Readers may know Mikhail Gorbachev as a fellow who advertises Louis Vuitton luggage. But before he made it big as a mannequin, he was the top man in the Soviet Union. It was not an easy job. The empire was falling apart. So, in a rare act for a public official, Gorbachev told the Soviet people the truth: "We can't go on like this," he said in 1986. Three years later, on November 9th, 1989, the test was over.

What they were going on with was a system of compulsory economics - in which bureaucrats made the key decisions. They decided how much capital to allocate to what sector...how many people to employ...how much to charge for the output, and so forth. Of course, in order to make these decisions, Soviet economists had already discovered that they needed to make a lot of other decisions too - such as where people would live, how much they would earn, what they would do, and which of them would be starved to death. So, it was a very controlled experiment. Conditions were so miserable in the East that the government needed a vast network of spies and gulags to keep the malcontents from ruining the test. Still, 5,000 people fled to the West. 136 were killed trying to get over the wall that separated West Berlin from the East.

The results were obvious even before the test began. Ordinary people, looking out for themselves, always make better decisions than economists working for the government. Taxi drivers are better at getting people from place to place. Automobile manufacturers are better at making cars. Bakers bake better bread. Consumers buy what they really want. And capitalists make better investments. But just because a thing is absurd doesn't mean it is unpopular. There are people who get upset when they discover that there is H2O in their drinking water. There are also people who want aparatchiks to make their decisions for them. And recently, there are more of them. Many Germans in the East long for good old days when things were under control. They call it 'ostalgie.'

After a bit of food and a roof over his head, a man becomes more concerned with status than with survival. It is not how rich he is that matters; it's how rich he is compared to those around him. Status brings reproductive advantages, say the socio-biologists. But it brings disappointments too. And envy. So wicked and destructive is the urge to envy that the Catholic Church banned it as a cardinal sin. Societies suppress envy in a variety of ways. Some tax the rich. Some force everyone to wear the same dreary clothes. Most level the population by sticking everyone into the same education, retirement and healthcare systems.

Capitalism doesn't make anyone rich. It only allows people to compete for wealth on more or less equal terms. Naturally, some are better at it than others. Most people prefer alcohol, television or jobs on Wall Street to the rough and tumble of real enterprise. And almost everyone is prey to bubble delusions, hoping to get something for nothing from the latest fad investment. And then, when capitalism corrects their mistakes, they turn ostalgic, longing for the state to intervene and rig the game in their favor.

"After the wall fell: capitalism is a disappointment" says a headline in yesterday's Montevideo paper, La Republic. A poll showed that of people asked in 27 countries only 11% thought capitalism was working properly now. We're surprised that anyone thought so. With so much finagling by the feds, it's a wonder that it works at all.

But even among the complainers, few suggest a return to the policies that wrecked East Germany between 1949 and 1989. Instead, what they want is a kinder, gentler form of capitalism with the state as a benevolent partner. Full employment, with Audis. Guaranteed health and retirement benefits, with wifi and cappuccinos. Unlimited government bailouts, but without state bankruptcy.

Alas, the lumpen are worse at rigging the game than they are at playing it. The elites are better; that's why they're the elite. They use corrections the way a general uses a cease fire - to strengthen their positions. They connive with the government for more regulations to keep out competitors, bailouts to protect them from their mistakes, and handouts to enhance their status. That's why, scarcely a year after they were all on the edge of insolvency, the world's big financial firms are paying the biggest bonuses ever.

Does rigging the system like this make people better off? Many thanks to those teuton guinea pigs again! They conducted another test. After the wall came down, the Federal Republic in Bonn decided to intervene in the Eastern states in order to lift the ossies out of poverty and put them on a level playing field with the West. Beginning in 1991, the West transferred an amount equal to 4% of GDP each year to the East. Public works. Public health. Public education. Welfare! Handouts! Bailouts!

Unwittingly, which is the only way to do this sort of thing, they were merely adding to the test data. For next door was the Czech Republic, which also suffered under the Soviet boot, also engaged in absurd and counterproductive policies, and also flew the coop as soon as the Soviets dropped their guard. The Czechs had no rich relatives. They had no source of free money. They had no booming economy that they could join. No money. No port. Not even a language anyone else could speak.

Well, guess who won that race? The Czechs, of course. GDP growth rates in the Czech Republic pulled ahead of those in East Germany in the early '90s; since then, they've been pulling farther and farther ahead each year.

Regards,

Bill Bonner,
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• The Government Bureaucrats of East Germany Exist in the United States of America Today
• HOORAH FOR CAPITALISM!
• Capitalism is Inherently Unstable
• Britain, the Empire Which Had Paramount Global Power
• Rich Blamed for Financial Debacle of Last Few Years

Of course it was misery for many of the test subjects. People were so eager to get out of the East German control group, they risked their lives jumping over the barbed wire. Then, when the wall was down, the population of East Germany collapsed...more than one out of every ten people moved to the West!

But it was a great experiment for economists. Too bad they didn't learn anything.

What they should have learned is that when it comes to making people materially better off, government spending is a poor way to do it. It's great for the few favored firms who help Washington raise and spend its trillions. It's great for Goldman, in other words.

But what if you don't have an inside track with the government? Well, you're out of luck. You get to stand in line to buy inferior goods and services - produced by government-owned industries and protected monopolies. That was what the East Germans did. And, of course, you get government bureaucrats telling you what to do...and preventing you from improving the quality of your life.

