An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation

At the ASPO conference in Denver, October 2009, I had the good fortune to meet Stoneleigh, former editor of The Oil Drum Canada, who left the The Oil Drum crew with colleague Ilargi to set up The Automatic Earth where they publish stories, news and analysis of the unfolding financial crisis. I spent a couple of days chatting with Stoneleigh where she recounted her rather gloomy prospects for the immediate future of the global economy. The following interview is a summary of her analysis of the unfolding situation. Note that in a departure from convention, my questions are set in "blockquotes" to distinguish these from Stoneleigh's responses.

Stoneleigh, the world economy seems to be suffering from two great structural woes at present, namely stubbornly high energy prices that are linked to demand that is persistently ahead of the supply curve, and a level of debt that has destabilized the global finance and banking systems. Can you explain for us the scale and structure of this debt and to what extent write-downs and quantitative easing (QE) have solved this problem?

Firstly, I would say that the energy prices that currently seem stubbornly high should fall substantially as the speculative premium evaporates and demand falls on a resumption of the credit crunch. The sucker rally that has spawned all the talk of green shoots is essentially over in my opinion. The result should be a reversal of a number of trends that depend on the ebb and flow of liquidity - we should see stock markets and commodity prices fall, a significant resurgence in the US dollar and a large contraction of credit. The scale of the reversal should be substantial, as should its effects on energy demand. Demand is not what one wants, but what one is ready, willing and able to pay for, and in a severe credit crunch the capacity to pay for supplies of most things will be severely reduced.


Figure 1

As demand falls, and with it prices, investment in the energy sector is likely to dry up. Many projects will be uneconomic at much lower prices, meaning that the projects which might have cushioned the downslope of Hubbert’s curve (and the much steeper net energy curve), are unlikely to be developed. In this way a demand collapse sets the stage for a supply collapse that could place a hard ceiling on any prospect of economic recovery. That is a recipe for extremely high energy prices in the future.

Secondly, our vulnerability to the consequences of debt is extremely high at the moment. The scale of that debt is staggeringly large. The global credit hyper-expansion has been decades in the making and is now significantly larger than notable events of the past such as the South Sea Bubble of the 1720s and the Tulip Bubble of the 1630s. It dwarfs the excesses that led to the Great Depression.


Figure 2

Credit bubbles are inherently self-limiting, proceeding until the debt they generate can no longer be supported. We have already passed that point, and we are now two years into a contraction phase that is about to accelerate. As the aftermath of a credit bubble is typically proportional to the scale of the excesses that preceded it, we should be in for the largest economic contraction in at least several hundred years, and it will be global.

Real estate, which is a major focus of the mania, should do particularly badly in the coming years (in fact the coming decades or longer). There is still so much deleveraging ahead, and so many danger signals, such as the scale of the coming interest resets on US mortgages between now and 2012 (below). While the subprime resets are ending, Alt A and Option ARMs are just beginning.


Figure 3

There will be a very significant undershoot of historically average values, as there always is following a mania (much more than the Case-Shiller projection below suggests). In my opinion, housing prices are likely to fall at least 90% on average. For those who own property on margin, this will be a disaster.


Figure 4

For evidence that this crisis is indeed global, look, for instance, at European housing bubbles, which were worse than in the US.


Figure 5


Figure 6

Unlike inflation, which divides the underlying real wealth pie into smaller and smaller pieces, credit expansion creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie. Once a credit expansion reaches its maximum extent, and contraction begins, these excess claims begin to be extinguished. Unfortunately, the leverage is such that there are probably over a hundred claims to each piece of pie. While contraction begins slowly, as is the nature of positive feedback loops, it picks up momentum until a cascade point is reached, whereupon one can expect the excess claims to be extinguished in a rapid and chaotic process. This amounts to a rapid collapse in the supply of money and credit relative to available goods and services, which is the definition of deflation.


Figure 7

The scale of the problem has been temporarily concealed by a market rally and the shovelling of tens of trillions of dollars of taxpayer’s money into a giant black hole of credit destruction. This has done nothing to reignite lending, but the temporary (and entirely irrational) resurgence of confidence has restored a measure of liquidity. As that confidence evaporates with the end of the rally, that liquidity will also disappear

Banks hold extremely large amounts of illiquid ‘assets’ which are currently marked-to-make-believe. So long as large-scale price discovery events can be avoided, this fiction can continue. Unfortunately, a large-scale loss of confidence is exactly the kind of circumstance that is likely to result in a fire-sale of distressed assets. The structure of the credit default swap component of the derivatives market makes this very much more likely.

The CDS market allowed large bets to be placed on certain prices falling, and by entities which did not have to own those assets. This creates a perverse incentive for some parties to cause others to fail for profit (akin to me being able to take out fire insurance on your house and thereby give me an incentive to burn it down). An added complication is the extreme degree of counterparty risk that resulted from a complete lack of capital adequacy regulation. Many parties with winning bets will not be able to collect, so they may cause financial mayhem for nothing. The CDS market is worth some $62 trillion, and a meltdown is very likely in my opinion.

A large-scale mark-to-market event of banks illiquid ‘assets’ would reprice entire asset classes across the board, probably at pennies on the dollar. This would amount to a very rapid destruction of staggering amounts of putative value. This is the essence of deflation.

I have for a long time argued and believed that there are so many interests vested in protecting our current system that national governments, the IMF and institutions working together would keep the market flooded with liquidity in order to ward off the threat of deflation. In fact, it seems that a prolonged period of inflation is the only way to diminish our debts. I sensed at ASPO International in Denver that this was the majority view. Do you agree that inflation is the most likely near term outcome of current monetary policy?


Figure 8

Absolutely not. I agree that this is the consensus opinion, but I see it as fundamentally mistaken. The debt monetization that is going on has done nothing to increase the supply of money and credit relative to available goods and services, which is the definition of inflation. Credit contraction dwarfs debt monetization, leaving us in a state of net contraction, even though we have just experienced a large rally lasting months, which should have been the most favourable condition for reigniting lending if such a thing were in fact possible. I would argue that it is simply not possible and that deflation is inevitable.


Figure 9


Figure 10

Credit bubbles always end this way, with the mass extinguishing of the excess claims debt represents. They are essentially Ponzi schemes, crucially dependent on the continued buy-in of new entrants. Globalized finance brought a flood of new entrants following the liberalization of the early 1980s, but there are now no more new sources of wealth to tap. Deregulation allowed the reckless to gamble away virtually everything, including bank deposits and pension funds. Globalized finance has created a giant Enron, which while appearing robust is actually almost completely hollowed out. Such structures implode, often without much notice.


Figure 11

In my opinion, deflationary deleveraging will continue until the (small amount of) remaining debt is acceptably collateralized to the (few) remaining creditors. Until that point, there can be no lasting return of the confidence required to rebuild shattered credit markets. Deflation is ultimately psychological. Without trust we will see hoarding of the cash which will be very scarce in the absence of the credit that currently comprises the vast majority of the effective money supply. The combination of scarce cash and a very low velocity of money will be toxic.

Money is the lubricant in the economic engine and without enough of it that engine will seize up as it did in the 1930s, when farmers dumped milk they couldn’t sell into ditches while others were starving for want of the money to buy food. There was plenty of everything except money, and without money, one cannot connect buyers and sellers. Potential buyers will have no purchasing power as they will have lost access to credit and their ability to earn an income will be hit by spiking unemployment. Those who still have jobs will find that they have no bargaining power and there is therefore no wage support. Sellers and producers will have no market and will themselves lose the means to purchase supplies or raw materials for the things they would like to produce. If conditions remain frozen for any length of time, they will go out of business. The deeper the collapse, the more protracted the trough and the more difficult the eventual recovery.


Figure 12

I would argue that we have no need to fear inflation until we have reached a trough - until the deleveraging impulse is spent. We can expect to spend a long time in the liquidity trap, where real interest rates will be much higher than nominal rates, leaving central bankers “pushing on a string”.

Some would argue that faced with the unimaginable specter of deflation that governments will seize control of interest rates from the bond market. Why do you think this may not happen?

The bond market is far more powerful than governments at this point. While the international debt financing model remains, the bond market will retain its power to prevent money printing. Even though governments are not succeeding in increasing the effective money supply for reasons already discussed, they are nevertheless increasing systemic risk with their activities. This is a recipe for very much higher interest rates as a risk premium. Governments do not set interest rates, they decide what rate to defend, but if that rate is substantially different from what the bond market requires, then defending it would be ruinous.


Figure 13

I think we are headed (not imminently but eventually) for a bond market dislocation, with nominal interest rates on government debt spiking into the double digits. This will amount to hitting the emergency stop button on the economy, especially since real interest rates will be substantially higher (the nominal rate minus negative inflation). I am in fact expecting interest rates on private debt to rise before we see problems in the market for government debt, as the latter should benefit substantially in the shorter term from a flight to safety. The risk premium on private debt is already rising, which is a serious danger signal for such thoroughly indebted societies as we see in the developed world.

But stock markets are booming again, several OECD economies are emerging from recession, unemployment has stabilized, there are green shoots everywhere. Surely the current QE strategy is working?

The green shoots are gangrenous. Some of the largest market rallies on record happened during the course of the Great Depression, as depressions are associated with very high volatility. Look for instance at the great sucker rally of 1930. There are always rallies of all different sizes in any bear market, just as there are pullbacks of all sizes in bull markets. No market ever moves in only one direction.

People tend to extrapolate recent trends forward, but this amounts to stepping on the gas while looking only in the rearview mirror. This is one reason why major trend changes are so rarely anticipated. Another is that the prevailing view of markets is fundamentally wrong. There is no perfect information, perfect competition, stabilizing negative feedback, rational utility maximization or efficient markets. Markets are irrational, driven by swings of optimism and pessimism, or greed and fear, in an endless tug of war, and largely in an information vacuum. Investors chase momentum by jumping on passing bandwagons, hence demand for financial assets increases when prices are rising and falls when prices are falling, in classic positive feedback loops.


Figure 14

We have just lived through a period of several months when greed and complacency were in the ascendancy, but that trend is about to reverse in my opinion. Looking at markets as constructs of human herding behaviour allows them to be probabilistically predictable, permitting the forecasting of trend changes. For anyone who is interested in pursuing this idea further, I suggest looking into Bob Prechter’s socionomics - a fascinating subject which delves into the many effects of changes in collective mood.

For instance, as pessimism deepens, driving economic contraction, one would expect to see many manifestations of collective anger and mistrust. As this progresses it is likely to lead to xenophobia and a blame-game, with skillful manipulators (such as the fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin in the UK) poised to direct the anger of the herd towards their own chosen targets. The potential for serious social fragmentation is very high when expectations have been dashed and there is not enough to go around. Having lived through a very long period of manic optimism and increasing inclusion, we in the developed world are not used to expressions of the dark side of human nature, except for entertainment purposes in popular television programmes. It will come as a considerable shock.

Would you care to give your opinion on where the Dow Jones Industrial Average is headed in the near (1 year) and medium terms (2 to 5 years)?

I think the market will fall hard (intervening short rallies notwithstanding) for perhaps 18 months. This was the length of the first leg down (October 2007-March 2009) and so represents a reasonable first guess at how long the next leg at the same degree of trend might last. I think we will see falls of thousands of points in a series of cascades. I don’t see the markets reaching a lasting bottom until probably the middle of the next decade, and even then I don’t expect it to be a final bottom. This has been the largest credit bubble in history, and the aftermath of a major bubble always undershoots where it began before any kind of recovery begins.


