As for inflation, the lowest inflation rate among the world's larger economies is in - you guess it - Japan. After 20 years of on-again, off-again deflation, it's on again in Japan...with inflation at NEGATIVE 2.2%. But inflation is negative in the US too - at minus 1.3%.

Both Japan and the US claim positive GDP growth, compared to Europe, which is still in recession. But throughout the world - except perhaps for the BRIC nations - growth is weak and hesitant.

The US and the UK are both consumption economies. No consumption; no growth. But how do you get people who've consumed too much to consume even more? They know they can't afford to keep spending. And they know that going further into debt just makes the situation worse. What can you do?

You bribe them!

You give them more money, say, in unemployment assistance. Or, you give them a tax credit when they buy a new house. Or, you give companies a big tax break. In the most recent stimulus bill, for example, the feds do all three - including giving Pulte Homes a $450 million tax refund.

Here at The Daily Reckoning we never met a tax cut we didn't like. But with the deficit at 13% of GDP, we might make an exception. One way or another, someone's going to have to pay for the feds' big spending stimulus efforts. Taxpayers. Bondholders. Dollar holders. All of the above.

President Obama told the crowd in Singapore this weekend that he would make sure Ben Bernanke stayed away from his helicopters. The Chinese are the biggest holder of US bonds in the world. The Japanese are next. Between the two of them they fund a big part of America's current spending. Naturally, America's president is eager to keep the cash coming his way. So he has had to reassure the nation's largest creditor that their loans to the US will be repaid in good order...and good currency.

China alone has $2.3 trillion in reserves...most of it in dollars. Of course, the Chinese want to diversify out of greenbacks. But they're caught in a trap of their own making. If they turn away from the dollar, they undermine its value...and the value of their own reserves. What's more, America is still China's number one customer. They need to sell to America. And for that they need to keep their own currency from rising too much against the greenback. A higher yuan makes their products relatively more expensive compared to other exporters.

So, the infernal system continues...America creates dollars. The foreigners take them as though they had value. And they will have value...as long as they take them.

In the '90s and '00s the newspapers were full of stories about what a great place America was. Its economy was so dynamic...its entrepreneurs were so clever...its financial system was so highly evolved and flexible. What could go wrong?

Everything!

And now we're going to read a lot of claptrap about what an awful place it is.

"The American dream needs repair," is forerunner of the genre. In today's Financial Times, it focuses on the rigidities of the US system. The time was when a young American could start at the bottom and work his way up. Luck and pluck was all that it took. But now, according to scholars at the Brookings Institution, people stay put. If you're born poor in America you're more likely to stay poor than if you had been born poor in Britain, Denmark, Sweden or dozens of other countries.

What happened? The authors do not say. So we will. Success breeds failure. As a society becomes rich, more and more people find ways to game the system. The elite get tax credits, tariffs, and protective regulations. Every layer of bureaucracy makes it harder for new competitors to get ahead. And every new tax on income makes it harder for upstarts to join the ranks of the rich. The poor get their parasitic benefits too. Welfare, unemployment compensation, child tax credits, medicare, food stamps, social security - all of these programs give the poor an incentive to stay poor.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• US Economists Think China Should Raise the Value of Yuan
• Obama Plans to Do Away With Ireland’s Tax Advantage
• U.S. Government Hiding True Unemployment Rate in Statistics
• Harding the Last American President to Deal Honestly With a Major Financial Crisis
• Baby Boomers Face Early Retirement With No Money Saved

Can anything stop stocks and gold?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

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

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?

Stocks rallied on this news.

Employment is said to be a lagging indicator. Economists tell you it's the last thing to recover from a recession. Businesses don't begin hiring until after they are sure the worm has turned in the economy. But right now, there is a pretty big decoupling between the stock market's verdict on the economy (it's all good, man) and the employment market's verdict (it sucks, man).

But there's no doubt the rising market has lifted a lot of spirits...and superannuation balances. Aussie Super data firm Rainmaker says the average super is now down just -0.8% as of the end of September. To be honest though, we found this data incomprehensible.

Is it down 0.8% for the year (since January) or in the last twelve months? Or is the average super fund down 0.8% from its all-time high? The average super fund fell 21% from its heights to its lows during the GFC. But the Aussie market has rallied 55% this year.

So does this mean super has done well? Average? Above average?

In today's Age, Eric Johnston reports that for the last three years, the average super fund is down 0.3%. Over five years, the average fund performance is a bit better at 5.2%. And over ten years, a 6% average super return just means boring old government bonds at 5.6%.

To us, this suggests that the equity premium in stocks really is collapsing. What's the point of getting average super returns if you're better off in bonds? Or, if all you can get in the average super is a performance that barely beats bonds, wouldn't it make more sense to stick half your money in bonds, 30% cash, and actively manage the other 20% in your own self-managed super?