That's what they did in East Germany. And that's what they're doing, now, in the United States of America - in a less obvious, less heavy- handed fashion. Who owns the biggest auto company in the US? Who provides the finance for the finance industry? Who controls the health care and education industries? Who's the biggest employer? Who finances our houses? Who runs our banks?

Well...you know the answer.

But here's another question: who's headed for bankruptcy? Same answer.

What can you do about it? All you can do is to anticipate where this is heading...and position yourself to profit. Or, at least position yourself to protect your assets.

In that regard, you may want to replace the FED with the GLD, if you know what we mean. The Fed is derelict in its duty to protect your paper dollars. GLD - an ETF for gold - is a very simple way of doing your own central banking.

But should you buy GLD now? Ah...they don't make it easy, do they?

So, should you buy gold now?

A quick answer: it depends.

If you're buying gold for quick profits, you will probably be disappointed if you buy it now. The price has been going up for weeks. It's probably ready for a rest.

Also, gold moves up with stock prices - both anticipating an inflationary recovery. We think this will turn out to be a mistake. There is no real recovery underway. And no inflation either.

If and when stocks collapse, gold will go down too. At least for a while.

But if you are buying gold as the Chinese and the Indians are buying it - as a monetary reserve, not a speculation - there is no time like the present. Sometime in the future, we wish we could tell you when, gold at $1,100 will seem like a giveaway.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gorbachev and the Most Complete Test in Economic History
• Gold is in a Bull Market
• The Codependent Relationship Between China and the United States
• U.S. Government Takes Over the Economy
• Housing and Unemployment Are Weaknesses in the U.S. Economy

The financial crisis of '08-'09 was not a head cold. It didn't go away.

It was more like diabetes, a stroke, or cancer. It was serious. Life threatening. We may not recover. Our only hope is to change our habits, undergo some nasty treatments...and endure a long convalescence.

But that's not what most people think. They are convinced that the feds gave the economy a miracle drug. It cleared up the trouble lickety split. Now, our troubles are behind us.

The Dow moved up 17 points on Friday, leaving it above the 10,000 mark. Gold rose too - it is at a new record high, only $5 below $1,100.

According to the news reports, the US economy is 'growing' again. Yes, that's the official storyline.

But wait, what kind of growth is this? David Rosenberg:

"All we can say is that if the overwhelming consensus is correct that the recession is behind us, then what we have on our hands is the mother of all jobless recoveries and whatever economic growth is being squeezed into the system comes courtesy of the most dramatic intervention by the government in recorded history, including the New Deal 1930s era. President Obama is now running fiscal deficits that would have made FDR blush."

The quacks at the Fed and the Treasury department have delivered the biggest jolt of adrenaline in history. People in the private sector won't spend? Heck, the feds will spend for them!

It took the Fed nearly one hundred years to grow its balance sheet - which is the foundation of the US money supply - to $800 billion. Then, after Lehman Bros. went broke, it doubled its balance sheet...to more than $1.8 trillion.

Early last week, the Fed announced that it would keep the firehose- sized IV in place. Then, by the end of the week, the G-20 meeting of finance ministers confirmed said they were all sticking with their stimulus programs.

You can't put that much cash into a financial system without getting some kind of reaction. Goldman is making record profits, for example. How does Goldman make money? It is finance business. It profits by offering credit. When credit expands, the moneylenders and speculators at Goldman make money.

The private sector isn't borrowing. Every day brings more proof.

Consumer credit contracted again in September - the 8th month this year.

Unemployment just passed the 10% mark, reports The New York Times.

"Small Businesses Hunker Down to Survive," says another headline story.

Another big bank went bust in California.

But while the private sector de-leverages, the public sector expands. Now, it's the feds who are doing the borrowing - about $1.7 trillion this year.

This is great for the people who help the feds finance their spending. But all it does is add more debt to the system. And debt is the real problem.

If former OMB director David Stockman is right, we'll see deficits over $2 trillion for a decade.

What people once took for absurd they now take for granted. Such as trillion-dollar deficits. For even with a hole in public finances equal to 13% of GDP the US House of Representatives passed a law overhauling the health care system, at a cost of more than $1 trillion.

What were they thinking?

Well, they were probably thinking that 'deficits don't matter.' And they were probably justifying the expense on the grounds that it was 'countercyclical spending' that would help pull the US out of its slump.

Whatever they were thinking, they weren't remembering what happened 20 years ago. It was 20 years ago today that the Berlin Wall fell, bringing to an end a 40-year demonstration project. The East Germans/Soviets wanted to show the world how well economists working for the government could run an economy.

And we found out!

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Government Debt
• Bankers Take Money From the Government and Use it to Speculate
• Feds Have Used the Correction to Increase Their Power and Add to Their Wealth
• Why Weren’t Economists On Top of This Thing?
• Where Do the Feds Get Any Money?

Where have all the jobs gone
long time passing
Where have all the jobs gone
long time ago
Where have all the jobs gone
Gone to graveyards everyone
When will they ever return
Oh when will they ever return

- Sung to the tune of "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"

"Many lost jobs in US will never come back..." says The Wall Street Journal.

Need we explain why? Because they're not lost, waiting to be rediscovered. They're not missing in action, to be repatriated after the fighting stops. Instead, they're dead. Gone forever.

