Can anything stop stocks and gold?

Trees do not grow to the sky, dear reader. And for every bounce there is a bust.

"It's amazing; the US is doing everything that Japan did wrong," said a friend yesterday.

Let's see, in the 1980s Japan's corporate leaders thought they were going to take over the world. Investors thought so too. They expanded. They wheeled. They dealed. Prices shot up and they all thought they were geniuses.

In the '80s, everyone wanted to be Japanese. Management consultants used Japanese words to describe commonplace insights. For example, instead of saying that businesses always need to try to do things better, they referred to "kaizen" as if it were the secret of success. And US economists urged the Reagan Administration to have an "industrial policy" - because that was what Japan had. Japanese businesses were the envy of the world. Japan was the world's second largest economy. But in growth and stock prices it was Numero Uno.

It turned out, as it always does, that Japan did not have the secret to everlasting success. Instead, what it had was what comes before a fall. The stock market crashed in Tokyo in 1989. The Japanese economy entered a recession. At first, the experts believed it was temporary. They urged investors to take advantage of the opportunity to buy into Japan, Inc. at record low prices. They thought Japanese industry was unstoppable...unbeatable. It would recover in no time, they said.

But Japan, Inc. didn't recover. Instead, it went into a long, drawn-out recession that lasted year after year...with on-again, off again deflation...and several stock market rallies. Each time stocks rallied, they fell again. Each time the economy began to grow...along came another setback. This continued for the next 20 years...until March of this year...when Tokyo stocks hit their lowest point for the whole bear market. A generation of investors had been nearly wiped out. Over two generations they had made nothing. Trillions worth of wealth had been erased.

What did the Japanese authorities do during these last two decades? They fought the correction every step of the way, with the boldest attempt at fiscal and monetary stimulus every undertaken up to that point. Interest rates came down to effectively zero. And government spending soared, creating the largest deficits in Japanese history. Now, Japan's national debt approaches 200% of GDP - a peacetime record. If it continues to grow at this rate, it will hit 300% of GDP in just a few more years.

Sound familiar? It should. The key US interest rate is now effectively zero. The Fed says it will leave it there for "as long as it takes." And deficits have reached staggering levels - 13% of GDP. At this rate, the US debt/GDP ratio will hit 100% in just a few years. And if it continues, US debt/GDP will reach 200% not long after - as recession- reduced tax revenues meet stimulus-increased outlays.

But wait...the feds say they won't let it happen. They'll turn this thing around. The economy will begin to grow. Tax revenues will rise. Prices will go up.

Hey...that's just what the Japanese said!

So far, the US is doing almost exactly what the Japanese did...propping up zombie companies and stimulating the economy as best it can.

But if it does the same thing the Japanese did, won't the US get the same results the Japanese got?

Here is where it gets interesting. Because the US economy is not exactly like the Japanese economy. Japan had high savings...and a positive trade balance. It could run up huge government debts and "owe it to itself." It could finance its government debts with the savings of its own people, in other words. It never had to worry about foreigners refusing to buy its bonds...or selling them suddenly.

America's government debt is different. The US doesn't save enough to finance its own deficits. So it depends on the kindness of strangers. And if those strangers ever lose faith in America's ability or willingness to repay its debts, they'll drop the dollar like an annoying girlfriend. And when they do, the whole global monetary system will come crashing down.

But suppose savings rates go up in America - to, say, 10% of GDP, like they were before the bubble years. That would make $1.4 trillion of savings available to finance the feds' deficits. And suppose the slump continues...as we think it will, with another big scare in the investment markets. People will seek safety in...yes, you guessed it...US bonds. This will take the pressure off the dollar and permit the US to finance its countercyclical spending without depending heavily on foreigners. The recession/depression will be annoying...but not insufferable. And Bernanke will figure he has more to lose by undermining the dollar than to gain from it. In that case, the Japan- like slump could go on for many years - just as it has in Japan!

