The Divergent Paths of Growth and Human Progress

Reddit

Oil down to $91 a barrel. Stocks down again yesterday…with a loss of 65 points on the Dow. The 10-year note yield dropped to 2.90…

…and gold? The yellow metal lost $32.

What to make of it?

We don’t know any better than anyone else. But we have a feeling that the ‘stocks are cheap’ crowd have yet to discover how cheap stocks can become. And the ‘inflation is around the corner’ crowd is going to look around the corner and not see much coming. And the ‘bonds will crash when the Fed stops buying’ crowd will be surprised too. QE2 ends in about a week. If bonds were going to crash you’d think bond investors would have begun to sell by now. What are they, stupid?

Instead, bonds are becoming more expensive. It’s gold, stocks and real estate that are becoming cheaper.

So far, these are not even trends. It’s too early for that. They’re just guesses. But they could turn out to be good guesses.

Because the one thing this market has not fully reckoned with is the Great Correction. All this ‘recovery’ talk has masked the real, underlying trend. That is this: we’re correcting 60 years’ worth of credit expansion. How far? How much? How fast? We don’t know…but households are not spending like they used to. So, it doesn’t make sense that businesses should be worth what they used to be worth…or that people should have the jobs they used to have…or that economic policy should work the way it used to work.

That much is obvious.

But we’ve been making the point, this week, that the Great Correction might be part of something much bigger. Real GDP growth slowed to medieval levels in Japan after 1989 and in the US 10 years later. Japan has not added a single new job in 20 years; America has not added a single new full time job in over 10.

Why?

Well, no one really knows. The explanation might be a simple one. After a big bull market came a big bear market. In both Japan and the US, the authorities decided to fight the downside of the financial cycle…wasting trillions of dollars and preventing the economy from healing itself. This resulted in a long period of stagnation.

In the last century, the political authorities in Russia and China caused real GDP to go backward for 70 and 30 years respectively. Couldn’t central financial planning achieve the same perverse effects in the US and Japan today? Maybe.

Or, maybe it is something more profound. Yesterday, we looked at what an economic flop the Internet Age turned out to be. Since the introduction of the worldwide web growth rates have gone down, not up. While the web has certainly made a lot of things more efficient, and made a lot of people rich, it has not led to growth.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe we’ve had enough of growth. Maybe we’re now more concerned with efficiency…time saving…and leisure. But that doesn’t do much for the 25 million people who lack decent, full-time jobs in America. And it doesn’t do much for the millions who struggle to pay their mortgages, while house prices go down every month.

The Internet may be a great thing, but it is not like the discovery of fire. When ancient man discovered fire it gave him an opportunity for above-trend growth. All of a sudden, he was able to use calories that did not come from his own digestive system. He moved into colder areas. His numbers increased (we imagine.)

Every major advance for mankind has been made possible by using more energy. First, he used the energy from wild plants and animals – eating them; converting them to useful calories. Then, he found that he could grow the plants that he wanted…and domesticate the animals that were most useful. This further increased the number of calories available to him. Human populations grew again.

Then, in the 18th and 19th centuries, he got his biggest break ever. He discovered that he could use coal and oil – thereby drawing on energy that had been condensed and stocked up by the earth itself. This gave him a huge advantage over other animals. It allowed his numbers to soar. It increased GDP growth rates from almost negligible to over 5%. Finally, he went forth and multiplied so much that it looked like even these new advances could not keep up with him.

But there are limits to everything. After two centuries it may be that the easy, accessible and cheap sources of fossil fuel – at least of oil – have been exploited. It may be too that the human population has expanded to the point where further increases will be costly and difficult. It could be that the advanced economies – those that got onto oil first – have already squeezed most of the growth juice out of it. That is, perhaps they have reached the point where further growth will be slow, incremental, and expensive…just as it was through most of human history?

As we noted yesterday, all the great technological advances happened at least a half a century ago. They all involved new and better ways to use fossil fuel. Since then, the only big advance has been the Internet…and it looks like a dud from a growth point of view.

If this is so…perhaps we are not doomed to a “lost decade,” as the papers warn. Perhaps the whole century will be lost. We have lost one decade already.

And more thoughts…

Are people turning against the zombies?