You could do worse, of course. Maybe it's a lousy idea. So we asked the man with the wealth gampelan, Kris Sayce, what he made of the enigmatic super figures. He's on the super beat full time. It's a sensible complement to the growth-stock tipping he does at the Australian Small Cap Investigator.

"I think what this research shows you," Kris writes, "is the utter failure of the funds management industry. The research claims the S&P/ASX200 is up nearly 55%, yet the best performing fund manager has only managed a 9.9% return. Something doesn't quite add up for investors.

"But still they're charging you between 1% and 3% for underperforming the market! That's just bizarre. Then again, I've always thought you're better off investing in the shares of a fund manager rather than in their funds."

Australia's super annuation industry is often trumpeted by the government (and the industry) as one of the best pension schemes in the world. And there's a lot of talk now about raising compulsory contributions from 9% of salary to 12%. This would be a real gift to the funds management industry.

But according to a report from Boston Consulting, the GFC hit Australian investors about as hard as anyone in the world. The report says the GFC wiped out 27% of Australian pension "wealth." That was the third-worse wipe-out of 62 countries surveyed. Only Britain (-32%) and Sweden (-28%) were worse off.

If you're having a hard time reconciling that fact with the rosy picture routinely painted by the media and the funds industry and the government, you need to dig a bit deeper and see how your fund is investing your money. At the very least, you ought to know whether your super fund is underperforming the market and over-exposing you to a certain class of stocks.

If it's your average Australian super fund, odds are it's doing both. According to an OECD report released earlier this month, "Australian superannuation funds had the highest exposure to equities last year and were the third worst performing group of pension funds in the world." The default Aussie super has 60% of its assets invested in shares and 70% of those shares are growth stocks.

Not only does this mean the average Aussie super investor is over-exposed to equities, he's way over-exposed to growth stocks. Granted, that might be exactly the sort of asset allocation you wanted if you were a young investor with time on his side, investing at the beginning of secular bull market.

But now? And let's not forget that the half of the total average return for stocks over time comes from reinvested dividends, not capital gains. That means that Aussie investors probably have too few income producing stocks in their portfolio, and too many stocks period.

If you have an asset allocation plan already (some percentage of your assets in stocks, property, bonds, cash, and gold, respectively), it may not be a bad time to revisit your percentages (rebalance). And if you don't have a plan - if you're leaving it to your super fund to make your asset allocation decisions for you - the odds are THEY don't have a plan either. They're just chucking your money into growth stocks and clipping your ticket.

That's not a plan at all. But it's probably a better plan than stick all your money into bonds willy nilly. That's not a plan either. Or, if it is a plan, and those bonds are U.S. bonds, it's a really bad plan. Worse than no plan at all (owning equities blindly).

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Your Actively Managed Superannuation Fund Cannot Beat the Market
• A Look at Debt and Super
• World of Super Collides With World of Credit Crunch
• The Problem With a Well-Diversified Portfolio
• Pension Plans are Selling Stocks

That's the world's current production of crude oil...and that may very well be close to the world's PEAK production of crude oil. Although the recession caused a temporary decrease in consumption, demand is already bouncing back toward pre-crisis levels. Too bad production isn't.

"Can't we get more than 85 million barrels?" some folks are bound to wonder. Let's look into that...

A couple weeks ago, I attended the 2009 international conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), out in Denver. Here's the long and short of it. We're in trouble. With a capital "T," and that rhymes with "P," and that stands for Peak Oil. By every measure, the world's output of crude oil peaked between 2005 and 2007.

Yes, the worldwide total output of what we generically call "oil" has risen - slightly - in recent years. But that's because there are increasing volumes of natural gas liquids (NGLs) in the mix, plus unconventional oil like what the global marketplace obtains from Canada's oil sands. But the production of oil - actual oil - has peaked already. The future of conventional petroleum output is downhill, even with the future output from the deep-water offshore discoveries.

"There's no such thing as West Texas Intermediate [WTI] oil anymore," Peak Oil apologist, Matt Simmons, moaned to the ASPO conference attendees. Instead, the pipeline crossroads like Cushing, Okla., have become little more than "crude oil pharmacies."

In other words, as the quality of the crude from the traditional U.S. oil patch continues to degrade, oilmen must mix and match their product with "sweeter" forms of crude if they hope to sell it as the premium- priced WTI. Thus, operators at Cushing take whatever oil they can obtain from one place, plus whatever oil they can obtain from another place. They mix and match, and blend it all with synthetic crude from Canada. Maybe they add some imported oil juice and then send it down the line as WTI.

