Our Chairman, who art at Goldman
Blankfein be thy name
The rally's come
God's work be done
On earth as there's no fear of correction
Give us our daily gains...

Poor Goldman Sachs. Everyone is on its case. Criticizing. Carping. Jealous. Envious.

So, today we rise in defense of the Wall Street giant. Yes, the Goldmen may be shysters. But they are honest shysters...

We pick up sword and shield, ready to fight for Goldman, after reading The Financial Times. The FT has devoted a whole page to Goldman bashing. It's time someone stood up to say a kind word for the firm.

Besides, Lloyd Blankfein said he was sorry. That's right. He announced that the firm regretted its role in the world financial crisis. And if that weren't enough, he pledged half a billion dollars to helping small business through tough times.

In his apology, Blankfein mentioned that he thought Goldman was doing "God's work." That is what prompted humorists to make up the "Lloyd's Prayer," we have republished above. On the surface of it, it does seem absurd. If any group of people ever worshipped Mammon, it is the bunch that works at Goldman. Money is what makes that mare run; no one doubts it.

In 2008, the average compensation of the average Goldman employee averaged $364,000 - or more than 6 times the earnings of the average American who was not employed by Goldman. Naturally, the widespread publication of this fact caused a surge of envy. Now comes news that the average Goldman man expects to make about twice as much this year - or about $765,000. As you can imagine, this did nothing to soothe the jealous spirits. Instead, it inflamed them.

And now, everyone has Goldman in his sights. Newspaper editorials kvetch and moan. Union-organized yahoos demonstrate in front of Goldman's offices. Cartoons make fun of Blankfein. Commentators say the Goldman crew is greedy. The Rolling Stone magazine described Goldman as a "vampire squid." Saturday Night Live mocked the company. Stand up comics stock up on Goldman jokes. Even priests criticize the firm's claim to be doing 'God's work.'

The regulators cannot be far behind. It is illegal to trade on "inside information." So, when a company targets the shares of a rival, and passes its buy orders through a Wall Street firm, the traders are forbidden from trading the shares on their own account. They cannot profit from 'front running' shares, based information not yet available to the public.

Goldman clearly profits from front running. But it does it by aggregating information from clients rather than using the inside information from a single client. This gives them a "market color," rather than precise trading targets. In other words, if you have a client who sets out to acquire Acme Cement Company, you can't buy up the shares yourself in anticipation of the rise in the share prices. That information is "protected, inside information." But suppose you have two clients, each of whom targets a cement firm? You quickly get a "market color," don't you? You put two and two together. If they're both after cement makers, probably, the whole cement sector will go up. You buy cement makers, though not those that your clients are buying.

This aggregated inside information gives Goldman a big advantage. So do its close contacts with the feds. Goldman has its former operatives in key posts throughout the government. It knows what the government is doing; it has a fair idea of what the government will do next. In trading US government securities, the biggest business in the financial world, this "insider" knowledge is no doubt a handy thing to have. It doesn't hurt either that the Fed is making money available to Goldman at practically no cost. Nor, that the Fed is buying its mortgage backed securities - perhaps even ones that would be hard to unload on the private market.

These contacts and sources of 'insider' information are what George Soros has called the "hidden gifts" that Goldman enjoys...and that contribute mightily to its success.

But so what? As far as we know, Goldman holds no gun to any counterparty's head. Nor does it lie...unless you call saying things that aren't true "lying." Goldman merely says the same falsehoods as the rest of the financial industry...the things people want to hear...which almost everyone believes anyway. And is there anything wrong with taking money from the US government? Doesn't every retiree do so? Doesn't every larcenous Congressman and every conniving contractor and every shiftless welfare addict aim to do the same thing? Isn't the whole idea of government to take from someone and give to someone else? Then, why not to those who are most able to claim it? The swift...the strong...the smart...the Goldmans!

No, dear reader, we cannot criticize Goldman. Instead, we admire it. Goldman took advantage of the financial boom by selling debt and derivatives all over the world. Now, it takes advantage of the 'recovery,' by trading on its client information. And who can blame it for wanting to do business with the richest and dumbest client of all, the US government?

In God's plan, at least as we see it, the lowly are raised up. The rich...the proud...and the foolish are brought down. God deals with the meek on his own. Goldman helps him bring the boom down on the others.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Meredith Whitney and the Buy Recommendation on Goldman Sachs
• China’s Economy is Now Freer and More Competitive than the United States
• Warren Buffett is Buying Four Percent of Goldman Sachs
• Who Was the SEC Harassing Instead of Madoff?
• JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs Making Billions in Profits

A survey showed that only 1 in 10 workers say his income is going up. This is the lowest reading since 1946.

Meanwhile, the news two days ago was that homebuilding took a dive in October. Work began on 11% fewer houses than the month before. On multi-family dwellings, the figures were worse - down 35%.

Why would homebuilding go down when the economy is supposedly gathering strength? Well, builders were wondering what would happen when they finished the houses. The new house tax credit was due to expire; they weren't sure the politicians would be witless enough to renew it.

They need not have worried. Give the politicos a chance to do something stupid and they will come through every time. Since the end of October, Congress passed and President Obama signed an extension of the housing credit. Until next April, at least, first time buyers will get an $8,000 credit.

You'd think that would have revived animal spirits a bit in the residential construction industry. But today's news tells us that mortgage applications are falling - even with lower interest rates.