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Recession for the Japanese Economy Once Again
• Japan “Wasted Trillions” on Stimulus Programs
• Difference Between the Dollar and the Yen
• How Will the United States Finance the Biggest Deficit of All Time?
• U.S. Government Must Roll Over $3.4 Trillion in Debt Over Next Four Years

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

Yesterday, it touched a new record - $1,050 - even as the dollar rose, oil slumped under $70 and stocks dipped very slightly.

Well, what do you expect? The United States added $1 trillion to its monetary base in the last year or so. The federal government is running a deficit of $1.7 trillion this year. And along comes Barack Obama with an idea to stimulate employment - spend more money! This time, Obama's plan is a kind of 'Cash for Workers' program...in which businesses get a tax credit for hiring new employees.

Gold investors must think the new program will be the straw they've been waiting for. Government has piled on bales of costly new initiatives on this poor camel's back. Still, he stands up straight.

So, is gold at $1000 a bargain...or a trap? Or both.

We begin by asking: where's the inflation? We don't see any inflation. What we do see is deflation.

Barclays Capital says gold could go to $1,500. We don't know where they got that number. It could go to $15,000 for all we know. Or it could go down, too.

Our guess is that it will go down enough scare the bejesus out of speculators. Then, it will soar.

But, hey, we're just guessing - along with everyone else.

Sooner or later gold is probably headed to the lunatic moon. We're sticking with the yellow metal. We don't want to miss that ride.

But when?

Ah...we're going to stick our necks out and say "eventually." We're sure we're right about this. Just don't ask us for more precision; we have none. And what bothers us is that between eventually and now there could be a lot of time and a lot of trouble. And one trouble that could come up pretty fast is another crash in the stock market.

If the stock markets of the world take another dive...like they did last year...gold will probably go down with them. Not as much, but down nonetheless. So, if we were speculating...we'd probably be short gold and short stocks too. We'd bet against bonds too - even though we think they will probably go up in the short run. The smart, long term money - in both stocks and bonds - is probably on the short side.

Here at The Daily Reckoning, however, we never speculate - except in print. As to ideas about how the world works we have plenty. We speculate daily. As to gold, stocks and commodities, we prefer to hold onto our long-term positions.

What seems fairly sure to us is that this recovery is a fraud. It's a mountebank and a flimflam.

And now approaches a moment of truth - earnings announcements. Stock market investors bid up shares on the theory that sales and profits would rise. Will they? We don't think so.

We think sales are going to be disappointing...and earnings will be even worse. If so, we'll see analysts begin to change their expectations...and announce that the results are "not as bad as expected."

If we get a few really bad announcements - with results much worse than expected - it could sink the rally. Then again, if we're surprised with exceptionally good reports...it could send the market in the other direction.

Good results will also cause us here at The Daily Reckoning to question our position. Maybe the economy is not sinking into a chronic depression, after all. Could we be wrong?

Ha ha...are you kidding, dear reader? Of course, we can be wrong. When we were younger we were uncertain about things. But now that we're older, we're not so sure.

Here is what we're pretty sure about:

1) The credit cycle has topped out.

Americans are saving - think of the poor boomers, 10 years older but not a penny richer than they were in 1999. Stocks have gone nowhere but down in real terms. Houses hit a high in 2006...now, they're off 30%...and still going down. Jobs? Forget it...there are already 15 million people who are unemployed and about 200,000 more every month. The job market is unlikely to recover for another 6-13 years - that is, after many of the boomers are retired! And if you are lucky enough to have a job, you're not likely to get a raise...not with so much spare capacity in the labor market.

Under those conditions, a consumer boom is very unlikely.

2) We know that a period of credit contraction is deflationary.

Prices go down as demand falls. Buyers disappear from the malls that once knew them, while the factories that produce stuff grow dusty and quiet.

But we know the feds hate falling prices. And we know they are taking extraordinary actions to get prices to go up. So far, their efforts have been a giant flop. Prices are falling in the United States at the fastest pace since the '50s.

Most of the feds' efforts have been directed towards keeping the bankers fat and happy...and getting themselves a bigger share of America's output. They took funds designed to relaunch the US economy, for example, and used them to buy themselves a big position in the auto industry, the financial industry and the insurance industry.