Along these same lines, Venezuelan economist Carlos Rossi stated to ASPO his analysis of oil trends in the U.S. "You are worried about your foreign oil imports now," he said. "You in the U.S. import about 65% of your oil today. You don't like it. But if you follow the clear trends, by 2025, you'll be importing about 92% of your oil. You'll like that even less." No doubt.

The market meltdown and world recession of the past year has bought some time. But the planet is still staring at an energy problem that's coming down the tracks like a runaway freight train.

Sure, there's a lot more oil "out there"...as in WAY out there - 150 miles offshore, beneath 8,000 feet of water and 20,000 feet of rock and salt. Yes, that offshore resource is out there, but it's super hard to extract.

And so what? Aren't the world's oil companies busy developing these massive offshore deposits? Yes, but this development will take decades. It'll take time and capital and expensive cutting-edge technologies, some of which are barely commercially viable.

Future energy supplies have never been more uncertain, according to Simmons. It's difficult to say with specificity how bad things are, he says, because the data are so poor on a worldwide basis.

"Look at what happened with the bad information we had, or didn't have, with the financial institutions over the past couple of years," Simmons said at the recent ASPO Conference. "With our energy data, it's worse. We're in for some shocks that will change our lives in ways that'll rival Pearl Harbor."

Things could go wrong with energy supplies in any of a dozen places, according to Mr. Simmons. In Venezuela, the output of the state oil company PdVSA is declining at alarming rates due to political interference and underinvestment. In Nigeria, the low-grade civil war could quickly morph into a large-scale civil war. In Iraq, according to Mr. Simmons, "They're in the dark about how to rebuild their oil industry."

Closer to home, Simmons expects net oil exports from Mexico to vanish within 24 months or less. This event will play havoc with U.S. refiners on the Gulf Coast. Mexico has simply delayed for too long its effort to explore, drill and rebuild its fast-depleting oil resources. Mexico is going to have to scramble to salvage something from its looming energy disaster.

But even without a supply shock, Simmons believes that the mere inevitability of declining production will cause oil to hit $200 a barrel by the end of next year. Longer term, Mr. Simmons expects to see oil at $500-700 per barrel. "People need to understand how expensive it is to obtain oil," said Simmons.

Much of the world's energy infrastructure is old and rusting and will require several trillions of dollars to replace - if it can be replaced. Furthermore, new technology is coming on line slower than most people anticipate. The deeper, more challenging environments are sucking down technology and money, and yielding less than expected in many cases. According to one study, only eight out of 100 major energy projects came in on time, were within budget and yielded the expected volumes of oil and natural gas.

The stark fact is that oil is going to get a lot more expensive and the bull market in oil will be firmly in place for a long time. Smart investors would take advantage of any corrections or dips to get themselves buckled-in for the ride.

Regards,

Byron King,
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Peak Oil – The Rewards
• Crude Oil Becoming Much Harder to Find
• Peak Oil: Supply Data Doesn’t Lie
• Pemex and Mexican Peak Oil Equal Expensive Oil
• Supply of Conventional Crude Oil is Very Close to its Peak

It's More Than Half Full.

Ok, Bill, let's review those wonderful days from whence we sprang, so fraught with the advantages of having nothing. So potent with opportunity. It was the middle of the '70s when we started our careers. Inflation was high and rising. The Soviets were seen as a major threat. Japan was beating our brains out and buying everything, even if nailed down (like Pebble Beach and New York skyscrapers). I had to borrow money at 15% (or more) to buy paper in order to meet customer demands for printing. And guess what? The banks got into trouble and called loans willy-nilly. (My bank even called my mother and threatened her to pay my loan - against written agreements - and she did. Evil sons of bitches. The more things change... And they delightedly did fail! Not that I hold a grudge.)

There were multiple successive and deeper recessions. Gold was rising as the dollar was seen as a joke. Howard Ruff (a good friend to both of us when we were starting out!) and almost every newsletter writer were telling people to buy gold and freeze-dried food to protect themselves against a near certain economic, if not apocalyptic, catastrophe. Unemployment was high and rising for a decade.

The correct answer to the question, "Where will the jobs come from?" back then was "I don't know, but they will." And it is the correct answer today.

In 20 years, no one will want to come back to the halcyon days of 2005. Our kids (all 13 of them) are getting ready to live through what will be the most exciting period in human history. There will be a century's worth of change, measured by the standard of the 20th century, just in the next ten years, and then we will double that pace in the next ten after that. Medical miracles that will mean our kids and grandkids will live a lot longer than their dads, although I intend to be writing well into my 80s, like our mutual hero Richard Russell.

There will be whole new industries developed in the US. How do I know that? Follow the money. The rest of the world spends a fraction on research and development that we do. Where do you go if you are looking for venture capital?