There have been 7.2 million jobs lost since recession began. Many of these jobs were Bubble Age jobs. Millions of people, for example, earned their money in 'housing.' They were putting up houses in the sand states...or building granite countertops...or selling, flipping, financing the houses. Those jobs are gone forever. Never again in our lifetimes are we likely to see such an explosion in the housing industry. Sure, people will still build houses...and do all the other work involved in the traditional housing industry. But it will be only a fraction of the industry it was in the 2002-2007 period.

There were also all the jobs involved in selling things to people who didn't need them and couldn't afford them. Labor was needed at every step of the way - manufacturing (perhaps in China), shipping, stocking, retailing, fixing, and financing the stuff.

And don't forget all that mall space...and all the trucks...and all the other things that supported the over-consumption of the Bubble Age.

And now the Bubble Age is over. It will not come back, no matter how much cash and credit the feds pump into the system. (Not that they can't make things worse...in a BIGGER bubble...but that is not yet in sight.)

In The Wall Street Journal yesterday was an item about Las Vegas. The casinos are folding up their expansion plans, says the WSJ.

But the big news yesterday was that the service industries are growing again...at least that's what the latest figures show. This news so delighted investors that they bid up Dow stocks 112 points. Oil rose above $70. Gold posted a $13 gain.

Don't get too excited about that rise in the service sector. Everything bounces...even dead jobs. Dead jobs bounce; they still don't get up. After months of decline, it may be true that the service industries have had a rebound, but don't expect them to begin recovering the stamina and strength of the bubble years. A few more people may have gotten jobs serving drinks in Detroit's bars last month, but it is not likely to turn into a durable recovery of the job market.

In the 1990s, the US economy added 2.15 million new jobs every year. It needed to add at least 1.5 million or so just to remain at full employment - that is, with about 5% of the workforce unemployed at any time.

To put that number in perspective, this year the economy as LOST 2.5 million jobs, just in the last six months. Those jobs aren't coming back. As we keep saying, this is a depression. It is a major correction, in which the economy needs to find new jobs...because it can't continue to do what it has been doing.

New jobs are typically created by new businesses - small businesses that are growing. Big businesses already have all the market share they're going to get. They also typically have all the employees they need. Then, when hard times come, they discover that they don't need all that they have, so they cut back.

Job cuts from large businesses is what you expect in a recession. But this time it is different. This time, big businesses have let people go by the million. But small business has not been hiring them either. So not only is unemployment growing...the trend shows no signs of coming to an end.

Economists are reconciled to high unemployment levels for a long time. The head of the IMF says unemployment might peak out in 8 to 12 months. Even if that were true, it will be a very long time before the job market recovers. Just do the math.

We'll keep it simple. The economy needs, say, 1.5 million new jobs per year. Instead, over the last two years, it lost 7.5 million. Now, it has to stop losing jobs...let's just say that happens a year from now. By then, the total of jobs lost may be near 10 million. Plus, there are the new jobs it needed - but never got - over that 3 year period. That's another 4.5 million. So, the total will be about 14.5 million jobs down. Then, let us say, because we are in a generous and optimistic mood, that the economy then begins creating jobs again...at the rate it did during the '90s. What ho! After five years, that still leaves the economy more than 10 million jobs short, doesn't it?

In order to get back to full employment, the economy has to surprise us on the upside. It has not merely to return to the growth levels of the '90s...it has to surpass them. It needs to grow so fast it creates 3 million jobs per year. And even then, it would take nearly 10 years to get back to full employment.

Pretty grim, huh?

Well, don't worry about it. It won't be like that. It will be worse.

"Uh...Bill...what do you mean, 'worse'?"

Glad you asked.

In the typical post-war recession, jobs are lost...then they are recovered when the economy gets on its feet again. But this happened in the credit expansion of the '45-'07 period. Each recession was just a pause, when the economy was catching its breath. Then, it was off again...in the same direction - up the mountain of credit.

This time, it's not a typical post-war recession. It's something different. Now, we've reached the peak. We're coming down the other side...wheee! Look out below!

Now we don't need all those people building houses, stocking the shelves and selling things. We don't need such a big financial industry either. Now, people want to get rid of credit, not get more.

And the businesses that were goosed up in the credit bubble are now deflating fast. They're not just taking a break. They're lining up the jobs and shooting them in the back of the head. Those jobs are gone. (See below...)

In a 'normal' recession, jobs reappear because the economy continues in the same direction. In a depression, it changes course. Debts are paid off. Spending goes down, more or less permanently. The economy actually contracts...until consumer debt is once again down at an acceptable level...or a new model for growth can be found.

The Wall Street Journal mentions a statistician who was making $100,000 a year. He too is a victim of depression. His job has been outsourced to India. Businesses, with less revenue coming in the door, must cut costs in whatever way they can. Labor is the single biggest item on most firms' ledgers. They will reduce it however they can. And once the change is made, there is little chance that the job will come back.

It is a little like a battle. In an attack, troops often get separated. They are 'lost' - for a while. Then, the winning side is able to recover its missing troops as it advances. But the losing side gives up its troops forever. They are stuck behind enemy lines and cannot rejoin their units.

We are now on the losing side of a credit battle. Having gained so much ground, and so many jobs, in the advance, the United States is now giving them up.

