged itself up $2.50 in the futures markets to close over the $1k in New York trading last night. Gold has done this despite a 50% rally in stocks. We reckon once the punters catch a little gold fever - which they will if it can hold the line at $1,000 for a few days - higher highs will follow.

And let's not forget large owners of dollar-denominated assets like stocks and U.S. Treasury bonds. Do you reckon they're getting a touch nervous? Cheng Siwei, a Chinese official attending a conference at Lake Como in Italy, said he was worried about the Fed's indefinite policy of credit easing.

"If they keep printing money to buy bonds it will lead to inflation," Chen said. "And after a year or two the dollar will fall hard. Most of our foreign reserves are in US bonds and this is very difficult to change, so we will diversify incremental reserves into euros, yen, and other currencies... Gold is definitely an alternative, but when we buy, the price goes up. We have to do it carefully so as not to stimulate the markets."

In the meantime, why not try iron ore and uranium? Reuters reports that, "Chinese state-owned firms expanded their footprint in Australia's mining industry on Tuesday, agreeing to help fund two iron ore explorers in return for supply contracts and taking a controlling stake in a uranium prospector." The iron firms involved were FerrAus United Minerals both of which formed relationships with China Railways Materials Commercial Corporation. The uranium deal was between China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd and uranium prospector Energy Metals.

These deals are probably both operational and strategic. They're operational to the extent that in exchange for capital, Chinese firms get long-term supply contracts (price certainty) for key minerals and bulk commodities. They're strategic to the extent that State-owned firms can channel U.S. dollar reserves into tangible assets. This slightly reduces China's risk to the inevitable devaluation of U.S. debt securities through inflation.

Getting back to Cheng, he seems to understand exactly what happened over the last five years. Loose credit is the problem. "This is where Greenspan went wrong from 2000 to 2004," he said. "He thought everything was alright because inflation was low, but assets absorbed the liquidity." He's talking about real estate and stock markets.

He's also talking about the psychological and moral attitude in a country that's obsessively focuses on preserving its immediate lifestyle at the expense of future investment and growth. "The US spends tomorrow's money today...We Chinese spend today's money tomorrow. That's why we have this financial crisis."

Of course whether your Chinese, American, or Australian, it's everybody's crisis now. So what should you do?

Inflation has yet to really rip through the commodities sector. As Bill pointed out yesterday, the U.S. dollar has yet to really crash. It may do so only gradually. U.S. creditors are not exactly easy to cause a run on the dollar. They have a lot to lose. And we know the Fed and Tim Geithner and Barack Obama want a gradual devaluation, not a dollar crisis.

Will they get what they want? We don't know. But we reckon the Law of Perverse Outcomes applies here: people get not what they expect, but what they deserve.

For investors, we'd say again that markets are priced for earnings growth that we think won't materialise. It's wishful, almost nostalgic thinking. That means you should be on your guard for locking in paper gains since March with trailing stops. We're pleased that Gabriel Andre is just about ready to debut his new ASX 200 blue-chip timing service this week. The aim is to track the chart patterns and technical trends on the biggest Aussie stocks in order to avoid buying at the top.

But the big benefits - he hopes to prove - are the ability to take profits on long-term holdings and avoid the big declines we've seen over the last two years. Then, using the same analysis, Gabriel believes you can time your entry back into the same stocks. It's quite a proposition.

Of course, anything that looks or sounds like market timing probably makes a buy-and-hold investor really nervous. But it's time to question the conventional wisdom that buying and holding blue chip stocks is a guaranteed retirement strategy. It's not.

If we've learned one thing in the last two years, it's that the stock market is not a retirement machine. The name of the game is to generate gains. And we are at least open to the idea that it may be possible to make better gains as a medium-term trader of ASX 200 stocks than simply buying and holding for grim death.

On the other hand, there are some very exciting disruptive energy technologies that have a huge upside if you can stomach the risk. Woodside Petroleum Don Voelte took a swipe at those technologies in a recent article published locally. And for good reason. He's got a bit to worry about. More on disruptive energy technologies tomorrow...

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• American Family’s Share of Government Debt Now Over Half a Million Dollars
• The Very Large Bubble of Government Debt
• Uranium: A Carbon-friendly Substitute for Coal
• In a Bear Market Most Stocks Go Down, So What Do You Do?
• Choking on Debt in the Unfolding Anglo-Saxon Bond Crisis

But first, we were poring over the reader e-mail last night. Many readers think we are being unfair, unconstructive, and un-brief in our critiques of Ben Bernanke, bankers, Kevin Rudd, and other economic know-nothing from across the political spectrum. So let us take a moment to be as clear as possible: policy makers and politicians are morons.