Do I care if the Chinese and the "developing" worlds are far better off, relatively speaking, than the US in 20 years? Not a whit. Good on them. I hope they make discoveries and inventions and new businesses that benefit us all. But we are not going into some long dark night. We, and our kids, get to choose how we respond to what is the reality of the day.

Our nation had to almost hit the wall in 1980 before a Volker could come along and force us to take the pain of recessions to beat back inflation. And we will have to come perilously close to the wall this time before we take action as a nation. Way to close for comfort. Maybe you are right, and we have a soft depression. I hope not, but even so, the world will be better, far better, in 20 years, with far more opportunities than today.

It was not fun starting new businesses in the '70s and early '80s. But we did. I remember coming to Baltimore and being (literally) afraid to get out of the car to visit your offices in the slums. But that was what you could afford. A far cry from the chateau in Ouzilly.

I lived in a small mobile home. Tiffani was born there, and we converted part of the kitchen to be her bedroom. (Yes, I was white "trailer trash.") But I got up every morning just like you did and killed as many alligators as I could. The rest had to wait till the next day.

And that is the legacy our kids have. They know what it is to wade into the swamp every morning. Never quitting. In thinking about this, you may be the father I respect the most. You have raised your kids to be multi-lingual children of the world. What a work ethic. How did you get them to scrape window shutters at your chateaus? (I actually saw this, and my kids marveled.

Thereafter I threatened to make them go live with you when they did not act right!)

You have given your kids the opportunity to follow their dreams, even demanded that they do so. And such dreams they (and mine) have. Will they succeed? Who knows? But they will go at it with gusto, in a world with more opportunities than you and I ever imagined 40 years ago. And, oh boy, were we optimists back then. How else could we have done what we did? If we believed the rhetoric that the world was coming to an end, would we have dared to venture out?

You cannot have raised your kids to be such bold adventurers without instilling in them a certain high level of optimism. I am going to out you, Mr. Bonner. You present yourself to your readers as a bona fide end of the world pessimist. But you are a really and truly a closet optimist. Your whole business empire (and what an empire it has become!) is based on finding people who are optimists, in the sense that they think they can actually get people to send them money for what they write. Which they do! Even if it is to read why the world will come to an end, which it thankfully never does.

You are right in this: it is personal gumption that makes or breaks us. There are those who started out with less than we did (hard to imagine but true) and made a lot more. And there are those who started out with far more and made less. But there are very few who are happier than either of us. Or luckier.

Our kids? It is not the times which dictate the man (or daughter!), but the response of the man which dictates his own time. Today has a brighter future for someone young than any other time in history, whether they are in the US or Brazil or China. They just have to seize it.

And as our kids do just that, and as the millions of kids of those who read us do so, and the billions of kids who are just now getting ready to bust loose all work to achieve their dreams, the world is going to be a far more fantastic place. Smooth ride? Not a chance. We didn't get one, and in thinking through history, there have not been many smooth rides. Why should we think we will get any better? Our kids will just have to live with our generational (and individual) iniquities, government debt and all, and figure out how to master their own fates. But if I had a choice to take the '70s or today? In less than a heart's beat I choose today. And I bet you would too!

Regards,

Bill Bonner and John Mauldin
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Baby Boomers Figure They Will Have to Work Longer than Expected
• Children Growing Up in a Different World
• Baby Boomers Are Ill-Prepared for Retirement
• Rare Coins as an Informal Way of Estate Planning
• Jules Begins His Last Year of School in Boston

Another national emergency! Terrorism...the banking crisis...now Swine Flu.

Why it is an emergency, we don't know. Our sister, living in Virginia tells us that several of her grandchildren have come down with the Swine Flu. It doesn't seem to bother them anymore than any other flu.

But every emergency is an opportunity. The feds don't want to waste it. Instead, they swing into operation with a rescue plan. It will end up costing billions...hundreds of billions...or maybe even trillions. We don't know what they've got in mind. But we know what will come of it. It will end up extending the power and influence of the government. So far, the feds are the only real winners from any of these crises. Federal outlays, as a percentage of GDP have shot up from less than 20% of GDP in 2000 to more than 26% in 2009.

Will it do any good? Public health is not central banking. And it's not economic planning. Force everyone to wear a surgical mask and maybe lives would be spared. Or, maybe not. Without the immunity of occasional bouts of flu, who knows? Maybe people would be more susceptible to the next disease. The American Indians were almost wiped out...because they had no immunity to European diseases.

Interesting...

Ain't nature amazing? Disease works like an economic correction. It winnows out the weak...and it toughens up survivors. Allowing people to get sick is a little like allowing them to go broke. It keeps the whole system from softening up...from becoming more vulnerable. It protects people from moral and biological hazard. In other words, it's the correction that really provides protection...the disease itself, not the cure. Or, to put it another way, it's the crash that is beneficial, not the rescue.