Figure 15

The aftermath of the last major mania - the South Sea Bubble in the 1720s - lasted decades and culminated in a series of revolutions.


Figure 16

We are still relatively near the beginning of our own crisis, but already it compares with the Great Depression.

How do you see the US$, gold and oil trading in the same time frame?

I think almost all assets will fall as price support is knocked out from underneath them, but the dollar should rise initially on a flight to safety. Scarce cash will be king for a long time, and the value of one’s currency relative to available goods and services domestically will matter much more for most people than its value relative to other currencies internationally.

In a deflationary scenario, prices fall, but purchasing power typically falls even faster, meaning that everything becomes less affordable despite the lower nominal prices. Prices in real terms, adjusted for changes in the supply of money and credit, are what matter. In a world where almost everything is becoming rapidly less affordable, the essentials will be the least affordable of all, as a much larger percentage of a much smaller money supply will be chasing them. This will confer relative price support.

Although we could initially see a large glut in energy supply as demand falls off a cliff, this is likely to lead to supply collapse as investment dries up, hence I expect energy prices to bottom early in this depression. Both financial and physical risks to energy exploration are likely to increase substantially in a destabilized and capital constrained world, and even maintaining existing assets could become very difficult. This is a recipe for much greater state involvement in ownership and exploitation of (probably deteriorating) energy assets, with increasing conflict over those assets as supply gets dramatically tighter with lack of investment.

As for gold, I expect it to fall initially as people sell not what they would like to, but what they can, in order to raise the cash they need for living expenses and debt servicing. Owning gold is likely to become illegal again (as it did in the Great Depression) in my opinion. This wouldn’t necessarily stop you owning it, but would stop you trading it (at least without taking major risks) for other things you might need. Owning gold now therefore only makes sense if one is confident of being able to sit on it for a very long time, as it will hold its value over the long term as it has for thousands of years.

What will be the consequences for unemployment levels and services provided by government?


Figure 17

Unemployment will go through the roof as the prospects for selling most goods and services decline dramatically. In the developed world we are nations of middle men - generally service economies where we make a living figuratively taking in each other’s laundry. Most of us produce relatively little. Even those who do will find almost no market for their exports, and those who could find buyers may not be able to send shipments as credit contraction prevents shippers from getting the letters of credit they need to ship goods. A glance at what has happened to the Baltic Dry Index (below) indicates the difficulties already facing shipping companies.


Figure 18

Unfortunately middlemen are almost completely expendable, and the services of others are likely to become unaffordable for the majority very quickly. While there will be a huge surplus of labour, and the few who retain purchasing power will be able to hire anyone they want for very little, most people will have to do everything for themselves, as poor people have done throughout history and as most of the population of the world does now. Not only will we lose access to the paid labour of others, but we will lose our virtual energy slaves as well. This will represent an enormous fall in the standard of living for the vast majority.


Figure 19

Whereas inflation can conceal a fall in purchasing power, so that people may not even realize it is happening, deflation brutally exposes it. Wages would have to fall just to keep purchasing power the same, but keeping it the same will not be an option for cash-strapped employers. In addition, with a large surplus of labour, workers will have no bargaining power. This is a recipe for exploitation the likes of which we have not seen for a very long time, but in the intervening adjustment period it is likely to lead first to war in the labour markets.

I would expect general strikes and a breakdown in the reliability of centralized services such as healthcare, education, power systems, water treatment, garbage (and snow) removal etc. This will be exacerbated by plunging tax revenues for all levels of government, which governments will try to compensate for by raising taxes, on anyone still capable of paying, to punitive levels. We would thus expect rapidly deteriorating services at much higher cost.


Figure 20


Figure 21

Many people are at risk of being eventually priced out of the market for goods and services, and particularly the essential ones, entirely. In my opinion, we stand on the brink of truly tragic circumstances.


Figure 22


Figure 23

End note:

The day before the ASPO conference began in Denver, Stoneleigh, Rembrandt Koppelaar and myself took a drive into the Rocky Mountains National Park providing the opportunity to discuss and reflect upon the current global situation. As the week unfolded I realised that I was in denial about the gravity of the global financial situation. In what has become a situation of complexity that is beyond the ken of most folks, I find it simpler to break this down into smaller components that I can relate to.

In the UK, we have an escalating burden of government debt that we can unlikely ever repay. Unemployment is rising, tax receipts are plunging whilst expenditure on social security, health and the elderly go through the roof. We have been living way beyond our means, which with the peaking of UK oil and gas have suddenly become more meagre. We have an election in May 2010. The new government will want to raise taxes and cut public spending. The current reversal in global growth is sending energy prices higher. Higher unemployment, higher taxes, higher energy prices and reduced public services are a toxic mixture for an ailing economy. If the bond market decides to price in the risk premium for escalating debt it will be game over. The questions are if and when? Figure 13 is one of the more interesting for me.



That's me on the left and Rembrandt Koppelaar on the right, contemplating our future after a most enlightening, if not very cold day in the Rocky Mountains. Photographer - Stoneleigh.

Dumb question - what prevents governments from coercing banks from lending? Not that they should need coercion after a certain stage, after all, it isn't in their best interest to see things get to the stage where municipalities are unable to maintain basic services such as water distribution or sewage treatment. Such a situation unfolding in the developed world would be disastrous for their very existence; perhaps remedies to this situation are being hashed out behind the curtains, a rather Star Chamber or NWO scenario I admit.

Also, as a lame appeal to historicity, John Michael Greer wrote about how the alternative press was aflame with assurances that the world economy was on the verges of completely unraveling in the wake of the '87 stock market crash. This is a facet I always keep in mind reading analysis of energy/environmental/economic issues, and prognostications of dire collapse. I do recognize that the current recession is qualitatively worse than anything since the GD; is there no way out, however? People have shown to have an unquenchable thirst for mania, perhaps that can be met with some new hot market, Green tech, for instance. Or informal avenues of getting business done will take over where the FIRE sector has left people in the lurch.

I guess Stoneleigh's post above could be summarized as: Too much paper money everywhere! That has been a rallying cry since paper money first existed. However, I don't think it is the core problem. Free markets adjust to too much paper money with inflation and changes in exchange rates.

In terms of the immediate possibility of deflation and ensuing economic calamity: while in 2009 M2 money supply in the US is not growing and US private credit growth is declining, money supply and credit in the fastest growing part of the world is expanding. Look at Chinese M2 money supply growing and the massive Chinese credit expansion since the beginning of 2009.

In other words, are credit and money supply contracting globally? No. What is playing out a regional shift with the developed world deleveraging and the developing world leveraging. Global deflation is not likely in this scenario.

The lynchpin in all of this (if you believe that monetery policy has created the current situation) is that one of the largest economies in the world has been growing rapidly since the early 1990s in percentage terms and absolute terms while keeping their currency effectively pegged to a devaluing US dollar.

China's Yuan peg to the US dollar created the cheap credit flow in the developed world. It has hamstrung US monetary policy and free market adjustment. It allowed the Chinese to win jobs from every country in the world as the cost of production in China kept going down with the Yuan-dollar peg. Other developed word currencies (EUR, GBP, AUD etc.) all had to follow the descent in the USD (with the resultant cheap credit) in order to maintain relative competitiveness with the US. These developed currency devaluations were free-market driven but their core driver was also ultimately the Yuan-US Dollar fix.

This beggar-thy-neighbor monetary policy (China taking growth from the rest of the world with an ever cheapening currency) can only last so long before it creates unsustainable distortions in credit markets and global employment/manufacturing. The credit crisis in 2008 was the first sign of a market convulsing under the Yuan-Dollar restraint.

If China decoupled (as they will have to do eventually), their currency would strengthen, global inflation would increase (as producing goods in China would become more expensive) and the monetary (a key part of which is credit) world could rebalance.

If China doesn't de-couple then the only solution is for all other countries to raise trade barriers to prevent the flow of capital to China.

The fixed Yuan is THE core of our current monetary problem.

Buster - not so by a long shot. It's not just credit - it's credit vs real resources per unit time.

The Chinese add even more credit based on air than OECD does. How much super high EROI energy is left to service the debts that China has entered into? And I don't think Stoneleighs point is that there was 'too much paper money everywhere' but that credit (now digital money) has too strong of a role in the foundations of our financial system. This situation has happened many times before - what most people see as inflation is the natural response to seeing lots more money/credit being thrown at the problem by governments - and if the world system stayed the same as it had the last 30 years then inflation would be the natural result - but credit/debt and interest are part and parcel of (the current) economic pyramid - we now have a debt imperative that in turn results in a growth imperative - this then creates a giant beggar-thy-neighbor tug of war where debtors vie with eachother in the market to capture enough of a finite supply of credit to repay their loans with interest. It is far far greater than a problem of US or China or various currencies - in the end it gets down to available energy gain per unit time relative to total debt (not paper money) supply. Virtual wealth far exceeds real productive capacity, and until this is recognized and equilibrated it will likely get worse (e.g. China and G20 nations throwing more debt at problem).

When looking at this situation from vantage point of whether oil or gold prices will go up or down as opposed to whether current distribution system can handle this extreme of systemic problem will lead one to different conclusions. I think these problems are solvable, but in likely only in unconventional ways -i.e. we have lots of natural resources remaining but not enough to service the ongoing claims structures-

How much debt is too much, though? I always imagine the prospective person wanting to start up a new business; give them just enough liquidity to get a start. Helicopter Ben seems OK with his money drops, is he insane? Indifferent? Deliberately engineering something sinister?

We seem to have concluded that energy can only consume so many percent of the economy before smoke begins to come out of the engine - ca. 6% - how monstrous a tab can we rack up on our children without the walls of the global Potemkin village keeling over? The global aspect of it all seems to be a strong qualification. Rather than an Argentina or Indonesia burning out in isolation, this all seems more like...what's the appropriate analogy, an episode of Gilligan's Island? The Stanford prison experiment? Collaboration between parties is essential, otherwise things will go sideways overnight, harming everyone involved. So this collapse will be catabolic and long duration. Or the patient will spend a long time in the hospital recovering.

On the subject of China, these are quite shocking images: Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

How much debt is too much, though?

This is best explained by the Minsky moment that Herman Minsky came up with,

A Minsky moment is the point in a credit cycle or business cycle when investors have cash flow problems due to spiraling debt they have incurred in order to finance speculative investments. At this point, a major selloff begins due to the fact that no counterparty can be found to bid at the high asking prices previously quoted, leading to a sudden and precipitous collapse in market clearing asset prices and a sharp drop in market liquidity.

So basically when investors start having cash flow problems in keeping up with debt repayments and investors, people can't take on any more debt relative to income as their wages simply can't support the interest payments.

The last 30 years have seen real median wages in the US remain stagnant while debt has risen dramatically courtesy of Wars, excessive and often fraudulent lending and a collective mood of optimism. Now we see that people have overextended themselves and there simply isn't enough cash circulating in the economy to repay the debts.

My fundamental difference in view is that I think we have two challenges which happen to be coincidental: a monetary problem and an energy/resource predicament.

The monetary problem can be solved with time, patience, inflation and free exchange rates. These debts/currencies are tokens/markers with no intrinsic long term value. Their value is short-term and market restrictions, such as China's fixed exchange rate, can distort these short term values quite significantly.

The energy/resource predicament has no readily apparent solution. This predicament was not caused by the monetary system.

The last 30 years have seen real median wages in the US remain stagnant while debt has risen dramatically courtesy of Wars, excessive and often fraudulent lending and a collective mood of optimism. Now we see that people have overextended themselves and there simply isn't enough cash circulating in the economy to repay the debts.

