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

• Bankers Take Money From the Government and Use it to Speculate
• 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

The government wants people to understand their money is safe in the banks. That's why that last bit is in there. It's designed to keep foreign holders of Aussie dollars from engaging in a run on the dollar and bringing their money home, wherever home might be (Japan, for example).

The Australian dollar is up in early trading. But its huge slide in just a few months is remarkable. It's good for exporters (especially farmers). Aussie agricultural goods now become relatively cheaper on foreign markets. It's not as good for consumers, who could see higher prices on imports (and there are a lot of imports in the consumer goods sector of the economy).

The big question, of course, is how shares will react to the weekend's events? So far so good. They're up 6% in early trading.

Polling the crowd this weekend and the Melbourne Investment Expo, we got the impression that there was a bit of capitulation on Friday. Investors who could not afford to lose anymore capital may have exited the market during the big 8.3% slide. Fear gave way to abject terror.

There may also be another reason-aside from the panic in the banking market-for Friday's frenzied selling. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, it defaulted on some US$130 billion in senior debt. Against that debt, hedge funds and other Wall Street investment banks had sold some US$400 billion in credit default insurance.

Remember, anyone can sell credit default swap (CDS) insurance. It's a little like writing options. You collect the premium and hope you never have to pay out on the policy. So firms like Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), JP Morgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) sold huge amounts of credit insurance against default in Lehman bonds.

One theory making the rounds last week was that those investment banks and hedge funds were selling assets and hoarding cash in preparation for judgement day on how much of that insurance they would actually have pay out. An auction was held last week to determine the value of the outstanding Lehman CDS.

Based on the results of the auction, it looks like anyone who sold default insurance on Lehman bonds will have to pay out around 90.25 cents on the dollar to the holders of the CDS. Obviously, that could be a huge number, based on the gross value of the CDS outstanding ($360 billion). But if the banks and hedge funds have already hedged against their risk in writing these credit default swaps, it won't be any big deal.

If, on the other hand, you were a hedge fund selling CDS on Lehman's debt without making any provision that you'd actually have to pay up, well you, my friend, are in a sorry state. And you were probably selling assets like cheap underwear to raise cash last week. What does any of this have to do with the Aussie share market?

Blue chip Aussie mining shares like BHP Billiton (ASX: BHP) and Rio Tinto (ASX: RIO) and OZ Minerals Limited (ASX: OZL) have been the darlings of hedge funds wanting to own commodity stocks. The Aussie dollar has also been a popular commodity currency and yield play. If hedge funds and investment banks were liquidating commodity positions to raise cash for the Lehman CDS auction, it would most likely hammer Australian stocks.

That's one reason Aussie stocks fell much harder on Friday than stocks on Wall Street. Australia has a high percentage of stocks that were attractive to leveraged speculators when commodity prices were high. Now, those assets have seen a large amount of selling. With the Lehman CDS auction behind us, will the selling end?

We'll see. Beyond Lehman, there are the larger issues in the global financial system. On that score, politicians in Europe raced against the opening of global markets this morning. They announced a package of reforms that would: guarantee interbank lending, guarantee debt issued by banks until 2009, give government's permission to buy preferred shares in banks, make provisions to directly recapitalise any banks that were deemed "systemically critical."

While the Euro nations try to unfreeze the banking sector by effectively guaranteeing all lending, regulators in the U.S. and the U.K. are taking similar steps. The British government will take controlling stakes in the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS Plc. The Brits have also decided to inject about A$125 billion in capital directly into the banking system.

We covered the big-picture implications of this policy response in yesterday's special Sunday edition of the Daily Reckoning. If you missed it, you can find it here (Australian Resource Shares, What's Next). But it's not hard to see what's going: government guarantees to all bank lending, and direct, unsecured government lending to anyone who asks for it.

Will putting more money (credit) into the hands of those who created the problem in the first place actually help? Probably not. As Jim Rogers told CNBC, it's setting the stage for an 'Inflationary Holocaust.' It's hard to believe at first that the current deflation in financial assets will give way to astonishing inflation. But that's just what we expect to happen.

Specifically, governments will boost lending to the private sector via central banks. You can also expect direct stimulus for households via rebate packages and tax breaks. In the long-run, big government spending programs on public works, infrastructure, and energy are a certain political winner.

And where will the money come from? Good question. It will be printed or borrowed into existence. Money supply will rise. And with the banking sector effectively nationalised, private investors will look for a real hedge against the inflation being unleashed.

We would take a strong look at over-sold Aussie oil stocks right now. Not only are they over-sold from a technical perspective, but the oil price has nearly halved from its highs earlier in the year. You may not get a better chance to buy them at this price.

Of course, if the market gets any worse than it got last week, it will no longer be the worst financial crisis since the Depression. It will be the worst financial crisis of modern times, full stop. If that is the case, it marks the end of one era and the beginning of another.

In the meantime, however, you could do worse than build a "Robinson Crusoe" portfolio. That is, when his ship ran aground and all his colleagues were lost at sea, Crusoe spent three days salvaging anything from his ship that would be of use in living on his deserted island. His misfortune was severe. But he had enough sense to realise the ship contained items that would be essential for his survival after the shock of his shipwreck.

The stock market offers you a similar opportunity, once the selling abates. You will get an excellent chance to buy Australia's best shares at very low prices.

Dan Denning
The Daily Reckoning Australia

• The Asian Banks Have Finally Been Heard From
• Short Selling Ban May Kick Off Market Liquidation
• $4.1 Billion in Investor Funds Have Been Frozen Overnight
• Big Australian Resource Stocks Up 24% in 2008
• Government Sponsored Enterprise Debt and Australian Banks, a Ticking Time Bomb?