David Einhorn, one of the few people to make money in the crash of sub-prime debt:

"The financial reform on the table is analogous to our response to airline terrorism by frisking grandma and taking away everyone's shampoo. It gives the appearance of 'doing something' and adds to our bureaucracy without really making anything safer."

The Wall Street Journal reports that even bankruptcy can be a good thing. "Household Debt Can Hasten Recovery...when it goes unpaid," says a headline.

The whole idea of a correction is to wash out mistakes. If people can pay their debts down, the mistakes are corrected. The system is strengthened. If they can't, the process of correction can happen faster. Bad debts are written off quickly. Then, a real recovery can begin. Either way, the system comes back in better shape.

Too bad the feds are getting in the way!

A decent correction should carry off those who made the biggest mistakes - in the present case, the firms on Wall Street that wagered billions on a bigger and bigger bubble. But instead of letting them go broke, the feds rewarded them.

Wall Street profits are a 'gift' from the state, says George Soros.

But wait, what kind of gift is this? If you give $100 to your neighbor, that's a gift. But what if you tax your neighbor on the left $100 in order to give the money to your neighbor on the right? That's a gift too...but of a special kind. You're 'redistributing the wealth,' you might say.

And what if you do a quantitative easing? You know, you print up a $100 bill and give it to your neighbor? That's a gift too.

Yeah, thanks a lot.

Meanwhile, the recession is said to have come to an end in the US. GDP growth is positive, say the papers. But if this is a recovery, let's hope it comes to an end soon.

Existing house prices continued to fall in September.

Unemployment continued to worsen. "Signs of recovery don't extend to jobs," says the WSJ.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Naturally the Feds Want to Raise as Much Money as They Can
• The Fed Cut Rates – But How Low Will They Go?
• Feds Buy Houses
• Feds Have Used the Correction to Increase Their Power and Add to Their Wealth
• AIG to Receive $85 Billion Loan from Fed

Last week, stocks went up. Stocks went down. Not much was proved one way or another. The week ended in a draw, as near as we can tell.

But we think we are making progress in understanding what is going on. The private sector is de-leveraging. Now, it's the public sector doing the heavy lifting. It is leveraging everything it can.

Leverage in the private sector led to the banking crisis/bear market of 2007-2009. Debt always leads to trouble. Next up: a crisis in the public sector.

But wait...hold on...not so fast...we haven't reached the end of the private sector crisis yet! Bank lending is still falling. House prices are still falling. Unemployment is still falling. Soon, stock prices will be falling again too...

First, let's see what's in the headlines. Last week there was a lot of press about the pay czar and his efforts to limit compensation in the companies that the feds bailed out. The public and the news media love this sort of thing. It's a battle between the greedy rich and the public interest, or so they believe. The public hates bankers. But they don't want to see just pay capping; they want to see knee-capping. We'd like to see it too. Or maybe public flogging. Or at least a lapidation or two.

But our true sympathies are with the greedy CEOs. After all, they stole the money fair and square. They should be allowed to keep it. The feds wanted to leverage up the financial sector by giving money to the banks. What'd they expect? The bankers took it.

Yes, the financiers are paid outrageous amounts of money - far beyond anything they are worth. In fact, if you studied it carefully, you'd probably discover that their net contribution to the betterment of mankind is now negative.

The bankers are betting that the money they were given by the feds will be worth less next year than it is this year. So they exchange it for everything and anything, confident that when it comes time to pay it back it will be even easier to come by than it is now.

So far the bet has gone their way. Copper has doubled. Gold is up 20%. Stocks markets all over the world are up 60%. Foreign currencies, too, have beaten the dollar.

Will the wager against the dollar continue to pay off? Well, that's the big question. If so, you should stay in stocks, gold and commodities. If not, you should move to cash.

But it hardly matters to the gamblers. They're playing with someone else's money! If the bets go well, they pay themselves huge bonuses. If they go badly...well...hey...gimme a bailout!

In the long run, bets against the dollar are almost sure to turn out okay. All paper currencies go to zero, eventually. But in the short run, who knows? The whole world is betting against the greenback. With such a massive short position against the buck, it would be just like Mr. Market - aka Mr. Mischief- maker -- to send the dollar up.

But you can't blame the bankers. They're performing a very valuable service. They are helping to separate fools from their money. Too bad we taxpayers are the fools....

Among all the whiners and kvetchers about bankers' huge bonuses hardly a single one draws the obvious conclusion:

That them that deserve to go bust should be allowed to do so.

"I remain of the view," writes Martin Wolf, a bit pompously, in The Financial Times, "that the only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not rescuing it."