Reality check on income: In 2008 dollars (i.e. real inflation adjusted terms), the median household income in the US in 1980 was US$44,059. In 2008 it was US$50,303. (source: US Census Bureau)

I wouldn't disagee with you that absolute debt and debt/income may be higher now than 30 years ago. However, bear in mind that interest rates have been extremely low over the past ten years and so the burden of servicing that debt has been relatively less than 30 years ago.

What I am trying to convey is that this period of very low interest rates in the developed world has been caused by a distortion of the global monetary system resulting from China's fixed exchange rate policy. This monetary problem is solveable.

We've been in a 30 year treasury bull market, usually these are cyclical, each bear and bull market in treasuries lasts about 25-30 years. So we are now entering the final swan song of low treasury rates followed by rising rates.

Also as per Nate Hagens 147 page slide show here - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5567

On page 109 and 110, real wages have been stagnant for 35 years after rising for 150.

The monetary problem is not solvable, the root of the problem is not China's fixed exchange rate, rather it has been the hyperexpansion of credit relative to the real, income producing assets in the economy. There was extreme malinvestment across all sectors of the global economy.

The correction is always equal and opposite to the deception that preceded it

The mathematics of debt vs income are irrefutable. This will end badly, all government intervention has served to do is to make the underlying crisis greater with it's asymmetric policies.

The problem is excessive debt and insolvency, countering this with more debt in the form of trillion dollar deficits and adding liquidity is foolhardy. The only way a credit induced depression can be solved is by making it worse as opposed to the garden variety inventory led recessions. As the bad debt must be cleared as it acts as a toxic sludge choking the whole system.

The problem is excessive debt and insolvency

What about the almost 50% of the world economy (developing nations) that have extremely little debt compared to the developed world?

What about the vast majority of people in the developed world that are not defaulting on their debts?

What about the huge growth in real wages for those living in the developing world?

What about the vast majority of people in the developed world that are not defaulting on their debts?

Yet.

When oil goes up again, the economy will contract further, putting the next tranche of debt-holders in trouble and so on.

There is a pattern here forming. We're just at the beginning of it and most people won't see it until it's too late.

The problem is excessive debt and insolvency, countering this with more debt in the form of trillion dollar deficits and adding liquidity is foolhardy.

The one thing governments can do that you or I can't is inflate away their debts - and ours along with them - through monetization.

No they can't. We are stuck in the liquidity trap, where the velocity of money is low (ie it is hoarded) and real interest rates will be punishingly high. Increasing the money supply, especially the supply in circulation, is not possible under those circumstances. The bond market will also keep a lid on such efforts while the international debt financing model still exists, which will be a while yet.

One begins to get the distinct impression that the massive potlatch of bailout money over the past year was not really about any sort of real assistance to the macro economy, but rather just a matter of simply throwing a life ring to the favored few with good political connections. The entire economy, and most of the people, may be going down, but they, at least, will be saved from the full consequences.

The best government that money can buy.

I agree. Bailouts are only ever for the well-connected few, although they are sold as being for the little guy. It's no surprise given the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the treasury. Wall Street took over Washington a long time ago and is effectively using public money as its own private slush fund.

Oh where is Jeppin so s/he can show all of you up and explain how you are wrong about 'Wall Street took over Washington'.

Stoneleigh
'No they can't. We are stuck in the liquidity trap, where the velocity of money is low (ie it is hoarded) '

diagree. even michael panzer whose books u like says; they can put $/debit cards in our hands, & accounts electronically.

& i believe will do so when the chips are down for politicians, & they can no longer cater to the bankers. this is what is different than before.

blow the bond market/dollar, probably. maybe a war in the midst of such would provide some cover.

Why? What makes you think they give a damn that you have lost your home? Or about anything else? There is a reason some wealthy people are building lifeboats. And their lifeboats will be a hell of a lot seaworthy than most of ours.

This assumption that the wealthy and powerful are afraid of social chaos is silly to me. It seems fairly obvious to me they consider themselves above it all. After all, they just screwed the global pooch, sold us all their losses, bought up all the assets with any value with money we gave them, gave themselves huge bonuses with the same money, then started crowing about all the profits they were making because of all the money we gave them and debt we bought from them.

They will not be fighting any wars, either. Draft dodgers make the best war hawks, after all.

Where in all that do you see any concern for you and yours?

Cheers

ccpo
no assuming any concern, political reality i am talking about. probably endgame; only a matter of months at that point, but Nothin to do w/ concern for me or u or ours.

bankers & the wealthy will be against but til elections are voided fully then the politicians have to be at certain addresses some at times[read violence]; & they sometimes are not rich yet so party/politics is the main game for them.

thanks for the response.

I don't think the point of politics and a few people not being rich means much.

Cheers

i agree. the basic point to me stands; i. e. politicians are very short sighted & will ultimately take care of themselves doing anything that keeps them in office. bankers won't be in charge then; but endgame will be well underway.

And so long as an external force like FedGov needs tax payments via hard currency the well off will be able to exchange what they (Feel they) need from the non wealthy so that for the non wealthy have a shot at keeping FedGov at arms lenght.

Creg,

Governments are not going to put a significant amount of spending power into people's hands, except perhaps for food stamps as a means to prevent rioting. Bailouts are NEVER for the little guy. The bond market wields the power for the time being, although not in perpetuity. While it does there will be no inflation.

I agree that a war as cover is very likely.

No they can't. We are stuck in the liquidity trap, where the velocity of money is low... and real interest rates will be punishingly high.

They can't just print paper to pay off their debts? I wasn't talking about increasing the money supply through lending. I thought the threat of monetization was what earned Helicopter Ben his moniker...

Or is that what you meant by:

The bond market will also keep a lid on such efforts while the international debt financing model still exists, which will be a while yet.

Here's where my understanding is lacking... wouldn't it be the foreign exchange markets that keep them in line by devaluing the currency? Although, if all the developed countries are doing the same then wouldn't we just see declines relative to developing countries' currencies and a shift in relative purchasing power between the two sets of currencies?

They can't just print paper to pay off their debts? I wasn't talking about increasing the money supply through lending. I thought the threat of monetization was what earned Helicopter Ben his moniker...

The Fed doesn't print paper, it midwifes credit expansion, but it can only do that if there are wiling borrowers and lenders. That will not be the case going forward. Helicopter Ben didn't drop free money, he dropped free debt (ie debt at negative real interest rates for several years), but that period is essentially over now.

Here's where my understanding is lacking... wouldn't it be the foreign exchange markets that keep them in line by devaluing the currency? Although, if all the developed countries are doing the same then wouldn't we just see declines relative to developing countries' currencies and a shift in relative purchasing power between the two sets of currencies?

After the initial flight to safety phase, with the US dollar as the primary beneficiary, I think we will see a chaotic currency regime with beggar-thy-neighbour competitive devaluations. I wrote about this in The Special Relativity of Currencies.

As some 80% of the derivatives market is based on currency and interest rate bets, both currencies and interest rates are likely to go haywire in the not too distant future, and counter-party risk in derivatives is huge, a metldown in the derivatives market is highly likely.

No, No, No!

If one starts with what might be considered 'original debt' or what I call to myself 'barn raising' then it is impossible to inflate away debt without an ill effect on the society.

By 'barn raising', I mean that this is where one farmer borrows from his neighbours their labour (energy) to raise his barn and later pays it back in similar manner. These debts are stored in the memory of a small community.

When the community becomes too large for that memory it moves to other increasingly complex means of debt memory as in our present world class community (ho ho). I suppose in the original barn raising situation the debt could be eliminated by the farmer dying or being caused to die (possibly due to a reluctance on his part to reciprocate), but that would be of great consequence to the debt holders of that community. In a similar neither would debt inflation be a solution that any sane government would enable.

Oops I think I've just destroyed my argument, what the hell does Summers and Geithner and pal Paulson care about all us riff raff, hoy polloi and assorted neer'- do- wells.! Stomp em, marginalize em, and tax their foul brood.

...but if the barn was owned by the whole community then there would be no debt, only a newly built communal barn. Oh! Darn! I just used a word suspiciously close to 'communist'. Better call Jo McCarthy, can't have subversives like me mouthing off...the rich deserve their 'own' barns...

;)

It is impossible to inflate away debt without an ill effect on the society.

I don't recall saying anything about doing it without harm to society. I merely said they could do it.

Reality check on income: In 2008 dollars (i.e. real inflation adjusted terms), the median household income in the US in 1980 was US$44,059. In 2008 it was US$50,303

That is because there are more wage earners per household than there used to be. Here is hourly wages, which had increased, adjusted for inflation since 1830 until peaking in 1974.

By the way I could argue the Chinese credit situation is WORSE than US. They grew private credit 17% in 2008 and are on pace for 35% in 2009 which would mean that private-non-financial credit is 150% of GDP for China (roughly 150% in US) so in a few years they are reaching same levels as we are - how will these huge amounts of assets, which tricked our global economic system into thinking things were affordable and thus pulled resources forward in time, be able to be serviced/paid back? I just don't see it.

And the monetary problem facing the world started long before China was on world scene. Based on your comments I detect that either we really disagree on the problem or more likely I am doing a bad job of explaining it. I'm trying to write a post that will make it clearer. One thing I agree is that the money situation can be fixed - but it will result in a great disappearance of what people thought they were entitled to and new rules (i.e. worldwide banking will not run on fractional reserves but gradually towards 100% reserve requirements)

Nate, you are right in that the number of income earners per households has increased so that while household income increased, income per worker declined. More money for each household but less for each worker. Just in case I miss timely responses on TOD, I will always tip my data hat to Nate Hagens (as a reliable data source).

On money/debt being an issue we need to be concered about: I just don't think monetary policy has ever been a long term problem except for those believing that money is a long term store of value or that debts defined in those monetary (rather than hard resource) terms are long term fixed obligations.

In other words, if the US owed China 20 million barrels per day of oil for 10 years then the US should be freaked out. But given that the US owes China a Trillion dollars, then that obligation is only worth the paper it is written on so long as the US economy remains strong. If the US is in real economic trouble then it could print a single Trillion dollar note, hand it to China and say thanks for your trust in the past.

Hey Buster don't come round my joint with your Trillion dollar note, I will cry havoc and set my dogs on you! Heh, love the smell of sundered flesh of a morning.

Here's my FRoEI chart which I'm pretty sure is related to your chart with some time lags and market distortions:


Figure 5 FRoEI estimate for global primary energy consumption, 1969 to 2008.

It comes down to the cost of energy slaves. If you have to pay more for the energy, then you have to pay the appliers of energy less.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5495

Funny thats exactly the "peak oil" time I came up with.

My opinion is that was the real peak in oil production just slightly masked by on going technical advances and some spare capacity. We sort of missed it.

Ahh posted in June I don't think I had really resolved this at that point.

What you need to do is show the expansion of debt on top of this curve.

Then "peak" is in my opinion obvious. There is a almost perfect divergence in the 1997-2000 time frame.

Figure 21: shows this.

IMHO that was peak oil.

Funny thats exactly the "peak oil" time I came up with.

Please provide a reference link to somewhere that you have stated a specific peak oil time. You are once again bluffing.

Ahh posted in June I don't think I had really resolved this at that point.

So you realize that someone will call you on it so you retract the statement.

Typical. These statements are essentially content-free.

Hmmm ...

Don't beat up Memmel, he's a good guy. Very smart. He gets it and there aren't alot out there that do.

