What we've been thinking is that the dollar is dead meat in the long run. But in the short run, it might have enough life in it to bite investors on the derriere.

The US stock market rose 73 points on Friday, to bring the Dow just 30 points south of the 10,300 mark. Why is this level important? It's not really. But it reminds us that this is still just in "bounce range." Big drops in stock prices are followed by bounces - always. A bounce of 50% of what was lost is not unusual. That's what happened after the Crash of '29, for example. So, there's nothing exceptional about what we're seeing on Wall Street.

Our comrades over at The 5-Minute Forecast provided this sobering chart:

But here at The Daily Reckoning we're not smart enough or fast enough to play the countertrends. We want investment positions that we can ignore for years... We want to be able to go on a long trip...say, down the Inca Road or over the Hindu Kush. And when we come back, we want to find that we have at least as much money as when we left.

If stock market buyers - in the US - have more money a year from now than they have now, we'll be surprised. The private sector is still more than 2/3rds of the economy. And the private sector has begun de- leveraging. Nothing that has happened in the last 8 months makes us think that that trend is going to reverse any time soon. There are 70 million baby boomers who need money for retirement. They've got to save. That means cutting back on spending. And that means less income for business. Are stock prices really going to go up when business income is going down? No.

We leave our "Crash Alert" flag flying, here at the worldwide headquarters. We don't know when...or IF...stock prices will crash. But the downside risk is not worth the possible upside. Daily Reckoning readers should be out of all US stocks, except those they wouldn't mind holding through a 50% correction.

The other thing we mistrust - aside from politicians, stock promoters and tap water - is the dollar. But here the story is more complicated. Because the next downswing in stocks could push the dollar up! Everyone is betting against the dollar. And most think it is a one-way gamble. But it's not like Mr. Market to grant investors a one-way bet. He's got something up his sleeve.

Last week, The Financial Times reported that a group of IMF economists had made a "Plea to reduce demand for dollar reserves."

That is another way of saying: find something else to put in your vaults rather than dollars!

Why? Because a world money system that uses dollars as a reserve currency is fragile and vulnerable. It makes the whole world hostage to America's financial problems.

"The US, at the center of the system, was under pressure to run large current account deficits in order to supply the world with the dollar assets it wants, they said, while there was no effective discipline on either the US or countries such as China that have big external surpluses to adjust their policies."

This move by IMF economists is only the most recent effort to reduce the world's reliance on the dollar. Everyone can see the dollar is weak. And everyone with any sense wants to protect himself from it.

On Friday, the price of gold moved up to $1,116. Gold is the obvious choice for those who wish to protect themselves from the dollar. But readers are cautioned: that doesn't mean the price of gold is going up.

Over the long run, sure. All paper currencies eventually go to their intrinsic value, which is zero. And gold always goes to its traditional value too - at a level where a man can take an ounce of it and get himself a suit of clothes, about 30 bottles of good whisky...one horse...or a trip across the Atlantic in economy class.

But things that ought to happen do not always happen when you think they should. It could take many years - of long, drawn-out recession...a la Japan - before the Bernanke Fed gets its helicopters revved up. In the meantime, all those hot shots who borrowed dollars from the Fed in order to bet against the greenback are going to be in trouble. They'll have to unwind their carry trade positions at a loss...and pay back more expensive dollars. The process could take years.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Big Difference Between Stark News in Job Market and Behaviour of Stock Market
• Household Debt Represents Spending Taken From the Future
• Stranded on a Crusoe’s Island With One Stock
• Shanghai Index Still Falling As Other Markets Rise
• The Interest Only Mortgage Option

The Dow went up too - 203 points yesterday. It's over 10,000 again. Not very impressive for a bear market bounce. A 50% retracement would take the Dow to 10,300.

But you have to give the bounce credit. It's been going on since March. That is impressive.

And now everyone is bullish, except us. We'll see who's right... in the fullness of time...

Gold seems to be advancing towards a new milestone - $1,100. Makes us nervous. We always feel more comfortable out in the wide, open spaces...that is to say, in trades we have all to ourselves.

But gold is still a marginal holding by marginal investors - like us. Central banks - especially those in emerging countries - have very little gold. The man on the street doesn't know anything about gold. He wouldn't know a gold coin if it hit him on the head.

As gold becomes accepted as a true store of value, we can expect more and more people to want to own it.

Governments are running breathtaking deficits...and accumulating alarming debts. Japan has a national debt of nearly 200% of its GDP. Where did that debt come from? It came from 20 years of trying to buy its way out of a slump with borrowed money. Of course, it didn't work. But now, Britain and America are following the Japanese lead...and the Japanese are still at it! At the present rate, Japan's government debt will grow to 300% of GDP in 10 years. America's debt could grow to 100%...and then 200% of GDP...over the next decade (depending on whose projections you believe). And Britain, if we read the report in The Financial Times correctly, will have debt equal to 200% of GDP within 3 years.

Just what kind of crisis do these numbers portend? It's hard to say. Probably a combination of confidence, followed by debt default and inflation.

Would the US actually default? We agree with Paul Samuelson; the answer is 'maybe.' Samuelson, writing in The Washington Post:

"The idea that the government of a major advanced country would default on its debt - that is, tell lenders that it won't repay them all they're owed - was, until recently, a preposterous proposition. Argentina and Russia have stiffed their creditors, but surely the likes of the United States, Japan or Britain wouldn't. Well, it's still a very, very long shot, but it's no longer entirely unimaginable. Governments of rich countries are borrowing so much that it's conceivable that one day the twin assumptions underlying their burgeoning debt (that lenders will continue to lend and that governments will continue to pay) might collapse. What happens then?

"...People have predicted such a crisis for decades. It hasn't happened yet. The currency's decline has been orderly, because the dollar retains a bedrock confidence based on America's political stability, openness, wealth and low inflation. But something could shatter that confidence - tomorrow or 10 years from tomorrow.

"Despite huge deficits, interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds have hovered around 3.5 percent. In time of financial crisis, investors have sought the apparent sanctuary of government bonds. But the correct conclusion to draw is not that major governments (such as Japan and the United States) can easily borrow as much as they want. It is that they can easily borrow as much as they want until confidence that they can do so evaporates - and we don't know when, how or whether that may happen."

Why wouldn't the US just "print its way out of debt?"

Because it's not that easy. In effect, the feds are trying to print their way out of debt now. They've added huge amounts to the monetary base. But that money is not getting into the real economy. Instead, it's going into vaults and speculations.

"Jittery Companies Stash Cash," says The Wall Street Journal.

And banks, too, borrow...but they don't lend. They can borrow at negligible rates of interest...and buy US Treasury bonds on a leveraged basis...producing a 20% yield. That means, the US dollar has replaced the yen as the go-to currency for speculators.

Net effect? Lots of cash in what appears to the Mother of all Carry Trades. The Financial Times:

"The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates - as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualized - as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions."