He's welcome to his opinions. And if he used his own money to bail out the bankers we would have no objection. In that case, it would just be a futile and foolish act. Instead, he insists upon using our money...which raises the charge from stupidity to larceny.

Another message that came through last week was that the real economy is not improving. Good news came in from several quarters. But the news that really counts - housing prices and jobs - was bad.

"It's all bad. That's all we know," said John Stepek, editor of MoneyWeek. "People ask if we're going to have inflation or deflation. The bulls think we're going to have inflation. The bears bet on deflation. But I'm not sure it matters. We're probably going to have both.

"The point is, whichever we have, it's going to be the bad sort. Neither inflation nor deflation is necessarily bad. Prices have to adjust. That's how the market conveys its signals. When prices rise, it tells producers to get busy and increase output. When prices fall, it tells them to lay off. In the natural order of things prices usually fall. Or, they should fall. This is 'good' deflation. It just means that producers are becoming more efficient, as they should. There's good inflation too - when prices rise due to increased real demand. When people earn more money, they can buy more things; prices rise.

"But what we're going to see is bad. Bad inflation. And bad deflation. It is the result of monetary problems and mismanagement. And it is going to send all the wrong signals and inevitably make things worse. First, the deflation is bad because it is result of a massive de- leveraging accompanied by a write-down of debt and assets. It's a depression. Or a major recession. Or a 'great contraction.' Call it what you will. It's a deflation in which prices fall...and it's not going to be any fun.

"Then, there's most likely going to be bad inflation too - caused by the central banks printing too much money. This is bad inflation because it is just an increase in the quantity of paper money, not an increase in real demand.

"We don't know exactly what is coming. But whatever it is, it will be bad."

Another big item in last week's financial press was the "Cash for Houses" scheme. The feds give new house buyers an $8,000 tax credit. But since not all new buyers buy because of the credit, the actual cost to the government per additional new house purchased is much higher than 8 grand. For each additional house purchased because the credit taxpayers are paying as much as a quarter of the entire cost of the house.

And now there is a proposal to extend and broaden the credit. Soon it may be "Cash for Everything."

This sounds crazy, but there are a lot of economists who think more stimulus is necessary. Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, for example. And Richard Koo, mentioned here last week. They've seen what happened in Japan. And they see that the real economy is not recovering as they hoped it would. Now, they warn that America might have a "Lost Decade" if it doesn't continue to stimulate the economy.

How long must it continue bailing out and stimulating? Until consumers have finished de-leveraging, they say. How long will that take? Maybe another 5 years, by our calculation...maybe much longer.

But wait...the whole problem is too much debt, right?

Yep.

But the only way the government can stimulate is by going further into debt, right?

Yep.

And isn't the budget deficit already at $1.6 trillion...or 11% of GDP...the most it has been since WWII?

Yep.

Well, then where's the benefit? Won't the public sector have to de- leverage too?

Bingo!

How does the public sector deleverage?

Two possible ways - honestly...and dishonestly. It can pay down its debts to a level at which they can be carried even if interest rates go up sharply. They did it after the War Between the States...after WWII...and even during the Clinton years. Believe it or not, when the Congressional Budget Office looked ahead in 2001, it saw a budget SURPLUS for 2008 of more than $600 billion. Surpluses had been coming in for years during the Clinton administration. They thought it would keep going like that. Instead, 2008 saw a DEFICIT of nearly $500 billion.

The higher the debt and deficits go the harder it is to pay them down honestly. Eventually, the feds reach the point of no return...like a guy who's so deep in debt he can't possibly work his way out. Then, you get another crisis...either in the form of default...or (hyper) inflation...or both.

Tomorrow, we're off on the road to the Andean highlands...

No phone. No internet. No fax. No Blackberry. No iPhone.

We've got cows to round-up, wrestle, and vaccinate.

In the meantime, we'll leave our "Crash Alert" flag flying...and send a message as soon as we can...

Until then,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Bankers Take Money From the Government and Use it to Speculate
• The More Money in a Financial System the Less Each Unit is Worth
• Warren Buffett: People Do Not Make Money by Betting Against the US Economy
• The Feds Are Trying to Avoid Deflation
• The Battle Between the Forces of Inflation and Deflation Wages On

But a warning about what? Sure, stocks, oil, and gold were all down yesterday and the U.S. dollar was up. But is it really the end of the dollar carry trade? And if it is, what happens next?

More cow bell!

We should back up a second. What is the dollar carry trade? It's the engine of bank profit growth this year. It's what's given the illusion that the financial system has recovered from its brush with death last year.

But as you'll learn today, the bankers, the Fed, the media...the whole lot of them...have learned nothing from last year. The hangover was just beginning to set in, so everyone began drinking again heavily. And now the party is wild and out of control. Even the cops are drunk.