We're told Ben Bernanke is the right man to get us out of the trouble we're in. But isn't Ben Bernanke the man who got us into the trouble to begin with? Didn't he and Alan Greenspan lower interest rates so much they created a worldwide credit boom that is now deflating? Wasn't it their policies that enabled banks and Wall Street to securitise commercial and residential mortgages and send them far and wide into the balance sheets of the world as "assets"? And aren't those "assets" now falling in value, continuing to wipe out equity at the household and corporate level?

It is clear that politicians are still slovenly serving the interests of their corporate masters in the financial world. And it is clear that the financial world has every reason to encourage government stimulus, loan guarantees, and lower interest rates. This keeps the great leveraged credit machine of the Financial Economy motoring. And that machine keeps the financial industry in tall cotton.

Besides, the limits on executive compensation are window-dressing for public (voter) consumption. With bonuses limited by statute, we reckon more compensation for the financial industry will move back to stock option grants. That means for the financial industry to preserve its privileged status, stock prices have to move higher. And nothing enables that like credit. Borrow money and plough it back into stocks to line your pocket. Does that sound like something that may be happening?

Our point is that this whole interlude since the collapse of Lehman Brothers is an attempt to preserve the status quo ante. If the tools of monetary and fiscal policy (which are clumsy and theoretically flawed anyway) exist to make the financial and estate industry thrive, the real economy will continue to get screwed. We'd argue this recent recovery is nothing but an attempt to resuscitate the money-shuffling arrangement that was so profitable up until late 2007.

At least some people agree. "A UN think tank on trade has warned that the current financial market rebound is not a 'real recovery' and that any world economic growth recorded in 2010 was unlikely to exceed 1.6 per cent," reports today's Australian.

"The depth of the recession has been so important that of course there will be a rebound ... but we still do not see that this is a real recovery," says Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). "The actual increase in the commodities prices is mainly driven by appetite for more risk," he says. More on this in just a second.

UNCTAD's Chief economist Heiner Flassbeck, said, "the markets had been fuelled by financial speculation that in turn was driven by expectations of recovery. 'But anticipation of recovery is just a fiction, it is not there.'"The UNCTAD report also noted that, "Tumbling profits in the real economy, previous over-investment in real estate and rising unemployment will continue to constrain private consumption and investment for the foreseeable future."

Hmm. Maybe UNCTAD is reading the Daily Reckoning. But if not, for those who have eyes to see it, the truth is plainly in sight. You cannot correct the global imbalances of a leveraged boom with more leverage. But let's tackle on specific aspect of the report that suggests commodity prices may again be the subject of financial speculation. Is it true?

Frankly it's hard to say. We're more confident that profits in the real economy - once you take away the effect of credit and government money - are regressing to an historic mean. Some companies will make more. Some less. But the average will be lower.

However we did see one interesting chart yesterday from our trader Gabriel Andre. We were discussing with him whether the euphoria about Australia - the dollar, the stock market, real estate, and commodities - was suspiciously reminiscent of June 2007. You know, right before the ore hit the fan. Is all this feel-good news a sign of worry?

We decided to tackle the question with a picture. It's the chart you see below. The chart tracks the performance of Worley Parsons - a proxy for infrastructure and capital spending in the mining industry - versus the CRB commodity index. We are asking a question with this chart. The question is, does a peak in Worley's stock presage a downturn in the resource sector generally?

Click to enlarge

Gabriel writes that, "The level of $30 looks as a strong resistance for the stock. It's a previous low where it bounced back several times in 2007 and 2008. The recent action suggests the $30 may be a new high, finding resistance, especially because the correlation is obvious with the CRB and the CRB has already started correcting.

"If you pay attention to the details on the chart, it looks like the correlation is stronger on the downside. Worley can fall when the CRB rises. But when the CRB falls, Worley generally falls too. If you were asking me to turn this observation into a trading idea, it would be to short-sell WOR at the current levels with a stop-loss at $31. A correction towards $20 is possible.

Gabriel has been working on a system to trade these chart patterns in ASX 200 stocks for the last four months. Look for more information on that later this week. And in the meantime, keep in mind that if Worley is a proxy for the bull market in Aussie resource stocks, the charts are suggesting that all the positive momentum since March may be reaching its limit. When you check in the turn down on the CRB, you should be prepared for the possibility of a correction in commodity prices too.

If that happens, it would be perfectly consistent with the tenor of the news these days. As excited as we are ourselves about certain resource projects, the level of bullish consensus about commodity prices and corporate earnings is a warning sign. But - this is important - that doesn't mean you have to head for the hills.

As Gabriel's work is showing, you can use these kinds of signals to take profits before rallies expire. It can also save you from mis-timing your entry into a blue chip share. And ultimately, it should be able to help you identify the best time to get back into the share, after the inevitable correction has done its work.