How come interest rates are falling? Well, here again, we see the heavy hand of the feds. The "quantitative easing" has come to a halt...that is, the Fed is no longer buying US Treasury debt (it doesn't need to). But its buying of mortgage backed securities continues. That program will last until March of next year.

Still...housing is not cooperating.

This news hasn't had much impact on Wall Street. All that can be said is that investors have seemed to hesitate for the last couple of days.

Stocks fell softly yesterday, with the Dow down only 11 points. Oil stayed at $79. Gold rose to $1,141. And the euro remained at $1.49.

Investors must still believe in what The Washington Post calls a "lukewarm recovery." It is like finding a body on the street. You feel for a pulse and discover that it has not quite reached room temperature. It is tepid... Not quite alive. Not quite dead.

Too close to the quick to bury...too close to the grave to boogaloo.

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Housing and Unemployment Are Weaknesses in the U.S. Economy
• Most People Still Think – “You Can’t Go Wrong in Property”
• Economy Free to Recover?
• Aussie Housing Market Actually Leads the U.S. by Three Years
• Take Away Stimulus Spending and You’ve Got an Economy Entering Depression

We did some thinking yesterday, on our trip to Uruguay. Why Uruguay? We thought we should have a look around. Montevideo is a cheap place to live. It's on the sea, with beaches near the downtown area. It is an old town, with many fine buildings. It is clean. It is safe. It has history too. When the English invaded Buenos Aires, the Spaniards launched a counterattack from the fortress at Montevideo and got it back.

"It looks like a nice place," we said to our local contact. "But it seems a little like a resort town out of season; it's very quiet."

We were having dinner in the best restaurant in town, next to the opera house. The restaurant was large and well fitted out. But it was almost empty. A French group sat at one table. An American group sat at another. The only other diners were sitting with your editor. Outside on the street, it was as if everyone else had been warned of an approaching tsunami; there was no one.

"Well, it's out of season all year round," our host replied. "It's a nice place to live. But it's not very lively.

"Montevideo used to be a lot richer. You can tell that just by looking at the public buildings. They're very grand. We couldn't build those places today. We don't have the money. But during the war years, Uruguay was booming. We were leading exporters of beef and grains. We're still leading exporters...but the margins are no longer there. You can make money in farming, but not enough to get rich."

We wonder what people are going to be saying a century from now.

"Yeah, Manhattan used to have the richest real estate in America...back in the financial boom. Wall Street was the center of the financial industry. People made fortunes from high-margin financial products. But then, the financial industry went into decline...and new financial centers in Shanghai and Singapore took the business."

Could New York have already passed its peak? Perhaps not quite. The papers are reporting record bonuses on Wall Street. But the story has an undertone of desperation about it...like the wild parties in Berlin in 1945, just before the Soviet Army arrived. Maybe that's why the bonuses are so high. Get it while you can! This could be the last hurrah for the US financial industry.

Private sector credit is still contracting. In fact, it's shrinking faster than at any time in the last 35 years. And this trend is not likely to change. As we keep saying - you're probably getting tired of hearing it - the private sector has 7 to 15 years of de-leveraging to do. The financial industry will be forced to downsize, along with the economy.

Wall Street's leveraged debt bombs are still blowing up. Banks are going under. As we reported yesterday, the 'second wave' of residential mortgage defaults may be just beginning. Commercial real estate debt isn't far behind...with no Fannie Mae to help the wounded or pick up the dead.

And how about all those private equity deals Wall Street financed? Of the top 10 deals from the bubble years, 6 are in trouble...and 4 have already defaulted.

The idea of private equity was that the hotshots were so smart they could take over a company, re-organize it, restructure it, and sell it back to the public market at a higher price. What they actually did was merely to load up the company with debt - using the money to pay themselves lavish fees.

And as we know...and maybe we alone know it...debt hurts. Run up enough debt and sooner or later bad things will happen. But not necessarily to the borrower!

Right now, the dollar is at a 15-month low. The speculators borrow dollars. Then, it doesn't matter what they do with them. Everything is going up against the greenback.

But that's why our Crash Alert flag is flying. Mr. Market doesn't like it when morons make money. We wouldn't be at all surprised to see these carry trades go bad in a big, big way. All of a sudden, stocks...bonds...emerging markets...commodities...and even gold...could go down against the dollar. Watch out!

The Dow rose another 20 points yesterday. It is now only 54 points below the 50% retracement level...where the bounce of 1930 peaked out.

Gold, meanwhile, held above $1,100.

As we were saying...once in a while, we think. The last few days have been so busy, we didn't have any time to think. But, now things are settling down, so we've had a chance to put our thinking cap on.

What are we thinking about?

Well, of course, we're trying to understand the basics... George Soros had the right idea: Find the story whose premise is false...and bet against it. What premise is false?

The major premise that almost everyone believes is that government economists can improve the workings of an otherwise free economy. That leads people to believe that the feds have pulled off a save...they've now got the economy well along on the road to recovery...the recovery is getting stronger as time goes by...and soon, the feds will begin to exit from their stimulus efforts.

The big question in most investors' minds is this: how quickly will the feds exit? As long as they keep up their stimulus efforts, investors expect rising prices for everything but the dollar.

Those who think the feds will be able to exit quickly believe growth will come without too much inflation. Those who think the exit will come slowly expect higher rates of inflation.