Nevertheless, lookie here:

steve from Virginia on May 18, 2009 - 10:17pm

- What energy price level causes changes in behavior? ANSWER; This remains to be seen but it probably isn't all that high.

What makes this final set of questions so hard to answer is that damage energy prices do to the economy lies at the economic margins rather than at more visible levels. People look at pump prices and say, "$2.30 a gallon, that's not so expensive!" Such a price may not effect individual consumers that much but similar price increases embedded at every step of the product supply chain amplify increases at other links. The cumulative effect makes products either unprofitable or unaffordable.

Loss of profits ->
Business failures ->
Increased unemployment ->
Cuts in consumer spending ...

Business profits are spent on petroleum. Petroleum prices shoulder aside investment needs. Speculative investment 'opportunities' are created to replace ordinary productive business rendered less- or unprofitable by increased input prices. That is, financial 'Home Runs' are sought to offest increasing unprofitablity elsewhere. The effests ricochet overseas. This is what is being seen currently despite massive stimulus and monetary easing; widespread business failures, high and increasing prices for some goods such as food, fertilizer and hardware, and large and widespread unemployment against a background of almost desperate financial speculation! Prices can decline over shorter terms because of deflationary episoces and temporary overcapacity ... but the long term trend appears to be UP.

Welcome to Peak Oil ... 1998!

Photobucket

There are other peak oils, all in the past.

The modern world can do without the current interation of money or credit, it cannot run without cheap energy. Expensive energy is just as bad as no energy at all. Those who can afford expensive energy have little need for it, they can afford other slaves. To the rest, value added to labor must leave a residual. Otherwise, the 'invisible hand' flicks the offender into insolvency.

Aren't we ... having a lot of insolvencies??? Seems I've noticed this, myself. Hmmm ...

Stoneleigh is absolutely right about the unwinding of credit, described as eloquently and simply as can be done.

Credit is a problem, a 'laundry' is needed to turn it into real, cash money. Since laundries can only wash so- many shirts at any given time, it takes (a whole lot) longer to launder massive and gigantic dollops of credit into cash.

What am I talking about??? This is not a credit crisis, rather the long running 'Crisis Of Credit', the existential dilemma of what do do with credit after it's created.

If you buy a $1 million dollar house with a $950,000 mortgage, you are leveraged; that leverage is credit. If you sell the house for $1.4 million and pay off the mortgage you have laundered credit into cash; your $50,000 down payment has been turned into a $450,000 cash profit. Unfortunately, this cannot be done anymore; the $1 million house is only worth $600,000. The real estate market has turned against credit.

This is the 'market failure' the bobbleheads on CNBC talk about. Non- existant or malfunctioning markets (not going up) means no laundries for credit. Credit is thence marooned. The owner who spent a $1 million on his house might recoup in twenty years ... or never!

Laundering is buying on credit and selling for cash. The Fed is trying to create some liquid cash to facilitate the laundering process, this is the back- story of the stock market rising (and rising more because finance makes its own credit). Finance cannot create base money or cash; it can create unlimited credit, which is also a problem as it outruns any ability to launder it into cash in any combination of markets.

Unfortunately, the banking system is hoarding this new base money because the same Fed has ordered/wheedled them to do so; the banks are insolvent and need the cash reserves to keep the doors open. The liquidity trap exists not by what the Fed says, but by what the Fed does - by the Fed's actions.

Also, the banks' actions constrain markets and credit laundering; the banks don't lend anew. They are saddled with old loans turning bad by the day - an outcome of the market failures - and there are no new good loans to offset the bad.

It would be better to kill off the banks and their bad loans with them and conjure some new banks with new capital.

What Stoneleigh doesn't mention is the level of corruption and criminality in the finance system. Read Stoneleigh to get the clarified deflation case and Denninger to get the idea of how corrupt the 'system' really is.

Extend and pretend is a way to institutionalize marooned credit. If there is no press to 'properly value' the various claims that credit represents, the claims can remain marooned for a long time. Chris Martinsen wrote an article about this not too long ago but I can't find it right this second.

Eventually, monetary expansion solves the problem represented by redundant claims.

Monetary and credit expansion is an artifact of modernity and trade. There have been deflationary spasms but inflation is the background noise of human 'progress'. Currencies always lose value, they have to. Only currencies that aren't in circulation hold their value. The remainder lose value because the act of circulation itself - velocity - devalues each unit of currency. The myth that some form of currency does not devalue is just that.

This is the gold 'phenomenon'; gold currency is held out of circulation - hoarded - requiring the addition of more gold into circulation by the authorities so as to have enough liquidity to conduct ordinary business. The addition is inflationary. Nevertheless, kings and bankers both learned long ago that the gains in trade outweighed the losses in 'monetary integrity'.

What matters as much as the amount of currency in circulation is what any particular currency can buy. The latter is generally more important than the former, this is my personal observation.

The desperation by central banks to expand monetary bases overnight suggests there are other issues behind the maturing of claims represented by credit. It is this press to 'instantly monetize' and the frenzied bubble- making in the US and China that suggests that there is more a resource issue and less a money/credit issue.

Time solves credit problems - debts cannot be collected from the dead - but resources are running out fast, particularly oil. Here, time is of the essense! When Mexico/Cantarell ceases exportable production in a year or two, there will be a collective heart attack in this country. A million- plus barrels per day - gone - is a lot of oil to simply disappear!

See Jeffrey Brown/westexas on this site and elsewhere ...

You can have all the money in the world, but if there is nothing to buy with it you may as well be penniless.

During the Depression, at issue was the change from agrarian America to urban/manufacturing ... that and the long- overdue abandonment of the gold standard. The crisis was more social and less economic. Manufacturing in the US wasn't comprehensive enough to employ the masses migrating from the countryside with few skills. Our current 'Niewe Depression' is the shift from shrinking energy productivity - lots of fuel guzzling machines earning little or nothing - toward shrinking labor productivity. Shrinking labor productivity means lots of hands working with simpler tools within less complex systems with less labor efficiency. As in the 1930's, the shift is as much social as economic, it is largely about how we fashion ourselves.

The Depression exposed a shortage of vocations at any wage; note all the artists and writers working for the Works Progress Administration. This country currently has an immense 'skill gap'. There lots of lawyers and administrators and folks sitting in offices sending emails to others sitting in indentical offices elsewhere - and lots of others who cannot imagine any other way of living. Those who do not work in this manner fantasize about doing so, not just in the US but around the world. This perception is enabled by cheap energy. Because the energy component is in the background, the participants believe the center orbits around the periphery; resumes or office locations or software or finance or legalisms or other outliers.

The crisis is really a process which is embedded within a social paradigm shift. Whether it is calamatous depends on how we define this shift and whether we have the courage to embrace it.

I remember this post.

The question is was oil production forced via economic means i.e the ever expanding fiat bubble.
If it was forced see my long post the forcing function was over about a 27 year period.
And if this resulted in over extraction of oil then we will see production basically collapse.

Nate has several posts on the economic side of the problem I don't think the economic situation is in
question. However the question is what was its effect on oil production ?

If the combination of a forced expansion of the economy and and effectively wartime advancement of technology was
able to extract oil at such a rate that we manage to maintain production rates at the expense of ever faster depletion then we should see production drop off rapidly once this forcing fails.

My opinion is there is nothing in any of the production data that indicates that we where not able to do just that.

In a private email I said if a system is set up to allow fraud to occur it will occur. By fraud in this statement I mean a complex system is capable of looking stable right to the point of collapse.

Thus using this concept if we are capable of over extraction then we did it.

Since I was unable to prove we did not and since we had a system that obviously would encourage it then we did.

Theoretically the probable should be to try and prove we didn't and about the only way to do that is to accept claimed reserve levels and also to accept that they a significant portion of the remaining reserves can be produced at rates close to our current production rates.

So by taking the approach of assuming guilt and proving innocence I was unable to really justify the reserve claims and much less convince myself of future production rates.

Any reasonable review of oil production suggest we have a lot of worn out old fields exploited to the max and any new finds are small or expensive to extract and are extracted rapidly once brought into production. No way could I even see us producing close to our current rate in say ten years.

Also of course the symmetric peak models that include the reserves with little adjustment suggest the same i.e production has peaked. So accepting the reserves still results in a peak.

So if the economic model suggests the system was forced. And the symmetric models suggest peak and we had the technology to distort the peak then its hard to dismiss asymmetric production.

And of course given my "rule of fraud" to disprove it I had to prove it could not happen unable to do that I had to accept it did.

Will I ever produce a post proving everyone else wrong I doubt it but I don't believe I have to thats simply the wrong question. Its up to others to prove that and asymmetric peak is impossible once enough data exists to make it probable.

And one more time it does not matter if we are asymmetric then we are past peak and production is in rapid decline and we will know the truth in months not years. Again most symmetric models and the asymmetric say peak oil is in the past its over the difference is the post peak decline rate.

What I don't understand is why people don't simply wait a bit see what happens over the next nine months and see if I'm right or wrong. If I'm right then things will get really crappy really fast if I'm wrong then we probably have at least 5-10 years to deal with slowly declining oil supplies.

Its a bit ridiculous given how long we have looked at peak oil to bash a model that either succeeds or fails in a matter of months.

I'll repeat my very short term prediction. If we are in a fast crash then as best I can tell global oil production is declining at the rate of 500kbd-1mbd per month. Since the "cliff" was actually curved we accelerated into this decline rate over the period from 2007-2008. I think we where in this zone if you will by the first part of 2009.

Getting this exact does not matter because if we are crashing then we are at the terminal decline rate right now.
Its high enough that it does not matter when we hit it exactly just that given the price movements if we are crashing then we are now in terminal decline. We can pick Oct 1 2009 as the date.

So taking the low estimate of 500kbd per month of declining production. Within three months of Oct 1 2009 then we would be down by 1.5 mbd globally so oil prices should be under serious strain by December and storage levels should be drawing down at a health clip. By March down another 1.5mbd so things should be getting really intresting and we should be entering a new price spike by that point perhaps even having past the old high.
By June 2010 and another 1.5mbd of declines we hit the point that outright shortages are becoming a serious issue god knows what the price will be.

Now of course these are just guesses and they can of course not be accurate but given that I believe that price has signaled a fundamental change if its fast decline then sometime in the next nine months at most we should be in a situation similar to what I outlined given the speed of decline and the expected high rate if your off wait a month :)

No matter what if collapse is correct and then any high decline rate pinned via the market price to now ensures very tight oil supplies within nine months. And I have not choice but to use market data or price to pin since now production figures are completely unreliable. Certainly there is wiggle room a brief unsustainable surge by KSA for example could temper prices for a few months perhaps a economic blowup could retard the system etc. However barring another rapid global collapse on the scale we had in 2008 then no other factor can retard the advance for more than a few months at most before its back into a tight supply situation.

Now I don't think that our economy can withstand another blow of the magnitude it took in 2008 its simply to weak.
So the only thing that prevents me from proving or disproving fast collapse of oil production then TSHTF is if TSHTF before we feel the full effects of collapsing oil production.

And again it does not matter I'm either completely wrong or right its pretty black and white and I think my predictions are near term enough and bold enough and I've stuck my neck far enough out on the chopping block that arguing my methodology can safely be reserved for nine months from now.

I see no real reason for people to blast me I'm in my opinion wide open. If I'm wrong then no real reason to look at what I've said its garbage.

If I'm right then it makes sense to really investigate the situation to see if better approaches are possible.
They may well be but at its heart the difficulty is corrupted data and I don't see a easy way around that.
Not that its not possible just not trivial. The solution is effectively a lie detector.
Not impossible but also not obvious lies by their nature are generally hard to detect much less prove.