Incidentally, this complete abandonment of monetary sobriety and fiscal prudence shows up every day in real life, where the declining value of money is paralleled by a general decline in public behaviour. For example, on Sunday morning we were tucking into a breakfast of banana caramel pancakes (with a scoop of vanilla ice cream on the top) when three incredibly drunk but fairly well dressed middle aged men had a seat next to us at the cafe.

They wanted to chat about the John Birmingham book on the table. They wanted to smoke. They wanted to laugh, and did so loudly to the point where they began upsetting the various dogs assembled in the sun. They ordered a pitcher of beer. They were served. It was 9am and they hadn't been to sleep.

Our cow bell tells us that the financial party thrown by Ben Bernanke may soon be ending. The dollar carry trade, by the way, is where financial firms and speculators borrow cheap money in the U.S. and use it to buy higher yielding assets elsewhere (like the Aussie dollar).

The carry trade is a bubble enabler and balance sheet stabiliser in the short-term. The Fed keeps rates low, the banks borrow and then buy U.S. bonds (which helps the U.S. fund its deficit), buy stocks, and buy commodities. The dollar carry has fuelled the world-wide rally more so than any phantom recovery in the real economy, where employment hasn't recovered and wage growth is hard to find.

What the carry trade has not done is fundamentally improved the balance sheets of the very financial firms that were at risk of insolvency last year. Why not? First, the earnings rebound in the first three months of the year was not driven by better business conditions. Speaking to the Financial Times earlier this week, George Soros said, "Those earnings are not the achievement of risk-takers...These are gifts, hidden gifts, from the government."

The banks booked profits from trading stocks and bonds. And because the Fed, through quantitative easing, was supporting bond prices directly, it was as close to free money/a rigged market as you can get. With enough leverage, even small gains in bond prices were bankable.

But now there is an enormous, gut busting irony to the position the banks find themselves in. Remember that the original idea to repair bank balance sheets and restore their capital positions to healthier levels was to replace toxic mortgage-backed debt with safe, sound, and liquid U.S. Treasuries. Snort. Guffaw.

The irony is that those same Treasuries could be the next big blow up, wiping out the banks thin equity capital sliver all over again, and plunging the financial sector into a second wracking round of forced deleveraging and asset sales. Round two of the recession, morphing into a Depression as the public sector ramps up deficit spending to make up for the collapse in household and business spending.

We all know how much serious the cycle of deleveraging and asset sales was last time around, so it's not a claim we'd make lightly, or without some evidence. So let's get to the evidence. First is an article from Gillian Tett, also in yesterday's FT, titled "Rally fuelled by cheap money brings a sense of foreboding."

"Earlier this month," she begins, "I received a sobering e-mail from a senior, recently-retired banker. This particular man, a veteran of the credit world, had just chatted with ex-colleagues who are still in the markets - and was feeling deeply shocked."

" 'Forget about the events of the past 12 months ... the punters are back punting as aggressively as ever,' he wrote. 'Highly leveraged short-term trades are back in vogue as players ... jostle to load up on everything from Reits [real estate investment trusts] and commercial property, commodities, emerging markets and regular stocks and bonds.'"

" 'Oh, I am sure the banks' public relations people will talk about the subdued atmosphere in banking, but don't you believe it,' he continued bitterly, noting that when money is virtually free - or, at least, at 0.5 per cent - traders feel stupid if they don't leverage up.

" 'Any sense of control is being chucked out of the window. After the dotcom boom and bust it took a good few years for the market to get its collective mojo back [but] this time it has taken just a few months,' he added. He finished with a despairing question: 'Was October 2008 just a dress rehearsal for the crash when this latest bubble bursts?'"

This 'latest bubble' is in evidence across all asset markets-bonds, stocks, commodities, property, and cash. Free money does not discriminate on the basis of asset class. But nowhere has the bubble been more generous than in the U.S. Treasury bond market. Short-term U.S. bond yields are vanishingly low. The Fed just purchased $14 billion more in mortgage-backed securities last week and now holds $776 billion in MBS and $773 billion in Treasuries. All up, the Fed's balance sheet is at $2.1 trillion.

But here is the thing: the Fed says it's ready to end its program of buying Treasuries and MBS. It realises it will have its hands full funding big U.S. deficits. But if the Fed withdraws its support for bond prices...you can expect bond prices to fall and yields to rise. This may happen even if the Fed keeps buying bonds...but creditors like the Chinese and Japanese stop (as they have done with agency securities.)

All sorts of interesting things begin to happen now, if by interesting you mean terrible but fascinating. Falling bond prices and rising yields would make perfect sense in a U.S. dollar rally. And a U.S. dollar rally makes perfect sense if the carry trade ends and the dollar shorts cover. Speculators take profits in oil, gold, stocks and jump back into cash and the greenback. This is roughly what happened last time the wheel's came off the financial system.