Here’s a report, from The Telegraph, that describes the mixed-up, confusing scene in Greece:

Families swelled the ranks of those camping permanently in the square, some carrying children on their shoulders.

“It’s for my children that I have found a voice,” said Yiannis, a taxi driver with five children. “They face a bleak future unless they can get educated and get out of Greece but I want them to know that we didn’t just give up and accept this disaster – that at least I put up a fight.”

Some groups were notable in their absence – there were no demonstrators marching under union banners after crowds turned against them last week labeling them “traitors”.

“Part of the problem is the huge number of public sector workers who enjoy special privileges while the rest of us can’t find jobs,” said one 27-year-old graduate.

“I have been unemployed for two years and hold no illusions that I will find a job soon. I am trapped living with my parents with no independence. There has been mismanagement on so many levels and now we pay the price.”

*** Here’s another thing that has gone wrong in the 21st century – the stock market. The last 10 years have produced real rates of return that are the worst ever. If you’d put in money a decade ago you’d have less real money now than you did then.

And wait…here’s another paradox. Efficiency may make businesses more profitable. But, when you’re on the bust side of the boom-bust teeter- totter, it could also make them less valuable. Here, Mish Shedlock explains why:

Negative Annualized Stock Market Returns for the Next 10 Years or Longer? It’s Far More Likely Than You Think

Market cheerleaders keep ratcheting up expected earnings, failing to note that much of the recent earnings growth is simply not sustainable.

Reasons for Unsustainable Earnings Growth

  • Much of the recent earnings growth is directly related to federal stimulus that will eventually end.
  • Much of the earnings in the financial sector are a mirage, based on assets not marked-to-market and insufficient loan loss reserves. The Fed and the FASB have repeatedly postponed rules changes for the benefit of banks and other financial institutions.
  • Earnings in both the financial and nonfinancial sectors have margins outside historical norms, based on very low headcounts and outsourcing.

Please consider the following snip from the Sitka Pacific 2010 Annual Review.

Depending on how closely you follow the financial markets, it may be surprising to learn that profits are at new highs even though stock prices, as measured by the S&P 500, are still 20% below their highs. In other words, new highs in profits haven’t translated into new highs in stock prices. If we go back even further, after-tax corporate profits soared 175% from the first quarter of 2000 through the second quarter of 2010. However, during that same time, stock prices fell roughly 15%.

In fact, there is nothing novel about a period of falling stock prices and rising earnings. Since the end of World War II, corporate profits have more or less trended continuously higher, with only minor interruptions during recessions. However, stock prices have gone through long periods in which they trended sideways or down, even though earnings continued to rise. From 1966 to 1980 after-tax corporate earnings rose 244%, but the price of the S&P 500 rose only 18% during that period. In contrast, earnings grew only 112% during the next 14 years from 1980 to 1994, but the S&P 500 rose 327% over that time.

Although very short-term returns are influenced by corporate earnings, beyond the short-term it is not trends in earnings but valuations and trends in valuations that determine stock market returns. In short, when valuations are low and increasing, long-term stock market returns are high. When valuations are high and decreasing, long-term stock market returns are low – even negative at times of peak valuations.

Regards,

Bill Bonner
For Daily Reckoning Australia

Bill Bonner

Bill Bonner

Best-selling investment author Bill Bonner is the founder and president of Agora Publishing, one of the world's most successful consumer newsletter companies. Owner of both Fleet Street Publications and MoneyWeek magazine in the UK, he is also author of the free daily e-mail The Daily Reckoning.
Bill Bonner

Latest posts by Bill Bonner (see all)

Reddit

Comments

  1. “It’s for my children that I have found a voice,” said Yiannis, a taxi driver with five children. “They face a bleak future unless they can get educated and get out of Greece but I want them to know that we didn’t just give up and accept this disaster – that at least I put up a fight.”

    Hey Yiannis, why do you think Greece will suddenly be incapable of sustaining human life after thousands of years, many of them as the cultural, philosophical and intellectual centre of the world? Just because of an arbitrary concept called money? Surely Greece can sustain quite a few people living an agrarian life? I would say your children face a bleak future if they get educated in how to “sit in a cubicle” and leave Greece. The only meaningful future for them is an agrarian one in the Greek Hinterland.