And also I've said this before but I'll repeat it I have three kids 2,5,7 I personally hope I'm wrong I'd much rather have my kids growing up in a world were oil production is slowly declining and alternatives have time to grow.
It may not be a easy world the financial issues are not going away but its going to far far better then what I'm afraid will happen if I'm right. I'm probably my own worst critic since I really really want to be wrong.
But the harder I tried to prove my self wrong the more it became evident I could be right.

So I'm in the same boat as everyone else waiting patiently to see if I'm right or wrong and hoping I just chased a red herring.

If I'm wrong then prices will rise until this trillion barrels of oil is profitable to produce by all measure todays prices are already high enough if they hold steady. OPEC really has 4 mbd of spare capacity and can manage price for a few years at least. By then new projects based on say a 60 floor price will be coming on stream project delayed by the crash will be up and probably accelerated and although oil production will be tight and prices high that are endurable.
If prices fall some all the better it means supply exceeds demand and OPEC will hold even more oil offline to bolster prices. The longer the better. If we even made it five years then my kids would be 7,10,12 and even then decline would probably be slow so perhaps they will enjoy a good bit of their childhood in a relatively comfortable middle class world. I hope so. As and adult I hate what we have done but I had a fun time as a kid and I hope my kids get a chance to enjoy their lives and I'm not running around desperately trying to feed them. So literally from the bottom of my heart I want to be wrong. My brain remains unconvinced.

Does anybody else see what kind of mumbo jumbo this is?

Since I was unable to prove we did not and since we had a system that obviously would encourage it then we did.

This is not logic from any planet that I came from. Anyway, since when have you tried to "prove" anything on this forum. Another in the unending stream from the Miss Ann Elk school of nonsense. "My theory #2, which is the second theory that I have."

Theoretically the probable should be to try and prove we didn't and about the only way to do that is to accept claimed reserve levels and also to accept that they a significant portion of the remaining reserves can be produced at rates close to our current production rates.

So by taking the approach of assuming guilt and proving innocence I was unable to really justify the reserve claims and much less convince myself of future production rates.

Cripes, I just quoted in another comment that you are working the Chewbacca Defense as well. I wouldn't be able to make this up, as it is so bizarre. "If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

and then it starts to get even more convoluted:

And of course given my "rule of fraud" to disprove it I had to prove it could not happen unable to do that I had to accept it did.

Will I ever produce a post proving everyone else wrong I doubt it but I don't believe I have to thats simply the wrong question. Its up to others to prove that and asymmetric peak is impossible once enough data exists to make it probable.

Egad, no one talks in negative logic and expects to be understood!

I see no real reason for people to blast me I'm in my opinion wide open. If I'm wrong then no real reason to look at what I've said its garbage.

The problem is Memmel, that you make absolutely no sense, and so whatever your deeper point is gets completely lost by everyone trying to read your words.

WHT - It seems clear that your admirably analytical mind is incapable of comprehending the subtleties of memmels thought process but that is no reason to keep attacking him.

He has consistently sussed out several valid elements of this unbelievably complex trifecta (quadfecta, quint...?).

Try and take it with a grain, or maybe 70 proof grain.

Cheers!
Jef

One issue is that these problems are not entirely complex. That people make them excessively complex, and further the complexity through convoluted language really drives me up the wall.

Plus you claim that I am not taking it with a grain of salt. The fact that I bring up South Park and Monty Python analogies describes the level I treat my exasperation. It's not like I am getting all Freudian about it. In other words, it drives me up the wall while being entertaining as hell.

I will have a contributed story to TOD coming up in the near future on complexity. I am somewhat prepping for it by monitoring all the spew I see being tossed around.

WHT,

It's quite clear to outside observers that you are on a crusade.

If you don't like what Mike is saying, just skip what he writes and move to the next comment. There is a really simple solution to this and you are making it more difficult that it needs to be. I and it seems several other people get value out of what Mike is saying even if you are not.

Please accept my and others' requests and stop your crusade.

Please accept my and others' requests and stop your crusade.

Another common rhetorical argument is to claim that you speak for other people. On the list of fallacies, it is called "Appeal to Popularity"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It would seem that a site like this would not be prone to such a belief.

I agree with aangel. Not a fallacy. Besides, at least one other person had already posted a concurring opinion.

Also, the part you quoted above calling negative logic, I think it was? It was completely clear. Evidence enough you're on a crusade. We've seen it before. Suggest you get over it.

As an example of aangel's advice, I don't read memmel's posts much simply because they are too long and his lack of grammatical structure and, more particularly, punctuation causes me to have to re-read. Given the already-voluminous length, I just don't read most of what he posts.

But that doesn't mean it's not good or not useful.

Chill.

Cheers

aangel speaks for me too.

I always look for Memmels post first. They're fragmented, tangential but are painting a picture of the whole. They touch upon the overwhelming corruption that can skew the best devised statistics. WHT may be a painter like Rembrandt but the world may be more like a Dali.

OK, I look forward to the day when Memmel comes up with something that knocks us for a loop.

WHT, I agree with you.

WHT,

I agree with you. I spend so little time on TOD that I don't want to read a bunch of Jabberwocky and Memmel is a master at it.

This sounds harsh but in corporate life I have seen many of his style. Far too many. Pretenders and wannabes. Folks who got there by pure bullshit. Ones who somehow seem to get into the ranks of management and cause great harm.

Airdale

I gave up reading Memmels posts after he claimed the falling oil price at the end of last year was manipulation in the markets in order to prepare for an attack on Iran. The attack never happened and it became obvious the fall in prices was due to falling demand.

It is a shame really because sometimes memmel comes up with some interesting ideas. Unfortunately you have to read an incredible amount of drivel to get the odd gem.

I can understand WHTs frustration, however, the answer is simple. Just don't read the posts.

LOL that one is not over.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/u-s-bush-rejected-israeli-plea-attack-ira...

Probably the only smart move Bush made.

Will we probably when ? Dunno I'm sure it came very very close and who knows why we pulled back.
One time we won't. We where like a cat with a mouse playing with Iraq for years before the second invasion.

But war is a go/no go decision once your committed your committed for now its a no go.
But that can change in a hurry.

I too side with WHT. I remember what they told us about math in grade school:

Show your work.

If you present a result (in this case, Memmel's prediction) without showing your assumptions and sources, and the calculations you used to arrive at your conclusion, you're guessing.

It's fiction.

That said, note that even his supporters don't necessarily read his posts. Frequently, your rebuttals make him post again. Is this good for anybody? (I will admit that I usually only read the rebuttals after the initial post. Kinda like the Reader's Digest, only angrier.)

I'm with WHT.

Aangel,

Agreed,WHT needs to just ignore Memmel.There are a couple of regulars I ignore no matter what-its better for the site.

But Memmel-I must admit that WHT IS RIGHT IN ONE RESPECT-YOUR COMMENTS CAN BE VERY HARD TO FOLLOW-you could make your case much better by going over your comments and "tightening up"- your writing style is a sort of "stream on consciousness" and reminds me of Faulkner-one of our very best writers and yet one of the very hardest to read.

This works just fine in conversation but in a conversation you get continious feedback and minor little corrections and interjections continiously and that makes it possible to follow the speakers train of thought easily.

But please hang in there -there are a lot of gold nuggets in your comments.But a lot of dirt and gravel too.

I've offered to edit his posts, iirc. That aside, whether or not any of us agree with WHT or not is irrelevent. His attacks on memmel are personal and pointless.

And, again, not the first person he's done this with.

Seems to me the proper handling here is for WHT to use the inappropriate flag or for Leanan to force editing on memmel's part.

WHT's screeds are unpleasant and achieve nothing but to spill his bile over the site.

Cheers

Thank you for the honest appraisal. I didn't realize I come off that bad. My close associates say I can be "edgy". I guess that turns into bile when converted to the printed word.

Same here. My comments are observations.

Cheers

Thanks I wish I could use english I try to communicate as best I can. I used to not write at all since I was so ashamed of my inability to grasp language but at some point I just said to hell with it and write.

My experience has been when I try and clean things up I simply make them convoluted a different way.

And yes I'm to scared to do a key post. Posting in comments I feel comfortable but its like fear of heights when I have to write "officially" I freeze up big time. Stage fright maybe. Its something I've never been able to control so.

As far as proving my numbers well the real problem is once you do the corrects the result is awful. And it has nothing to do with current events but back in the 1980's. I have posted a bit on this but the picture in paints is extreme.
The US systematically gouged its own citizens and the corruption is huge.

I see no way to not come to this conclusion yet its impossible to "prove" so I don't see any solution.
Effectively its Enron on a global scale for oil with the US government deeply involved.

Basically what happened in the 1980's is the US claimed it was using a lot less oil and the Saudi's claimed they where not shipping it however if I'm right this never happened. Not that US consumption did not decline or flatten slightly but it was no where close to what was claimed.

This of course means the expectations of large demand drops as prices increase are false and oil demand becomes very inelastic past a small drop of optional usage. Same result I claim now. But if its true now then it was true in the 1980's so your left staring at a huge lie.

My views are extreme but this conclusion is beyond extreme however I see no way around it.

In any case either we have effectively been living a lie for most of my life or not.
Thats not a comfortable conclusion. And it probably does mean that our glass house will be shattered.

In any case I'm going to take a bit of a break and probably focus on the campfire side. I think I've said enough.

If things actually start devolving like I think they will then I'll post again if its relevant.

But I need to go to London tomorrow then I have several large software projects to release I have little more to say for a while and I'm really busy so its a good time to take a break from the oildrum.

I am all for memmel posting whatever he wants to say.

Granted sometimes I have trouble digesting everything, but then again, I have trouble digesting what a lot of excellent posters have to say - especially when they talk from the scientific point of view (coming myself from a Wall Street background).

I certainly hope memmel wil be around when oil goes through $100 - which may come quicker than many even here expect.

Thanks I'll leave one last post and I really have to go.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production+consu...

Take a look at the chart. And think about it.

Edit:

And I found this so the charts on oil plus this article side by side help to give the big picture.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7175/ussaudi_love_affair_predates_bush.html

The close partnership inspired Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, to confide to a journalist in 1981 that "if you knew what we were really doing for America, you wouldn't just give us AWACS, you would give us nuclear weapons."

Take a look at the chart. And think about it.

The game of 20 questions, another common ploy I see to just make everyone confused. The chart shows that crude oil production is leveling off near 72,000/day but consumption (probably of all liquids) is going up to the high 80,000's/day. I think we kind of knew that this all/crude ratio was diverging.

I imagine this is part of your conspiracy that someone is hiding production numbers. I am sorry but you can't consume more than you make, so the production has to come from somewhere. If they are hiding crude production numbers, and the all liquids is fake data, that would mean that every oil-producing country in the world would have to be involved in the conspiracy. I don't buy it, but then again, why am I getting sucked into this discussion again? Oh yeah, I only want to make some sense out of the data I see.

If they are hiding crude production numbers, and the all liquids is fake data, that would mean that every oil-producing country in the world would have to be involved in the conspiracy.

I don't see this at all. Any conspiracy if you will it between the US and a few select producers to channel oil into the US and divert the funds to fight the Evil Empire. Given that the evil empire died before we started to see the divergence expand then I can't see how what effectively was a hidden tax to fund the cold war effects what your saying.

