Tags: personal finance

State of the Consumer

This week’s surprise Consumer Confidence report gives us yet another reason to take a step back and survey the landscape. Much of the recent focus has deservedly been on unemployment while little focus has been given to other aspects of the consumer and more importantly, the overall state of the consumer’s mind. Clearly there are several enigmas manifesting themselves in both confidence and spending patterns. This week we’ll take a closer look at some of these issues, and probably generate quite a bit of debate as well.

Consumer Confidence

Desensitization

Increases in consumer confidence during the past two months are indicative of desensitization. Consumers are becoming acclimated to weak economic conditions, poor stock market returns, and the continued accumulation of job losses. This desensitization has been emphasized by the mainstream media; particularly in the past few months. The take-home message of articles and news reports has shifted to ‘be happy things aren’t getting worse’ and people are doing just that. Bargain hunters have been lured into many areas including housing, stocks, and even retail products. Meanwhile, important fundamentals like GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and household net worth go largely unmentioned and underanalyzed.

Where are Consumers Spending Their Money?

What is telling, however, are the reports coming out of some individual sectors in the consumer landscape. Traditional economics breaks goods and services down into two major categories: staples and discretionary. This division follows the old-school definition of needs vs. wants. However, today, the lines have been blurred quite a bit and goods that would have easily been considered discretionary even 10 years ago are now regarded as staples.

The following NAICS category charts were selected because they represent areas that are extreme examples in the staple—discretionary continuum. And for comparative purposes, the total US Retail Sales chart is included at the end of the series.

Grocery Store Sales

The situation with grocery stores is a primary example of how aggregate consumption numbers are reported, which will be explained in greater detail later in the article. Just reading the chart, Americans spent less at grocery stores from the middle of 2008 through the beginning of 2009, which is when we called the bottom in terms of consumer prices. Did people eat less or just spend less on what they purchased? In all likelihood it is the latter, given that grocery store shopping is one of the most basic of spending types. For the sake of thoroughness, included below is the same chart for big-box/warehouse type stores just in case everyone abandoned their local grocery store for lower prices at BJ’s and Sam’s Club.

Warehouse Club Sales

You’ll notice quickly that the rate of growth in warehouse club spending has been declining steadily since the beginning of the decade. Spending has also flattened considerably in the past 6 months. Clearly Americans didn’t take their unspent grocery store dollars and run to the warehouse clubs, so our initial conclusion is intact.

Gasoline Station Sales

Gasoline station spending fell off a cliff from July through December, indicative of falling gas prices and people cutting back on the purchases of accoutrements such as drinks and sandwiches. In a similar fashion to grocery store sales, there has been a recent increase in spending at gas stations reflected by the price of gas jumping from near $1.50/gallon to around $2.00/gallon nationally.

Jewelry Sales

Obviously, jewelry is far at the other end of the staple-discretion continuum, and is a good indicator of purely discretionary spending. It is pretty apparent, at least from this graphic, that this type of discretionary spending (in total dollars) is contracting rapidly, now at a year over year rate of around -22%. Massive discounting by many national and regional jewelers have certainly contributed to fewer total dollars spent as well.

Total US Retail Sales

Above, we notice the same tail in total retail sales starting at the beginning of 2009. This change in total retail sales correlates well with our data on consumer level inflation and brings the mainstream’s assertion of the re-emergence of the consumer into question.

Inflation Returns to Consumer Prices

In early January, a number of our in-house statistical indicators turned positive in terms of the spillover of monetary inflation into consumer prices and we discussed this issue in detail in 2/20/2009’s article “The Turning of the Tide?”:

“If we have indeed witnessed the inflection point where the trillions of dollars parked in investment and commercial banks are finally being let out to play, then our wealth and purchasing power are about to come under serious attack. Obviously the risk in putting such an assertion to paper is that if we return to the previous trend of falling prices even for a brief time, the entire construct will be discredited rather than the possibility that the timing was a bit off being acknowledged. There are some factors that would help us to confirm or deny that such an inflection point has taken place……”

Since those indicators went positive, we have received affirmation of our observations from PPI/CPI, the GDP Price Index or GDP Deflator, nominal retail sales, and import prices. It is the retail sales portion that applies here, and the key lies in how that report is interpreted. It absolutely must be remembered that almost all of these aggregate spending metrics report in total Dollars, NOT units. Nor are these numbers adjusted for ‘inflation’. They are adjusted for seasonal factors that are at the discretion of the reporting agency, but that is it. What this means is that increases in consumer prices (especially in staple goods since people are less likely to cut back) will be interpreted as economic growth when retail sales are reported because people are spending more money. Conversely, when prices fall like they did from July through December of 2008, the interpretation will be economic contraction.

So the question needs to be asked: Did people actually buy fewer goods and services (an actual retrenchment) over the past 6 months or did they just pay less for some of the things they purchased thereby causing retail sales to drop?

The answer is more difficult to find than one might imagine.

We know from the Advance GDP report on Wednesday of this week that personal income in the US dropped by an estimated $59 billion (2.0% annualized) as job losses put more and more Americans on the unemployment rolls. The rate of decay in personal income grew from $42.9 Billion or 1.4% annualized in Q4 2008.

The report also gleaned that personal outlays increased .7% in Q1 2009 after falling 9.5% in Q4 2008. Looking for example at the CPI for that period, we find that using the old CPI methodology that consumer prices increased 1.18% for Q1 2009. By extension then, if consumers would have purchased the exact same quantity of goods as they did previously, they would have spent 1.18% more yet they only spent .7% indicating that less goods/services were purchased. A terribly small cutback for sure, but certainly not the growth trumpeted by the mainstream media.