But in the economy itself? As in Japan, very little economic progress comes from this kind of speculation.

Bankruptcies rose 7% last month. Unemployment gets worse.

The financial markets bubble up. The real economy shrivels up. And people with any sense are stocking up.

David Rosenberg, again, on gold:

We are still contemplating the massive gold purchase by the Reserve Bank of India - the largest in at least 30 years that took up half of what the IMF intends to sell. Look for China to come in next.

But here is the reality. All India did was bring gold to a 6% share of its total FX reserves from 4%. Fifteen years ago, that representation was closer to 20%. China has increased its gold holdings by 76% over the past six years but they are a mere 1.9% of the aggregate 2.2 trillion of reserves and Russia's gold holdings is just under 5%. This is not the 1990s when Bob Rubin was running a hard US dollar policy, US fiscal deficits were vanishing and gold production was on the rise. Today's world is exactly the opposite. Policymakers beginning in the 1990s wanted disinflation and got it. Now they want inflation - it will take years, maybe a decade, but it will come. For the near-term, we are still optimistic on Treasury securities but be forewarned that this view has an expiry date that is earlier than the peak we are likely to see in gold.

It is very clear that central banks are behaving in a way that would suggest that gold is now again being considered a currency within the global monetary system. As we said before, it is all about relative scarcity and a well-defined supply curve - fiat currency at this juncture does not share that quality. As a good friend reminded me yesterday, when the Fed was created nearly a century ago, it was acceptable to have at least 40% of the money supply backed by gold reserves. The US now has 8,133 tons of gold in reserve, which equates to $285 billion at this year's pricing.

Meanwhile, the Fed has spiked the punchbowl to such an extent that the monetary base now stands at $1.7 trillion. Do the math - under the old regime (which indeed hamstrung the Fed), the US alone would need to buy an incremental $400 billion of bullion or the equivalent of what would be nearly four times the typical level of annual demand. We could do the same calculation based on M2 but we don't want anyone falling off their chairs.

And finally today, we're still ruminating about what to tell you about our trip to the ranch. The funny thing was...it had little to do with cattle ranching...and a lot to do with the personalities that we brought with us. It's no easy job being a parent...especially when the kid is 38 years old...and not your kid.

More to come on that another time...

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Gold is Money
• An Irish Bond Bomb
• Denmark, Spain, the U.K. and Ireland Have Begun to Register Falling Housing Prices
• Where Do the Feds Get Any Money?
• Borrowing and Paying Back in a Foreign Currency

Something more than meets the eye is going on here. The IMF sale was part of a plan to unload 403.3 tonnes of gold. It's halfway there, and will use the proceeds to fund itself and loans to the developing world (or perhaps Britain and America when they go broke). But what else is going on?

In the past, larges sales of gold - mostly by European central banks - swamped the gold price and kept it in check. The European CBs either felt like they had too much gold doing too little work on the balance sheet. Or, they were manipulating the price of gold down by increasing the supply to the market whenever the gold price began rendering its verdict on global fiscal and monetary policy.

India's central bank is now the proud owner of 557 tonnes of gold. That gives it the tenth largest gold holdings among central banks. But it probably isn't finished. Gold makes up just six percent of India's foreign exchange reserves. There's plenty of room for that to grow.

But don't forget China. China has $2.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. But 70% of those - or $1.6 trillion - are in U.S. dollars. It owns over just a 1,000 tonnes of gold. That makes up less than 2% of China's reserves and makes China the seventh largest holder of above ground gold. In fact the gold exchange traded fund (NYSE:GLD) owns more gold than China. France, Italy, the IMF, Germany, and the United States round out top five (from fifth to first).

What this tells you is that China could double (and then double again) its gold reserves and gold would still make up less than 10% of its total forex reserves. Compare that to 66% in Italy, 69% in Germany, 70% in France, and 77% in the U.S., according to official numbers. So what's the big deal?

There will always be a threat that European Central Banks release gold supply on to the market. In fact, European central banks just renewed a five-year agreement (including the IMF) to sell down a maximum of 400 tonnes of gold per year from their holdings. They've agreed to this to disgorge their gold in an orderly fashion.

But it would not surprise us to see the Europeans fail to sell the gold they're allowed to sell under the agreement. Our old desk mate in London, Adrian Ash (now with Bullion Vault) is at the London Bullion Market Association's annual meeting in Edinburgh. Word from UBS analyst John Reade, also at the meeting, is that European Central Bank official Paul Mercier reckons that official holders of gold will, "no longer be net sellers of gold."

As we predicted earlier this year, the European central banks would rather hoard their gold than sell it in a rising market. There may be a price at which they do sell it, in order to pay down sovereign debts. But psychologically, the fact that central banks want to own gold and not sell it is pretty important.

Also, it shows you how the balance of economic power in the world has shifted East. True, the European banks can still dump gold on to the market to drown the price. But between the ETFs, central bank buyers in India and China, and the average man on the street in Beijing, Mumbai, and elsewhere, there are more buyers of gold now than sellers.

And if we were right yesterday that the GFC is slowly morphing into a sovereign debt crisis, then the case for gold is that much stronger. This explains why gold futures were up by nearly 3% overnight and old yeller hit a new high at US$1,084.90.

The only worry? So many hedge fund managers and pundits are singing the same tune: long gold and short U.S. Treasuries. As we mentioned yesterday, the bond bubble could go on much longer than anyone expects. And when so many people agree on something, none of them are usually right. As a contrarian, you'd be worried about becoming a victim right about now.

But yes, in the long term, the end of the Super Cycle in fiat money results in the remonetisation of gold. That is what you're seeing now. And it's probably what you'll see for a few more years. It also ought to benefit other precious metals, and of course, precious metals shares.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• IMF Deems Gold An Idle Asset
• Gold: The Ultimate Unlevered Hard Asset
• IMF Gold to be Used
• Unlike China, India is Not Willing to Learn from its Mistakes
• Buying Gold, Gossip & Russia’s Tu-160 Bombers

"Okay."

"Why so serious? I mean, all you do every day is write about the worst-case scenario. It's depressing. Who died and made you the harbinger of financial doom? How about something positive for a change?"

"Is that code for, 'buy me another beer?'"

"No, seriously. It's not all bad all the time is it?"

We'll tell you how we answered our friend's question below. But first up, the markets. It was another red day in New York, with Dow stocks down over one percent. Tech stocks on the Nasdaq - the ones enjoying a bit of euphoria renaissance - were down 2.67%. September new home sales in the U.S. fell 3.6% from the month before. The Aussie dollar shed 1.44% against the greenback.

Is that all just noise? Or is there a melody building in the markets? The chorus chanted by Ken Henry, Wayne Swann, and most of the media is that the strong Aussie dollar, the strong market, and the strong(ish) economy are all factors of Australia's great policymaking and unique relationship to the China boom.