Well, guess what? The whole premise is false. From top to bottom. From beginning to end. Even the air it breathes is tainted with the smell of fraud and self-delusion.

The theory behind the recovery concept is that government spending and stimulus from the Fed has a "multiplier" effect. That is, the feds spend...the money goes into the economy...and then, the private economy multiplies the spending by growth in consumption and investment of its own. If there were no multiplier effect the whole exercise would be a waste of time, because we know that government spending in itself is a cost to an economy, not a source of real wealth. Government spending, generally, is a drag on prosperity. The Soviet Union proved that. The question remains however, can extra government spending at critical moments "prime the pump" so that it is multiplied by the private sector?

Answer: no.

"Our new research," writes economist Robert Barro in The Wall Street Journal, "shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect...the available empirical evidence does not support the idea that spending multipliers typically exceed one, and thus spending stimulus programs will likely raise the GDP by less than the increase in government spending."

Now, we turn to the current situation. Is there any evidence of growth beyond the government's own stimulus efforts? From what we can see so far, again, the answer is 'no.'

The premise of recovery/multipliers/growth/and exit is false. We want to bet against it. Tomorrow we'll talk about how.

Real economists know that there are no secrets. You work hard. You invest carefully. You save your money. That's the best you can do. There are no multipliers. There are no miracle cures. There are no easy exits from trouble.

That's why the world has little use for honest economists; they tell you what you don't want to hear. So, people turn to the phonies...the charlatans...the imposter economists who say "yes we can!"

Trouble is, they can't.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Government Debt
• Keynesians Believe Governments Have to Manage Economy in Macro-Economic Way
• Why Weren’t Economists On Top of This Thing?
• Can Government Bureaucrats do a Better Job of Allocating Capital than Free Markets?
• Have the Feds Given the Economy a Miracle Drug?

The credit crisis seems to have exploded the traditional equilibrium between cash and debt. Of course, this "equilibrium" was no such thing, as corporate cash levels have been perilously low for years...at least in the finance sector.

But corporate chieftains are becoming attentive to danger, at least for now.

"The credit crisis seems to have put fear back in their spines," Chris remarks. "The 500 largest US companies - excluding financial firms - hold the largest cash hoard as a percentage of assets since 1960. The Wall Street Journal reports today that cash hoard is nearly $1 trillion, or about 10% of total assets. That was in the second quarter, for which we have full numbers. So far in the third quarter - with 248 of the 500 firms reporting - cash has increased to 11.1% of assets.

"Cash is the financial equivalent of a big, soft pillow," Chris continues. "It helps you sleep better at night. After the credit crisis turned small balance sheet leaks into lethal holes, executive suites around the country seem determined not to let that happen again. The Wall Street Journal highlights the case of Alcoa, the big aluminum producer. It sits on $1.1 billion in cash, up 28% from a year earlier. It cut its dividend, even though it is making money. The CFO said, 'We're just going to be extremely prudent.'

"But there might be another reason why the bigwigs sit on all that cash," Chris reasons. "They might just not see many good opportunities to invest in right now. In other words, the piling up of cash in America's corporate treasuries may just mirror the weak economy."

But Chris suspects these corporations won't pile up cash forever. Eventually, they will start itching to launch takeover deals. In fact, Chris points out, "We are already seeing a pickup in takeovers and mergers. Just last week, CF Industries, the fertilizer company, upped its bid for rival Terra Industries. The new offer is worth $200 million more and is mostly cash. Also last week, Denbury Resources offered $50 per share for Encore Acquisition - about $15 in cash and the rest in stock."

So even though the overall market seems richly priced at current levels, Chris has been setting his sights on a handful of names that look to him like ideal takeover candidates. T3 Energy Services is one of his favorites. He believes this leading oilfield services company would make a good fit with the likes of National Oilwell Varco or Cameron Intl.

Tesco (TESO:nasdaq) would be another juicy target, Chris believes. The stock trades slightly below book value, only 11 times earnings, and also has a clean balance sheet. In today's edition of The Daily Reckoning, Chris provides a few other scintillating details about Tesco.

Eric Fry
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Tesco is a Buy
• Level 3 Assets Growing in All Five U.S. Investment Banks
• Equity Premium Will Be Replaced With a Tangible Asset Premium
• You Can Never Be Sure How Fabricated Income and Earnings Are These Days
• A Trader’s Market or an Investor’s Market?

Maybe it's the end of the dollar carry trade (where speculators sell risk assets). Or maybe not. Whether that little thesis turns out to be correct we'll know in due time.

In the meantime, there are some other things we might learn this week. First up is the TD Securities - Melbourne Institute Inflation Gauge. This will probably show that except for food, fuel, energy, healthcare, and housing, prices in the economy are stable and inflation is contained.

One quick note about this: there is obviously plenty of inflation in the prices you pay every day. But most consumer price indices are rigged to understate inflation, as our colleague David Evans pointed out yesterday in Canberra at the Gold Standard Institute conference in Canberra. Trimmed medians...hedonic adjustments...there's quite a bit of statistical hocus pocus going on.

Inflation is evident if you just follow the money. The returns on wealth (rent, capital gains, income from bonds) are accruing to that group that's benefitted the most from low rates. Dr. Michael Hudson called them the 'financial oligarchy' in his recent trip to Australia. This group has benefitted from inflation in the form of higher asset prices. And meanwhile, the Fed and other central banks have been able to say their policies are not inflationary because consumer prices and, more importantly, wages, aren't moving up.