"I expect over the next several months, mainstream pundits and forecasters will start worrying about tepid hiring, even as the pace of job losses slows," Strategic Short Report's Dan Amoss chimes in. "As we 'lap' the 2009 corporate cost cutting by early 2010, and top lines fail to rebound, earnings estimates will have to come back down. I'm amazed at how many sell-side analysts are modeling V-shaped recoveries in 2010 earnings. Most stock prices are disconnected from reality."

And here is a story we foretold years ago. Private equity was mostly a fraud, we said. Sharp operators bought companies for more than they were worth, loaded them with debt, collected huge fees, and then sold them back to the public or to other private equity firms. Come the revolution, we mused, these deals would go bad.

Well, the revolution has come. The deals have gone bad. The New York Times reports:

"Simmons [the mattress company] says it will soon file for bankruptcy protection, as part of an agreement by its current owners to sell the company - the seventh time it has been sold in a little more than two decades - all after being owned for short periods by a parade of different investment groups, known as private equity firms, which try to buy undervalued companies, mostly with borrowed money.

"For many of the company's investors, the sale will be a disaster. Its bondholders alone stand to lose more than $575 million. The company's downfall has also devastated employees like Noble Rogers, who worked for 22 years at Simmons, most of that time at a factory outside Atlanta. He is one of 1,000 employees - more than one-quarter of the work force - laid off last year.

"But Thomas H. Lee Partners of Boston has not only escaped unscathed, it has made a profit. The investment firm, which bought Simmons in 2003, has pocketed around $77 million in profit, even as the company's fortunes have declined. THL collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in the form of special dividends. It also paid itself millions more in fees, first for buying the company, then for helping run it. Last year, the firm even gave itself a small raise.

"Wall Street investment banks also cashed in. They collected millions for helping to arrange the takeovers and for selling the bonds that made those deals possible. All told, the various private equity owners have made around $750 million in profits from Simmons over the years."

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Normally Small Businesses Lead the Economy Out of Recession
• Job Losses From Private-sector Rose Since Beginning of Recession
• One of the Biggest Humbugs in Capitalism is Private Equity
• Predictions for a Polite and Mild Recession
• Investors Think Things Will Return to the Way They Were in the Bubble Epoque

A majority of those polled by Bloomberg think things are great; 61% said they thought they economy had taken off and was flying high. Stocks are up. Commodities are up. And here's another Bloomberg headline: "Global investors give Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke top marks..."

The recovery has won the approval of economists and the public. It has almost everything going for it. It just won't fly!

Comes news this morning that the US economy is still on the runway. This report from the AP explains why:

"Consumers slashed their borrowing in July by the largest amount on record as job losses and uncertainty about the economic recovery prompted Americans to rein in their debt.

"Economists expect consumers will continue to spend less, save more and trim debt to get household finances decimated by the recession into better shape. Such behavior, though, is a recipe for a lethargic revival, because consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity.

"The Federal Reserve reported Tuesday that consumers in July ratcheted back their credit by a larger-than-anticipated $21.6 billion from June, the most on records dating to 1943. Economists had expected credit to drop by $4 billion."

Hey, not bad...economists were only off by 430%. Consumers are paying down debt more than four times faster than they thought. Partly because they want to. And partly because they have to. They don't want to borrow...and banks don't want to lend to them anyway. Consumer credit is falling at a 10% annual rate, based on July figures. Credit card debt is going down at an 8% rate.

When they pay down a dollar's worth of debt that is one dollar less in the consumer economy. But it's also a dollar that is not borrowed. Where the consumer spent all his income two years ago...and borrowed more so that he could increase his consumption even further...now, he doesn't borrow...and he doesn't spend all his income either. Now, the money that used to pour into consumer spending leaks out.

As we reported yesterday, personal spending is dropping...the figures were down in four of the last six quarters - something that has never happened before, since they began keeping records in 1947. And the level of consumer spending is down 33% from a year ago - with discretionary spending now down to a level it hasn't seen in 50 years.

Of course, that's just what we've been saying. The great credit expansion began in 1945. It ended in 2007. Credit will contract for many years. One study, also reported here, suggested that consumers would spend 14% less - even after the economy was back on its feet. We estimate that the total level of debt must go down below 200% of GDP. If that's correct, we need to pay down about $25 trillion of debt. That won't be easy and it won't be quick.

And it will mean high levels of joblessness for a long time. Already, two out of five working-age Californians are unemployed. The other three are working the shortest workweeks in history. No wonder; with spending dropping, sales are falling. So businesses don't need so many people to make, ship, sell and service their products. Then, of course, when they lay off workers to cut expenses, the unemployed workers have to cut spending!

How is it possible for a consumer economy to grow when consumers are spending less money? Of course, it's not. This is not a genuine recovery...it's an imposter. A fraud. A recovery impersonator.

While the private sector is paying down debt, the public sector is adding debt at a ferocious pace - about $150 billion per month. Public spending isn't the same as private spending. It is usually spending for things that people wouldn't buy if they had a choice.

And it comes with a whole new risk attached - the risk that the feds will inflate their way out of debt rather than pay it off.

Government spending does not bring a durable, real prosperity. (If it did...think how easy it would be to make people rich; governments love to spend money!) It may look like a recovery. It may have shiny wings and spiffy-looking stewardesses. But it won't fly.