3) We know too, by the way they conducted themselves in those affairs, that the feds have become much more aggressive...throwing their weight around in the private sector as never before.

What we don't know is how this affects markets in the short term. So far, consumer prices are falling, but the stock market is enjoying a bounce. It is a real, new bull market? Or just a bear market bounce? It is probably a bear market bounce...but it has been going for long enough that we have to at least consider the idea that it is a genuine bull market. That's why the numbers from this quarter are important...they'll tell us if the companies themselves are expanding earnings fast enough to justify investors' optimism.

4) We know too that there is a whole lot of 'flation going on.

We are just unable to tell you what kind of 'flation it is. The monetary base is way up - it increased by $1 trillion in the last 12 months. But the money-in-circulation has barely budged. The feds give the banks overnight loans at practically zero interest. Then, the banks lend it back to the feds at nearly 4% more.

What happens to it then? Well, what do you think...it is wasted on typical federal government scams and humbugs.

So, relatively little of the money actually ends up in the consumer economy. And so, we can't tell you whether the 'flation will have a 'in' prefix or a 'de' prefix. They're just two letters. But they will make a whole alphabet of difference to the economy and to your investments.

5) Most important, we are dead sure that the people running America's financial policies are jackasses.

We say that with all due respect, which is probably not much. They have only one idea - and it is a bad one. They think economies are improved by more consumer spending. They don't seem to care why consumers occasionally cut back on their spending. All that matters to them is finding ways to get the consumer shopping again. So they try tax cuts and government spending...bailouts and boondoggles...zero interest lending and federal takeovers...cash for clunkers, cash for houses, cash for employees....

..trillions worth of claptrap and folderol. But what a nuisance! The fool consumer still won't shop!

But they're determined to keep trying. That's why we can be pretty sure that, eventually, they'll get inflation rates up. One way or another. And then, gold at $1000 will seem like an outrageous bargain.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Is Gold Going Up Because People Fear Inflation?
• Gold is More Like a Religion or a Political Position
• Feds’ Plan is to Reflate the Economy
• Markets Rise While the Economy Sinks
• The Economy is Getting Worse Not Better

Another pile of hay had another message: "Farmers On Strike."

The story behind these signs has a depression-era, black and white, look to it. Newsreels from the Great Depression show US farmers dumping milk rather than sell it at deflated prices. Now, French farmers do the same. Prices have fallen so low that many refuse to sell it at all.

But they can't stop milking the cows. So what do they do with the milk? They give it away. Or, in a few instances, they throw it at the government's farm agency offices.

Meanwhile, a story in The New York Times explains one of the reasons why milk has become so cheap. New technology makes it easier and cheaper to produce good milk cows.

Technology and globalization are inherently deflationary. The former increases productivity, thus lowering the cost of output. The latter lowers prices by directing business to the world's lowest-cost producers.

Deflation is the natural order of things. Inflation is always an artifice caused by government. Central banks 'target' a certain level of inflation because they think - or say they think - that a bit of inflation helps create full employment. And it does, sometimes. But it does it by treachery. Inflation hoodwinks the working class. It reduces their real wages, making them cheaper to employ. Then, the proles wise up. They realize that prices are rising. They demand more wage increases. That is when inflation begins to get out of control and presidents get out the 'Whip Inflation Now' buttons.

Every time government offers to solve a problem, it inevitably makes the problem worse - except, occasionally, in rare episodes when a government-organized national defense pays off.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Australian Dairy Prices Up Due to Grain Prices
• Cattle Prices Have Risen Only 1% This Year
• Feds’ Plan is to Reflate the Economy
• China Fueling Inflation in Australia & New Zealand
• An Abundance of Paper Money is Causing Food Prices to Soar

Although I have great sympathy for the deflation crowd, given the reckless attitude of the central bankers and their ability to create debt-based money, I do not believe deflation (contraction in the supply of money and total debt) is very likely.