    Nathan Chattaway
    June 27, 2011
    Reply
  2. How about a lost millenium? it took Europe about 1300 years to build a wagon wheel as well as Rome built one during the Empire. Same for road construction. It may be a while before its worthwhile buying another rental!

    Reply
  3. Would somebody smart here explain for the plebs why great technological advantages must necessarily involve “new and better ways to use fossil fuel”.
    If it is, say, nuclear energy or renewable, can this not provide a technological advantage? If the innovation involves actually travelling less and accomplishing more “from home”, does this not count?
    Should we be dissatisfied with the Internet’s rate of job creation, if
    the US outsourced most of its manufacturing and still retained high employment levels until recently? or should we say WWW made it possible to employ millions of Chinese who otherwise would’ve languished in their collective farms?

    Reply
  4. SV….It takes lots of energy to convert raw materials, such as iron ore, into shiny new cars, ipods and glistening new cities. If/when energy production declines we will get less bang for our buck….less car, less city and less new gadgets. Wind mills and solar panels just wont bridge the gap. Partly because it takes a heap of fossil fuels to make windmills and solar panels. Nuclear looked like a possibility until the fukushima hit the fan! What happens next?… we wait and see.

    Reply
  5. Bang on the money there sv. People don’t appreciate all the behind the scenes energy requirements that fossil fuels deliver. Most of the so called renewables at the moment have a huge indirect fossil fuel subsidy and their real cost will not be apparent until fossil fuel prices rise sharply.

    Reply
  6. energy is a pretty big debate to have. theres plenty of energy, its the capture storage and conversion and the economics of all that. plenty of solar energy, even if we have to build Darth Vader’s Death Star (Solar version) and beam it down here. sure, fossil fuels are used to make the showcase ‘green’ energy machines, but once they have paid for that, its all free, with a bit of maintenance and depreciation, so its not all a big drag. nulear, given fukushima, is, if we are not all deluded fools, on hold again – until they come up with a much, much, better way. (and the required proof is mich higher now).
    then again, if these disasters are deliberate (I wont go into details) then we can expect birth rates to plummet ( mutated feutuses and lower fertility) and the population pressures to plemmet. a partial solution, but probably not worth the ‘civil unrest’.
    we will see. interesting times.
    and AGW could turn out to be BS (everything else we are told is, IMO) , and geo-morphic oil might be found deep down in abundance (need better ways to handle the ‘conventional’ pollution that we all put up with now, though you could hardly call BP in the Gulf merely pollution).
    our way of measuring things could change (right you are SV).. where’s the middle class welfare to NOT have lots of kids?, for instance. but will we need again to have 10 for 2 to survive? is complex, but the BS artists at the top need to be weeded out, and also ideally the morans who never will learn (maybe we need a new religion to replace gross materialism and endless growthism).

    Reply
  7. I sometimes wonder if anyone at all has ever read the WWF Living Planet Report. Human footprint exceeds planetary capacity. Footprint contraction will re-establish the balance, voluntarily or otherwise. There is no techno fix for this. Clean energy is not the solution. Excessive technological deployment, fuelled and facilitated by exploitation of fossil fuels has created the footprint overshoot, resource depletion and ecosystem pollution that plagues us today. More of the same can not be the solution. Future technological development has a place and should be embraced, but we must simultaneously contract the footprint. Inventing a better Lexus is technological development. Building several million of them is not. It’s mere commercial exploitation of mindless demand. What we need is a little more humility and a lot less hubris.

    And nuclear? It’s absurd to deploy the technology when there is no known route for disposal of the everlasting wastes. It’s not needed and it’s far too dangerous. Ever read Dr. Helen Caldicott’s work. You should. Her understanding of the medical issues of radiation exposure and the minuscule amounts required to create intergenerational impacts is seminal work. Without a comparable understanding of the subject, it is not possible to express an informed opinion. It saddens me that so many are prepared to wade into the debate without such information. Given the appalling consequences we are bequeathing upon our offspring, it is not a topic to be treated with such irresponsible flippancy.

    George Trembath
    June 28, 2011
    Reply
  8. caldicott.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE

    translated abstract :
    “we are all so Freakin’ Doomed @”

    @ Copywrite Mogambo DRA 2010

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au