For comparative purposes let’s apply the same analysis to Q4 2008. Using the same CPI methodology as the previous paragraph, consumer prices dropped 2.93% in Q4 2008. So if consumers had bought the same quantity of goods/services, they would have spent 2.93% less. Yet consumers spent 9.5% less indicating a significant cutback.

One conclusion we can draw from this cursory analysis is that while consumers spent more in Q1 2008, they didn’t really buy more. Still, in the face of rising unemployment, falling housing prices, and general economic malaise, consumers are still trying hard to hold onto yesteryear after a very brief period of belt-tightening.

In our ‘Spin Cycle’ podcast, we are currently doing a 7-part series in which we depict the factors affecting the US economy as sides of a Rubik’s Cube – independent, yet interrelated. Episodes include Interest Rates, Economic Growth, Debt/Monetary Growth, Energy, Demographics, Geopolitics, and the State of the Consumer. To listen, visit www.my2centsonline.com/radioshow.php

Spin Cycle 4/29/2009 Charts

Here are the accompanying charts for our 4/29/2009 ‘Spin Cycle’ podcast entitled ‘State of the Consumer’. The episode may be found at http://www.contraryinvestorscafe.com/sc_04292009.mp3

Elephants and Tea Parties

It is really no wonder that thousands of people across the nation showed up Wednesday to protest everything from the $787 stimulus package to big bank bailouts done under the cover of darkness. A failing economy, a government determined to insert itself fully in the specter of control, state sovereignty movements, and a good old fashioned tax day frown all combined to whip up enough ire to get folks to take to the streets. Still, many in the media don’t understand why this wave of protest is occurring.

Main Street Under Pressure

Since last summer there have been fairly regular stories even in the mainstream press about banks cutting limits on credit cards. It would seem as though the bankers had decided that the age of consumerism had gone too far. Ironically, these actions happened concurrently with the largest giveaways in the history of mankind. In the past 9 months the United States, #1 on the world financial stage, has committed an entire year of economic output to stem the ongoing crisis. How do banks respond? By cutting credit card limits. It is like giving a small child sweets until the kid is in a frothing sugar-frenzy, then locking up the candy dish. The analogies are nearly limitless, but the point is obvious. While the banks screamed for the elixir of easy Fed credit, they slammed the door on Main Street. For their part, consumers at some levels have cut back on their spending, which is a good thing. The unfortunate reality is this: Even the most prudent and responsible consumer will have a bad month. There will be a string of unexpected expenses, and that individual might need to carry a balance for a while to get things straightened out. Job losses will cause exactly this type of situation and now in many cases the credit is not there.

Another unintended consequence is that when credit lines are cut, utilization goes up and suddenly the most frugal appear to be on a spending bender. Take the person who has $25,000 in total credit from a number of different sources. Say on average the individual uses $5000/month for regular expenses, but never carries a balance. Now let’s assume that their lines are cut in half. Their utilization just doubled from 20% to 40%. Their new application for a small business loan might now be rejected because they’re judged to be a bad credit risk due to the 40% utilization. More unintended consequences.

Another amazing development has been the continuation and acceleration of foreclosure activity despite all the political rhetoric over the past 15 months from both sides of the aisle in terms of ‘helping’ homeowners. According to RealtyTRAC, foreclosure activity, which includes default notices, repossessions, and auction sale notices, increased 6% from January 2009. This same measure increased nearly 30% from February 2008. So despite trillions of dollars pledged to Fannie, Freddie, Bobby, Lulu, and anyone else with a leaky balance sheet to supposedly assist homeowners, not only is foreclosure activity not abating, it is increasing.

Runaway government spending

As most are acutely aware this tax day, their contribution to the team effort of bailing out the economy will not be near enough. Not only will their continued (and increasing) participation be needed, but that of their children, and grandchildren will be required as well. While I could sit here and tally up the various tabs, totals, and sums, it would be pointless. The public is mind-numb from hearing these staggering figures. It is very difficult to even fathom a billion let alone a trillion. However, this reality has dawned on an increasing number of people over the past few months and they are understandably perturbed. We have hopefully learned a valuable lesson, and that is that liberty is akin to a seedling. It is planted, but then must be watered, fed, and protected from the harsh environment in which it lives. While Americans were out collectively living it up over the past umpteen years, that harsh environment has wreaked havoc on our seedling. The bad news is that we’ve got a lot of work to do. Hopefully the sheer magnitude of our task doesn’t discourage us from doing it.

Big Bank Profits = Bubble Watch

After 6 quarters of dire forecasts, failures, predictions of failure, and uncounted bailouts, big banks are suddenly earning money again. Interestingly enough, most of these newfound profits are coming from the investment banking sides of their businesses. Translated, that means they’re back to their old tricks again and it is back to business as usual. Secure in the knowledge that their backs are securely covered by ‘We the People’ and without fear of extinction, the winners of the 2008 financial crisis have been refreshed, revived, and are back at it. Since our economy and monetary system are still compromised by the same structural imbalances that existed before the crisis, it is again time to go on “Bubble Watch”. The ingredients are there: very cheap money from the Fed and existing dislocations in many markets. The only thing missing is you. And this little fact could cause quite a problem. Americans, quickly growing weary of the accelerating boom-bust cycles, and still punch drunk from the last beating are not likely to be as willing to participate in the next bubble.

One of last fall’s pieces focused on the causes of the Great Depression and tried to dispel the myth that the market crash of 1929 was somehow solely responsible for the mess that followed. We pointed to a nagging reality from 1929 and that was the proportion of Americans living in poverty. More than half were living below a minimum subsistence level, which at the time was $750/year. Essentially one half of the population was unable to support further economic growth. That was one of the underlying structural imbalances. The crash and subsequent misguided government responses were the triggers that caused the Depression.