For sure, in this post-bubble environment, American consumer debt continues to contract, but this is being more than offset by the expansion in federal debt. Over the past year alone, federal debt in America has surged from US$9.645 trillion to US$11.813 trillion. In other words, during the past twelve months, American federal debt has risen by a shocking 24.47% and it now stands at 83.52% of GDP! Now, given the ability of the American establishment to essentially create dollars out of thin air, I have no doubt in my mind that it be able to inflate the economy. However, this will come at a huge cost and the victim will be the American currency.

In fact, the recent weakness in the US dollar is a sign that central-bank sponsored inflation has started to dominate the private-sector debt contraction in the West. Furthermore, over the past few weeks, various governments have issued US dollar-denominated debt and this suggests that the carry-trade is back in vogue. In a startling move, Germany recently announced that it plans to borrow money in US dollars!

Now, given the ongoing federal debt inflation, debasement of paper currencies, sky-high budget deficits and competitive currency devaluations, the macro-economic environment has never been better for precious metals. Yet, both gold and silver continue to frustrate the bulls by staying below the record-highs recorded in spring 2008.

So, what is going on here? Have we already seen the end of the precious metals bull-market or are we about to witness an explosive rally? Before I attempt to answer this question, I want to make it clear that even though gold failed to better its all-time high during last autumn's panic, it was the only asset, (apart from US Treasuries) which stayed relatively firm. And looking at the various markets today, gold is the only asset that is flirting with its all-time high. So, whether you like it or not, gold deserves some credit for fulfilling its role as a safe haven.

Now, unlike some of the die-hard gold bugs, I don't believe that gold is the ultimate asset to own at all times. Without a doubt, there have been times in history when gold has proven to be a lousy investment. For instance, between 1980 and 2001, the nominal price of the yellow metal fell by an astonishing 70%. This horrible price action spawned an entire generation who grew up hating gold and up until a few years ago, the vast majority considered gold a barbaric relic.

However, during other periods in history, when macro-economic uncertainty was high and inflationary expectations were running out of control, gold turned out to be a fantastic asset to own.

If my take on the macro-economic situation is valid, then we are in such a period now and gold must form a part of every investment portfolio.

You may remember that over the past year, central banks have injected trillions of dollars into the banking system and it is only a matter of time before inflationary expectations start spiraling out of control. Up until now, this 'stimulus' money hasn't permeated through the economy in the West but once money velocity picks up, prices will start rising and the investment community will become very concerned about inflation. When the deflation scare abates and people start protecting the purchasing power of their savings, capital will start to flow towards precious metals.

Long-term clients and subscribers will recall that about two years ago, I highlighted gold's tendency to rocket higher every other year. Figure 1 captures this trend perfectly and you can see that since the outset, gold's bull-market has been punctuated by lengthy consolidations and the yellow metal has surged to a new high every alternate year.

So, if gold remains in a bull-market and its trend consistency is intact, its price should surge over the following months. Conversely, if the price of gold fails to climb above its all-time high before year-end, it should start to ring alarm bells as this would open up the possibility that the bull-market may be over. Remember, certainty does not exist in the investment world and savvy investors should remain open to all outcomes.

Now, given the uncertainty in the world today and the ticking inflationary time-bomb, my view is that gold will soon embark on its north-bound journey. So, I suggest that investors hold on to gold and the related mining companies which will probably continue to perform well until next spring.

As far as silver is concerned, it has always been a high-beta play on the direction of gold. If the next up leg in gold's bull-market materialises, the price of silver will also head towards the heavens. Accordingly, investors may also want to allocate a portion of their investment portfolio to silver bullion and silver producing companies.