Duh.

Is it really a surprise that there's no inflation in wages in a world where tens of millions of workers in emerging market economies are willing to do the same work as those in Western economies, but at much lower prices? Wage deflation is the order of the decade. Maybe the century. You generally won't find inflation in consumer prices or wages. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

So what will the Fed and the Reserve Bank do this week? The RBA meets tomorrow and everyone is expecting another rate rise. The Aussie dollar has all but priced it in. The RBA also puts out its commodity price index week and its always exciting quarterly statement on monetary policy which we just can't wait to pore over for signs of continued credit and debt growth in the Australian economy.

Westpac will also post results this week. If it follows the lead of NAB and ANZ, it will report higher-than-expected bad debts, but claim the bad debt cycle has peaked. Don't be so sure, though. And why not?

Well, over the weekend, CIT Group Inc. (NYSE:CIT), with US$71 billion in assets, filed for the fifth-largest bankruptcy in American history. CIT is the latest victim of the credit crunch, which obviously still isn't over. It's a commercial lender to small businesses that's been unable to refinance its debt. As a non-deposit taking bank holding company, it has to finance asset growth through securitisation and borrowing, both of which are still pretty hard to do these days.

CIT's Chapter 11 allows it to restructure under the protection of the courts. Bondholders might make out okay. The U.S. Treasury, though, has already lost $2.3 billion in TARP money it put into the firm. And the biggest losers are the small businesses who will no longer have financing. That's bad news for the real economy.

As deposit taking institutions, the Big Four Aussie banks are not nearly as vulnerable to this kind of crisis as CIT obviously was. But as we showed last week, Aussie banks still rely on quite a bit of short-term borrowing in the wholesale funds market abroad, borrowing money from foreigners to financing lending here. That's always going to be a weakness.

Hold everything!

Last week we warned that a result of the Fed's low rates is that U.S. banks have stocked up on U.S. Treasury bonds and notes to stabilise their balance sheets. We warned that this could put the banks at risk again, IF the value of those bonds was slashed by market forces. You'd get another bank collateral wipe-out which could, if large enough, wipe out equity. Insolvency becomes an issue again.

But don't underestimate the ability of the bond bubble to go on longer than anyone thinks. The Feds meet this week and will probably not change a thing. Its formal program to buy Treasury bonds and mortgage backed securities with newly created central bank reserves (quantitative easing) can always be extended. So should bond bears like your editor (who agrees that U.S. Treasury bonds are a great short) be wary?

Yes!

The reason is a new regulation passed by Britain's Financial Services Authority which lays out new liquidity rules for bank assets. Rolfe Winkler has the story in his blog. The short version is that the FSA may require banks to own a certain percentage of assets that can quickly be liquidated to raise cash if need be. Lower credit quality assets (junk bonds or lower rated corporate bonds) might not qualify.

What that means - if you read between the lines - is that the only assets which would meet the new liquidity requirements from the FSA are sovereign government bonds. Now maybe this does make bank assets more liquid. But we wouldn't say owning more government bonds makes bank assets any safer, or improves the capital position of the financial sector.

What it DOES do is give the government a way to force new bond issues down the throats of banks. Rather than having to find creditors among the high-saving emerging market nations, governments in the UK and the US would have a captive market in their own financial sector. The banks would gradually gorge themselves on sovereign government debt, provided Moody's or Fitch or Standard and Poor's didn't downgrade the credit ratings of the US and the UK.

It sure looks like another move toward the nationalisation of the financial sector, although in a very clever way. And the banks probably don't mind that much right now. Trading government bonds with new Fed money was a virtually risk-free trade that propped up bank profits in the first half of the year. It's a good trade.

But in the bigger picture, as Nial Ferguson and Ken Rogoff mentioned this weekend, this means that the financial crisis may soon become a sovereign debt crisis. So far, the liabilities of financial firms have been transferred to the public sector balance sheet. But this has not solved the problem. It's merely moved it to a larger stage on which it must play out.

As we mentioned in our remarks yesterday at the gold show, we believe this marks the beginning of the end of the Super Cycle in paper money. A sovereign debt crisis is the same as saying that the funding model for the fiscal welfare state is broken. Only in this case, there is no organisation large enough to bail out the fiscal welfare state. What does that mean? More on the consequences, and the opportunities tomorrow.

"This is the first time I've been in Canberra," we began our remarks yesterday. "I spent most of last night trying to figure out what it reminded me of. And then it came to me. It reminded me of Washington D.C., and not in a good way. I spent four years in college living in DC. Both cities make you feel like you've stepped onto a very orderly and sterile brothel."

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Biggest Factor Affecting Consumer Price Inflation is Growth in Bank Credit
• Hyperinflation and the Dollar’s Monetary Destiny
• Everyone We Know Expects a Fairly Quick Up-move in Inflation
• The Asian Banks Have Finally Been Heard From
• Australia to Borrow as Much as $300 billion

Yesterday, the Dow soared over they 10,000 mark. If it keeps going at this rate - up 144 points yesterday - it will soon equal the post-'29 bounce. All we need is two more days and we're there.

Oil rose over $75. Gold closed the day at $1,064, after a big move to the upside over the last few days. And the dollar fell - to just $1.49 per euro.

The reason for yesterday's big move is announced on the front page of almost every financial rag this morning:

"JPMorgan profits lift the Dow."