But the alternative tune - the one which we've been humming - is that most of the rally in stocks since March and most of the 30% rise in the Aussie dollar is a result of the carry trade. Yes, Aussie assets are relatively more attractive when the cost of capital in the U.S. is zero. But this can change in a flash when foreign speculators change their trading minds.

That's just what happened last year. Only then, it was both a dollar and yen carry trade that led to a rise in Aussie assets. Once the credit crisis set in, the yen carry got dropped and investors fled risk assets and piled right back into the greenback and U.S. Treasuries. Stocks fell, commodities fell, and the Aussie dollar plummeted to nearly 60 cents against the USD.

It doesn't have to happen that way now just because it happened that way then. But since our main job here is to question conventional wisdom and offer you an alternative explanation, that's the one we're offering you. Beware carry trades promising false permanent prosperity!

But what about today's earnings? ANZ followed up yesterday's bad debts bonanza from NAB with one of its own. ANZ reported an 11% fall in net profits (to $2.94 billion) and a 46% rise in bad debts to $3 billion. But both banks hinted that the end of the "bad debt cycle" is over and that things can only get better.

Let's take the other side of that trade. Again we'll focus on two risks: access to foreign funding and asset values on the balance sheet. ANZ sourced more of its funding from domestic savers and less from short-term whole sale funding, according to its report. Aussie savers funded 55% of ANZ new loans for the year (up from 50%) while the company reduced its reliance on short-term whole sale funding by 17% (now just 17% of all funding).

What does that mean? It means the company is making plenty of new loans (you'd want to, especially to the housing market, to prop up the value of your real estate portfolio). But it means the company is relying a lot less on short-term borrowed money from overseas in order to boost lending to Aussie homes and businesses.

Whether it is doing this by necessity or by choice is big question. But all we want to point out is that if your economy relies on imported capital to finance investment (or consumer spending, or new mortgage lending) you're vulnerable if that capital is not forthcoming. It's great when the dollar is high and capital is flowing. But if those capital flows reverse, the banks may find themselves in a jam that even a government guarantee makes it hard to escape.

It's not just us saying this, by the way. "We need to figure out how we can become less dependent on wholesale funding to finance our economic growth," said Commonwealth Bank of Australia chairman John Schubert in last Friday's Australian Financial Review. "It is not assured that we will get the funding into the future."

No foreign funding, no continued housing boom. In fact, we'd be willing to say that a cut off from short-term wholesale foreign funding is just the sort of thing that could lead to a major correction in Aussie house values. Naturally, the government here would step into the mortgage finance market in a big way, and not just for non-bank lenders, as it's done with the Australian Office of Financial Management buying securitised residential mortgage backed securities.

The U.S. government has done everything it can to keep the mortgage credit flowing and household net worth from imploding. Australia would do the same if it had to. But like in the U.S., this means more government borrowing to prop up the property market. More debt, higher interest payments, less capital available for lending to the rest of the economy.

But let's assume for now the public sector does not enlarge again to Depression-era levels of debt. Let's assume that Aussie banks have access to overseas credit. There is still the issue of asset values. ANZ says it is leveraged about 17 to 1. With $476 billion assets, that leaves it with about $28 billion in equity (according to how it calculates both assets and equity). And like yesterday, it's fair to say that a few billion in loan losses and bad debts are hardly the sort of thing to wipe out that much equity.

That's not where the real risk is, though. The real risk is to the asset portfolio. Twenty eight billion in equity capital is just under 6% of total assets. Or, put another way, a 6% loss in assets wipes out the equity.

A six percent loss in assets? Is that possible? The IMF and APRA have stress tested Aussie banks for scenarios in which large chunks of homeowners can't pay their mortgages. They chuck in large corporate bond default rates just to make things more stressful. And after all that, they've concluded that most of the banks' assets are solid and safe and unlikely to incur mammoth losses that would jeopardise the equity capital (solvency).

And maybe they are right. But we're just saying...in a world dominated by massive credit write downs...where we have just seen six months of re-leveraging...and where house values here in Australia have managed (thus far) to escape massive deflation...is a six percent loss on assets totally unimaginable?

We can imagine it, although we don't relish it. Either way, we wouldn't buy the banks just now.

But if you're looking for the most over-valued asset class in the world - the one worth a punt for going short - it has to be U.S. government bonds. Paolo Pelligrini, the man who helped John Paulson make a mint shorting the U.S. housing market, told Bloomberg that shorting long-term U.S. debt is the "only attractive bet" going at the moment.

"I always like to think about assets that are likely to experience a breakdown; the only thing I'm pretty comfortable with right now is U.S. Treasury securities and U.S. agency mortgage-backed securities...I think that those are overpriced so they are attractive shorts."

If you're not going to short the U.S. long-term bond market any time soon, the take away from this is to look for assets that go up when U.S. bond prices fall. If U.S. bond prices fall it means U.S. interest rates go up. That might, for a bit anyway, lead to a stronger USD and a weaker AUD.

For a trader - other than cash and gold - we'd look to see which of those Aussie stocks hammered by the stronger Aussie dollar have been beaten down the most. They might be due for a quick rebound - although they will be fighting the general trend in the market. We'll ask Murray what he thinks and get back to you.

So what did we tell our drunk friend when he asked us why were so critical, sceptical, negative, and gloomy all the time?

"Relax dude. It's my job to plan for the worst case scenario. It makes me happy to have a purpose in life. If you want the best case, turn the TV on and turn your brain off. And I object to your overly negative characterisation of my work."

"Huh?"

"My work isn't negative. It only seems that way because we live in a period of wealth destruction. I wish it were a world of wealth creation. But in a world of wealth destruction, you have to focus on preserving your wealth and maybe, when you can, growing it if you've got the big picture sorted out correctly."

"But you make it sound like the end of the world every day."

"It is the end of the world every day. But it starts all over the next day. And it is just the end of the financial world as we know it. Not the end of the world world...Besides, it's a lot less scary when you face up to what is really going on and make a plan for it. Uncertainty is scarier than risk because with uncertainty, you have no idea what to expect. Risk you can at least manage."

"But how can you be so sure you're right about the big picture? Everyone else I talk to says there's no way the dollar is going down as a reserve currency and that only kooks believe that. Are you a kook?"

"Certified. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. You can't keep adding debt forever to fund your way of life. Debts have to be repaid. And interest has to be paid on the money you've borrowed. The politicians in America keep making new promises they aim to keep with borrowed money. This borrowed money is massively interest rate sensitive. And it's in addition to a huge amount of money they've already borrowed. It's the end-game for the whole financial/fiscal/political model."

"But so what? Isn't everyone else doing the same thing?"

"Well yeah. All fiat money is a scam. It's a way for the government to run perpetual debts and steal savings through inflation. It's an immoral living arrangement in that respect. But more importantly, from a financial perspective, it's a way of funding a political arrangement. And that way of funding it - borrowing more and raising taxes on a small productive class to pay for a larger public sector - is every bit as dead as the funding model for investment banks."