Where does that leave banks and their massive new hoards of U.S. Treasury bonds? An article called "Bank Insolvency Is Not A Dead Issue" by Daniel Aaronson and Lee Markowitz shows that banks have dramatically increased their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. When you add their existing exposure to U.S. real estate (facing an Option-ARM crisis over the next twelve months) you have a huge swathe of bank collateral that could face another massive write down.

What do you think that might do the global economy? Aside from putting a few more banks out of business, it would again cut off the flow of credit to small businesses and the rest of the economy. It might again cut off the flow of bank credit from international lenders to the Big Four here in Australia. And this time, what kind of aid can the Feds really offer when their last attempt at help (exchanging Treasuries for RMBS) set the banks up for precisely the implosion they were trying to avoid?

As you can see from the chart above, banks have grown assets again with the Fed's borrowed money. You know have a freshly steaming pile of recovering asset prices supported by a thin wafer of equity capital. It's a fraud with a cherry on top. As the charts below, U.S. banks own nearly $1.5 trillion in government securities. And they are gobbling them up like there is no tomorrow.

There is always a tomorrow. But corporations and institutions live and die just like species. Only the earth abideth forever.

We reckon that the entire financial industry is still dangerously close to a species-destroying event. It's leveraged model of asset growth and debt accumulation imploded last year. But the Fed has brought it back, and like a Zombie/Frankenstein mash-up, it's here to torment us all again.

Soros told the FT this sequence of events is causing a lack of confidence in governments. "There is a general lack of confidence in currencies and a move away from currencies into real assets," he told the FT. "There is a push in gold, there's strength in oil and that is a flight from currencies."

So in the short-term, don't be surprised to see a stronger rally in the USD, which would take some of the starch out of oil and gold prices. As the dollar carry trade unwinds a bit, stock markets will fall and so will other asset classes that have zoomed up on the speculation.

But the bigger story playing out is this: the entire method by which the fiscal welfare state funds itself is blowing up. More on how this will happen and what it means tomorrow. Until then, we hope you heard the cow bell.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Rally in Stocks and Rise in Aussie Dollar is a Result of the Carry Trade
• Fed Announced it Would Buy up to $300 Billion in Treasury Bonds
• Price of Gold Communicates U.S. Monetary and Fiscal Policy is Lousy
• It Wouldn’t be a Real Bear Market Rally if it Didn’t Test Your Confidence in Your Position
• The Only Thing Really Going Down Right Now is the U.S. Dollar

But wait...what's this? The average maturity of that debt has come down from more than 5 years to only 4. And according to the Office of management and Budget, if the US continues on its present course, net interest will rise to 5% of GDP in 2019 and 10% in 2034.

And that assumes there is no big increase in interest rates...and that the economy recovers as planned. If either of those things fails to happen, the situation will degrade fast.

Imagine if the government were forced to refinance debt at double-digit interest rates - as it was in the late '70s. Net interest could go to 5% of GDP within months.

We're in a depression, not a recession. Depressions take longer to sort out. But they are also far more treacherous. Because there are always periods when things seem to be going "back to normal," only to go back down again as soon as investors turn bullish.

Richard Koo, author of The Balance Sheet Recovery, recalls how it was during Japan's long, dark passage:

"We had these false starts... The economy would begin to improve and then we'd say 'oh my god, the budget deficit is too large.' Then we'd cut fiscal stimulus and collapse again. We went through this zigzag for 15 years."

Koo understands what is going on, more or less. Companies and households are paying off debt. He and Paul Krugman believe the feds have to continue pumping money into the system or they're going to have a "lost decade," just like the Japanese.

You have to keep the stimulus money flowing "until the private sector de-leveraging is over," he says.

By our calculations, it will take 5-10 years for the private sector to de-leverage. By that time, the feds will have added trillions in debt to public finances. Since they can't finance that much from private domestic savings, and since foreigners will be wary about lending that much even if they had it, the Fed itself will have to pony up the money. This will put the dollar in further danger...along with the entire global financial system.

Koo may be right - as far as his thinking takes him. He should think a little further. The problem is debt. Too much debt in the private sector caused bear markets and a bank crisis. Too much debt in the public sector will cause big problems too - a default...and hyperinflation. Worse than a depression.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• U.S. Government Must Roll Over $3.4 Trillion in Debt Over Next Four Years
• Government Debt Bubble is What Directly Precedes Inflation
• What’s the Best Way to Get Through a Debt Crisis?
• Household Debt Represents Spending Taken From the Future
• In Europe, Banks Borrow Money and Lend it Back to the Government