JPMorgan, the Wall Street firm that was bailed out by the feds a year ago, reported income of $3.6 billion in the 3rd quarter. With that kind of profit in the financial sector, it won't be long before the whole economy is running red hot, right?

That's what the papers seem to think. The International Herald Tribune says the bank's profits are just another sign that a major recovery is underway. Investors seem to believe it, too. "Earnings optimism," is behind the buying, says a broker.

But is it true? Is the real economy growing, expanding, and making money? Let's look:

"Still on the job, at half the pay," is a headline in The New York Times. It tells the story of an airline pilot whose position has been downgraded and whose pay has been cut in half. The fellow is now earning $30,000 a year rather than $60,000. He is not counted in the unemployment statistics but he has much less spending power than he had a year ago. Practically all his discretionary spending power has been wiped out.

The NYT:

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not track pay cuts, but it suggests they are reflected in the steep decline of another statistic: total weekly pay for production workers, pilots among them, representing 80 percent of the work force. That index has fallen for nine consecutive months, an unprecedented string over the 44 years the bureau has calculated weekly pay, capturing the large number of people out of work, those working fewer hours and those whose wages have been cut. The old record was a two-month decline, during the 1981-1982 recession.

"What this means," said Thomas J. Nardone, an assistant commissioner at the bureau, "is that the amount of money people are paid has taken a big hit; not just those who have lost their jobs, but those who are still employed."

All over the country incomes are falling. Officially, about 15 million people have no jobs. Many others have given up looking for jobs. And now, for the first time ever, more than half of those who lose their jobs run out of unemployment benefits before they find another one. Many others never get any benefits at all, because their jobs are not eliminated, they are merely cut back...either in the number of hours they can work or in the compensation itself.

Yesterday, we reported that Baby Boomers are actually working longer hours...but earning less. The boomers are in an especially tight spot. They've got only a few years to save money for their retirements...and it won't be easy in this slumpy economy.

And we reported the plight of the callow youths...whom BusinessWeek has called the "Lost Generation." Their unemployment rate is twice the national average. They're at the bottom of the labor pool, and unless the economy begins to expand they'll have a very hard time finding the bottom rung of the ladder.

Take all the people who are unemployed...who are working fewer hours...who have given up looking for work...whose positions have been downgraded...and add the family members who depend on them for their daily bread...and you have nearly a quarter of the population. How can companies expect to increase sales and profits with a quarter of the population forced to cut back severely?

They can't. The earnings numbers are misleading. Most of the earnings that we've seen come from cost cutting, not growing top-line sales. How do businesses cut costs? By trimming employees! In other words, the earnings figures we're seeing are contributing to the slump...not alleviating it.

You can see how, in the short run this can lead to increased profits. But it can't go on for long. The more businesses cut costs the more their sales go down, because consumers (who are also their employees) have less money to spend.

And according to a Wall Street Journal report, with too much capacity...and falling sales, businesses "are hesitant to reinvest such profits into their businesses."

That's why business investment, as we reported two days ago, is falling even faster than sales. And it's why people who are looking for a job are going to have a hard time finding one.

How did JPMorgan earn so much money in such a bad economy?

We begin with a bit of skepticism. After all, we know consumers aren't borrowing. Consumer credit is going down. So they can't be making money there. And we know businesses aren't expanding, so they can't be making money by lending to corporations either.

Wait a minute. JPMorgan is a bank, right? Don't banks make money by lending money? Yes...that's what we thought. Then who is JPMorgan lending to?

The only net borrower is the government.

The Financial Times confirms that Morgan's "US consumer businesses continued to bleed, with its credit card unit losing $700 million in the quarter and its retail bank...barely breaking even." It wrote off $7 billion in uncollectible consumer loans - more than twice as much as last year.

Its mortgage group lost money too. And it surely didn't make any money helping US business build new factories and expand payrolls.

So what does that leave? All the components of the business that have to do with the real economy are losing money or barely breaking even. What's left?

The news reports attribute the huge profits to "trading." But trading is a broad category. And our guess is that if you look more closely you will find that JPMorgan made its money the old fashioned way - by ripping off the government.

'You mean, JPMorgan took the feds' money and now is showing huge profits because it is just lending money back to the people they got it from?'

Yes. But not only that. They're also probably speculating on gold, oil and stocks...along with everyone else. The feds' money has pushed all these speculative trades into profit.

'And now, they're going to pay themselves big bonuses, aren't they?'

Yes. The papers tell us, "bonuses explode on Wall Street to a new record."

'So, then...when the next crisis comes...they won't have any money in the banks, will they?'

Nope.

'So they'll have to get bailed out again.'

Yep.

'But maybe the next time the feds will wise up and just let them go broke.'

Not a chance. Wall Street has plenty of friends in the highest places in Washington. A report in today's media tells us that "Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds." The aides earn about $150,000 for their government work. On the side, they advise the financial firms they're supposed to be regulating, and get paid millions.

Such a nice relationship. They make sure Wall Street prospers - even when it does stupid things. Wall Street makes sure they prosper - even when they advise the government to do stupid things. And when their gig is over in Washington they go back to Wall Street where they earn millions more. America's centers of political and financial power have a cozy little game going. It won't end any time soon. It's too profitable for both of them.