Now the divergence itself suggest for years at least since sometime in the 1980's NGL's where increasingly covering expanding demand because crude supply was not expanding fast enough. This could mean a lot of things but given that debt was expanding during this period it seems the demand was there and more crude would have resulted in more real growth and less inflation monetary inflation. But the key is this suggests we where able to grow NGL's but not crude production.
So there has been strain in expanding crude production for a long time.

If you further assume that real US consumption was higher back during the cold war evil empire days and it was met by off the record Saudi production and the cash diverted to fight the good fight against the Soviet union then the expanding debt bubble and stress on oil supplies is even.

Its hard to see how we could have had a sharp drop in US consumption and the world flooded with oil and the Saudi's cutting steeply to maintain prices then not long afterwards enter a period where NGL's where covering for slow growth of oil production. The entire time debt was being steadily increased.

That by no means says the Saudi's did not cut some production just that whatever their real production number where through the 1980's is not reflected in the official numbers.

Now assuming that the US did indeed institute a hidden tax on Americans via larger crude imports and whats effectively a profit sharing agreement with corrupt countries this mechanism is probably still around if not all that useful.

Also if you look outside of crude it explains our love affair with dictators around the world they allow the US to effectively cut a deal to sell our consumption with the US getting a cut of the money. Its a hidden tariff and of course inflation allowed us to pay it. Its a win win situation the dictator gets filthy rich and the US gets its money to fight unpopular wars and whatever other scheme we wanted and bypass congressional control.

Now this of course is your typical skimming operation so its on top of whatever is normal and can't be to large or its obvious so as far as oil itself goes all this does is add uncertainty into the numbers. With Saudi my best guess is say 1-2mbd or so of excess oil over what they reported as production.

Now of course just like in Texas these hot oil sales tend to depress the price of crude regardless of attempts to control crude production so there are of course limits. But the net result is a fairly good control of prices.

At least into the 1990's esp the late 1990's when we begin to see serious divergence and NGL growth diverge from crude.

Of course it seems that there was spare capacity in the system during almost the entire time but now its hard to know how often excess capacity was diverted to off balance sheet crude sales.

Of course its hard to say or guess the changes can't be that large but with us generally using 50-60mbd or so of crude
your talking about a variable that could be as large as 2-4mbd or 4-8% of the crude market. The steady monetary inflation makes it difficult to understand but price were in general fairly stable which means you had a nice set of feedback loops that for the most party kept the party going.

For oil the net result is the pressure on oil production was probably higher than we realize for quite a while.

The problem I have with the shark fin model is that it practically requires that a significant force is fairly constantly applied to oil production in other words the demand has to be relentless and as technical advances where made the oil was used. Assuming at the highest level the force was the expanding fiat currency debt is fine but it has to be connected to oil production basically from day one. I can't see how it makes sense that we where expanding our debt and oil was not effected then suddenly it was.

The divergence of course i.e ever more debt and slower and slower oil production starts in the late 1990's 1995->
However the system would have had to already been coupled before this I don't believe it just suddenly started coupling at that point that simply does not make sense. Petrodollar recycling was already in place back in the 1970's at least maybe even back into the 1960's. This stealth tax concept probably did not start with Regan either and it seems to be a game we play with many countries and a lot of different products not just oil. Which makes sense if this was/is something we do to fund our foreign operations outside of congressional control then its probably a generic game.

So looking at US imports.

This would have to be a smooth curve or a lot smoother than it looks starting as far back as the 1960's going forward.

I'm left with not choice but to invoke evil empire conspiracy theories and the war on communism as the underlying driver and source of the oil that would smooth the curve. So for several decades production was understated and then it moved to probably be overstated as the NGL divergence started occurred. Post 1998 for a while growing NGL production offset what ever was really happening with oil production. I've reached the point I'm willing to slap a +/-10mbd on the dang production number and forget about it. It is whatever it is and I'm not sure it really matters what the exact production was in any given year. What matters is that we have a greedy mechanism that can and will consume all oil production within reported production plus some large error term.

So the coupling between oil and US consumption esp once we went to fiat was alway present pressure on oil production was pretty constant and we produced basically at maximum minus whatever variation happened in unknown but uncomfortably large error term. Thats fine as year after year decade after decade the variations don't really matter as the pressure or demand side is constant. As long as the pressure existed if real production went a bit low one year it was probably higher the next.

In the late 1990's of course the pressure increased and oil production was unable to respond NGL's again are critical as they helped offset our inability to really increase oil production but the situation steadily worsened on the debt side.

Eventually oil prices themselves started increasing as far as I can tell closely linked to NGL production growth slowing or the widening gap with oil. Plenty of error in the numbers to speculate what may or may not have happened.

Now finally we can invoke the shark fin the system was stressed for a very long time technical advances allowed this stress to be offset by relatively high oil production and growing NGL production also help the supply side respond to the demand stress from constant fiat expansion. However this eventually comes at a price of course as if you do this to a system it can suffer catastrophic failure. The needed driver to create the stress seems to exist in my opinion over a long enough period to have distorted the system.

Now that by no means says that we will crash and I try to post repeatedly that I think that oil production is at a crossroads if we did what I think we did then we crash if not then we don't.

No I'm not going to repeat my post as to wha I think we are at a crossroads right now but heck 140 oil then already back to 75-80 suggest somethings going on we can leave it at that.

Now historically what I find really really interesting is this extension of the stress back through the 1980's it was done simply because I had absolutely no valid reason not to push the coupling all the way back in time with it strengthening rapidly after the onset of the fiat dollar.

But then I needed some sort of tin foil hat scheme or grand conspiracy to support higher unreported production.
It just so happened we had Reagan and his battle against the Evil Empire going on right where I had to have had some really questionable things going on with the reported numbers. And of course on a smaller scale it extends back into the Vietnam war era.

So if I do turn out to be correct then the effectively complete corruption of our government in its efforts to fight Communism outside the constraints of our legal system is what seems to have started us down this road of destruction on both the oil and financial side. Once communism fell the wacko system created to fight communism continued to expand like a cancer driven harder as oil/NGL production faltered. We simply kept right on pushing the same messed up system to fight a war on drugs and war on terrorism never stopping.

And if this is correct it could very well have resulted in us depleting our oil supplies to the point production crash. Or maybe it did not. Maybe rapid expansion of debt and extreme economic pressure resulted in a nice gentle move to peak and a nice gentle decline. And I wrote it that way to try and show how unlikely it should be.

All our commodity production not just oil should be strained to the max only technical advances from the green revolution to oil has allowed us to effectively dodge the bullet and keep on going. I find it hard to believe that we can be so grossly negligent on the monetary side yet effectively never ever have problems on the low level commodity input side of our economy. Now of course I could well be wrong and everything ok and all we have is a bit of a debt bubble to blow off and everything will be ok. Plenty of low level commodities are left and yes they may be stressed some but further technical development or silver bullets will save the day.

What really funny is almost every single technical market analysis indicate that this is the big one we have hit the wall. Going all the way back to the top if the economic system has hit the wall then it makes sense the commodities have also esp oil. Otherwise organic growth from expansion of commodity production coupled with technical capabilities should have been able to prevent all the economy charts from redlining.

Sure its a circular argument but its a tightly coupled system so everything hits the wall at the same time.

And one more time if its going to hit the wall it obviously already has there is not a lot of reason to argue the point. And thats what I keep trying to say. The numbers I'm interested in probably don't exist in the public heck some of my speculation might only be proven long after I'm dead. A historian 100 years from now may go through the secret records of the fallen American empire and reconstruct my arguments and prove I'm right. Or we may never know.

Or I simply could have been wrong and perhaps if we do crash then a strong coupling between oil production and debt from the 1990's onwards was real and it was not that coupled before then. If so I simply don't understand why it seems a bit of a stretch that a coupling lasting only 10-14 years was capable of such distortion of the worlds oil supply.

I'm pretty confident that the numbers that tell the real story simply are not available to the public if they still exist at all. If we don't crash then of course it does not matter however if oil production does crash there is a small chance that some truths may be discovered and made public if so perhaps I'll find the answers to my historical concepts.

And this is not about oil its about how a reasonably intelligent wealth democratic nation can destroy itself.
The answer as far as I can tell is its senseless hatred of communism and people that wanted to do things a different way. Plain old prejudice and bigotry did us in.

We can talk about the evils of communism and Stalin was not a nice guy but China shows that if we where willing to live and let live that perhaps the senseless ware could have ended.
And if we had not gotten so warped from our war with Russia then perhaps the relationship with China would not have been so warped. The saying from the Vietnam war of destroying the village in order to save it seems to fit perfectly.

And last but not least if I'm right about oil we screwed things up not just for ourselves but for the entire planet.

I really do not understand this discussion. Without any context, you put up a chart of world oil production and consumption and tell us to think about it. Figuring that this was a game of gotcha or 20 questions, of course I took the bait.

I hope you realize that my response was context-free and that your counter response to me is now effectively doubly-context-free since you did not respond to my specific points. In case you have forgotten how it works, that is how you play the game of 20 questions. You started it, so you really ought to finish it.

Its not context free.

The problem is Americans feel they where completely isolated from the effects of the cold war some how the American Empire managed to defeat communism risk free. It was not risk free and we did and will pay the price for this senseless war. We created a system that allowed us to not only defer payment but also live rather well at the same time.
Oil was extracted after WWII in this social economic context. I'm suggesting that we borrowed not only money from the future to accomplish the task but also oil. The reason we succeeded for so long is because we accomplished not on monetary inflation with little opposition but also aggressive extraction of resources to prevent a simple and rapid fall into hyperinflation. I can't see how financial inflation could have worked unless resource usage also expanded in response to offset some of the inflationary pressure and convert the money to long term debt.

Excellent point, and in a post short enough that I had time to read it!

You might want to include the functional deflationary effect of transistorisation of electronics which has commoditized much of the grunt work of accounting and other mathematical analysis.

No way. It is context free because you decided to show a graphic without any context behind it.

Here is an example of your approach:

"Take a look at the chart. And think about it."

That is exactly what you said in an earlier comment. No other context than that directive to "think about it".

Egad, do you see how ridiculous your games can be?

I have to admit that I find many of memmels posts fascinating partly because he seems to be one the few willing to call BS on the official figures. I think there is a certain naivety to many who cant imagine both government & private entities manipulating and even outright falsifying the data when it suits. Indeed considering what is at stake here it would seem very probable. Having said that I understand the reluctance of this site to engage in such unsubstantiated speculation in order to maintain its credibility & reputation.

Comments top

One issue is that these problems are not entirely complex. That people make them excessively complex, and further the complexity through convoluted language really drives me up the wall.

Gee man how do you expect anyone to make a buck, first you gotta confuse them then you confound them then you charge them excessively, and if that doesn't work, you pick their pockets while they are frothing at the mouth and cursing your eyes. Complexity compounds cash!! Hooray for capitalism democracy and the good old American way.

Very interesting Steve. I agree with you, and Denninger, on the extent of corruption, even though I didn't talk about it in this specific piece.

The beginning of Steve's post is also spot on. I'm not sure of the extent to which you and ilargi agree, but his insistence that this is not an oil recession - if I'm remembering correctly - is bogus on its face.

Even very simple math shows that around 1.5 trillion was sucked out of the economy between '03 and '08. That was back when a trillion was still a trillion and not the new billion. That's also not counting any of the follow-on costs, which are likely several times, if not magnitudes, greater.

It's not only a peak oil recession, but it is a peak oil recession. (Of course, if we consider none of this exists, period, without cheap energy, then it's absolutely a peak oil recession, with a lot of financial depravity piled on top.)

Cheers

Steve of Virginia,

I spend a good deal of time thinking about your comments.Sometimes you come up with better descriptive language than anybody else.Do you post on any other sites where I can see more of your stuff?