We meant to write more about gold, sound money, and unsound economic thinking. But that will have to wait until tomorrow. Until then...

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• CRB Index Correction Likely to Go Further
• Worley Parsons (ASX: WOR) Announces Pilbara Solar Energy Project
• Note to Australia: Buy Resources, Not Banks
• Government Preparing Another Stimulus
• Recovery for the Real Estate Market

I say this with such obvious disrespect because Mr. Krugman is on record has having advised the Bank of Japan to purposely cause inflation, as, "The way to make monetary policy effective is for the central bank to credibly promise to be irresponsible - to make a persuasive case that it will permit inflation to occur, thereby producing the negative real interest rates the economy needs", although he never actually says where he is going to find guys stupid enough to loan money at negative interest rates, or in what bizarre alternate universe he lives where high inflation in consumer prices, particularly sustained high inflation, is anything other than a total disaster, which is why most of economics is concerned with the problem of preventing inflation while fostering growth!

In fact, he thinks that a central bank trying to reflate a collapsing economy should announce a deliberate plan to raise the level of prices (such as the Consumer Price Index) from current low levels to some dramatically higher value (a so-called "price-level gap") that it would have theoretically reached if a "moderate" and constant amount of inflation in prices had, in fact, occurred! Gaaahhhh!

To make it more Theater of the Absurd, he then says to keep creating more inflation in prices! Gaaahhhh! This is insane! This is beyond insane!

This would be bad enough coming from just another egghead academic dork from Princeton, but a terrifying quote from Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, shows that he agrees with this with nonsense!

In fact, Bernanke said, "A successful effort to eliminate the price- level gap would proceed, roughly, in two stages. During the first stage, the inflation rate would exceed the long-term desired inflation rate, as the price-level gap was eliminated and the effects of previous deflation undone. Call this the reflationary phase of policy. Second, once the price-level target was reached, or nearly so, the objective for policy would become a conventional inflation target or a price- level target that increases over time at the average desired rate of inflation."

This is so dangerously preposterous that one's hands shake in fear and paranoia at the calamity that awaits a nation that takes such ridiculous advice, and there is nothing to be done except to buy more gold, silver and oil, as the last 4,500 years of history have proven that these are the things that have lasting value, unlike the bitter disappointment and dismay of paper money and "true love."

Obviously, people do not have to be around me very long before they learn that I am perpetually scared, to one degree or another, of inflation in prices, such as the other day, for example, when I had saved up enough money to have dinner alone at a restaurant so that I could eat one lousy meal without the wife and kids all the time whining and complaining about how they need more money, and want more money, and how they want me to give it to them, and how I am a terrible person for not giving them more money, how I am too stupid to get a better job to make more money and how I am too lazy to get a second job with which to earn more money.

So instead of having to listen to them talk about how much they hate me, I am enjoying the peaceful qualities of the restaurant when a guy seated at the next table sees me eating my steak and asks me how I liked it.

So I told him, "I like it fine, except I wanted lobster! Rich, flakey lobster to dip into real melted butter so wickedly delicious that you can actually hear your arteries hardening from just looking at it; but I can't order lobster because inflation in prices caused by the Federal Reserve creating so much money and credit all these years has resulted in the ugly news that they now charge too much for lobster, and inflation is so bad that some crappy, weak iced tea is almost two bucks a lousy glassful, most of which is ice!"

Out of the corner of my eye, I can see the other people in the restaurant have stopped eating and they are all looking at me. Figuring that they want me to further enlighten them, I go on, "So don't you ask to me about how I like my steak, when you should be asking me how I like inflation in prices, which I don't! Not one little bit! And if you weren't so stupid, you would realize that inflation in prices is the worst thing that can happen to us, and which is exactly what is going to happen to us because the damnable Federal Reserve is creating unbelievable, staggering amounts of money and credit so that the federal government can borrow and spend it in an orgy of deficit- spending that will end badly!"

Well, pretty soon the manager comes over and tries to censor the Heroic And Brave Mogambo (HABM) by telling me to shut up and sit down, although he might have been interested in the actual inflation figures, which are pretty bad!

For instance, producer price inflation shot up 1.8% in June, and it seems especially interesting that the Labor Department figures that the Consumer Price Index rose 0.7% in June, and although 0.7% does not seem like that much in one month, it adds up to a lot over the course of time; like for instance, in a year, when this 0.7% per month inflation compounds to 8.7% per year inflation! Yow!