How much different are we really today? Sure, the poverty line has been adjusted upwards in nominal terms, but fundamentally, how many Americans are below it now? Perhaps the most important variable that has changed in the past 70 years is the reliance we have on credit as a society. How many of us would be living below the poverty line, unable to participate in the economy were it not for VISA, Mastercard, and equity lines of credit? The recent spikes in unemployment will only exacerbate the situation, causing further reliance on credit for subsistence; credit which is shrinking by many measures.

In conclusion, it is particularly disheartening that nearly all of the political focus spanning the last two administrations has been about getting credit flowing again, with only token talk of job creation and fostering legitimate economic growth. The actions have been no better. The vast majority of bailout and stimulus dollars have gone to the financial system to encourage lending and borrowing rather than to the real economy. Our fiat monetary system’s reliance on debt for its growth is the elephant standing in the room each time a press conference or media event is held. It is the elephant nobody in charge wants to talk about. It is the question nobody in media wants to ask. And, at the end of the day, I would imagine that is why so many people came out on Wednesday and will continue to do so. They aren’t interested in parties. They just want to talk about elephants.

Engineering a Rally

Every bear market has one.. Every Great Depression has one. While I admit that there is limited evidence on the latter, there is certainly plenty to support the former. Every bear market has its own rallies, and countless times investors will be suckered into thinking these rallies are the start of a new bull – and nobody wants to be the one that missed out.

I have talked on my weekly radio shows for some time now about two potential rallies in this bear market. I am not looking at technical indicators to make that statement, but rather two potential occurrences that could trigger rallies within this mega-bear market. It has been my opinion that policymakers would use these occurrences to either touch off or maintain the current bear market rally. As it turned out, the markets provided their own bottom of sorts in terms of selling exhaustion and a wave of euphoria about economic prospects from Washington. Now we get to our possibilities – and the rhetoric and symbolic changes are already taking place.

1) The Uptick Rule – The uptick rule, put in place to prevent predatory short-selling was for some still unknown reason removed in the summer of 2007 – just a few months before the peak in the DOW and S&P500. The SEC claimed that the uptick rule in the age of instant (and in their opinion, perfect) information was irrelevant. This incredibly foolish move paved the way for institutions and hedge funds to cannibalize each other from November 2007 through the present. The net result of this cannibalization was an unprecedented and historic consolidation in the financial sector.

It seems the SEC has finally found its common sense and there have been hearings about re-instituting the uptick rule. This serves to send the signal to opportunistic banks and hedge funds that the coast is clear to start buying assets at fire sale prices, which will lead to further consolidation. Even mere talk of bringing back the uptick rule will impact investing decisions. Keep in mind that this arena is not one occupied by Ma and Pa Podunk, but rather multi-billion dollar hedge funds and banks.

2) Revisions of the Mark to Market Rule – This is the equivalent of allowing financial institutions to play ‘Alice in Wonderland’ with regard to the value of otherwise worthless derivative securities and non-performing mortgage tranches. While the arguments for mark to model are plentiful, and in some cases legitimate, the bottom line is that an asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay you. Following the current logic, homeowners should be able to pretend that their homes are worth 40% more than the market price and behave accordingly. See another bubble possibility here?

We will present a much more in-depth analysis of the ramifications of the uptick rule and the changes recently made to ‘mark to market’ accounting in this month’s edition of The Centsible Investor. For more information, please click here.

Commitments and Confusion

Talk about mixed signals. Confusion reigns supreme. On Thursday the economy was recovering because factory orders went up for February, breaking a multi-month downtrend. However, today, there is no end in sight as the employment report was released and another 663,000 Americans have lost their jobs. There is another storyline there, but we’ll save that for a different time. It would seem that commentators, economists, and policymakers alike are in a race to call the bottom. Fundamentals and economic analysis have all but disappeared under what is a seemingly never-ending wave of distortion caused by monetary creation. $1 Trillion to the IMF and World Bank. $787 Billion to ‘stimulus’, and a whopping total of $12.8 Trillion committed by the US alone with more to come. Let us take a sobering look at the commitments that have been created thus far (in Billions of Dollars) and eliminate some confusion:

Program/Entity Commitments (in billions)
Federal Reserve Total $7,765.64
Primary Credit Discount $110.74
Secondary Credit $.19
Primary Dealer Credit $147.00
ABCP Liquidity $152.11
AIG Credit $60.00
Net Portfolio CP $1,800.00
Maiden Lane LLC (Bear Stearns) $29.50
Maiden Lane II (AIG) $22.50
Maiden Lane III (AIG) $30.00
TSLF $250.00
TAF $900.00
Securities Lending Overnight $10.00
Term Asset-Backed $900.00
Currency Swaps $606.00
MMIFF $540.00
GSE Debt Purchases $600.00
GSE Mortgage-Backed $1,000.00
Citigroup Bailout (Fed) $220.40
BofA Bailout (Fed) $87.20
Treasury Commitments $300.00
FDIC Total $2,038.50
Public-Private Investment $500.00
FDIC Liquidity Guarantee $1,400.00
GE $126.00
Citigroup Bailout (FDIC) $10.00
BofA Bailout (FDIC) $2.50
Treasury Total $2,694.00
TARP $700.00
Tax Breaks for Banks $29.00
Stimulus I (Bush) $168.00
Stimulus II (Obama) $787.00
Treasury Exchange Stabilization $50.00
Student Loan Purchases $60.00
FNM/FRE Support $400.00
FDIC Line of Credit $500.00
HUD Total $300.00
Hope for Homeowners (FHA) $300.00
Grand Total $12,798.14

Source: Bloomberg

Keep in mind that the above numbers do not represent the total cost of these programs. Just for example the second stimulus (HR1), which is counted as $787 Billion on the Treasury’s tab will actually cost $3.27 Trillion. This total is arrived at by considering the extension of current provisions, total impact of the legislation, and $744 Billion in debt service (interest) that will need to be paid on the borrowed funds. If that level of understatement is present in even a small portion of the programs listed above, it will result in a ballooning of the overall totals.