Regards,

Puru Saxena
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gold Flourishes but Silver is the Real Precious Metal Story of Late
• Gold Falls for Four Straight Days but is the Low Price a Bad Thing?
• We are Confident the Bull Market in Gold is Not Over
• Gold and Silver!
• A Word About the Dollar’s Decline from Our Intrepid Correspondent, Byron King:

On the latter, here's what Addison had to say:

"'Deflation now, inflation later' is a mantra we've adopted at The Daily Reckoning. The Federal Reserve, through it's program of quantitative easing, is busting the seams of its own balance sheet in order to fight a deflationary trend in the West. At some point, the tide will shift. Mr. Bernanke assures the world he's watching inflationary indicators like a hawk. We have our doubts whether those indicators will do him any good. As Paul Volcker, the great inflation slayer of the early 1980s, said when we interviewed him for I.O.U.S.A. 'Once inflation gets started, it's very hard to stop. And there's a strong flavor of that at the moment.'

To read Addison's full interview, see here.

"Global trade rose at its fastest rate in more than five years in July," The Financial Times reports, "suggesting the economic recovery is feeding through into commerce."

"I've been worried about the effects of protectionism in shutting off different markets and making a weak economy even worse off," says colleague Chris Mayer. "Commodity markets especially need open markets to function well. The EU, for example, just put a 40% tariff on Chinese made steel pipe. That's not good for steel pipe demand and hence, the steel makers and the commodities that go into steel. If we see widespread adoption of such measures, we'd have to re-think some things.

"But so far, it looks like we've got a recovery of some kind in global trade. When I look at the global economy, many of the bright spots stem from surging trade along old trade routes (such as China and Arab world)."

Racehorse prices are in freefall, says a report out yesterday. But collectible cars are still doing well.

Yesterday, we saw someone drive by in a huge, gaudy pink Cadillac from the 1960s. It had magnificent fins and enough chrome to stagger a blind man. In it were a middle-aged man and woman, looking very comfortable and proud. They were traveling in style...in a rolling sculpture.

Old cars are not only holding their values, they're still going up. But not all old cars. Detroit's muscle cars have been falling in price for the last three years. Not very green?

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Chinese Steel Price to Rise in Wake of Coal and Iron Price Hike
• Dubai and Abu Dhabi: Newcomers to the Global Finance and Trade
• How to Trade Gold Shares
• The Aussie Dollar as a Measure of Global Risk Appetite
• Australian Trade Deficit Grows for 75th Consecutive Month

We said we were doing some serious thinking this week. Maybe it is the season. But more and more, our thoughts become grayer. Less black. Less white. Less hard. Less soft.

A few years ago, it looked to us as though the world financial system had gone to war. We cheerfully awaited the victory parade. We figured Mr. Market would whup the feds good and hard. It hasn't happened so far.

On one side, are the forces of a natural market correction...following a long, long period of expansion. The easier money gets, the more people tend to misspend and mis-invest it. Then, inevitably, their mistakes must be corrected. That's what bear markets and recessions are for.

But the feds don't like bear markets or recessions. And at least since the Keynes outlined his general theory back in the early 20th century, they've believed that they don't have to put up with them. Keynes took a page from the Old Testament. Government should act like an enlightened Egyptian Pharaoh, he didn't say, but should have. It should run surpluses in the fat years and deficits in the lean years...thus flattening out the pattern of boom and bust.

Pharaoh was no dope. He stored up grain for seven years, when the harvests were bountiful. Then, when the seven lean years came, he released the grain to the people. Problem solved.

Keynes believed that modern government could do the same thing. But Pharaoh was not running a democracy. He had no voters to answer to. So, if he wanted to store grain in the fat years, he could do so.

In theory, the US government could do the same. But, in fact, it never runs significant surpluses. There are too many people who want too much bread and too many circuses. And you don't win votes by denying the voters what they want. So, in practice, the feds run deficits even in the fat years! Last year, before the downturn really started to bite, the US federal government ran the biggest deficit in history - nearly half a trillion dollars.

Now, let's imagine how that would work for a bad Pharaoh. He would give out grain in the fat years. This would encourage farmers to produce less grain. Then, when the lean years came, Pharaoh would have no grain to give out...and the farmers would have less grain stored up themselves, since they grew less during the boom years. The famine would be worse than ever.