Until next time,

The Mogambo Guru
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• The Destruction of the Dollar by the Federal Reserve
• Central Bank Creates Excessive Amounts of Money to Expand Government Spending
• Bank’s Inflation Projections Will Not Return to the 2 Per Cent Target Figure Until Early 2010
• Bad News if You Are Afraid of Inflation in Consumer Prices
• Everyone We Know Expects a Fairly Quick Up-move in Inflation

Even Alan Greenspan admitted he had "found a flaw" in his own thinking. We will have to imagine the giggles from the back of the room - if anyone had been awake. It was as if Stalin had confessed to being rude to his mother or Bernie Madoff copped a plea for shoplifting. The mea was fine, but the culpa didn't seem to measure up to the facts. He, more than any living human being, was responsible for the biggest financial debacle in history; you'd hope he'd be a gentleman about it and hang himself.

Meanwhile, the queen of England visited the London School of Economics and had a question: why weren't economists on top of this thing?

They replied to this question last month. In a three-page letter, they avoided the simple truth - that their trade was no more reliable than fortune telling and marriage counseling. The letter claimed that a "psychology of denial" prevented government and financial eyes from seeing the catastrophe in front of them. It was "a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people", they said.

In fact, it was the exact opposite - imagination run wild. Economists imagined a world without yesterday or tomorrow...a world in which you could run up debts forever and never have to pay them back.

Last week, Timothy Geithner promised the Chinese that the US economy would recover thanks to demand from the private sector. That was his way of reassuring America's biggest creditor that the public sector wouldn't continue to run huge deficits - practically an outright lie. But it's one thing to stiff the Chinese; it's another to stiff time.

Adjusted for inflation, the US consumer's earnings barely rose from the '70s. By some measures, he had actually less disposable spending power in 2007 than he had in 1973. And now his income is going down. The June number reflected the biggest drop in income in 4 years. Salaries and wages fell 0.4% in June...the 9th drop in the last 10 months. How is it possible for him to spend more?

We pose the familiar question only to set up an unfamiliar answer. In the past, the consumer reached into the future. In many cases, he reached beyond the future, and into Never Never Land. Consumers spent money they hadn't earned yet...thus bringing forward purchases that should have been made years later. The accumulated effect of this was to add $35 trillion in extra spending to the world economy - from America alone - over the course of the great credit expansion, 1945- 2007. That's why we have a depression now - because consumers already spent what they would normally be spending now.

Time always gets even. Now, it is the past that is doing the reaching. The automobile bought in 2006...the house bought in 2005...the vacation taken in 1999 - the ghosts of yesteryear spending reach for Americans' paychecks. Of course, in some cases, consumers spent more than they could reasonably expect to pay back - ever. They reached so far the poor ghosts are disappointed. Lenders realized that they'd never get their money back, which is what led to the credit crunch and the collapse of Wall Street. Of the big five - Bear, Lehman, Goldman, JPMorgan and Merrill - only two survived intact. And we know now that Goldman only survived because Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman, then Treasury Secretary, arranged a hidden bailout. He had the government step in to save AIG, which owed Goldman $13 billion.

From one scam to another...from bailing out Wall Street to bailing out the entire world economy, the more stimulus programs fail to bring a recovery, the more economists call for more stimulus.

What are they thinking? Since neither the private sector nor the public sector has any savings from the past, additional demand from either sector must be borrowed from the future. (Setting aside 'quantitative easing'...or Zimbabwe-style stimulus...an even bigger fraud.)

The purest illustration of how this works is in the popular 'cash for clunkers' programs. Instead, of letting the consumer buy a new car when he is ready, the feds give them money to buy now. So, he buys in 2009 and not in 2010. What good is accomplished? It is as if they didn't expect 2010 to ever arrive...as if they thought they could stop the sun and the seasons...and the Chinese...forever. Like moths in amber, their wings will never tatter...nor will their faith flag. The dollar will always be strong. US bonds will always be in demand. And the future will never arrive.

But the more economists try to stitch up the future; the more it gets away from them. After the 2010 sales have been moved forward to 2009, they will have to reach into 2011...and then 2012...all the way to the end of time.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Investors Are Betting On Recovery
• Economists Agreed the Stimulus Was Working and the Recession Was Coming to an End
• The Public Still Has Faith in Economists – But Why?
• JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs Making Billions in Profits
• China, the Miracle Economy

My gut reaction to Mr. Bernanke's statement was to recall the famous words of former President Nixon, who said of the Vietnam conflict, "I'm not going to be the first American president to lose a war." And we know how that turned out.

Poor Mr. Bernanke. Does he really not understand his fate? I'll grant that he was dealt a bad hand - a draw of pure, malevolent evil - by his incompetent predecessor at the Fed, Alan Greenspan. But when you volunteer to run the nation's central bank, you're asking for a seat at the table of history. When history deals, you play the cards that you're dealt. And sometimes history holds all the trumps, if not a few aces up its sleeve.

This past weekend Mr. Bernanke "appeared stoic at times," according to The Wall Street Journal, as he met with 190 people in a town hall-style forum at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Over the course of an hour, at an event moderated by PBS correspondent Jim Lehrer, the Fed chairman answered 20 questions from attendees.