"But the government bailed out the investment banks. Who is going to bail out the government?"

"No one. Nothing. It will try inflation. But that doesn't work. Printing more money to pay off your debts just destroys wealth. That's where we're headed. That's what you should plan for. Sooner, not later."

"I would like to begin my plan with another beer, if it's all the same to you."

"No worries."

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Aussie Banks Addicted to Foreign Borrowing
• IMF Report Concludes Aussie Banks are “Very Sound”…
• A National Mortgage Bubble
• Fed Now the Middle Man in Interbank Lending Market
• Corporate Debt is Just One Aspect of the National Debt Problem

If you want to attend the presentations and discussions over the next four days, you can still do so. But you should contact conference organiser Marcus Matthews today. You can reach him via email at feketeaustralia@gmail.com. And if you're there on Sunday, be sure to say hello.

Yesterday we promised to show you how the funding model for the fiscal welfare state is blowing up. But this is going to have to wait at least another day. Don't worry though. It's not going anywhere.

Today, there is a banking story to cover. You recall that yesterday we were worried about the next banking crisis. But the lingering effects of the last one are still with us. National Australia Bank reported a 43% fall in net profit yesterday. Ouch.

Don't feel too bad for NAB. Net profit fell from $4.54 billion to $2.56 billion. But the bad and doubtful debts charge for the year grew by 53% from $2.49 billion to $3.82 billion. With $654 billion in assets and $616 billion in liabilities, the bank is sitting on $37.8 in equity. A few billion in bad debts and loan losses won't wipe out that amount of equity.

But it's worth noting that NAB's total assets are 17.3x times equity. This isn't as high as some leverage ratios in the U.S. just prior to the banking crisis in 2008. But it's not far off where NAB was at the time. And there are two further risks worth mentioning.

First, as the IMF paper on Aussie banks concluded earlier this year, Aussie banks are probably strong enough to withstand a normal shock to the balance sheet. That is, the IMF stress-tested Aussie banks for losses on their two largest loan portfolios - corporate loans and mortgages. The IMF concluded the banks were adequately capitalised to survive the shocks it tested for, but that, "The above shocks do not constitute a rigorous stress test and the results are only indicative of the health of the banking sector."

If we've learned one thing in the last two years, it's that bankers and analysts have consistently underestimated the frequency and magnitude of systemic shocks. That doesn't mean the IMF conclusions aren't to be trusted. But it means in the event of another more severe shock, the banks could face larger asset writedowns and losses than the IMF has modelled.

This brings us to the second risk worth mentioning. A bank facing bigger loan losses takes fewer risks. It reduces lending. This is how the credit crisis was transmitted from America's housing market to Australia's economy. The Aussie banks had to tighten up to prepare for losses on overseas assets.

Next time around, though, we reckon the losses - when they come - will be on domestic real estate assets. And with so much exposure to domestic real estate (mortgage loans), the assets could face a world of hurt. But even if bank asset quality doesn't crash (housing prices don't crash), an external shock affects Aussie bank liabilities.

The IMF report says that, "On the liabilities side, however, banks had sizable short-term external debt obligations, and access to offshore wholesale markets was disrupted by the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008." Of course the government's wholesale funding guarantee eased the pain of this shock, which is one reason why that guarantee may become permanent in all but name.

But the IMF wrote that, "A key remaining vulnerability is the roll-over risk associated with sizable short-term external debt. Banks' wholesale funding (domestic and offshore) accounts for about 50 percent of total funding, of which about 60 percent is offshore. Financial institutions short-term external debt (on a residual maturity basis) is estimated by staff at about $A 400 billion (35 percent of GDP) in March 2009."

Maybe the short-term external debt levels have improved in the last six months. We haven't checked yet. But in simple terms, it means a lot of domestic lending is funding from external funding, borrowing abroad to loan at home. If American banks again blow up on the destruction of their remaining collateral (mortgage loans and U.S. Treasury bonds) we'd predict another ice age in global credit markets.

Needless to say, as a capital importer, this would put Australia in an awfully uncomfortable spot. But hey! No one is worried about that at the moment. The Aussie dollar is being inflated by the U.S. dollar carry trade. It's a shame that the strong Aussie is going to devastate local industry and manufacturing with higher costs, but at least it obscures for now the risk that Aussie banks are reliant on foreign borrowing.

In the bigger picture, this means the investment needs of the economy can't be met by household savings alone. But that's an even bigger problem than we can address today. So we won't!

More cow bell!

And what about our theory that a U.S. dollar rally will trigger a correction in gold, oil, and stock markets and lead to a mini-rally in U.S. Treasury bonds? Bond fund king Bill Gross agrees. Writing on Pimco's website, Gross concedes, "Rage, rage, against this conclusion if you wish, but the six-month rally in risk assets -- while still continuously supported by Fed and Treasury policy makers -- is likely at its pinnacle."

Dr. Doom himself, analyst Nouriel Roubini, called the present market "The mother of all carry trades." "This asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals," Roubini said via satellite to a conference in Cape Town, South Africa. "The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis."

With the S&P up nearly 65% since touching 666 in March (seriously), we'd say the seeds are already bearing fruit. But maybe it's poisoned fruit. After all, the rally has been worldwide and extremely impressive by historical standards. But it's fully consistent with previous bear market rallies. If anything, it's happened faster.

What nobody yet knows is if it IS a bear market rally...or a garden variety stock market rally that precedes a recovery in the economy. You know what we think.

There IS one notable difference between 2008 and today, though. Yesterday we mentioned that U.S. banks have loaded up on a whole other kind of super-dodgy collateral; U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. Demand for those securities may go up with a U.S. dollar rally and a reversal of the dollar carry trade. But in the longer-term, we think the banks have invited another toxic house guest on to the balance sheet.

But where did the previous smelly houseguest go? You know, all those mortgage backed securities and subprime loans? Where does that risk now reside? And what happens if it comes home to roost?

According to this report by the San Francisco Federal Reserve, over 95% of all new residential mortgage lending in the U.S. is now being backed directly by the U.S. government. With the banks unable or unwilling to lend, Uncle Sam has become the sugar daddy of the U.S. mortgage market. See the chart below.

The Fed supports this market by purchasing the securitised mortgages issued by Fannie and Freddie. The Congress funds the agencies which make the loans available. But no matter how you slice it, the U.S. government is supporting the housing market. It will continue to do so as a political imperative.

But by taking on this massive liability - not that it doesn't already have its hands full - the Fed is further consigning the dollar to the scrapheap of history. Do you think foreign creditors will not realise that the U.S. is borrowing money to keep house prices elevated? Will they not notice that the U.S. is printing money to do this? And what will happen to the dollar then? And gold?