The World Economic Forum has taken the United States down from the number one position. America is no longer the world's 'most competitive' economy. That title goes to Switzerland.

Meanwhile, the US banking system is rated #109 in the world - just below Tanzania.

"More than one in four US banks announced an unprofitable quarter," Strategic Short Report's Dan Amoss tells us.

US banks became leveraged casinos during the bubble years. They've still got a lot of leverage...and are still trying to relive those glory days when players lined up to spin the wheel...and free drinks flowed by Niagara Falls.

Dan will certainly find the best way to play the downfall of US banks - after all, he did call the collapse of Lehman six months early - leading his readers to as much as a $200,000 profit. Look for regular updates on the banking industry from Dan in these pages...

"Keeping up with children is a full-time job," said Elizabeth last night. "There is always at least one of them who needs help. Sometimes more than one.

"Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't devote ourselves more fully to helping them. That's our main project, isn't it? It's the thing that is most important, isn't it?

"So...shouldn't we go to where they are...and give them advice...help them get their careers and families established? I mean, we're in Europe. Our children are mostly in the US. Shouldn't we go back so we would be available to help them? Maybe we should rent a house in Los Angeles and stay there until Maria's acting career is on a more solid footing, for example. At least she'd have somewhere to go for Thanksgiving...

"The prevailing view in America is that children leave the nest when they are 18 or 21...and then, they're on their own. But that's not the view here in Europe. In Paris, I know lots of parents who stick with their children all their lives. They spend their vacations together. The parents buy an apartment for the children. They direct their careers...and pass judgment on marriage prospects. Not that the children always listen, but one generation is not left to its own devices. That's why inheritance is such a touchy issue in France. People aren't expected to make it on their own...they're expected to get as much support from the family as possible...

"Sometimes I think we should take the same attitude. And we do to some extent. Still, I'm not sure the children would appreciate our help. I'm not even sure our help would really be much use. Sometimes they just need to make their own mistakes...

"Besides, we have our own projects...our own lives. I just don't know what is best..."

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Economists Agreed the Stimulus Was Working and the Recession Was Coming to an End
• No Evidence of Recovery as Unemployment Getting Worse
• Feds Can’t Cause a Genuine Recovery Simply by Throwing Money into Economy
• If Americans Do Not Return to Work, There Is No Recovery
• Is Inflation Necessary for Recovery and Growth in the United States?

The Simpleton's Analysis:

Consumers cut back. The economy sank.

Now, government must take action. It must help people out and take up the slack.

The downturn took $12 trillion off Americans' net worth. The feds have pledged about $12 trillion to fix the problem.

But wait, where does government get any money?

Hey, they borrow it, just like consumers did. And besides, it's ultimately the same money - taxpayers' money. So what's the big diff?

The big diff is the subject of today's Daily Reckoning.

The first big diff is that the feds don't spend your money the way you would. Private citizens spend money they don't have on things they want but don't need. The feds spend money that doesn't belong to them on things that the rightful owners don't even want.

Wait a minute. Markets were closed yesterday. With no figures to report, we should talk about something important. What's important about macroeconomics? Nothing. It's 95% claptrap. The other 5% is pure fraud.

At least as practiced by the leading macroeconomists of our time - such as Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. It's just a show-off sport...the idea is to impress the world with some fancy data-heavy formula...win the Nobel Prize and save the world. That way, you get what all men crave...money and power. Why do men (and women) want money and power? Aww, c'mon...we explained it already. Because it improves their chances of survival and procreation. In a DNA study, for example, they found that Genghis Khan, today, has something like 6 million male descendants. Is that success or what?

The great Khans of today are no longer the steppe warriors on horseback. They're basketball players, rock 'n' roll stars, actors, and hedge fund managers...and, oh yes, occasionally - economists.

The link between economic theory and procreation is probably very weak; but that doesn't stop economists from wanting to strut around and show off. And the way for an economist to show off is to get himself appointed to the President's Council of Economic Advisors...or to the central bank...or get a professorial post at Princeton...etc. etc. This you do by producing tomes, formulae and hypotheses. And, don't forget to write a piece for The Wall Street Journal from time to time.

Another important hint: your work has to suggest that you can manipulate the business cycle, control the credit cycle, or generally make things turn out the way people want.

If you are a Daily Reckoning-type economist, you can forget fame and fortune completely. Who wants to hear from a macroeconomist who tells people to leave well enough alone...and to let the forces of natural economics sort out their own problems? No one...at least no one who is running for public office. Instead, they want someone who will promise to "Save the World."

Save the world from what? Why...from the damage done by other economists!

Two generations of American economists thought the way to bring prosperity was to encourage consumption. On the face of it, the idea is absurd. Classical economists...and Daily Reckoning commentators...laugh at the idea. You don't really get rich by consuming; you get rich by saving and investing.

But they had their charts and graphs...their theories and their jobs teaching economics at prestigious universities. Naturally, they had the feds' ears too - since every politician wants to promise more consumption. The feds favored home ownership, for example...even by people who were bad credit risks. They set up Fannie and Freddie to make it easy for people to buy houses. They even passed a law requiring banks to lend to people who weren't likely to pay them back; that was the origin of the sub-prime mortgage market! They kept interest rates low, too, so people could borrow at affordable rates. And they inflated the currency, so consumers would want to spend their money rather than save it. They also opened the world to free trade, so Americans could buy more, cheaper stuff made by foreigners. For 50 years, they cultivated consumption and let production go to seed.