Then, if we can imagine that Egypt was trading with China at the time, perhaps Pharaoh could borrow grain from the Zhou dynasty to help ease the peoples' pain. Perhaps he could mortgage the pyramids. Whatever, he - and the Egyptian people - would have been in much better position if he had done as Joseph told him in the first place...lay up stores in good times, then draw them out in bad times. How difficult is that?

But Bernanke didn't see the famine coming. Neither did Geithner. Or Greenspan. Or any of the other savants Pharaoh used to interpret his dreams. None of them expected hard times. None of them warned the public. None of them encouraged the government to save money for the recession. Nassim Taleb asks why Bernanke was reappointed after he clearly failed the most critical test. But heck...the federal government is an equal opportunity employer. Employees aren't let go just become they're incompetent.

Anyway, getting back to our thoughts...

..it looked like a battle to us - between the forces of inflation (the feds)...and the forces of deflation (the market). But battles usually have clear winners. One side is master of the field and the other retreats. One side is victorious; the other is defeated.

Alas, some wars produce no hosannas of success...and no wailing widows of failure. Some end in draws...or in confusion...or in disgrace and bankruptcy for both sides.

Like the bad Pharaoh, the feds saved nothing. Now, they have to try to work their Keynesian magic on credit. This puts them in a weak position; like a government that wages war on borrowed money. They can continue their campaign only as long as lenders allow them. They can't wage the war as effectively as they'd like. Then again, maybe they can't lose it as spectacularly as they might.

For the moment, their credit is still good. The bond market foresees an inflation rate of less than 2%. Bankers, taking money from the government, are happy to lend it back to them.

But the forces of the correction are giving up little ground. While stocks rally, the real economy remains in a funk.

"Sharp drop in start-ups," is a news headline from yesterday. New business start-ups are a major source of new jobs. Bad omen.

Even glamour publisher Conde Nast is forced to make cutbacks. It has told employees that they may not spend more than $1,000 a night when they are traveling.

A Pimco economist says savings rates are still going up...and may exceed 8%. This represents hundreds of billions of dollars taken out of the consumer economy. Oddly, while it makes the slump worse, it also helps finance the government's battle against it. Savers buy US debt (albeit indirectly).

So, the battle is still going on...and the outcome is still in doubt.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• On the Evidence, Stimulus Programs Aren’t Working
• Who’s Afraid of a Financial Meltdown?
• Cattle Prices Have Risen Only 1% This Year
• Historically, the Only Reserve a Central Bank Can Trust is Gold
• The Battle Between the Forces of Inflation and Deflation Wages On

Let's take the earnings recovery story first. Tomorrow we're going to have a look at the outlook for Aussie bank earnings. But for now, is there a case to be made for stocks as an asset class? Are they really recovering?

Well, the S&P 500 closed down in New York. But it's up 57% from its low. That's impressive. It's also expensive. The index now sells for 20 times operating profits, which is pretty optimistic, given how crappy the world economy has been in the last year.

"But that was last year," you say. In the future, things can't help but be better! And relatively speaking, that's probably true. Our friend Dan Ferris writes, that, "Last year, the S&P 500 lost $23.25 per share for the fourth quarter. In the second quarter of 2009, 369 out of 478 companies, representing perhaps 97% or 98% of the total market cap, reported negative earnings over the previous year."

Compared to last year, this year HAS to be better. You can't get much worse than negative earnings. And with trillions in credit backstopping the financial system and making it possible to generate profits on paper assets, you'd expect to see at least some engineered earnings in the next two quarters that look absolutely dazzling when compared to last year's numbers.

"So," says Dan, "for the next two or three quarters, you can expect plenty of reports of vastly improved earnings, even if those results aren't really so great. As you parse the news and evaluate your own investment goals, keep your head about you and don't be afraid to spend extra time getting deeper into a company's numbers, its market, its history, and its future prospects than you normally would. And for Newfoundland's sake, don't buy anything that isn't dirt-cheap."

Absolutely speaking, the popping of the credit bubble fatally undermined the business models of a lot of heavily leveraged companies, including many, many banks (both big and small). We reckon that the capital cushions of those banks are still in danger from further falls in asset values. Yes, that's not a popular or even common view. But we'll expand on it tomorrow.