Just for illustrative purposes, we can get a very rough estimate of the total impact of these commitments by making a couple of rather weighty assumptions:

1) We’ll start making payment in 2020 since there is no possibility of a budget surplus until then. Unless of course the plan is to essentially take out a VISA to pay off a MasterCard, which is rather likely.

2) The interest rate paid on this debt will be an average of 3.70% (today’s 30-year bond yield). Granted, this is not an exact number, but it will allow us to ballpark the total.

3) We are assuming that 100% of the committed funds will be used to engineer the various rescues.

Given these rather basic assumptions, the value of the current commitments will have grown to around $18.5 Trillion by 2020 when we’ll make our first payment if everything goes well. Add on the 2020 value of our current national debt for a grand total of $34.5 Trillion. This is just for the current financial rescue and what we owe from past fiscal indiscretions. This accounts for none of the coming generational mess resulting from Social Security and Medicare. This accounts for none of whatever additional stopgap measures might be necessary to further ‘stimulate’ consumption. This assumes that we stop accumulating more debt today. In other words, the $34.5 Trillion estimate should be viewed as an absolute best-case scenario.

Perhaps even more telling in the numbers above is the portion that has been dedicated to helping the real economy as opposed to the financial system. While some of these programs indirectly help Main Street, they were clearly created to benefit Wall Street. By our count, approximately 4% of the funds above were created with the explicit intent of benefitting Main Street. So for every dollar committed, 4 cents were given to Main Street. We get 4 cents, but have to pay back the full amount – at interest. Sounds like a great deal doesn’t it? I’ll be the first to admit that the 4 cents figure is easily disputed and debated, but the spirit of the recent rescues is crystal clear.

Housing: Underpinning or Pinned Under?

All of the above notwithstanding, many ‘experts’ in the mainstream media have forecasted the recession to end by the end of 2009. How can this be so? It must be understood how many of these people view a recession. They are under the completely mistaken impression that the printing press is the solution to all economic maladies. Their biggest gripe with the Fed is that it didn’t print enough money fast enough. The concepts of savings, genuine capital formation, and the resultant investments elude them. They don’t understand that genuine capital comes from the foregoing of consumption, not the Greenspan/Bernanke printing press. It is also clear that these same people equate the housing and share markets with the overall economy.

Ben Bernanke, true to his promise, has managed to lower mortgage rates by around a full percent since the Fed started buying mortgage bonds in late 2008. This has touched off a wave of refinancing, which will put a few bucks back in consumers’ pockets. Apparently that is enough to call an end to the recession. Never mind that job losses continue unabated and forget about the annoying fact that real estate prices are still falling. According to NAR, real estate prices have now fallen 28% from their highs back in 2006. That is quite a bit of equity that can no longer be borrowed against. Their own flawed model is broken and they still won’t admit it. However, the equating of housing with the overall economy doesn’t stop at the pages of your local newspaper. Cleveland Fed Governor Sandra Pianalto said recently that lower mortgage rates offer ‘encouraging signs’ for the economy. It is pretty obvious that policymakers are of the opinion that if the housing bubble can just be reinflated that we could rewind to 2005 and forget about this meddlesome little crisis we now find ourselves in.

The stock market does NOT equal the economy

This is an obvious point, but given the public reaction to the recent rally off multi-year lows, it is one that needs to be reinforced. Think about how many times you have heard lately that the stock market is doing well therefore the economy must be getting better? These comments are not just limited to parties either, but have become regular fare on the evening news, newspapers, and even dedicated financial publications. At the severe risk of being repetitive, I am going to trot out a chart of the Dow Jones Industrials Average from 1929 through 1933. We all know the backdrop and how the economy contracted throughout this entire period. What is more telling is what happened to the DOW along the way.

DJIA 1929-1933

After the crash of 1929, the DOW rallied significantly, getting back nearly 40% of what had been lost from the top. While traders made some serious money on the moves over the next 3 years, long-term investors were decimated, losing nearly 90% of their wealth when all was said and done. The important thing to note is that the real damage was done after the crash. Here is an even less comforting thought. In real terms, investors NEVER got that wealth back. The value of their dollars eroded faster than any subsequent gains in the stock markets. That situation has played out to this very day. This reality has manifested itself over the past 30 years in particular as the family has come to rely first on extra work hours, and finally, on credit to maintain pace.

The take-home message is that there are very clear examples in history that prove that sharemarkets do not equal the economy.

A more recent example is the 2007 DOW. In the fourth quarter of 2007, while America was entering a recession (which would not be admitted until nearly a year later), the DOW was peaking at an all-time high of over 14,000. Clearly, the economy had been slowing for a period of time prior, yet the DOW surged ahead. It is imperative to separate the two.

Perhaps the following definition will provide some guidance and eliminate a bit of the confusion that seems unfettered these days. The word ‘economy’ comes from the Greek words ‘oikos’ and ‘nomos’, which mean ‘house’ and ‘law’ respectively. Not much of a definition? Sure it is. I will take some linguistic license and say that it implies the order of one’s house. This applies whether you’re talking about individuals, businesses, states, or national governments. While we use fancy abbreviations, acronyms and statistics to describe the state of economic homeostasis, in the end what we’re really doing is assessing the extent to which we’ve kept our house in order. $34.5 Trillion in debt and commitments? Borrowing more than 100% of the world’s savings to finance it? Bailouts? The average person carrying over $16,000 in consumer debt – not including mortgages?