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs Making Billions in Profits
• Federal Government is Sabotaging a Genuine Recovery
• Bear Markets Do Not End With Stocks Still Trading at Nearly 20 Times Earnings
• Should You Buy Stocks Now to Take Advantage of Bull Market?
• Can a Consumer Economy Boom If Consumers Have Less Money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time,

Bill Bonner
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

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

But first, we were poring over the reader e-mail last night. Many readers think we are being unfair, unconstructive, and un-brief in our critiques of Ben Bernanke, bankers, Kevin Rudd, and other economic know-nothing from across the political spectrum. So let us take a moment to be as clear as possible: policy makers and politicians are morons.

We're told Ben Bernanke is the right man to get us out of the trouble we're in. But isn't Ben Bernanke the man who got us into the trouble to begin with? Didn't he and Alan Greenspan lower interest rates so much they created a worldwide credit boom that is now deflating? Wasn't it their policies that enabled banks and Wall Street to securitise commercial and residential mortgages and send them far and wide into the balance sheets of the world as "assets"? And aren't those "assets" now falling in value, continuing to wipe out equity at the household and corporate level?

It is clear that politicians are still slovenly serving the interests of their corporate masters in the financial world. And it is clear that the financial world has every reason to encourage government stimulus, loan guarantees, and lower interest rates. This keeps the great leveraged credit machine of the Financial Economy motoring. And that machine keeps the financial industry in tall cotton.

Besides, the limits on executive compensation are window-dressing for public (voter) consumption. With bonuses limited by statute, we reckon more compensation for the financial industry will move back to stock option grants. That means for the financial industry to preserve its privileged status, stock prices have to move higher. And nothing enables that like credit. Borrow money and plough it back into stocks to line your pocket. Does that sound like something that may be happening?

Our point is that this whole interlude since the collapse of Lehman Brothers is an attempt to preserve the status quo ante. If the tools of monetary and fiscal policy (which are clumsy and theoretically flawed anyway) exist to make the financial and estate industry thrive, the real economy will continue to get screwed. We'd argue this recent recovery is nothing but an attempt to resuscitate the money-shuffling arrangement that was so profitable up until late 2007.

At least some people agree. "A UN think tank on trade has warned that the current financial market rebound is not a 'real recovery' and that any world economic growth recorded in 2010 was unlikely to exceed 1.6 per cent," reports today's Australian.

"The depth of the recession has been so important that of course there will be a rebound ... but we still do not see that this is a real recovery," says Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). "The actual increase in the commodities prices is mainly driven by appetite for more risk," he says. More on this in just a second.

UNCTAD's Chief economist Heiner Flassbeck, said, "the markets had been fuelled by financial speculation that in turn was driven by expectations of recovery. 'But anticipation of recovery is just a fiction, it is not there.'"The UNCTAD report also noted that, "Tumbling profits in the real economy, previous over-investment in real estate and rising unemployment will continue to constrain private consumption and investment for the foreseeable future."

Hmm. Maybe UNCTAD is reading the Daily Reckoning. But if not, for those who have eyes to see it, the truth is plainly in sight. You cannot correct the global imbalances of a leveraged boom with more leverage. But let's tackle on specific aspect of the report that suggests commodity prices may again be the subject of financial speculation. Is it true?

Frankly it's hard to say. We're more confident that profits in the real economy - once you take away the effect of credit and government money - are regressing to an historic mean. Some companies will make more. Some less. But the average will be lower.

However we did see one interesting chart yesterday from our trader Gabriel Andre. We were discussing with him whether the euphoria about Australia - the dollar, the stock market, real estate, and commodities - was suspiciously reminiscent of June 2007. You know, right before the ore hit the fan. Is all this feel-good news a sign of worry?

We decided to tackle the question with a picture. It's the chart you see below. The chart tracks the performance of Worley Parsons - a proxy for infrastructure and capital spending in the mining industry - versus the CRB commodity index. We are asking a question with this chart. The question is, does a peak in Worley's stock presage a downturn in the resource sector generally?

Click to enlarge

Gabriel writes that, "The level of $30 looks as a strong resistance for the stock. It's a previous low where it bounced back several times in 2007 and 2008. The recent action suggests the $30 may be a new high, finding resistance, especially because the correlation is obvious with the CRB and the CRB has already started correcting.

"If you pay attention to the details on the chart, it looks like the correlation is stronger on the downside. Worley can fall when the CRB rises. But when the CRB falls, Worley generally falls too. If you were asking me to turn this observation into a trading idea, it would be to short-sell WOR at the current levels with a stop-loss at $31. A correction towards $20 is possible.

Gabriel has been working on a system to trade these chart patterns in ASX 200 stocks for the last four months. Look for more information on that later this week. And in the meantime, keep in mind that if Worley is a proxy for the bull market in Aussie resource stocks, the charts are suggesting that all the positive momentum since March may be reaching its limit. When you check in the turn down on the CRB, you should be prepared for the possibility of a correction in commodity prices too.

If that happens, it would be perfectly consistent with the tenor of the news these days. As excited as we are ourselves about certain resource projects, the level of bullish consensus about commodity prices and corporate earnings is a warning sign. But - this is important - that doesn't mean you have to head for the hills.

As Gabriel's work is showing, you can use these kinds of signals to take profits before rallies expire. It can also save you from mis-timing your entry into a blue chip share. And ultimately, it should be able to help you identify the best time to get back into the share, after the inevitable correction has done its work.