In the meantime, you can always tell when stocks are out of favour in Australia. Everyone starts talking about what a good investment property is. But Australian housing is not exactly a cheap asset. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, said as much earlier this week.

And this morning, we peeled our eyes over this paper on Aussie houses by RBA man Tony Richards. Richard's inadvertently made a lot of interesting points. One was that the so-called improvement in affordability over the last year is, "mainly due to movements in interest rates rather than in house."

He added that, "Mortgage rates are particularly low at present and, as the Bank has noted on a number of occasions, it is not reasonable to expect that interest rates will stay at the current low levels indefinitely. When they do rise towards more normal levels, discussions on housing affordability will again focus more on the level of housing prices relative to incomes."

That is clever to suggest that when rates rise people will have to find another way to say that houses are affordable. But we reckon when rates rise, as they eventually must, a lot of new home buyers will find out that access to cheap credit does not make a house affordable. It just makes the amount of debt you owe to the bank a lot larger.

The most interesting part of the paper, for our twenty minutes, was the discussion of 'underlying demand'. 'Underlying demand' is the phrase that gets trotted out when the banks and real estate brokers tell you there's a housing shortage, or when the RBA tells you not to worry about a house price crash in Australia. But what does it really mean?

Richards says the four components of 'underlying demand' are population growth, household size, new houses to replaced demolished homes, and demand for "second or vacant homes." Note that none of these are like the Ten Commandments. They aren't carved in stone. They are changeable.

By the way, who on earth can afford to own a home they neither live in, nor rent? "Honey we're going to buy a third home. But we're not going to generate any rental income from it. And we're certainly not going to live in it. We're just going to pay the mortgage on it."

"But why would we do that dear?"

"Because we can. To show how rich we are. We can afford it. And to support underlying housing demand. What else are we going to do with that money, buy stocks?

Returning to reality, Richards says that a preference for smaller household sizes, along with rising incomes and a rising population all factor in to strong "underlying demand." But if you spend exactly forty two seconds scrutinising this claim, you'll find that it simply doesn't hold up. "Underlying demand" as a bullish factor in Australian housing is a fiction propagated by property spruikers and money lenders.

Take rising incomes. Rising incomes are a function of a growing economy. But in a prolonged recession—or just a period of slower growth, or a world in which wages in the Western world are gradually deflated as the global work force grows (especially in manufacturing)—income growth is going to be harder to achieve across the economy.

And rising populations? Well, it's always possible for the government to reduce legal immigration if it's concerned about too many people competing for too few jobs. That knocks another plank out of underlying demand.

And then there's the preference for smaller households. Of course there's a preference for having your own castle and being your own King, if you can afford it. But the RBA's own data show that after many years of smaller and smaller household sizes, the trend is now swinging to larger households.

This could be by preference. After all, living alone has its benefits, but it can be awfully lonely. Or it could be by necessity—children living at home longer to save money or taking on flatmates to ease the pain of higher rates.

But whatever is behind the trend in rising household sizes, the main point is that the elements that go into "underlying demand" don't automatically suggest a level of demand for houses that will always rise. Quite the contrary, in fact.

And of course one of the biggest factors in demand for housing is the availability of credit via low interest rates. We reckon that when you add a couple of hundred basis points to the current cash rate, you'd take quite a bit of momentum away from "underlying demand" for housing.

How about some reader mail?

Dear DR,

Phil Cantrill

Intriguing scenario. Politically, it's a mess. Financially, we reckon the big issue is the value of toxic CDOs to banks and financial firms. Regardless of what happens to homeowners, those CDOs are due for a haircut. And when that happens, watch out for more bank failures and a second buffeting of the financial system.