Let’s get our house in order – then we can talk recovery.

Take advantage of our complimentary report “The 7 Mistakes Investors make..and how to avoid them”. Get your copy today by going to our website www.sutton-associates.net and clicking the banner.

The Great American Banking Experiment

One of the most common questions that folks who are becoming newly acquainted with terms like ‘fiat money’ and ‘fractional reserve banking’ are asking is “How did we get here?” For sure, the recent publicity of 21st Century Tea Parties along with the occurrence of the worst financial crisis in recorded history has people asking questions. In terms of the American obsession with central banking and fiat currency, 1913 is generally identified as the point where the country went wrong. In truth, however, our obsession with funny money has transcended all; including even, the birth of the nation. And on a global scale, the eternal ponzi scheme of fractional reserve banking has been going on for a few thousand years now. It is a scheme that has been so perfectly atrocious over the centuries that it makes ponzicons Stanford and Madoff look like petty thieves. In this week’s piece we’ll take a look at some of the more noteworthy landmarks in America’s great experiment with paper money.

Gresham’s Law

Gresham’s Law deals with a situation when there are two (or more) competing currencies and one is ‘pegged’ against the other. More specifically, the law deals with bimetallic currency systems where both Gold and Silver are used in an economy and the ratio of the two is fixed. A good historical reference would be the post Bank of North America United States in the early 1800s. The US Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 gave Congress the power to coin money and determine the value thereof. A Constitutional Dollar was determined to be a coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver. In order to encourage the use of gold as well as Silver, the ratio was set at 15:1 – therefore a Constitutional Dollar could also be a Gold coin containing 24.75 grains of pure Gold. For anyone who knows Gold, 24.75 grains is not a very large coin so coins that contained 247.5 grains of Gold were used and were valued at 10 Dollars. So far, so good, right?

The only problem here is that the exchange ratio of any two goods will vary over time. When the 15:1 value was set, that was the going market rate. Alexander Hamilton, who was a big proponent of the bimetallic system, gets an “A” for effort, but failed to recognize and/or provide for the constant fluctuation. In the case of the Gold-Silver ratio, the supply of Silver grew disproportionately to that of Gold due in large part to mining in the Caribbean. The silver made it to our shores thanks to a vibrant trading relationship between America and that region of the world. This is where Gresham’s Law comes into play. The law states that anytime one money is compulsorily undervalued while another is overvalued, the undervalued money will be driven out of the economy or hoarded while the overvalued money will explode into circulation. In following Gresham’s Law, Gold all but disappeared from circulation in early 19th century America. With the obvious consequences of Gresham’s Law, it is easy to ask why any government would forcibly attempt to impose a bimetallic standard on an economy? Hint: It must be remembered that in absence of paper money, the supply of money in the economy was determined by the quantity of specie (Gold and/or Silver).

The monetary ‘authorities’ at the time were attempting to make sure that the economy had enough money to function properly, which was certainly a good intention. Where they went wrong in their approach is that the economy could have easily functioned on silver alone since it was in good supply. Market prices for other goods would have adjusted themselves through the laws of marginal utility and supply/demand according to the supply of both specie and the other goods.

Gresham’s Law is easily observed today in our own currency system with a slight variation. While the Dollar and Gold are allowed to adjust to a certain extent in terms of each other, it is easy to see how the undervalued money (Gold) has gone into hiding while the overvalued ‘money’ (Federal Reserve Notes) have flooded into circulation.

Early American Attempts at Fiat Paper Money

Perhaps ironically, America’s first attempts at fiat money began before Lexington and Concord. Before the French and Indian War. And even before the 18th century had seen the light of day. The first government issue of paper money came in 1690 in the colony of Massachusetts. It had become a custom there to embark on plundering missions into Quebec and then use the proceeds of the missions to pay off the soldiers upon return to the colony. In 1690, however, one such mission was unsuccessful so there were no spoils to distribute. In order to placate the soldiers, the colonial government attempted to borrow the required money from local merchants. However, these merchants had a rather dim view of the creditworthiness of the government and refused. In an ill-fated decision, the government of the Massachusetts colony then decided to issue paper notes with the promise of both redeemability and that the issuance was a one-time affair. They ended up being wrong on both counts.

These endeavors continued almost constantly up to and through the American Revolution with two predictable results: the notes issued always depreciated versus the competing specie money and the amount of paper notes issued got larger with each subsequent attempt. These comparisons are important to make when connecting early monetary ventures to what is going on today.

The “Continental”

Early in the American Revolution, the Continental Congress ran into the serious issue of funding and opted to look towards fiat money for the solution to the problem. Unlike some of the previous redeemable fiat ventures, the ‘Continental’ as it became known was not to be redeemable at all, but would rather be dismantled after the war ended by using taxes paid by the colonies. While this was a temporary solution, it carried the double whammy of inflation and taxation for the colonies. Certainly, sacrifices had to be made, but what is most interesting is what happened next. From 1775 through 1779, the supply of Continentals exploded by over 1800%. Predictably, the value of the Continental in specie (silver) had fallen to 42:1 from a beginning value of 1-1.25:1. By 1781, with the war still raging, the value of the Continental had fallen to a negligible 168:1. Comparatively speaking, today’s fiat dollar which traded with specie (gold) before the Great Depression at a rate of 20:1 now trades around 950:1 – a similar hyperinflation although over a much longer period of time.