Hi Mac,

I have a blog that is a work in progress:

http://economic-undertow.blogspot.com/

Comments are welcome.

When I grow up I hope to gave a 'real' blog like Mish's or Automatic Earth ... or Barry Ritholtz or Calculated Risk.

Okay ... now for the issue of whether this is an energy of finance deflation - ccpo's observation:

If peak oil is in the past - late 1990's - deflation is unavoidable. The mechanism is found by looking into the spaces between conventional economic analysis.

While finance difficulties are centered around banking/lending and credit creation and accompanying market disruptions, energy difficulties are focused on ground level production and wages. It is therefore unsurprising that little attention has been paid to the effects of energy price increases on the lower levels of the economy.

Noteworthy is the general decline in US wages over the past 20 years. This is considered an outgrowth of increased offshoring of domestic jobs, particularly in manufacturing, as well as the importation of millions of low- wage immigrants for jobs that cannot be easily transferred overseas. This consideration takes the 'wrong end of the telescope' view; there is a compelling competitive reason to ship jobs across US borders.

The fact of the transfer is important but more so is the reason for it.

The outcome of offshoring has been the loss of domestic purchasing power. Good jobs lost are good customers also lost. Low- wage immigrants cannot afford to buy expensive products such as houses, regardless of financing - loans that cannot be repaid.

It is reasonable that the deflation began with the increase in energy prices beginning in 2003, while the energy dependence of the US on imports has been in the background of the domestic economy since 1970. Likewise, dependence upon imported energy has been in the background of the entire OECD since that time ...

...

It is the transition from manufacturing to service in the US that identifies the source of deflation rather than failures in finance. By this metric, the ground for the current deflation was prepared in the early 1980's during the energy crisis of that period.

The trouble started when industry became too expensive on account of the combination of high wages and increased energy prices.

Note: industry - what is left of it - complains that costs related to mitigating pollution have made industry too expensive to support in the US, and the Chinese experiment in poisoning their own country would seem to suggest this is a reasonable claim. Energy costs are much greater an expense to business than pollution mitigation ... which experience has proven to be small or non- existant.

Often mitigating pollution provides a return, which hollows that particular argument.

In my opinion, finance has contributed to our dilemma, but it is the tail and energy is the dog.

Just to be on the record:

I value Memmel's posts GREATLY.

By the way, in relation to that photo of Euan and Rembrandt "contemplating our future". That stare indicates that you have found the culprits for our problems. Can't you please look away while we print just a little more money and burn just one (ahem....85 million daily...cough) more barrel(s)? That's a severe stare if there ever was one.

Nate, you need to consider demographic changes in China when considering the increase in money/credit supply. Large numbers of Chinese are moving from the countryside into the city, and city dwellers have a much larger need for money than rural folks.

Also, your comment about 100% reserve banking is very interesting. One can argue that we're moving in that direction with the huge explosion of "excess" reserves held at the Fed. IMHO, the Fed is really just converting toxic assets into hard currency so that the banks can cover depositors, who are increasingly unemployed or retiring, and will need to draw down on their deposits in the coming years.

Here is hourly wages, which had increased, adjusted for inflation since 1830 until peaking in 1974.

Just on que, the same year I graduated from college.

That's life, or my life anyway.

Are you claiming that the roughly $6k gain in that time frame would buy the same amount of goods in '80 and '08?

A gallon of milk might have cost $1.60 in '80 vs. the $2.29 I paid today. If my math is right, that's a 43% increase in the price of milk vs. your 14% rise in wages.

A car might have cost $5,413 in '80 vs. the $27,958 today. That's a 400+% increase in the price of a car vs. your 14% rise in wages.

The numbers are worse, of course, if you start with where the financial system was pretty radically changed in the early '70's.

You might want to watch the video posted here by Leanan some time ago, The coming Collapse of the Middle Class. Elizabeth Warren.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

Cheers

My guess is that, prior to the recent gasoline hike, money would have bought more goods in the 70s.

You can't look at just staple goods, as "inflation" is not the same across all items. Look at what it would cost to make an old tube TV in 2007 (if they were made)... much less. Even the cost of any basic TV would have been less by percent of income during the 2000s, compared to the 70s. This holds true across most electronics. Look how many we throw out. They're so cheap they're disposable.

And then there is the fact that we are paying for better things. What would an I-Pod cost in 1974? A personal computer? A wi-fi connection? Rhetorical questions, but I hope my point is taken. All the money is the world couldn't buy the Rockefellers air conditioning. Today, it's standard.

Or take the car. You quote the current car price as $28,000. But you can now get a decent, running car NEW for a little over $10,000. It probably has close to, if not more, options that a '74 car. And above all, it gets the job done.

My point is, inflation is not as simple as looking at the price of milk and grain. Staples may have gone up, but not everything else. Over all, many people lived better in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, than they did in the 70s (excluding "unskilled labor"... but that's another issue). As is the next decade.

The prices were averages for both years. I chose items at random in order to satisfy your argument. You actually chose those that support your argument, and they were not averages. Apples and bananas. Guess which is more statistically valid.

If you want to examine a broad basket, feel free.

Or you could just watch the video.

Most importantly, I wasn't addressing inflation, but real wages.

Cheers

I think you're missing my point. There are different kinds of averages. Do you take the median or the mean for example? This sort of thing can obscure statistics. Quantitatively, the average salary of ten people who make 20,000K and ten who make 100,000K is 60K... but to state that the average salary is 60K is missing a lot of what is really going on. A somewhat similar point to what I was getting at... that by looking at only part of the whole, you are missing the big picture. And anyway, I don't think you picked those "at random" anymore than I did... the diffeence is that you were trying to apply that statistic to the whole. I was simply pointing out your faulty logic. My argument was only that your argument was unsound, so I think what I selected is fair.

So now you tell me what's more statistically valid, looking at the whole (not that you did that) or the loosely defined "average"...

I don't see how you can discuss "real wages" without consideirng inflation. And my point was directed at how one defines real wages anyway.

Just watch the video. Avoiding that is all you are doing. You aren't arguing anything of use.

BTW, average is average and mean is mean.

Cheers

Andrew brings up a key point: prices of staples have gone up while prices for electronics, cars and some other items have gone down.

The production of food and energy are technologically mature. The man hours required to produce a bushel of corn or a pound of chicken have been reduced to less than the cost of fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment.

If one has less discretionary income, the price of cars, electronics and other discretionary items had better come down.

Andrew brings up a key point: prices of staples have gone up while prices for electronics, cars and some other items have gone down.

The production of food and energy are technologically mature. The man hours required to produce a bushel of corn or a pound of chicken have been reduced to less than the cost of fuel, fertilizer and farm equipment.

There are many reasons for relative price movements, one of which is changes in the effective money supply. Cars, electronics and plastic tat from China have gone down even during a great credit expansion (ie inflation) due to the mobility of capital and international wage arbitrage (the dynamics of aging empires). For prices to fall in nominal terms under such circumstances means that they were going through the floor in real terms.

During deflation we could see the opposite - after an initial period of price collapse across the board, we could see prices of essentials rise in nominal terms against a backdrop of a collapsing money supply. This would mean prices were taking a moon-shot in real terms. The most essential things would be the most strongly affected, as we would then be into the phase where supply collapse would be the dominant factor (as demand destruction leads directly to supply collapse).

I am probably not alone here as the only one that doesn't totally understand what you're saying. Think I get the gist of it, but it's a little bit technical for someone without an economics background. I think that you're saying that, in a shrinking economy, the trend of luxuries becoming cheaper while necessities remain (comparatively) stable, might reverse? But I don't really understand the driving mechanism behind it (nor do I understand the driving mechanism of the relative price disparities on the "upside" either... I was just noting that they were there).

Another point: perhaps it's premature to say that we have "perfected" food production. At best, we might have perfected it in the current 20th century, FF rich conditions. But perhaps another way to look at what might come next (prganic, local, etc...) is not as a step back from the Green Revolution, but an adaptation to a new set of circumstances that the Green Revolution cannot (and wasn't designed to) address.
This is why I am not 100% sold on the connection of growing energy supply to economy. I think the economy can be reconfigured to grow with less energy... current American energy useage has more to do with historical happenstance and abundant supply than what is neccessary. Consider how Europe looks based on when it was "built"...

Cars, electronics and plastic tat from China have gone down even during a great credit expansion (ie inflation) due to the mobility of capital and international wage arbitrage

They're also going down due to manufacturing productivity improvements and economies of scale. US manufacturing reduces costs by 3-6% per year, year in and year out, by improving the way work is done. The UAW's ranks would have shrunk dramatically in the last 35 years regardless of outsourcing.

It is a Minsky moment indeed.

Anybody.Wasn't our GDP to debt ratio a lot higher in the depression and during WW2 ?

If by "our" you mean the USA, then yes compared to today. Other countries (the UK, and many other "big" nations at the time) had much higher proportions of population which subsequently died in war and debt/gdp during the 1930s and 40s. The US and other nations sacrificed huge proportions of human life (half a million citizens were killed in the US and a similar number in the UK) and economy never before risked on foreign enterprises. Most western economies wisely realized (as a result of WWI) well before the end of WWII that extracting raw commodities from a nation as retribution was a losing game and that mutually assured destruction/benefit was the way to go.

No. At the height of the great depression, when much of the debt hadn't yet defaulted but the GDP plunged, US total private and public debt reached about 250% GDP. Total US public and private debt is currently about 375% of GDP and still rising. We are in a historically unprecedented situation, which is why the old models are of limited predictive value this time.

I understand your point here and it is valid, but believe me back then they were very worried about the consequences of such a high debt. Back then, there had to be some very important people thinking what we were doing. Just like they're doing now in our time. Now we can look back on it and see how they pulled it off. So now what we do know is that the Gov will pump billions more into the economy if they have to. What the consequences of doing this is what we're all talking about. Your point of, and I quote you is, "We are in a historical unprecedented situation." I would say back then they said the same thing. In my humble opinion, the difference between them and us is ENERGY. All this other stuff is just a smoke screen compared to our complete dependency on other country's willingness to sell us OIL. I know OPEC loves our money and the security we can provide them, but it is still a decision that they make, not us. So these guys are not only deciding the fate of their own future but our future as well. Right now, it is in their best interest to sell to us. But if we learn anything from history that can change real fast. God help us if that happens! So like I said many times before we have lost the offensive.

In the next year the Government will bail out more banks or change the rules; fund States from short falls; extend the first time home buyers' tax credit; extend unemployment benefits and who knows what else. I bet making our debt level at about 500% of GDP. So at that point we all will just be spectators like we are now. We are all on this train together and I wish you all Gods Speed

Fantastic summary of the monster clusterf**k we're facing. Great charts (with sources too!) --thanks!

I agree. Stoneleigh makes a major error in her thinking here:

The bond market is far more powerful than governments at this point.

No, they are not. Governments have guns. Bond Markets don't.

Bond markets can make your life miserable, a pissed off government can make you dead.

Stoneleigh thinks like an economist, which means she doesn't understand the world - she only understands the representations of the world.

When push comes to shove, heads roll, and that's that.

I am not an economist, I am a big picture person with a formal background in science and law. I am perfectly well aware of real politik, but physical forces comes further down the line. For the time being the bond market is far more powerful than people typically imagine, because it has the power of the collective behind it.

Thanks Euan. Well, a lot of this went over my financially challenged head, but what didn't was scary indeed. And that graph of UK house prices - yikes!