The truth is that creditors already do know this. Today's Australian Financial Review reports that overseas Chinese investment is "surging." Chinese policy makers are trying to trade dollars for tangible assets or equity in resource shares as quickly as possible. "China reported a 190% jump in overseas investment by its companies for the third quarter."

"Policymakers might be encouraging Chinese firms to invest abroad, in part to help counter pressure for the nation's currency," the article continued. "Investors are betting on the yuan to appreciate as China's growth accelerates from its weakest pace in a year."

Most currencies that are not the U.S. dollar could appreciate in the coming years. Australia's currency has already done so. Brazil is considering a tax on capital flows into the country in order to prevent investors from speculating on a further rise in its currency by buying Brazilian assets. And of course speculators have tried for years to find a way to position themselves for an appreciation in China's currency. China's capital markets are not friendly in this regard, although Hong Kong stocks remain a popular option.

The fact that countries like Australia, China, and Brazil are trying to limit currency appreciation versus the greenback shows you how unbalanced the world economy still is, how unprepared it is for the reality that America's deleveraging will take place for years. Households and businesses must save and repair balance sheets. Some other country is going to have to consume what the world produces.

In the interim, the U.S. government will increase deficit spending to make up the difference. It is the stupidity of Keynesianism to support aggregate demand when what everyone needs is a correction and a recovery. But all the Feds will succeed in doing is blowing up the balance sheet of the U.S. government in spectacular fashion. Go gold.

Mind you we still think the short-term move is a dollar rally and some profit-taking on the dollar carry trade. We asked Slipstream Trader Murray Dawes what he sees when looking at the U.S. dollar index. Murray spends most of his time finding trading opportunities in Aussie stocks. But he also knows that Aussie markets (and capital flows) are still massively affected by what's going on in America.

Murray wrote that, "If we look at this chart of the US Dollar index going back to 1985, you can see quite clearly that the 10 week moving average crossing over the 35 week moving average has been a very good indicator of the trend. There are only a few instances over that whole time period where this indicator gave a false signal."

Click to enlarge

"Therefore," Murray continues, "we should be keeping an eye on this indicator going forward to tell us whether the US Dollar index has turned back up and is ready for a counter trend rally. The short US Dollar trade is getting pretty full, as I have mentioned in the past. And there is a high correlation between the direction of the dollar and the direction of gold, oil and stocks.

"The US Dollar has taken over the Yens role of funding the carry trade and this will be the situation for as long as the Fed remains too scared to raise rates, which seems to be for the foreseeable future. So we can probably expect the dollar to weaken further over the long term, but a counter trend rally (short squeeze) may be closer than people think and this would lead to weakness in commodities and stocks.

"When should we trade this move? Well have a look at the chart again. Notice the false breaks that keep occurring when the all time lows get breached (denoted by the numbers 1,2,3). With the trend still strongly down we can expect to see either a false break of the lows around 71 reached last year or if that doesn't occur then a crossover of the 10 week/35 week moving average to confirm that the trend has changed. Trading the move before either of these are confirmed would be jumping the gun."

Murray is tracking which Aussie stocks will move if and when we see the dollar index break out. We'll keep you posted.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Rally in Stocks and Rise in Aussie Dollar is a Result of the Carry Trade
• IMF Report Concludes Aussie Banks are “Very Sound”…
• A National Mortgage Bubble
• Australian Banks Must Increase Fees or Expand Loans to Remain Profitable
• How Did Australia Get Caught Up Losing Money in Commercial U.S. Real Estate?

The Guv also said he would not be too timid about raising interest rates. He believes the threat [of global financial calamity] has passed and that the bigger threat may well be inflation. That kind of tough talk sent the Aussie dollar right up to over 92 cents against the greenback. If it weren't late fall, now might be the perfect time to take a trip to America and see how cheap things really are.

But it is a bit surprising that a Central banker would say he's not sure there WILL be another shock to the world's financial system. The last twenty years show a history of regular shocks. The economic models of economists suggest these shocks are 100-year or even 500-year events. But they just keep happening!

The Peso Crisis...the Asian Crisis...the Russian bond crisis which led to the fall of Long Term Capital Management...Bear Stearns...Iceland...Northern Rock...the entire GFC...nope! None of those could ever happen again. Especially in a world that's reducing debt where asset markets are now undervalued and house prices have dramatically corrected and banks have recapitalised.

Well, that's the story that Stevens probably believes. But you know our view. There's a lot more bad debt out there posing as assets. There are more credit write downs. Banks have a boatload of commercial real estate and residential housing assets and a thin slice of equity capital supporting them. There is still a lot of leverage in the financial system. And that leverage exposes banks to losses.

For example, today's AFR cites research from the International Monetary Fund and concludes that Aussie banks could lose as much as two percent of total loans outstanding if corporate and household defaults increase. And gee, that's not likely at all when interest rates rise quickly, is it?

According to the AFR, the IMF report does conclude Aussie banks are "very sound", but they could lose $33 billion from rising defaults. We're not sure what default rate the report assumed, but we reckon it was probably too low. Nearly everyone in the financial establishment underestimated the depth of the crisis last time, too.

The other threat is that that Aussie banks source 30% of their loan funding from international credit markets, according to the IMF. Australia's short-term external debt is about $400 billion this year, according to the AFR. Is that really a threat?

It doesn't seem like one right now. Interest rates are rising and the Aussie dollar looks like it's headed to parity against the USD. This makes Australia a popular destination for international capital flows. After all, you have heaps of foreign investors pouring in to buy Australian property. The place is a capital nirvana!

But yes, it is vulnerability. For one, it means growth in the Australian economy is not sourced from domestic savings but from borrowed foreign money, which must later be repaid. Second, it means that the income and rent from Australia's capital stock (houses, property, shares, and bonds) may not be making Australians rich or even staying in Australia.

Granted, if the Boomers are selling their houses to Chinese investors in order to finance a comfortable retirement, it should work out well for the Boomers. But their children may be renting from Chinese landlords for a long time to come. And no, we're not blaming the Chinese for this at all. It's a great move for Chinese investors. But it may not be such a great development in the capital structure of Australia.

But at the moment, you wouldn't get that sense that rising public debts and the transfer of ownership of Australia's capital assets are any worry whatsoever. Sure haven't seen much of it in the papers or on the TV shows. It's like everyone's forgotten that the more integrated the world's financial markets have become, the more they've tended toward instability. Or everyone believes whatever was wrong before has been fixed now.

One person who had his wagon fixed yesterday was Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. America's new pay tsar (the U.S. Treasury Special Master for Compensation, Kenneth Feinberg) stripped Lewis of his 2009 salary. Don't cry for Lewis just yet. His retirement package will leave him with between US$70 and US$120 million.