We meant to write more about gold, sound money, and unsound economic thinking. But that will have to wait until tomorrow. Until then...

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• CRB Index Correction Likely to Go Further
• Worley Parsons (ASX: WOR) Announces Pilbara Solar Energy Project
• Note to Australia: Buy Resources, Not Banks
• Government Preparing Another Stimulus
• Recovery for the Real Estate Market

And the truth is, when adjusted for inflation, the market didn't break even again until 1960. (If you're a "buy-and-hold" investor, you MUST account for inflation. It is the single biggest "invisible" tax in our wonderful Fed managed economy.)

But before people could get too happy with making money again, along came President Johnson and the "Great Society." I don't know who it was so great for - the market began crashing again in '66. Once again, adjusted for inflation, it didn't get back to breakeven for another 30 years.

So, 30 years from the Great Depression to the Great Society. Then 30 years from the Great Society to the Great Depression II. Each of the peaks resulted in 10-15 years of declines. Of course, they didn't fall straight down. That's the "trick" of the whole deal.

Each rally draws in a few more people, a little more money, until there are no suckers left. Then when the bottom hits, it has takes 15-20 years to "recover."

It will take a very long time to recover from what we've been hit with: Exxon/Mobil lost two-thirds of its profits... that's 66%! The "World's Company," GE, saw a 47% collapse in profits. Toyota, the recession- impervious carmaker, posted its largest yearly loss EVER and is looking at losses this year, too. Insurers have been hit. Computer giants have taken a whacking. Even Disney is down over 25% in the third quarter.

These are not "bumps in the road." They are "driving off a cliff." By some estimates, inflation-adjusted earnings are down 90% in the last 20 months.

We are now in just the second year of this disaster. We are witnessing an almost perfect copy of the first Great Depression. And there are more nasty little secrets in the economy, waiting like ticking time bombs to explode. We will see more businesses in trouble, more banks failing, more foreclosures and more commercial real estate losses.

At the end of June alone, there were over 5,300 commercial properties in the United States in default. That's more than double the number from the end of 2008 - and there are still six months to count. Still think American companies are recovering? What will a 300% rise in commercial defaults do for jobs? Profits? Banks?

So don't let the recovery pundits fool you, even though they're out in force.

No doubt you've heard the optimists: "The Recession is over." "The Recovery has begun." "Better get in on the ground floor now if you hope to recover all that retirement money you lost last year."

Just look at the evidence, they say:

• Markets up 50%. In the greatest bull run since the Great Depression, stock indices are forging higher. The numbers are swelling. Ride the wave!
• Housing numbers are turning north - Over the past six months, there have been some the fall in some housing numbers are slowing, and some have turned up. Building permits. Existing home sales. New home sales. New housing starts. Pending home sales. Hmmm... nice!
• Manufacturing looks like it's exploding. Earlier this week, the Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index posted a stronger- than-expected rise at 52.9. Well above expectations, and well into the 50+ territory that signals expansion. Looking better and stronger than it has in 2 years. It would be a mistake to bet against it!

But you probably know what I'm going to say right now: Don't believe a word of it!

No market goes up forever. Isn't that one of the first lessons we learn when chasing a bull market?

This one is no different. Could it go higher? Sure. But just how far can you stretch a rubber band? Eventually, it is going to snap back.

And, as it happens, we're heading right into "snapback" season.

Historically, the month of September is the worst month for stocks. Hands down. Indices fall more in this month on average than in any other month of the year.

In fact, the S&P has declined in 11 of the past 20 Septembers. You may be inclined to say, "That's not so impressive." But an average decline of 10 points is something worth noting. Additionally, 40% of those falls consisted of declines that were 75-125 points. That's huge. No other month has such an anomaly. And it seems to me that this September may be ripe for the picking.

In fact, the first day of September was a real whopper. And Monday (although technically an August day) was not so august for US equities. Thus, as the calendar turns over, we have two days in the down column.

But as bad as September is, October has the reputation for being a real bloodbath. It certainly possesses a number of the largest down and crash days. But in order for a crash of monumental proportions to take place, there has to be some lofty level from which to fall.

I get physically sick when people tell me how they are moving (what's left of their money) back into equities. I try to reason with them; I try to warn them. It breaks my heart to see pensioners barely getting by. You remember all the drama from recent years, how we were told that the elderly were forced to choose between food and medicine? Do you remember the seniors who were reportedly sharing their cat's food so they could buy their prescriptions?

And that was during the go-go boom years. I cringe when I think of what lies ahead for them.

Will it start this fall? Has the band stretched far enough? Has Wall Street suckered in all the money that will venture out into the street? That's all they're after. Draw everyone out of the woods. Get all those who believe that it's time to buy and hold into the game again. A 50% rally? Child's play! This time the Dow is headed for 18,000!

Better tread carefully. This is without question the area of thinnest ice. One misstep by the government, a foolish line slip or a negative surprise, and the entire "recovery" falls like a house of cards.

Keep your money, and your exits, close... and don't be afraid to take profit.

Regards,

Bill Jenkins
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• September is the Best Month for Gold
• Should You Buy Stocks Now to Take Advantage of Bull Market?
• Dumb Money Eyes Stock Market While Smart Money Watches Economy
• Equity Premium Will Be Replaced With a Tangible Asset Premium
• We Expect No Recovery from the Economy

The "old normal" is the way things were before they fall apart. Nearly everyone would like to believe that nothing has changed all that much since September of 2007. Sure, there was a massive stock market crash and a serious blow to confidence in the global financial system. But all of that is ancient history!