The Supply of Continentals - 1775-1791

The next step taken by the colonial government was to impose price controls and attempt to dictate the market value of the failing currency. These efforts flouted several of the laws of economics, the first of which is that you cannot run an effective paper money system without confidence. The second is that price controls create shortages by artificially setting the market price below that of the equilibrium price as is illustrated in the chart below:

Effects of Price Controls

With the impending failure of the Continental in 1779, the Congress resigned itself to allow the Continental to depreciate unredeemed into worthlessness. However, and tragically, the Congress then resorted to issuing loan certificates for the purchase of goods and services from Colonial merchants and refusing to pay anything in else. Soon enough the certificates became used as a currency and, much like their brother the Continental, began to depreciate. Here’s the important part though. Instead of allowing the certificates to be redeemed at a depreciated value, they were carried into perpetuity and the permanent Federal debt was born. This unpaid bill is better known today as the National Debt.

The Bank of North America and Robert Morris

In 1781, Robert Morris introduced a bill that created both the first commercial bank and the first central bank. The resulting catastrophe, headed by Morris himself, opened in 1782 and quickly ran into problems. The first of these problems was our old friend confidence. Americans, already weary of paper notes due to decades of failures, inflation, and broken promises just couldn’t shake the perception that the new bank’s notes were being inflated compared to the still-existing specie. The bank, in an extraordinary move at the time actually went as far as to hire people to promote the new bank and its notes and to insist on redemption for specie. Obviously the idea here was to gain the confidence of the public by demonstrating that the notes were in fact worth something. Paradoxically, today’s Fed doesn’t even try to maintain an illusion of backing or intrinsic worth.

The Fed's precursor - The First Bank of the US

The First Bank of the US – 1791 (above)

This first experiment into central banking lasted barely a year as in early 1783 Morris moved to end the institution’s authority as a central bank and shifted its focus to commercial activities with a Pennsylvania charter. Although short, it was one of many important steps in the establishment of a central banking authority. Perhaps most importantly, the population grew more accustomed to using paper money. By the 20th century, specie was removed from circulation in totality while the ability to redeem still existed. Eventually, redeemability was suspended as well, leaving us with a paper currency with only implicit worth. In 1971, in a final blow to sound money, settlement of foreign debt in specie was suspended as well. What has transpired since has been a slower, but eerily similar version of the demise of the Continental.

In conclusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with paper money in and of itself. It can actually serve a valuable purpose in that it is more portable, easily divisible, and in the case of the grain banks thousands of years ago, was much easier than moving bushels of wheat. However, the predilection of those charged with running these types of operations has been to coerce and conspire to rob the people of wealth through stealth. Whereas it would have been exceedingly problematic to confiscate a farmer’s grain without incurring his wrath, it was magnificently simple to inflate his wealth away through the over issuance of grain receipts. The parallels between these early experiments and what goes on today are astounding. We as a people still haven’t gotten our heads around the idea of inflation – the over issuance of fiat paper money – and the confiscation of wealth it represents. What could never be done through direct taxation has been done under another name, right under our very noses, and in plain sight.

Don’t miss out on your free copy of our report “The 7 Mistakes Investors make..and how to avoid them”. Get your copy today by going to our website www.sutton-associates.net and clicking the free report banner.

Sources:

“Man, Economy, and State” Rothbard, Murray N. Mises Institute.

“A History of Money and Banking in the United States” Rothbard, Murray N. Mises Institute.

Disclosures: Long GDX

Congress Deserves an Oscar for AIG 'outrage'

Politicians on Capitol Hill have done their very best to muster up an acceptable amount of rancor over the AIG bonus checks that went out last week. Ironically, the gang of 535 are more interested in getting back $165 million than finding out where the TRILLIONS in Federal Reserve ‘gifts’ to big banks, brokerages, and other financial institutions have gone.

There is no need for any of this political grandstanding. The US Government owns a near 80% stake in the failed insurance company and as such could simply retract the bonsuses through a shareholder action. There is no need for hand-wringing, negotiations, or incessant hearings on Capitol Hill.

Secondly, the chief of AIG insisted that “when you owe someone money, you pay it back” referring to the fact that these bonsuses were contractual agreements. However, the Congress has had no problem suggesting that bankruptcy judges modify subprime residential mortgages (which are also contracts), so the small matter of the $165 million shouldn’t be an issue from a contractual standpoint.

Perhaps most importantly, the AIG bonus situation is non-issue in comparative terms and is meant to absorb the public’s outrage while the vast majority of TARP and other Fed disbursements go unaccounted for. By my calculation, the $165 million is exactly .61% of the money that has been spent in the people’s name so far (that we know about) in dealing with the financial crisis.

The hystrionics of both political parties are a nice piece of acting, but should further establish that they are much more interested in protecting the status quo than the US taxpayer.

A Look Inside the Numbers

The much-anticipated employment situation report for February 2009 has now been released. Markets breathed a sigh of relief, following recent conventional wisdom that things could have been much worse. Clearly they could have been. Clearly they are. December and January’s numbers were both revised much higher (577,000 to 681,000 and 589,000 to 655,000 respectively). There is little doubt that when next month’s report rolls around that the current stated loss of 651,000 will be revised much higher as well; likely to the 700,000 area.

Unemployment Chart

What is even more alarming is that these numbers don’t include what could be called partially discouraged workers. These are the folks who are working part-time, but not by choice. They’d like to work full-time, but have either had their hours cut or are unable to find full-time employment. There are now over 9 million of these folks in the United States according to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). We’ll take a closer look at this segment of the labor force later in the article. While it is understood that the methodologies of BLS are largely political and are compromised in terms of relevance, the trends are still helpful in terms of extracting clues about where things are headed, and getting an idea of exactly how many folks are under job-related duress.