And now...wouldn't you know it...Americans have over-consumed. Personal expenditures per capital rose 25% between 2003-2005. Personal debt soared to over $13 trillion...about $124,000 per household. Total debt/GDP tripled since 1980.

And now, it's payback time. The private sector has cut back. Consumers need to under-consume to make up for the over-consumption of the bubble years. Savings rates are rising. Spending is falling (see below)...

And so what do the simpletons do? Private citizens are unwilling to consume...so they push the government to consume their money for them!

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Where Do the Feds Get Any Money?
• Baby Boomers Face Early Retirement With No Money Saved
• Feds’ Plan is to Reflate the Economy
• Why Weren’t Economists On Top of This Thing?
• 2009 Federal Deficit Could Go As High As $2 Trillion

"Cash is for buffers, not for wallets," says the headline. Mr. Turner is making the point we have made many times. The US system of capitalism has become a system where the capitalists have no capital. The big banks have too little in savings...not enough 'buffers' to protect them from unexpected crises. They made a fortune during the boom years - loading consumers up with debt. But instead of holding onto the money to protect themselves against emergencies, they paid it out in bonuses and salaries. Then, when the crisis came - one they caused - they were without sufficient funds.

What do you do when you're a major bank and you are insolvent? Hey, you already know the answer. You turn to the government! Which is why Mr. Turner's comment is both very smart and very dumb at the same time. He's right; the banks should hold more capital. But the reason they don't is obvious: they know the government will bail them out. They figure they don't need much capital; the feds have plenty.

This is the problem economists call "moral hazard." If you protect people from their own excesses they will become even more excessive. On the other hand, if they have to pay for their errors, they'll be quicker to correct them.

Okay...well...maybe the banks still wouldn't save enough. But that would take care of itself. If the feds didn't intervene, the insolvent banks would go under; those left would - by definition or accident - be better run.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Can Government Bureaucrats do a Better Job of Allocating Capital than Free Markets?
• Gold is in a Bull Market
• The Government Bureaucrats of East Germany Exist in the United States of America Today
• Deleveraging Will Give Us a Bout of ’30s-Style Deflation
• David Murray Says You Become Dependent on Global Banks When Importing Capital

According to the popular version, Ben Bernanke, our flawed hero, has averted a Second Great Depression. When the crisis came in '07-'08, he calmly took out the text he had written himself: "Dummies' Guide to Avoiding a Japan-style Deflation"...or something like that.

Then, he followed his own theory...coolly...confidently...cutting Fed rates down to nearly zero, pushing Congress to pass a huge 'stimulus' bill, and even forcing Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch. In this last event, he is accused of deliberately hiding Merrill's enormous losses and then threatening the BofA board with dismissal if they refused.

Because of Bernanke's swift and assertive action, the nation's banking system held together during those critical weeks of late 2008. And because of his monetary (and fiscal) policies, all the worlds' economies are now in some stage of recovery. Stocks are rising. House sales are increasing. All the indicators point to a better world.

In recognition of the fact that he saved the world, Ben Bernanke was given the nation's highest honor; Obama picked him to continue as head of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve...even though his predecessor, a Republican, appointed him.

Everyone needs a story. It's the way we understand things. Data is just data. Numbers are just numbers. Facts are just facts. Without the framework of a good tale to hold them together, they are worthless.

That's why, here at The Daily Reckoning, we are suspicious of facts, data and numbers. As for the numbers, they are wrong before they get to us...often intentionally. Then, when they are later straightened out, they sometimes tell a completely different story. Even the 'facts' often turn out to be not facts at all...but distorted data, information has been twisted to fit into a storyline.

The more precise the data, meanwhile, the more they lie. Give us a CPI rate of 6.24% and we will give you back two numbers that are total fictions...and another one that turns out to be wrong later. As for the GDP growth rate...don't even bother to give us a number at all. Whatever the digits say, it's a lie.

This week came news that the GDP is falling at a 1% rate. This number surprised economists. They thought it was falling at a 1.5% rate. This better-than-expected number encouraged investors to buy stocks; the Dow rose 37 points yesterday. Oil and gold remained more or less where they were.

Economists are frequently surprised. In a study of GDP forecasts, a researcher found that economists did nothing more than extrapolate current trends into the future. If the GDP was growing at 2%...they projected that it would grow at 2.3% the following year. Or maybe 1.9%. These projections were mostly correct. Generally, one year is a lot like the year before. But whenever the direction changed dramatically, economists missed it completely. In other words, they're not really capable of telling us what the economy will do - unless it does nothing different.

We've discussed the emptiness of the GDP figures many times. Just because the GDP is growing doesn't mean people are really any better off. In fact, GDP growth during the Bubble Epoque was really a measure of how fast people were ruining themselves. Seventy percent of the GDP was consumer spending; as consumer spending went up so did debt. The result was a paradox and a shame - at the end of one of the longest periods of uninterrupted GDP growth in history, the typical householder was poorer than he was than when it began.

That's why we are skeptical of numbers...especially precise numbers. They lie through their decimals.

What matters is the story...and our story now centers on the role of one man: Ben Bernanke. But the story that most people hear...and believe...is false. It is like GDP growth in the Bubble Era...it may sound right on the surface, but the real story is opposite to what is commonly believed.