The unusual setting allowed the former Princeton professor to speak outside of his usual comfort zone. The give-and-take in Missouri - aka "flyover country" to many Washingtonians - was far removed from Fed chief's normal, well-scripted congressional testimony, or his occasional academic presentations to roomfuls of big shot bankers and professional economists.

Continuing the Nixonian theme, the Kansas City forum was an opportunity to find out what Mr. Bernanke knew, and when did he know it.

Mr. Bernanke defended himself and the Fed against suggestions that he was too eager to aid large financial institutions last fall and winter, while sacrificing the interests of small businesses and everyday American citizens. "It wasn't to help the big firms that we intervened," argued Mr. Bernanke as he discussed intervening to help the big firms - y'know, the financial firms that are supposedly too big to fail.

Using a Discovery Channel analogy, Mr. Bernanke said, "When the elephant falls down, all the grass gets crushed as well." Thus did he justify unprecedented levels of federal aid to the very Wall Street banking houses that contributed so mightily to the bubble economy of recent years. In essence, the Fed had to feed the beast and save the big guys to protect the little guys. But have the little guys really benefited?

Mr. Bernanke claimed that he was "disgusted" by circumstances under which the Fed rode to the rescue of several large financial firms. "Nothing made me more frustrated," he said, "more angry, than having to intervene" when big banks were "taking wild bets that had forced these companies close to bankruptcy."

Then Mr. Bernanke argued - strangely - in favor of new laws to let financial firms other than banks fail WITHOUT going into bankruptcy. Huh? What's wrong with bankruptcy? It's been around since the days of the Roman Empire.

I practiced bankruptcy law in my pre-Agora career as an attorney. (I'm a recovering attorney now.) I don't understand Mr. Bernanke's viewpoint at all. Why shouldn't big financial firms go bankrupt when they deserve it? OK, there's the usual canard: because it would be difficult or impossible for a bankruptcy court to "unwind" all the open trades in the sweatshops and boiler rooms of big outfits like AIG. I disagree.

Mr. Bernanke's comment makes me wonder how well he understands the intent (let alone the history and legal process) of bankruptcy. Or does the Fed boss just always default to handing out special deals to the big-money guys?

Still, I have to give Mr. Bernanke credit for showing up to speak with a couple hundred informed citizens. The Fed certainly deserves the exposure.

According to a recent Gallup poll, a mere 30% of Americans believe that the Fed is doing a "good" or "excellent" job (down from 53% as recently as 2003). About 57% of Americans believe the Fed is doing a "fair" or "poor" job.

Indeed, according to Gallup, the Fed is the least-trusted of nine government agencies. The Fed lags far behind on a list that includes agencies such as NASA and the FBI, as well as traditional bête noires such as the Central Intelligence Agency, the Internal Revenue Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. Bernanke's tenure at the US central bank faces intense scrutiny, and not just from the serial bashing that he receives from the writers at Agora Financial. He has only six months left in his term as Fed chairman. Mr. Bernanke will soon learn whether President Obama will reappoint him to another four-year term or replace him with another Fed chairman wannabe.

Does Mr. Bernanke really want to continue at the Fed? Why? If Mr. Bernanke doesn't want to preside "over the second Great Depression," as he claims, then he should get the hell out now and try to salvage some measure of his professional reputation - if not his old job and paycheck at Princeton. Or does Mr. Bernanke want to continue on the pathway of becoming the central bank equivalent of Gen. William Westmoreland?

The questioners in Kansas City were on the right track. They certainly raised better issues than we see in the softball questions Mr. Bernanke routinely receives from members of Congress and senators.

Here's the key point. Mr. Bernanke and the Fed had a clear policy choice last fall. They could do a big bailout or not. The Fed chose to open Door No. 1 and bail out Wall Street. This was at the expense of Main Street, let alone the national balance sheet.

But the "Second Great Depression" was not going to be stopped so easily. You don't just throw money at a Great Depression, especially money that you don't have. Mr. Bernanke ought to know this, based on his studies of the first Great Depression.

Instead of the bailout last fall, Mr. Bernanke and the Fed should've let the big guys fail. The Fed should've upset the whole stinking mess on the card table and reset the US monetary system. The Fed had the chance to make a statement and choose a new path, and to cast the money-changers out of the temple, so to speak.

Mr. Bernanke and the Fed should've allowed the failed banks to go down. The Fed should've sent the bubble perps down the street to the US Bankruptcy Court in lower Manhattan, along with all their fraudulent paper such as MBSs, CDOs, SIVs, etc.

Would large-scale bankruptcies have been a shock to the US and world financial system? Of course. That's the idea. It would have been very ugly. But it would've helped to clean up the US economy for a couple of generations.