Forced Part-Time Workers

Looking at the aggregate numbers – in what has become a recurring theme – government, education, and healthcare were the only three areas in which there was growth in February. These three areas added 35,000 jobs during that time. Here is a brief summary of some of the more notable industries:

• Goods-producing industries lost another 276,000 jobs in February for a grand total of 1.456 million just since September 2008.

• Manufacturing lost 168,000 jobs in February for a total of 891,000 since September 2008. Most of these losses were concentrated in the durable goods, tool, and machinery sub-sectors.

• Construction lost 104,000 jobs and the once-venerable sector has shed a total of 551,000 jobs since September 2008. The industry has lost 1.1 million jobs since peaking out in January 2007.

• The service sector has been hit particularly hard, losing 375,000 jobs in February and a grand total of 1.77 million just since September of last year. A healthy portion of these losses have occurred in the financial arena including investments, credit intermediation, real estate, mortgages, and banking.

One area that has held up reasonably well so far is leisure and hospitality. This industry is ripe for a pullback, however, as Americans continue to cut back on discretionary purchases. Stories of free hotel rooms in Las Vegas and other trendy tourist spots are becoming more and more commonplace as firms in the sector engage in a frantic race to capture waning consumer dollars and cover their fixed costs.

Compromised workers – a more accurate measurement?

Perhaps a more useful measure is the degree to which incomes and earnings have been compromised. To get a reasonable representation of this, we can take the total amount of individuals on unemployment and add to that the number of individuals who are working part-time for economic reasons. This does not include people who choose to work part-time, but have to. When you add these two groups together, you come up with almost 23 million Americans or nearly 15% of the workforce. Compare this with the BLS advertised 8.1% rate and you see a very different picture.

Unemployment Rate

To get a better idea of the scope of the ‘unemployment’ problem, add in the people who are given the choice of taking a pay cut or losing their job plus those who have fallen off the unemployment rolls. Let’s mention one more group in here too. What about the people who retired over the past few years only to find their retirement accounts wiped out and who are now in need of work? While there is no way to easily track these folks, the anecdotal evidence suggests that this group is much larger than most policymakers and pundits would care to admit.

'Compromised' Workers

Like it or not, to one degree or another, all the aforementioned folks are unemployed, even if only partially, in that they’ve lost a portion of their income. Compromised incomes translate directly to lost consumer spending, which translates directly to lost GDP. The bottom line is that these folks don’t spend much money. Nor can they easily be induced to borrow especially to purchase discretionary items.

MTC Economic Distress Index

Confusing isn’t it? So many numbers lead to even more interpretations, so we’ve tried to make this a bit simpler for folks. To do this, we created a weighted index which takes into account compromised workers (from the data in the chart above), consumer prices (domestic purchasing power), the trade-weighted Dollar (purchasing power abroad), and the burden of consumer credit. We update the numbers each month and the chart (seen below) each quarter. Due to the lag involved in gathering credit numbers, the current index is for January 2009. To give a better graphical representation of the impact over time, we ran the data series back to January 2000. Further explanation of the chart and data as well as updates may be found at:
http://www.my2centsonline.com/edi.php

MTC Economic Distress Index

12/08 = 160.93; 01/09 = 163.37 (1.52% – 18.19% Annualized)

All of the data listed herein only serve to illustrate and underscore the need for America to focus on productive employment. Emphasis on productive. Government attempts to spur employment by increasing the hiring rate of paper-pushers, government bureaucrats, and regulators produces nothing and in fact constitutes a further drag on economic growth. Private sector investment at this time is key to reviving America. What we need in this country is another industrial revolution. ‘Free trade’ agreements need to be recognized as being unfriendly to American prosperity and summarily fed to the shredder. The sooner the better. Otherwise, there will be little in the way of prospects for future employment reports and our economy will be further devastated.

Don’t miss out on your free copy of our report “The 7 Mistakes Investors make..and how to avoid them”. Get your copy today by going to our website www.suttonfinance.net and clicking the free report banner.

Disclosures: N/A

And the numbers keep growing

What started out about this time last year as a $168 Billion attempt to revive us from a recession that at the time didn’t even exist (according to Washington and the media) has grown into a mammoth rescue which to date commits US taxpayers and future generations to nearly 58 times that original amount.

This amount is enough to pay off nearly 90% of US mortgages according to Bloomberg. Has anyone ever thought that it might not be a bad idea to do exactly that? Since we’re going to spend this money on consumption anyway, it makes sense to maybe relieve the average American of a little financial strife.

Let’s extend that for a second to all the bad debt floating around the financial system. Debt that the government is frantically trying to figure out what do with. Did it ever occur to anyone to ask why some of those debts are bad? Sure, a good portion of it is due to derivatives and other bets, but at the very least some of it is consumer debts that cannot be paid because of job losses, irresponsibility, variable rates, etc. Helping the consumer would help the system by making at least some of these debts manageable.

It becomes important to understand the differences between consumption and an economy. Anyone can consume. Demand is virtually unlimited. Given someone a boatload of money and they’ll probably end up buying much more than a boat. Even under the best of conditions this would be foolish because it incentivizes laziness. However, in our current model, it does virtually nothing since a good majority of our products are manufactured overseas anyway. So borrowing and spending a trillion dollars might cause a bit of temporary consumption, but do little to sustain an economy.

If we’re going to do a bailout anyway, again, why not start with consumers and rebuilding our productive capacity.

Twelve Zeros Worth of Protectionism

Protectionism has clearly become a dirty word. Unfortunately, those in the position of dispensing awareness and perspective obviously have no idea what true protectionism is. If it were explained properly, I would venture to imagine that most here in America would be in favor of it. After all, it applies directly to us and our standard of living.