But why is there even a pay master to begin with? Isn't that the job of boards of directors and shareholders? Could government charades to regulate the corporate sector get any more cosmetic? Coming soon, a pay master for your job.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Aussie Banks Addicted to Foreign Borrowing
• Aussie Banks are Scrambling to Raise Their Tier 1 Capital Ratios
• Bank for International Settlements Report Looks at Origins of Credit Crisis
• Stress Testing the Banks
• Gold, the Aussie Dollar, the Greenback and You

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

"You can forget about getting anything done in the month of August," said colleague Simone Wapler. "The French are busy with serious things...real things...like painting shutters and picking green beans...fixing curtains and making strawberry jam. They don't want to hear about economics or markets..."

France begins its summer vacation today. We've come to join them...

But we will keep an eye on the money anyways...because it's just getting interesting...

Two interesting things are happening. First, the feds are facing a showdown with the vigilantes...you know, the people with money - $2 trillion worth of reserves, $1.5 trillion of it in U.S. Treasury paper. They've got to convince them that they'll protect their investment. If they fail, the vigilantes sell their bonds...cause the dollar to collapse...and force up U.S. interest rates - which will come down like Round-Up on those green shoots of recovery.

Meanwhile, stocks are not only anticipating a recovery, they're counting on it. And for that, they depend on stimulus from the feds. But what Bernanke gives in stimulus, the vigilantes are likely to take away...

More on that in a minute...

The other big thing that is going on is the rally in the worlds' stock markets. On Wall Street, for example, the Dow rose 96 points yesterday. How far will this rally go? Should you try to take advantage of it?

As a rough rule of thumb, a bounce can be expected to recover half of the losses from the crash. The Dow went down 7600 points below its pre- crash high. So, we can expect a rebound of about 3800 points - which would put the index back around 10,300. By that measure, this rally could still have a lot of life in it - enough to convince practically everyone that the depression will soon be over. Don't believe it. This depression is going to last at least a few years...and the bear market isn't over. The Dow will eventually close below 5,000. At least...that's our story and we're sticking with it.

But let's go back to poor Ben Bernanke. And poor Tim Geithner. The poor fellows don't seem to know what they are doing. But why should they? Ben Bernanke spent his career as a professor of economics. Modern economics is fundamentally an intelligence-destroying trade. The longer you spend in economics, the less you know about how the economic world functions. Many years ago, the profession got the wrong idea of what it was up to. Ever since, it's been barking up the wrong tree. (More below...)

As for Geithner, he is a smart young man...destined for hackdom almost from the day he was born. Ivy league university...consulting firms...government - a protégée of Robert "Nobody Saw the Crisis Coming" Rubin - you can't blame Geithner either; he hasn't had time to think about how an economy really works.

But at least their mission is clear: to convince the world of two things at the same time...both impossible and mutually exclusive! The Chinese vigilantes must believe that the feds won't undermine the dollar...and the rest of the world must believe that they will! Inflation is necessary for recovery and growth in the United States...or so everyone believes.

It was French economist Jacques Rueff who revealed the scam more than half a century ago. The whole idea of Keynesian stimulus, he explained, was to cause inflation...which would reduce the real price of labor. In a modern democracy, politics prevents wages from falling. But in a correction, if wages don't fall people don't get jobs. Keynes' didn't mention it, but the only reason his stimulus works is because it pulls the wool over the eyes of the working classes - reducing their wages by inflation so employers can afford to hire them again. Ergo, no inflation...no recovery in the job market. No recovery in the job market...no recovery in the economy.

But inflation will cost the Chinese plenty. And they've let it be known they won't sit still for it. Keep reading...

"China seeks assurances that US will cut its deficit," says a New York Times report:

"China sought and received assurances from the Obama administration that the United States would reduce its budget deficit once an economic recovery was under way, a senior Chinese official said Tuesday at the end of two days of high-level talks between the countries.

"Attention should be given to the fiscal deficit," said Xie Xuren, the Chinese finance minister. He said Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had assured the Chinese that once the economy rebounded, the deficit would gradually come down from its current record levels.

"Mr. Geithner confirmed that, saying, 'As we put in place conditions for a durable recovery led by private demand, we will bring our fiscal position down to a more sustainable level over time.'"

Did you notice, dear reader? Geithner promised a "durable recovery led by private demand." In other words, it won't be government spending that pulls the United States out of its slump, he told the Chinese.

He must have had his fingers crossed behind his back. At this stage, what other kind of demand is there? Are factories being built? Are they hiring? Are consumers borrowing and spending more? As we pointed out yesterday, private demand has collapsed ...and it's likely to collapse even more.

But let's stick with our vigilantes for a while. Inflation would cause them to lose money. More importantly, it would cause them to lose face. American officials have told them not to worry; the Chinese seem satisfied. But woe to the debtor who lies to his creditor; he gets cut off.

Meanwhile, a report from the IMF names Britain and the United States as the world's two biggest spendthrifts...and sees no end coming soon.

A global recovery is "not yet under way" and likely to occur at different times around the world, so pulling back public spending and investment may be "premature," the IMF staff said.

Additional discretionary spending may be needed in 2010, the report said.

The staff report also said inflation expectations are picking up, posing a risk to a rebound in economic growth.

"Preserving investor confidence in government solvency is key to avoiding an increase in interest rates, thereby not only preventing snowballing debt dynamics, but also ensuring that the fiscal stimulus is effective," the report said.

The IMF noticed the fix U.S. officials are in.

"On the one hand, a too hasty withdrawal of fiscal stimulus would risk nipping a recovery in the bud," the report said. "On the other hand, with a delayed withdrawal investor concerns about sustainability may increase, leading to higher interest rates on government paper, undermining the recovery and increasing risks of a snowballing of debt."

The IMF staff urged countries to develop medium-term strategies to rein in rising debt levels. Some countries already have begun to do so, the report said.

The economists at the IMF see this as a problem of "balancing risks." Here at The Daily Reckoning, we see it differently. To us, it is lies colliding with each other. Stimulus will not produce genuine prosperity. You can't cure a credit-caused crisis by offering more credit; it just won't work. But rather than let the system correct itself, the feds are determined to 'do something!' What can they do? They can only destroy the dollar - or try to - thereby destroying the value of China's $1.5 trillion treasure.

Now, more on why private demand is going to weaken, not increase.

As the boom of the post-war period continued, consumer spending played a larger and larger role in the economy. It averaged 64% of the GDP during most of the period, but increased to 70% in 2007. Likewise, debt service as a percentage of disposable personal income rose too - from less than 5% in the '50s and '60s to over 14% now.

If, as we suspect, the trend towards more and more consumer debt has finally peaked out; consumption should have peaked out too. We should now see the percentage of the economy devoted to consumption go down...year after year...until it reaches the 'normal' level. Private debt too should go down, until it is at a more 'normal' level.

We calculated that during the last 7 years of the Bubble Epoque consumers added $1.4 trillion in debt per year. That was the spending that made the old mare go. But now what? They are now adding no debt - zero. In fact, they are paying off debt. This alone removed $1.4 trillion in private demand from the economy.