Bernanke 'wrote the book' on avoiding deflation, 'tis true. But he doesn't really have a clue what he is doing. He didn't really avoid a Second Great Depression. There isn't really a genuine recovery underway. And the world is not becoming a better place as a result of Ben Bernanke's exertions.

Au contraire...he's making a natural mess into an unnatural one. He's turning a depression into a Great Depression. He's making a bad situation worse.

At least, that is OUR plotline. But we'll let the story tell itself...day by day...and see where it leads us. If we are wrong about the plot...we'll find out...

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Ben Bernanke is a Victim of the Trade
• Does Bernanke Really Not Understand His Fate?
• Ben Bernanke is No Hero
• Ben Bernanke “Respectfully Disagreed” With Angela Merkel
• No Evidence of Recovery as Unemployment Getting Worse

O! Bama! Where is thy recovery?

Yesterday, the world's stock markets took a hit. The Dow lost 186 points...following a very bad showing in China.

Is this the end of the rally?

Could be. We're not betting one way or the other. But we're pretty sure this rally is going to end...and end badly...sooner or later. So far, the rally surpassed the rally in '29 by a few weeks...but has not quite reached its magnitude. It will need another few hundred points to reach the '30 level.

But when the rally is over...then what?

Despite the fact that a majority (!) of economists polled by The Wall Street Journal say the recession is already over, there is no durable recovery.

Nouriel Roubini, writing in Forbes, explains why:

"Data from the US - rising unemployment, falling household consumption, still declining industrial production and a weak housing market - suggests that the US recession is not over yet. A similar analysis of many other advanced economies suggests that, as in the US, the bottom is quite close, but it has not yet been reached. Most emerging economies may be returning to growth, but they are performing well below their potential.

"Moreover, for a number of reasons, growth in the advanced economies is likely to remain anemic and well below trend for at least a couple of years.

"The first reason is likely to create a long-term drag on growth: Households need to deleverage and save more, which will constrain consumption for years.

"Second, the financial system - both banks and non-bank institutions - is severely damaged. Lack of robust credit growth will hamper private consumption and investment spending.

"Third, the corporate sector faces a glut of capacity, and a weak recovery of profitability is likely if growth is anemic and deflationary pressures still persist. As a result, businesses are not likely to increase capital spending.

"Fourth, the releveraging of the public sector through large fiscal deficits and debt accumulation risks crowding out a recovery in private sector spending. The effects of the policy stimulus, moreover, will fizzle out by early next year, requiring greater private demand to support continued growth."

Roubini thinks the United States will climb out of recession towards the end of the year...but then, it could fall back into a 'double-dip' recession. Maybe he will be right. Maybe this downturn will resemble Japan's multiple recessions over the last two decades. Or maybe it will be a single, deeper and longer lasting slump - like the one in the early '30s. We don't know. Either way, it should be thought of as a depression, not a recession. Because it is fundamentally different. And the difference is: Recovery is impossible.

If the markets were to recover, it means they need to go back to the way they were. That, dear reader, ain't gonna happen. Because it can't happen. The economy can't go back to what it was. In the 2005-2006 period, it was in the throes of a credit cycle blowout...where it took more than $5 of new credit to produce one stinkin' extra dollar of output. Consumers had to borrow $100, in other words, in order for the GDP to go up $20. It was a period of madness that couldn't possibly be sustained...and now, can't possibly be revived. Who's going to invest in another condo development in Florida now? Who's going to buy derivative debt at 2006 prices? Who's going to build another factory in China to produce more things for American consumers who can't pay for them?

Well, ha ha...that's the funny thing; the Chinese ARE building more factories.

But we'll get back to that later. Comes word this morning that Florida has lost population, for the first time since 1946! People are leaving the Sunshine State because the big boom in suburban sand is over. A large part of the Florida economy was based on building houses for people coming down from the north. Now those people are going home and trying to pay off their debt. The point is, after a bubble...like after adultery...things never go back to where they were before. You can pretend that they are the same. You can act like they are the same. You can try to make them the same. But they never are.

A recession is merely a sprained ankle or a head cold. You can recover. But a depression is fatal. There is no going back. There is no recovery.

Trying to 'recover' from a depression is a futile fight with the future. Governments try to restore the old economy - as it was. They prop up the old industries. They bail out the failed executives and speculators. They pass out money to people, encouraging them to make more of the same mistakes that got them into trouble in the first place.

But there is no going back. It's a depression. The model has to change. The future...whatever it is...has to express itself.

The US budget deficit hit a record $180 billion last month. July's deficit was nearly $30 billion more than total tax receipts for the month. In July, the feds only took in $151 billion in taxes...giving it the worst margin in history. For every dollar of revenue, the federal government spent $2.15.

Not a very good business model. But the feds seem determined to stick with it - they're going to make it up on volume. Deficits are expected to exceed $1 trillion every year for the next eight years. And that assumes the economy 'recovers.' If it doesn't recover, the deficits will be much worse...with falling tax revenues and the need for even more stimulus.

The feds are running into the brick wall of the future. They've made promises - mainly to older voters - that now have to be fulfilled. And the number of older voters is increasing...as the Baby Boomer generation enters its retirement years. Social Security and health care promises alone will add trillions to federal deficits. By one estimate, US debt could rise to 300% of GDP by the middle of the century.