Would Mr. Bernanke be despised by many people? Yep. Burned in effigy, a la Paul Volker? Yes, and it comes with the job. The Fed chairman should not try to be Mr. Popularity.

By now, almost a year later, we'd have some semblance of financial finality. That's because bankruptcy courts have the legal power to void bad contracts and discharge unpayable debt. Instead, we still have the problem of bailed-out zombie banks with massive levels of unmarketable paper and unpayable debt on their books. Right now, the "dead banks walking" are doing little but sucking capital out of the system while the Fed tries to reinflate more bubbles.

Would finance and commerce have proceeded during a banking bankruptcy? Yes, because there's an entire economy out there, with hundreds of millions of people expressing needs and wants in the marketplace. If you believe in the basic idea of Capitalism, then you have to believe that we would have adapted, and learned new ways to meet the needs and wants absent the big, failed banks.

And it's worth pointing out that plenty of people and companies do business while they're in bankruptcy court. There's nothing quite like the stroke of the pen of a federal judge to cut through the crap.

When Ben Bernanke says that he doesn't want to preside over the second Great Depression, he's missed a critical point. He's already there.

Whether it was Pres. Nixon and his policies, mired in the rice paddies in Southeast Asia many decades past, or the current fever-swamps of the Potomac River, there are some bullets that have your name on them. You can't duck and dodge.

Right now, many years of monetary malpractice are roiling the American economy. To quote a famous Chicago preacher, "The chickens have come home to roost." The second Great Depression is happening, and it's happening on Mr. Bernanke's watch. Did he really expect to skate through a couple of terms as post-Greenspan Fed chairman and not get blown up?

Sad to say, Mr. Bernanke bailed out the big banks. Now the damage is done. We're still in for that "Second Great Depression." And Mr. Bernanke will forever be associated with it.

Ben Bernanke could have been a heroic figure. He could have refused the bailout and repudiated several generations of bad monetary ideas. He could have launched a new movement - something like monetary perestroika in the US - and moved the country ahead into a future of increased productivity and financial solvency. Instead, Mr. Bernanke is just a bit actor in a historical tragedy.

There's no armor against the arrows of fate. Mr. Bernanke has lost his chance. Perhaps he can take solace in the words of Robert Louis Stevenson from his classic "Requiem": "Home is the sailor, home from the sea."

That's all for now. Thanks for reading...

Byron W. King
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Ben Bernanke “Respectfully Disagreed” With Angela Merkel
• Ben Bernanke Averts a Second Great Depression
• Ben Bernanke Pays Homage to Milton Friedman’s Theory
• Gold and the Euro Just Hooked Up Together Again
• Ben Bernanke is a Victim of the Trade

According to the Australian Share Ownership Study by the ASX, overall share ownership among Australians dropped to 6.7 million in 2008, or just 41%. That was down from 46% ownership near the top of the market in 2006. According to Chris Zappone in The Age, "The study shows risk-wary investors saying they "they preferred blue-chip shares'' amid falling confidence in the overall market."

The public's love affair with stocks began in doubt in 1982, became mundane with mutual funds in the early 1990s, only to reignite into a torrid infatuation with tech stocks at the end of the century. Then, nearly two decades into the affair, it faced a serious crisis in the bear market that began in 2000.

Enter monetary therapist and love counsellor Alan Greenspan. The "Greenspan Put" was a kind of relationship-aiding stimulant for the partnership between the public and stocks. If stocks got too low, Greenspan lowered rates to pump them back up again. This kept everyone happy, Wall Street, the stock market, and the stock buying public.

But there is a psychological element to markets. How else can valuations go from being absurdly cheap to absurdly expensive? It's the public's taste for risk and adventure that changes in the interim. Emotions swing from love to hate and back to love again.

It looks to us like we're swinging back into the hate phase. Right now, though, it's grudging indifference. The public still buys stocks. But the love is gone. It's more out of habit, familiarity. And you know what familiarity breeds.

Before the bottom of this cycle is truly reached, people will hate stocks. They won't talk about them. And if they do, it will be with scorn. But how is this a good thing?

First a note from NAB's Cameron Clyne. Clyne predicted that Aussie banks will have rising debt levels that affect results over the "next couple" of years. It will be worse if unemployment rises, he says.

The deleveraging of the credit boom continues, according to Clyne, speaking on ABC Television. "We are now very much in the same phase of the downturn and we saw that particularly, I think, in most banks' results, with an up-tick in the March half (year) with bad and doubtful debts...We think that's going to be a feature in the next couple of halves...Obviously, consumer default really is a function of unemployment so if unemployment trends (up) ... then that's going to drive consumer default."