In the "old normal" view - preached by politicians left and right and amplified by a compliant media and a smarting financial industry - you should go back to doing what you were doing before. Have a short memory. Buy stocks automatically because they always go up. Get a mortgage and buy a house, perhaps even a second one. Spend money. The government will make more.

There are some key problems with the old normal. These problems were exposed in the last two years. But they are being swept under the proverbial rug of rising stock prices. Those problems include too much household debt, unaffordable house prices, and an entire economy geared to consumption over production.

But all that is changing, says Bill Gross of PIMCO. In his latest note to clients, Gross says we have entered a world of slower growth. This makes sense to us, given what we said earlier this week. The growth in the world's GDP over the last twenty years has been boosted by cheap credit and cheap energy.

Those two forces accelerated the depletion of natural resources. And with cheap credit anyway, you saw the birth of securitisation and dervitisation, in which bundles of debts became tradeable assets, sold to investors by Wall Street firms (which then loaded up on these assets relative to equity with leverage, sowing the seeds of their own share price demise).

Gross says we are entering the era of DDR - deleveraging, deglobalisation, and re-regulation. He writes that, "All of those three in combination, to us at PIMCO, means that if you are a child of the bull market, it's time to grow up and become a chastened adult; it's time to recognize that things have changed and that they will continue to change for the next - yes, the next 10 years and maybe even the next 20 years."

"We are heading into what we call the New Normal, which is a period of time in which economies grow very slowly as opposed to growing like weeds, the way children do; in which profits are relatively static; in which the government plays a significant role in terms of deficits and reregulation and control of the economy; in which the consumer stops shopping until he drops and begins, as they do in Japan (to be a little ghoulish), starts saving to the grave."

If Gross is right, what does this mean for Australians? For starters, there is the danger that growing government deficits could push up interest rates. If Gross is right, larger government deficits could become a staple feature of the economy. If the Australian government insists on maintaining its stimulus measures, we're pretty sure it will push interest rates up.

Treasury Secretary Ken Henry disagrees, probably. In a recent speech, Henry said that even though global capital flows between developing and industrialised countries were rebalancing in favour of the developing world, Australia might see a net increase in capital flows because it's such a nice place to invest in. If that were the case, interest rates would remain low as global capital poured into Aussie assets, including the dollar and all that debt being sold by the Australian Office of Financial Management.

Maybe the Secretary is right. But yesterday's trade figures would give us a bit of fright. Australia reported a$1.55 billion goods and services deficit in July. It was the highest deficit in the last 14 months and nearly three times the size of the June figure. But what does it really mean?

Well, it means the government stimulus kept people spending, whether it was good for them or not. This led to a 4% increase in imports and a decline in exports (in both volumes and dollar figures). There were two interesting nuggets in the data one big takeaway.

The first nugget is that capital goods imports were up by 5%. This isn't a bad thing. If you can turn new capital goods into new production and profits and employment, it's actually pretty good, although it does contribute to the deficit. The second nugget is that petroleum products imports were up by 21%.

Australia is well on its way to becoming a chronic net importer of refined fuels. When you couple this with declining domestic oil production, you get a country that is highly dependent on oil imports, which is not a good place to be. Here's a thought: why not convert Aussie cars to LPG and use some of that massive new gas from Gorgon to power Aussie cars for the next 50 years?

The big takeaway is that the economy is achieving growth in the same "old normal" way, with consumer spending on imports exceeding the volume and value of Australia's mineral and metal exports. It's astounding. The "old normal" way of thinking is still firmly in place.

Gross says that, "Our world, and the world's world, is changing significantly, leading to slower growth accompanied by a redefined public/private partnership." But he points out that the slower growth might be better for some countries than others. Gross reached five "strategic conclusions" which you'll find below.

1. Global policy rates will remain low for extended periods of time.
2. The extent and duration of quantitative easing, term financing and fiscal stimulation efforts are keys to future investment returns across a multitude of asset categories, both domestically and globally.
3. Investors should continue to anticipate and, if necessary, shake hands with government policies, utilizing leverage and/or guarantees to their benefit.
4. Asia and Asian-connected economies (Australia, Brazil) will dominate future global growth.
5. The [U.S.] dollar is vulnerable on a long-term basis.

There is some good news and some bad news in those conclusions for Australia. The good news? Gross reckons Asia-connected commodity producers are going to benefit from "future growth." And the bad news?

We reckon there will be an interval between the old normal and the new normal. Call it the "new bad," after the first bad of the last eighteen months. This "new bad" will see a second round of falling asset prices and lower growth as government stimulus plans falter and companies and households are forced to engage in more re-balancing of the balance sheet. And frankly, it looks like it's starting this month.

Gold moved back up near US$1,000 overnight. This is one indication that risk-averse assets might start getting a bid again in the "new bad." And we might even see another strange period of U.S. dollar strength on deep pessimism about global growth. But that is far too complicated to explain in the little space that's left this Friday. So we'll leave it to Monday! Until then...

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• We Do Not Live in Normal Times
• New Trend in the Market: Sell Bonds and Buy Commodities
• US Dollar is Getting Trashed
• Keynesian Economists Bluff in Global Economic Gamble
• Unemployment Rate at a Five Year High