Of course, this poses a bit of a problem. US GDP is about $14 trillion. Three times that amount would be $42 trillion. Who's got that kind of money to lend to the US government? No one. The first reason being that the world doesn't have that much in savings. Second, because even if they did, they are unlikely to want to lend it to such a huge debtor. Of course, we're always surprised by what people are willing to do with their money - and anything is possible.

But more than likely the US will be forced to trim its promises...or inflate them away.

As dear readers know, we have become suspicious of inflation. Not that we don't expect it; in fact, we think we'll see it in its souped-up hyper version sometime in our lives. What we're suspicious of is the easy assumption that the feds can create inflation at will...and control it. They can't. They aren't that good. Even at inflation they are hapless and incompetent. And their hands aren't completely free.

First, they have to answer to the Chinese bond vigilantes. The Chinese are watching. If it looks like the feds are increasing the inflation rate - thereby reducing the value of Chinese savings - they could send the US government and the US economy into chaos simply by selling their stash of Treasury bonds.

Of course, the Chinese don't want to do that - because it would mean hundreds of billions in losses. But push them far enough...make them afraid enough...or cause them to get mad enough...and they could strap on their shootin' irons.

Second, there are also the ineluctable results of a major credit contraction...and a gross oversupply of capacity. Both are pushing down prices and could do so for many, many years. They can be overcome by aggressive use of the printing press. Argentina and Zimbabwe proved that. But neither Argentina nor Zimbabwe depended on credit from the Chinese. Inflation may be a monetary phenomenon, but hyperinflation is a political phenomenon...the feds only resort to it when they have no choice. We'll get to that point; but right now, it is still far away.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• We Expect No Recovery from the Economy
• Roubini Says Recession Will Continue Through End of Year
• Americans Have No Money to Spend Because They Already Spent It!
• China Was the Maker and the United States Was the Taker
• Is Inflation Necessary for Recovery and Growth in the United States?

The Dow was up 120 points yesterday. Now, we're beating the bounce of 1930. The post-crash bounce in 1930 lasted fifth months. Ours began on March 9th...so it is now in its sixth month.

And like 1930, people are coming to believe that recession is almost over...and happy times are here again.

Heck, we're sure the trouble is behind us now; 53 economists said so!

According to Bloomberg:

"The economy will expand 2 percent or more in four straight quarters through June, the first such streak in more than four years, according to the median of 53 forecasts in the monthly Bloomberg News survey. Analysts lifted their estimate for the third quarter by 1.2 percentage points compared with July, the biggest such boost in surveys dating from May 2003.

"'We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working,' said Kenneth Goldstein, an economist at the Conference Board in New York.

"'Cash-for-clunkers was the icing on the cake,' said David Greenlaw, chief fixed-income economist at Morgan Stanley in New York. 'It's well- timed stimulus syncing with cyclical forces leading to a ramping up of production.'"

Yes, now the economy is firing on all cylinders...or just about. Yep. No doubt about it. Still, there are some nagging doubts. The latest figures show foreclosures still increasing - up 7% in July from a year before. And house prices are still going down. And unemployment is still going up. And consumer prices are falling...indicating a Japan- like deflation. And business profits are falling. And consumers are cutting back. But except for that - housing, jobs, sales, profits and deflation - everything is working out beautifully.

Now that we mention it, all the indicators of real economic activity are down.

So, the feds aren't taking any chances. Yesterday came news that the Fed would continue buying bonds at least through October. And they are not likely to raise rates either. The banks can borrow at practically zero interest...and use the money to buy Treasury bonds. The 10-year yields about 3.7%. In effect, they're lending the money back to the people they got it from...and earning 3.7% for their trouble.

But, take away the stimulus spending...and the stimulating low interest rates...and what have you got? You've got is an economy entering a depression.

Oh, there's the rub, isn't it? If the feds hand out money so people can buy automobiles, people buy automobiles. If they don't give out the money, people don't buy automobiles. If they buy automobiles, of course, it looks like the economy is recovering. But take away the giveaways, and the recovery disappears.

Solution: keep giving away money!

Hold on...something wrong here. If you could generate economic prosperity by giving people money so they could buy things...why not give them money to buy everything? Why just autos? Why not give them money to buy financial advisory services? Ah...now we're talking!

But let's keep this serious...well, as serious as we can be when we talk about programs designed by knuckleheads.

So, the feds are encouraging people to buy autos. Set aside the fact that buying too many autos and other things is what got them into trouble...

..if giving people money so they could buy things actually made people prosperous, welfare recipients would be the richest people on the planet. Obviously, it doesn't work that way. What makes people rich is the ability to earn money...not their ability to get handouts. And remember, too, the feds don't really have any money to hand out. They can only get money by taking it from its rightful owners - either in taxation or loans. Or, they can print it up themselves. In any case, the money adds nothing real or extra to the economy. It merely distorts the economy...twists it...misleads it...and makes it a bigger mess than it was already.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• UAW Bosses and Federal Bureaucrats Announce Five Year Plan
• Economists Agreed the Stimulus Was Working and the Recession Was Coming to an End
• Obama’s New Stimulus Program
• Have the Feds Given the Economy a Miracle Drug?
• On the Evidence, Stimulus Programs Aren’t Working