That's the bad news. The good news, perhaps, is that once the bad debt cycle begins to really bottom out-households and businesses having scaled back their debts and written down asset values-balance sheets are going to be a lot more transparent. Valuing blue chip businesses is going to be a lot easier. And profit performance should begin to improve (not any time soon mind you).

That means that after the storm blows down all the houses made of cards, whatever's left may have a pretty solid foundation to build on (if you'll excuse the cliché/metaphor). We've been working on this with Swarm Trader Gabriel Andre. Gabriel believes that using a combination of charting, technical analysis, and a handful of fundamental analysis, you should be able to identify long-term entry prices for blue chip stocks.

"But what if they're still going down," we asked?

"The charts will show this too. Often you find stocks trading in a range. Neither bullish nor bearish. But even this is useful. You know what levels they must break out of to begin a new move up, or what levels indicate a new bearish move down."

We'll keep you posted on Gabriel's work. By the way, he's a regular contributor to Money Morning, edited by Kris Sayce. You can sign up for that or read the latest posts at www.moneymorning.com.au

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• CRB Index Correction Likely to Go Further
• Discussing the Dreaded Fibonacci Retracement
• Financial World Has Every Reason to Encourage Government Stimulus
• Gold, the Aussie Dollar, the Greenback and You
• S&P/ASX 200 Clears Resistance Line

The place NOT to be is choking on debt, trapped in the tar baby that is the unfolding Anglo-Saxon bond crisis. The bid by the U.S. and the U.K. to auction off hundreds of billions of dollars and pounds worth of bonds this year is already forcing interest rates up in those countries.

Bear with us, if you would. We know. There are few things in the world more arcane and less interesting than interest rates. But right now, we believe the action in the bond market is the key to understanding the move in commodity and stock prices. What you see in the charts below is the widest spread between ten-year and two-year notes since 2003.

Ten-year yields spike as the short-end of the curve gets trendy

Source: Wall Street Journal

The yield curve is getting steeper. Ten-year yields closed above 3.5% while two-year yields look pretty range bound. Investors are charging the U.S. more to loan to it long-term while they seem to be happy to park cash in shorter-term maturities, even if the real yield (adjusted for inflation) is negligible (or negative).

The current spread between ten-years and two-years is 263 basis points (2.63%). It blew out to 274 basis points in 2003. That was about the same time that Alan Greenspan's Fed slashed rates to one percent and kept them there to kick off the leveraged bull market in all asset classes across the globe. Global synchronised boom.

The Fed doesn't have that flexibility today, of course. U.S. short-term rates (the Fed funds rate) are already being held in a range between zero and 0.25%. If the central bank wants to try and bring ten-year rates down, it's going to have to buy more bonds directly. And if it does so by creating more money, we reckon it puts more bullish pressure under gold, oil, and copper prices. We'll get to that in a minute too.

By the way, keep an eye on the auction of US$35 billion in five-year notes tomorrow and US$20 billion in seven-year notes later in the week. If we're right and non-U.S. investors are suspicious of the value of U.S. long-term bonds, these auctions will be a lot more difficult than the US$40 billion two-year note auction this week, which showed plenty of strong demand from non-U.S. buyers.

If the Fed loses control of ten-year and thirty-year U.S. interest rates, look for the ratings agencies to put the U.S. in the same company as the U.K. when it comes to credit quality. If you finance deficits and borrowing with outright monetisation, it kicks of a crisis of confidence in your currency and your outstanding debt. In the U.S., foreigners hold some $6.35 trillion in debt. They'd be very worried indeed the more the Fed monetises new debt issues.

Either way, the Anglo-Saxon bond crisis is here. Higher interest rates retard economic growth, make credit more expensive, and debt more costly to service. They will also drive investors further into tangible assets. Why? Well, investors may simply turn their back on sovereign debt and invest in exchange traded commodity funds or publicly listed resource producers.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Look out! It’s The Bond Vigilantes!
• Between What Bond Investors Stand to Gain in Yield and What They Stand to Lose from Inflation
• Central Bankers Encourage Debt Booms That Become Debt Bombs
• If Unemployment Numbers Get Better So Will the Economy
• Government Debt Bubble is What Directly Precedes Inflation

Yes, you read that right. "Bubbles" just occur spontaneously. They have no cause or explanation. We need government to identify and destroy them.

Sometimes I wish our overlords would get their stories straight. First, Alan Greenspan - whom the New York Times once described, in its typical toadying, totalitarian fashion, as "the infallible maestro of our financial system" - told us it was impossible to tell if a bubble existed at any given time. Now we have Barack Obama insisting that not only can we detect bubbles, but we can also deflate them with sufficient dispatch to prevent them from causing any serious economic disturbances.

How are we peons to decide between the competing views of our infallible maestro on the one hand and the man who would be FDR on the other?