The savings rate is up dramatically too - from zero to 7%. This is another way of measuring the same phenomenon: the decline in consumer spending.

The only thing that would cause consumer spending to go would be a substantial increase in real wages. This would allow Americans to buy more - while simultaneously paying down debt. But with 16% unemployment (Rosenberg's estimate) it will be a long time before real wages increase at all...let alone substantially.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Investors Are Betting On Recovery
• Roubini Says United States Will Climb Out of Recession Towards End of Year
• Why Weren’t Economists On Top of This Thing?
• Geithner’s Trip to China Was, At Best, a Draw
• The More Money in a Financial System the Less Each Unit is Worth

"It was that distributed information is more reliable than the centralized variety." In the non-communist world, if a man had money and no bread, he exchanged the former for the latter...and sat down to dinner. As if guided by an 'invisible hand,' millions of people did the same thing. Everyone tried to get a bit more grease on his plate, by making his own decisions based on the facts before him. The result: standards of living rose for practically everyone.

In the centrally planned economies, on the other hand, neither the householder nor the baker had a choice. Their tasks were set by apparatchiks who presumed to know exactly how much of society's resources should be devoted to making bread...and exactly how much each person should eat. But by the '80s, it was obvious that central planning had failed. And by 1990, both the Soviets and their neighbors, the Chinese, had abandoned the experiment. Mankind breathed a sigh of relief. It seemed to have made a genuine great leap forward. Finally, it was generally accepted that people should be able to offer up their money as they did their prayers - to whatever god they chose.

The planners had made millions of people miserable over the course of seven decades; remarkably, none were hung from lampposts. Instead, they retreated to the universities, central banks and finance ministries. From these defensive redoubts, they continued their meddling. Soon, they were in the drivers' seats...and headed for another wall. The crash of '08 cut world asset values by as much as $50 trillion. But did the planners learn anything?

"This is where I have the greatest problem with US economic policy makers," writes Marc Faber. "I don't think they have ever recognized that the excessive, credit-driven expansion of the US economy was unsustainable in the long run and that, sooner or later, the current crisis was inevitable."

The bubble deniers deny there was a bubble and deny that their own stimulus caused it. They see nothing wrong with what they were doing and no reason to stop doing it. Instead, they add more stimuli...and create new bubbles.

In the gallery of Hell bent deniers, China is a special case. "To get rich is glorious," announced Deng Xiaoping after coming to power in 1978. The state pulled back its long arm. People were free to run businesses, to pay wages, to keep bank accounts. Today, in many ways, the average Chinese entrepreneur is freer than, say, his counterpart in France or America. He faces fewer obstacles. Factories go up overnight...and he is in business.

So dynamic was the Chinese economy that it responded to America's centralized monetary policies in record time. Spooked by the recession of 2001-2002, the Americans cut rates and boosted public spending. This brought a bubble in the housing sector...which gave English speaking consumers an appetite. Soon they were gobbling up boatloads of goods made by people who spoke Chinese.

Now, it is indigestion to which the central planners respond. An IMF report gives us a measure of the response. Add up all the loan guarantees, toxic asset purchases and other forms of bicarbonate administered by the G20 nations and they come to about a third of their combined GDPs. Those are just the monetary stimulus programs. The fiscal programs add another 5.5% of GDP.

America's central bank adds reserves so fast it must be running out of storage space. As for its fiscal policy, this week it has passed the $1 trillion deficit milestone - with almost half the year still ahead.

For their part, the Chinese planners enjoy the liberty of the damned. With no creditor looking over their shoulder, they are free to fight the downturn even more recklessly. "China is back in bubble land," says the Financial Times. In the first six months of this year, Chinese banks lent more than $1 trillion - or about four times the rate of 2007. They have more money to lend because reserves of foreign currencies are still increasing...and recently passed the $2 trillion mark. The money is coming in from speculators, who have taken stock market trading volumes to three times last year's levels.

Chinese planners thought they were pretty smart. During the boom years, they fixed the yuan to the dollar and refused to let it rise. This spurred rapid growth in China's export sector. But like all central economic planning, it backfired. China's entrepreneurs were misled. They didn't know their biggest customers were going broke. Now, they have too many factories producing too much stuff for too many people who cannot afford it.

But that is the beauty of being a central planner; you never have to say you're sorry.

Instead, you double up. The Chinese economy is expanding at nearly 8% this year, according to official estimates. It is expected to generate 74% of the worldwide GDP growth in the 2007-2010 period. As for commodities, were it not for Chinese buying, prices would collapse. Of course, that could be said for a lot of things. Were it not for the Chinese stimulus, the whole world economy would probably be backing up. We'll find out for sure...when this next bubble blows up.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Can Government Bureaucrats do a Better Job of Allocating Capital than Free Markets?
• Chinese Economy Seems to be Growing
• Smart People to Blame for Central Planning
• Stimulus Stimulates
• The Dark Underbelly of Australia’s Resource Boom: Chinese Resource Demand

First up is an issue that definitely affects the future of Aussie dividends: profits. You can't pay 'em out if you don't got 'em (unless you borrow 'em, which is just plain stupid). "Profit season looming as worst for 20 years," reports Lucy Battersby in today's Age. She says that analysts expect profits to be twenty percent lower than last year with "growth prospects" pretty dismal.

Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves with the idea that Aussie companies will begin boosting dividends to attract shareholders. After all, Bloomberg reports that Aussie firms tapped the equity markets for over $90 billion in capital in the last fiscal year. It's what you do when you're rebuilding your balance sheet and paring back debt.

In fact, RBA Governor Glenn Stevens-in addition to letting everyone one know the cash rate would remain at a 49-year low of three percent-encouraged corporate Australia to boost the stability of the financial system by bolstering balance sheets (more capital, less debt). Stevens said yesterday that, "While the considerable economic policy stimulus in train around the world should support recovery, it is likely to be slow at first. For it to be durable, continued progress in restoring balance sheets is essential."

What does that mean, though? Well in the long-run it's very good! In the short-run, it means slower growth and less business investment (capital spending). That probably means either increased unemployment, or much slower growth in employment, which puts pressure on wages (not that their moving up much anyway).

Here's a story commodity punters should keep an eye. The U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission is thinking about new regulations that limit positions sizes on commodities contracts. The agency says it wants to reduce "excessive speculation" in the commodity markets, especially the oil market. The agency will hold hearings in August.

Well, one way of looking at oil's rise to $147 is that it was all a beat up engineered by Goldman Sachs. That's what Matt Taibbi says in his latest Rolling Stone article, "The Great American Bubble Machine." It's a claim that the oil market is heavily manipulated by speculators and that the price of oil is divorced from the laws of supply and demand in the real economy.