Hi Dan,

Peter H

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Aussie Housing Market Actually Leads the U.S. by Three Years
• Property Spruikers Claim Australia Suffers from a ‘Chronic Housing Shortage’
• The Australian Resource Boom Isn’t Dead Yet
• The Mother of All Housing Booms
• Housing and Unemployment Are Weaknesses in the U.S. Economy

Even in the world of finance, there are momentous conversions. As they say on Wall Street, a rally ends when the last bear gives up. An old friend had been a source of inspiration for tech bears for many years. He suddenly saw the light and gave up in 1999. Shares he had formerly scorned - often dotcoms with no revenue and no business plans - were suddenly added to his own portfolio. This also heralded a big change - the end of the tech bubble. Tech stocks collapsed. Most disappeared. Then, Stephen Roach became vaguely bullish in 2007, after a long period of doubt and misgivings.

Now it is Jim Grant who has changed his mind. A generation of investors has gotten used to Grant's 'doom is nigh' warnings. Now, he says, it's a boom that is nigh.

What is remarkable about the Grant conversion is that his vision gives off so little heat and light. His WSJ article shillyshallies around; rehearses the history of previous recessions and comes to rest in front of a flickering match: "The deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery."

Many were the sheep in Grant's flock. They feel betrayed, as if their shepherd had gone over to the wolves. Here at The Daily Reckoning, we take no personal offense. In the following few words we merely stoke up the fire.

We will not argue with Newton's Third Law. For every action, there is a reaction. Every boom has a bust. And every busted bubble has a bounce. Even the Titanic's stern rose, before she slipped below the waves.

First, we consult the facts. But facts are survivors. They will tell whatever tale their interrogators want to hear. As for opinions, after six months of a stock market rally, the once half empty glass has become half full. We predicted it ourselves. But we'll let Robert Prechter say, 'I told you so.' Even before the rally began, Prechter foretold its story:

"Regardless of extent, it should generate feelings of optimism. At its peak, the President's popularity will be higher, the government will be taking credit for successfully bailing out the economy, the fed will appear to have saved the banking system and investors will be convinced that the bear market is behind us."

As to Mr. Obama's popularity, Prechter was wrong. But 4 out of 5 ain't bad.

Grant's brief tour of recession history seems to confirm his Newtonian position: the further an economy falls, the further up it rises to get back to normal. This downturn has clipped nearly 4% off America's GDP, substantially more than any previous downturn since WWII. Therefore, it will come back strong.

Today's slump in the United States hardly compares to the one of '29- '33, which took 27% off the GDP. Then, in the ranks of the unemployed, stood one out of every four able-bodied workers, as opposed to just one out of every 10, according to today's statistical legerdemain. Still, the depth of the drop did not prevent a vigorous bounce; on the contrary, it seemed to demand it. After '33, the US economy grew by nearly 10% in each of the next four years.

In the slump of '82, GDP sank at a 6.4% rate. Again, the reaction was nearly equal and opposite to the action. "Not until the third quarter of 1984," says Grant, "did real quarterly GDP growth drop below 5%."

Of course, even a US Congressman will bounce, if you push him down the Capitol steps. But not every one will get up again. In the '33 example, the US economy, still youthful and vigorous, got up nicely. But then it fell again. By the end of the decade he was still on his back, with 15% unemployment and 2% deflation. Only later, after four years of world war, did the economy begin a sustained recovery.

Now it is 2009. The poor fellow is down again. The feds rushed to help him to his feet. They gave him a combined fiscal and monetary shot-in- the-arm seven times stronger - in terms of GDP - than the average postwar countercyclical stimulus. The juice opened his eyes. But he still staggers. He has put on some weight over the years; he now carries three times the debt/GDP as he had in '82. His stocks are three times as expensive, in P/E terms, too. His bones are more brittle and his mind a little slower. What's more, in '82, he had been on a deleveraging diet for more than a decade. In '09, he has just begun.

What will happen next, we don't know. But if we turn bullish on this economy and urge you to buy stocks, it will surely be time to sell them.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• US Dollar a Sort of Monetary Brand
• The Aussie Dollar as a Measure of Global Risk Appetite
• Jim Cramer Says The Depression is Over
• Talking About the First Home Buyer’s Grant Again
• Stocks, Bonds and Economy All Bounce