I shouldn't be so cynical. It is not for us to question how our overlords intend to distinguish between genuine growth in some industry on the one hand and bubble conditions on the other. Just to be safe they may have to quash all rapid growth wherever it occurs. Perhaps they can cut off credit to an entire sector of the economy, or levy industry-specific taxation. (Anyone who thinks this type of discretion and micromanagement might be exercised with political motivations in mind, or for any purpose other than the common good, is almost surely a good candidate for surveillance in our progressive commonwealth.)

In their quest to free us from economic instability, our betters may find it necessary to institute new rules. It is our job to accept these new rules with docility and thanks. These rules might have to be kind of sweeping, perhaps on the order of nobody may do anything. In liberal times that could perhaps be modified to nobody may do anything without asking permission. True, we could then wind up with a lengthy debate about whether asking permission itself counted as doing something, such that we'd need to ask permission in order to ask permission, in an endless regress. We'd then be back to the original nobody may do anything, which is probably the safest place to be anyway.

Or perhaps our rulers could shut down the electrical grid from time to time. I'd like to see those greedy fat cats inflate a bubble without any electricity!

Now the possibility that the government itself could be the primary culprit in the generation of asset bubbles is of course not merely rejected; the very idea cannot even be entertained. The great progressive institutions of government and central banking the causes rather than the solutions to our problems? Impossible!

Everyone knows Bad Things happen in the economy because of wicked speculators and grasping businessmen. If someone were to ask whether the Federal Reserve's creation of $8 billion out of thin air every week on average for four solid years might have had a tiny bit to do with the housing bubble, well, we'd have to remind such a cynic that the Fed was created in order to give us macroeconomic stability. Our present crisis was caused by excessive "leverage," you see - though we won't bother asking where major economic actors managed to get all this credit in the first place. That might lead people to ask hard questions about the Fed yet again, and as we've seen, the Fed is our Wonderful, Stabilizing Friend.

It is true that Anna Schwartz, the famous monetarist (and not an Austrian economist), recently observed that asset bubbles cannot form without loose monetary policy by the central bank to fund them.

"If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it's so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object. And then of course if monetary policy tightens, the boom collapses."

(Schwartz also rejects former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan's "attempt to exculpate himself" for the housing bubble.)

Schwartz is here echoing what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises said decades earlier. A sudden drive for a particular kind of investment will raise the prices of complementary factors of production as well as the interest rate itself. In order for a mania-driven boom to persist, there would have to be an increasing supply of credit in order to fund it, since investments in that sector would grow steadily more costly over time. That could not occur in the absence of credit expansion. The dot-com and housing bubbles can both be explained by artificial credit expansion, say such economists.

If we are to believe these economists, the best way to prevent future asset bubbles would be to stop the Fed from creating so much money out of thin air in the first place. Better still, we should abolish the Fed altogether, since in the view of these economists it is entirely superfluous to a market economy.

Again, though, our trust should be in princes. After all, Austin Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the president, assures us that Obama will be on the lookout for both bubbles and busts.

The president, Politico notes, is

"...prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn't occur. And he's willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance - the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade."

See, those things just happened! No cause. They just happened. And government will protect us from them.

Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to John McCain, adds that "policymakers always intervene in a downturn. So it is necessary for policy makers to take action against bubbles. You've got to be symmetrical in your policy." What we need, says Zandi, is a "systemic regulator" who will decide whether or not bubbles exist and then take appropriate action. (See how much different a McCain administration would have been on the economy?)

Naysayers may point out that the Fed's own economists denied that a housing bubble existed, and that, as we observed earlier, Greenspan himself believes it's impossible to detect bubbles at all. But surely one more regulator, a big, giant, super-duper regulator, should be able to get things right.

Some people say the market is the best regulator. After all, the free market doesn't pump up the money supply and push interest rates down to levels that promote unsustainable bubbles. The free market punishes reckless risk takers, while it is government that bails them out (and thereby encourages them to take greater risks in the future). It was the Fed, not the free market, from which the "Greenspan put" - the implicit promise to bail out major Wall Street players - emerged. The Financial Times warned that these guarantees were encouraging dangerously risky investments. The free market makes no such guarantees, and thereby cultivates a more cautious class of entrepreneur.

But enough with these naysayers. I for one welcome our new overlords. Every American citizen could stand to learn from that model of filial piety, Britney Spears, who urged, "I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."

Amen.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Aussie Banks Addicted to Foreign Borrowing
• Fed’s Aggressive Attempts to Put More Money and Credit in Circulation and the Asset Bubbles
• Can China Change the Rules of Global Capitalism?
• No Great Slump, but Stagnant Inflation Looms
• Can Governments and Central Banks Prevent More Credit Writedowns?