Taibbi's piece is worth a read. But the CFTC is barking up the wrong tree if it wants to blame high energy prices entirely on speculators. One factor in oil's rise is clearly investment demand from traders and institutions that foresee the decline of the U.S. dollar. Another factor-subject to much debate-is Peak Oil itself (that global oil production is peaking). More on that tomorrow.

For now, we'd say this is another sign of increasing government control of the markets. Some people think this is good and long overdue. Some people don't. Either way, it looks like the world we're headed to. And it looks to us like a sure sign that the U.S. government wants to have a lot more control of what you do with your money (capital controls). We reckon the oil trading will just move to London.

More about dividends. Today's Financial Review reports that Aussie investors may miss out on $7 billion in dividends this year. The report cites research from Macquarie Securities which shows that Aussie companies paid out $48.6 billion in dividends last year but are on pace to pay out just $41.5 billion this year. Companies are preserving capital.

Again, we're not sure this is a bad thing. But it does mean that if you pursue a dividend strategy, you may have to look beyond traditional sources (banks) and do your homework. We've got Kris Sayce in the trenches doing just this work now and will report on it later this month. But what else might this renewed focus on dividends mean?

Well, it might mean the debauched age of capitalism-where companies borrowed money to speculate or invest in projects for which there was no sustainable demand-is well and truly over. It might mean companies will go back to returning earnings that are not reinvested to shareholders, where they belong.

Of course, for a company to return surplus earnings back to investors it must first have those earnings. And that is no mean feat in the post-industrial global economy. So rather than relying on the market itself to generate your dividend income for you, you'll probably have to work for it (find it).

And there is the risk that common stocks may simply be the wrong asset class to own for the next ten years. That is, there is the risk that even dividend stocks are still stocks. And if stocks are in secular bear market, it won't matter how much you get paid to own them. They will appreciate very slowly, and perhaps not at all versus inflation.

And now to debt. We've run across a few articles and charts on debt that were eye-opening. Speaking of which, please keep an eye out later today for a special invitation to an event we're putting on here in Melbourne. It will be a night dedicated to discussing this very subject.

And the main point? Not only are large (and growing) household and government debt levels making life tough for Aussies, they are part of a global power shift that threatens the economic security of industrial countries like Australia. Despite its tremendous resource wealth and proximity to developing giants India and China, Australia risks drowning itself in debt.

Or, as James G. Neuger writes for Bloomberg on the eve of the G-8 summit in Italy, "The run-up in debt has hastened a power shift that is sapping the industrial world's authority to impose its economic doctrine, currency arrangements, or greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Even some G-8 officials acknowledge that the group has lost its grip on the global recession they spawned."

"The industrial world is beset by the harshest economic conditions in a lifetime: a projected U.S. budget deficit of 13.6 percent of GDP in 2009, unmatched since World War II; an annualised 14.2 percent contraction in Japanese GDP in the first quarter, also the worst since the war; in the first three months of 2009, German exports had their steepest quarterly decline since 1970 when the date were first compiled."

But is debt really a problem here in Australia? The chart below from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) shows that it is, and a big one at that. Australian households have the highest household debt to disposable income ratios in the world, according to the BIS. Most of household debt, of course, is mortgage debt. And households are happy to take on mortgage debt as long as house prices are rising, interest rates are low, and the job market is good.

But as you can see, in markets where interest rates have risen and house prices have fallen, households have already begun seriously deleveraging, repairing their balance sheets by saving more and spending less and relying on asset appreciating a lot less. This process-as much psychological as financial-has yet to happen in Australia. We believe it will (it's one of the things we're going to discuss at the Debt Summit.)

But debt is not just a household issue. It's a pension issue too. That's because Australia has a huge portion of its pension assets in stocks. And as the world economy deleverages, assets bought with borrowed money are sold or revalued. For Australians, that means a huge write down in the value of assets held by pension funds.

Check out the chart below from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It shows that Australia's pension assets (mostly superannuation funds) are not only about 100% of GDP (or nearly $1 trillion), it shows that the bulk of those assets are not diversified at all. Most of it's in stocks. The rest is in property (a highly leveraged sector arguable even more vulnerable to deleveraging).

Click to enlarge

What does the chart really mean? It means that it's time for a serious rethink of how you manage your retirement assets. Super...stocks...porperty...how you make, keep, and grow your wealth is a serious challenge for the future. And the accumulation of vast household, corporate, and government debt is making it even more challenging.

In fact, government debt may be the other shoe to drop. We won't get into too much detail. But we'd suggest that Australia is treading down the path to where questions about the quality of its bonds-or worst case, its fiscal solvency itself-might start to be asked.

Granted, the public debt-to-GDP ratios in Australia are modest compared to the U.S. and the U.K. And even if they grow to around 16% of GDP (as the IMF suggests they will), they will still be much lower than other places around the world. But it's the casual attitude toward accruing these long-term liabilities that worries us. And it's also the affect rising public debt has on interest rates.

The IMF puts it this way: "Doubts about fiscal solvency-the risk that governments find it more convenient to repudiate their debt or to inflate it away-could lead to an increase in the cost of borrowing. In turn, higher interest rates (and exchange rate depreciations, particularly in countries with significant borrowing in foreign currency, like most emerging economies) could further add to government debts-in some cases, resulting in 'snowballing' debt dynamics. This scenario would be deleterious for global growth."

Yes, it would be bad for growth. And a 2003 study from the Federal Reserve (cited yesterday in the Times of London) says it would also be bad for interest rates. The study concludes that "a percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points; a typical estimate is about 25 basis points."

It was referring to increased borrowing costs for the U.S. government because of rising deficit-to-GDP ratios. But in the current Credit Depression, we have no reason to believe Aussie borrowing costs wouldn't rise too with rising deficit-to-GDP ratios.

"All else equal," study author Thomas Laubach concludes, "The results of this study suggest that interest rates rise by about 25 basis points in response to a percentage point increase in the projected de_cit-to-GDP ratio, and by about 4 basis points in response to a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio."

And what does it mean? "The impact would be devastating by making it punitively expensive to finance national borrowings and leading to what Tim Congdon, founder of Lombard Street Research called a 'debt explosion.' Mr. Congdon said the study illustrated the 'horrifying' consequences for leading Western economies of bailing out their banks and attempting to stimulate markets by cutting taxes and boosting public spending. He said the markets had failed to digest fully the scale of fiscal largesse."

To be sure, if the cost of refinancing public debt doubles, it's going to be particularly nasty for the U.S. and the U.K., where public debt to GDP ratios are on the rise. But what would it mean for Australia, where public debt to GDP would be smaller, but a lot larger than it is today? Stay tuned...

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Buying Stocks for Dividends Makes Sense…
• Corporate Debt is Just One Aspect of the National Debt Problem
• A Sea Change In Our Love of Debt
• Dividend Drop-Off: When Cushions Turn To Rocks
• Banks or BHP?