In the 1990s globalization was presented to the nations of the world. Terms like competitive and comparative advantage became part of business lore. Americans, already punch drunk from a 25-year assault on the purchasing power of their currency, were sold on the promise of inexpensive imported goods. These goods would be made elsewhere and moved on barges powered by oil that would be cheap forever. While the former was certainly true, the costs of such shortsighted thinking were largely ignored by those in Washington. We are now witnessing the effects of those costs firsthand.

“We cannot afford a trade war”

This week, Senator John McCain proposed an amendment to the pork-laden ‘stimulus’ package that would have effectively wiped out the ‘Buy American’ clause in the package. Essentially this clause stated that any government or public building projects had to use steel that was produced in the United States. Having already lived through the obliteration of this iconic industry once, the ‘Buy American’ clause was very encouraging. However, it appears that in this regard, it will be business as usual, maybe not because we want to, but now because we have to.

To put it simply, America can no longer live on its own production. This is no surprise and has been the case for quite some time. However, we are in a position now where a little leverage might come in handy. Our economy is bleeding jobs and we need to be able to maintain and promote American manufacturing. And contrary to the tenets of globalization, there is absolutely nothing wrong with producing our own goods and services and we should be doing exactly that.

While the argument will be made that our trade partners cannot afford not to trade with us, it is much more likely that they can remain solvent far in excess of our ability to sustain ourselves. This is particularly true in the case of energy, the ultimate staple good. Despite the claims of many that we have enough oil right here in the US to last us umpteen years, even if that were true, you don’t just flip a switch and have oil flowing. History should have taught us that much. It takes years in many cases to raise these products, build a transport and distribution network and get them into the economy. Again, we have no leverage.

And in reality, why do these countries need to trade with us anyway? Much of what they get in return is nothing more than IOU’s on fancy paper.

The chart below illustrates our trade gap in terms of actual goods – goods we either aren’t able to or currently do not produce ourselves.

US Trade Statistics (Goods only – in Billions of Dollars)

Year*
Exports
Imports
Balance
2007
1,148,481
1,967,853
(819,373)
2006
1,023,109
1,861,380
(838,270)
2005
894,631
1,681,780
(787,149)
2004
807,516
1,477,094
(669,578)

*2008 Final Data Available on 2/11/2009

In typical lukewarm fashion, the US Senate shot down McCain’s amendment in it’s version of what is likely to become a $3 trillion pork-barrel spending package in the coming weeks. For those who are counting, that is $3,000,000,000,000. However, what was most telling is that the balance of the Senate has no respect for American jobs or industry either. This was evidenced by the addition of a proviso that no existing trade agreements be violated by the bill.

This is what happens when you’re behind the eight ball. You have no leverage and little flexibility. In the case of trade, it is doubtful that we can even talk tough let alone back it up with substantial action.

‘Free Trade’ agreements and the Lowest Common Denominator

Another spin off of free trade agreements such as NAFTA is that in addition to driving our jobs overseas, they created a lowest common denominator situation where wages in developed nations came under downward pressure. The causal relationship is simple to illustrate. If a company can make something in Taiwan for example where GDP per capita is about 1/3 that of the US (Economist World in Figures 2007), then import the goods back into the US, the consumer will benefit from the cheaper good. Unfortunately, for every benefit, there is an equal and opposite detriment, and in this case, the jobs in the US which used to produce that good no longer exist. This is what has happened over the past 25 years or so. We chose instead to focus on a service economy where we basically shuffled papers and intangible goods amongst ourselves and called it an economy. All the while, we racked up massive external debts to buy the real goods we needed to survive.

I will allow that obviously this transformation has not been total. There are still some thriving industries in the US, but rather, I am referring to the net effect of the past 2 and one half decades. Much of the wage gap has been filled with various types of consumer credit whether it is credit cards or, more recently mortgage equity withdrawals. Obviously, as we have seen in dramatic fashion, these levels of debt accumulation proved to be as unsustainable as the dynamics that necessitated the accumulation in the first place.

The Solution?

While we have been showered with announcements that our trade deficit is improving, it must be noted that this is almost entirely due to the liquidation of 2008 (which crashed commodity prices) and the US-led global recession. Were growth to return to normal levels, we would immediately observe the trade deficit returning to its prior trajectory. By way of extension, the same situation exists in the case of the US Dollar. Fundamentally, nothing has changed. Media outlets and pundits alike are reading false signals created by the distortions of a debt-laden, fiat monetary system. It is something along the lines of going to an 80s movie where 3D glasses were necessary to make sense of anything. Only the guy at the door forgot to give them a pair.

For quite some time now this commentary has been a soapbox for the idea that we need to rekindle our productive economy. Never has that been truer than right now. We tried the globalization experiment, and in my opinion, it has been a dismal failure. Sure we got some cheap goods, but as a country, we’ve become dependent on others for our very sustenance. This is not an enviable position for anyone to be in, especially not for a country that wants to call itself an economic superpower.

That said the upcoming stimulus package could be used help return America to her pre-1980s position of industrial superiority. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, we ran large trade deficits and put them to work building an industrial base that was second to none. We have a chance to use the debt that will be incurred regardless for something productive. Simply handing people checks so they can go buy television sets (thereby sending the money to Asia) is not going to help anything. Rewarding zombie banks for past financial transgressions will not help anything. Taking the ‘stimulus’ and building industrial capacity, creating real jobs, and producing high quality products, however, would be a nice start.

Get a copy of Sutton & Associates’ free report – “The 7 Mistakes Investors Make…and how to avoid them” by clicking here

Disclosures: None

« page 2 of 3 »

Welcome , today is Saturday, 02/11/2012