What I noticed in that chart was something I suspected for a long time. There was no housing bubble in Germany.

There is a strong rental market here in Germany and people who buy/build houses tend to stay in them for life.

Oh by the way, I hope Stoneleigh is wrong about whats to come. It sounds awful.

For that reason, Germany's relative power within Europe should increase, even though their export markets are likely to collapse with demand for a period of time. The housing bubble nations will be significantly disadvantaged, particularly the UK and Ireland which are at the wrong end of a long energy pipeline from Russia. The pressure in that pipeline is already essentially zero when it's cold on the continent.

Neither of them will have the means to earn the income to pay for energy (or other) imports anyway. The implosion of the Irish bubble (and with it national income) will leave the Irish unable to heat all the new large homes they've built in recent years. The UK's income results largely from North Sea oil and gas (rapidly depleting) and the City of London (where huge fees are generated from money chasing its own tail). Without those sources of income the UK will be an over-populated basketcase, and a powder keg as well. My concern is that nascent fascism, especially when Nick Griffin of the BNP makes mainstream TV appearances. This is precisely why I no longer live there.

Similarly, there are places in the US (including my area) where a much higher than average proportion of the housing stock is owned free and clear, mostly by retirees. As long as the Social Security holds out, these homeowners don't have to sell, and that thus puts a pretty substantial floor under the local housing market.

My impression is that the places that are the worst off are the ones dominated by young wage earners, all of them with big mortgages.

Also, as the number of foreclosures and distress sales increases, does this not imply that the housing stock will increasingly consist only of houses owned free and clear and vacant bank-owned housing? At a certain point, it would seem that the downturn becomes self-limiting. Furthermore, it is looking like a very substantial fraction of those increasing numbers of vacant foreclosed homes will not eventually be sold at all, but simply trashed, vandalized, and eventually arsoned or bulldozed. This will also serve to somewhat limit the decline in housing values.

1. People have to live somewhere.
2. To the extent there is a total oversupply of housing --as there is in declining rural areas, the housing which gets abandoned/destroyed is always the worst of the existing housing stock--never newly built housing. The reason you see newly completed housing with no one living in them is that the builders and bankers refuse to reduce the prices to market clearing rates.

People need to live somewhere, but there is no guarantee that they are going to own it. The percentage of housing that was owner occupied hit an all-time high just about exactly when prices peaked. Back in the late 19th and early 20th century, home ownership rates were well below 50%. People need to live somewhere, but if they can't own, then they'll rent - unless they can't afford that either, in which case they'll squat.

Renters generally make do with less space than home owners. The house that holds one owner family could, with a few minor modifications, hold two or more renter families. Then there are the phenomena of kids not leaving home, kids moving back home, the brother-in-law on the couch, etc.

I don't know exactly what percentage of our housing stock will ultimately prove to be surplus and will have to be abandoned, but it is a substantial percentage.

The Great Depression saw a lot of mansions abandoned or converted into multi-family units. I expect we'll see that again.

Take a look at the latest Frontline for an example of that happening:
'Close to Home'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/closetohome/view/?utm_campaign=v...

It's rather deep into the program where we learn how many people are living in one house but the whole program is worth it to see how many of us will be living soon.

I saw that. The interesting thing was, it didn't appear to be an absolutely terrible thing. Watching TV together, extra pairs of hands to help out with things, people to watch after things when the homeowner is out of town. It didn't look like nearly the horrible experience - for either the homeowner or the lodgers - as some people seem to imagine. Far from ideal, yes. Compared to sleeping under an overpass, though, it didn't look all that terrible.

I think some of us will be living in totally new forms of housing.

http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/WALKINGHOUSE/walkinghouse.html

WALKING HOUSE is a modular dwelling system that enables persons to live a peaceful nomadic life, moving slowly through the landscape or cityscape with minimal impact on the environment. It collects energy from its surroundings using solar cells and small windmills. There is a system for collecting rain water and a system for solar heated hot water. A small greenhouse unit can be added to the basic living module, to provide a substantial part of the food needed by the Inhabitants. A composting toilet system allows sewage produced by the inhabitants to be disposed of. A small wood burning stove could be added to provide CO2 neutral heating. WALKING HOUSE forms various sizes of communities or WALKING VILLAGES when more units are added together. WALKING HOUSE is not dependant on existing infrastructure like roads, but moves on all sorts of terrain.

If you want a bit of a shock as to how we might be living, check out this tour of the fastest growing form of human habitation.

To the extent there is a total oversupply of housing --as there is in declining rural areas, the housing which gets abandoned/destroyed is always the worst of the existing housing stock--never newly built housing.

Much of the new build is rubbish that will only stand for a few years (like the concrete skyscrapers in Dubai that might last 10 years due to appalling construction standards). Having been built mostly in foolish places that will serve only as slums, due to their lack of proximity to anything useful, many of these places will simply go to ruin very quickly, after being stripped of useful materials.

Much of the new build is rubbish that will only stand for a few years (like the concrete skyscrapers in Dubai that might last 10 years due to appalling construction standards).

Could you provide some documentation of this? I've seen this claim by Alan Drake, and it never made any sense to me.

I can't provide any generalized proof, but I will confirm from my own observations that current construction is often pretty shoddy.

Oh, I've seen a lot of shoddy construction.

OTOH, I haven't seen any evidence that

1) urban construction is any better,

2) construction quality is, on average and in general, getting worse over time, or

3) quality is bad enough that "Much of the new build is rubbish that will only stand for a few years".

That last looks least defensible to me.

The only thing I might say in the way of anecdotal evidence in support of #3 (and it isn't my statement, I'm not defending it, just commenting upon it): I've seen quite a few houses built in the 1970s, and quite a few built in the 1950s or before, and it does seem that the ones built in the 1970s are not holding up nearly as well. Most of the ones built more recently are too new to really notice anything yet, unless there is some sort of immediate disaster like that Chinese gypsum board fiasco.

I'd say you're suggesting that there's a bit of truth to #2 (construction quality is, on average and in general, getting worse over time), not #3 (quality is bad enough that "Much of the new build is rubbish that will only stand for a few years").

After all, you said "the ones built in the 1970s are not holding up nearly as well". So, these are 30-40 year old buildings - they obviously are still standing. When you say "Most of the ones built more recently are too new to really notice anything yet" you're saying that 20 year old buildings are doing just fine - they're not drying up and blowing away.

As a counterpoint, I would note that single-family homes, are, on average, much more energy efficient than multi-unit buildings (if that seems contrary to your intuition, here are the references: http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-urban-housing-more-efficient.html ). That suggests that newer construction is better in some regards.

When I hear someone say something unrealistic like "Much of the new build is rubbish that will only stand for a few years" I begin to get the sense that the writer's intuitions and foundational assumptions are very much excessively pessimistic.

I have serious issues with the quality of housing built in the USA, namely that sturcutral support is mostly wood and it has asphalt shingle roofing. Parts of Europe are way ahead with aerated autoclaved concrete (AAC) and tile roofing. My recently built house in coastal Alabama is AAC with an aluminum roof. IT is designed to be energy efficient, need little maintenance and last 500-1000 years. It is also heavy reinforced with concrete cores ahd rebar, wieghing 100 tons.

http://www.safecrete.com/

I have serious issues with the quality of housing built in the USA, namely that sturcutral support is mostly wood and it has asphalt shingle roofing.

US housing has been framed with wood for 150 years (the phrase "balloon framing" was created in the 1800's). Asphalt shingle roofing isn't my ideal, but it lasts a pretty long time, and is cheap to maintain.

I like your ideas, but they have little to do with the unrealistic idea that suburban housing is going to blow away in the wind.

I have serious issues with the quality of housing built in the USA, namely that sturcutral support is mostly wood and it has asphalt shingle roofing.

I also noticed that many US houses are somewhat flimsy and badly insulated compared to houses built in Switzerland, but I wouldn't consider wood not to be a good housing construction material.

This untreated wooden house was built 1287 in central Switzerland:

That's 722 years old.

A house like this would be consumed by termites in a humid subtropical climate like southeatern US. Also, it is a fire waiting to happen.

Where I live we have hurricanes and insurance on a house like this would not be affordable.

Granted there are no termites in the Alps, but there have been several winter storms during the last 700 years and this house has obviously been heated for several centuries with fire. (And winters in the alps are actually significantly colder than winters in the southeastern US.)

If you take wood as a construction material, doesn't mean you need to build with flimsy 2x4s. You can also build with serious, solid beams.
The walls of wooden houses in central Europe are actually often made out of 8" to 10" thick solid wooden walls. It insulates well (heat and noise), no creaking, high protection against earth-quakes (higher strength to weight ratio than steel), no cracks, has a high thermal capacity, hardly burns down (a wooden beam doesn't loose its strength in a fire as quickly as a steel beam does) and won't be blown away by any storm. (Fire is actually often more a question of your furnishing than of the building itself.)

Anyway, at the end it is not necessarily a question of the building material, but whether you want to live in your house comfortably for a long time or whether you just want to buy/build it for speculative purposes and don't mind paying exorbitant heating bills and maintenance costs.

As long as the Social Security holds out, these homeowners don't have to sell, and that thus puts a pretty substantial floor under the local housing market.

Property taxes. A home here in the financial ruin that is Detroit still have substantial taxes. I almost bought a home here for about 10k. Taxes on it might have been as high as 3k/yr.

That's $250/mo just for taxes and more than half what my mother gets from her SS. Add in insurance, utilities, food...

Do the math. Owning your home is no guarantee unless you've money in the bank or income that goes beyond a meager SS payment.

Cheers

On the other hand, retirees could probably take in one or two lodgers, and collect enough rent to cover the taxes. Unless they were fortunate enough to downsize when they had the opportunity, most of them are now empty-nesters rattling around in half-empty houses. They might even find it beneficial to have an extra, maybe younger, pair of hands around to help out with some things, and it might make things less lonely.

I don't think that Social Security was ever intended to make it financially feasible for retirees to live in too-big owner-occupied homes by themselves.

Also, as the number of foreclosures and distress sales increases, does this not imply that the housing stock will increasingly consist only of houses owned free and clear and vacant bank-owned housing? At a certain point, it would seem that the downturn becomes self-limiting. Furthermore, it is looking like a very substantial fraction of those increasing numbers of vacant foreclosed homes will not eventually be sold at all, but simply trashed, vandalized, and eventually arsoned or bulldozed. This will also serve to somewhat limit the decline in housing values.

At a certain point it will be self-limiting for exactly the reasons you describe, but we are a very long way from that point, and I would argue that real estate will fall by 90% on average before we get there. That doesn't mean it will be cheap though. For almost everyone a $50,000 home would be far more out of reach then than a $500,000 home would be now, due to the lack of access to credit. If virtually everyone who wants to purchase a home must do so in cash, how many buyers will there be and what would you expect homes to sell for (given a paucity of buyers and lack of price support)?

For that reason, Germany's relative power within Europe should increase, even though their export markets are likely to collapse with demand for a period of time. The housing bubble nations will be significantly disadvantaged, particularly the UK and Ireland which are at the wrong end of a long energy pipeline from Russia. The pressure in that pipeline is already essentially zero when it's cold on the continent.

Not true - at least not in the long run.

The reason for that is that germany is democraphical finished - germany is doing democraphical-suicide (profile-fertility-rate of around 1.4 since 1970 for west-germany, cohort-fertility for 1965 cohort around 1.45, for racial germans 1.2 and german academic woman less than 1.0)! The absolute population is allready declining despite of vast numbers of non-european immigrants up to 2005.

Older people buy a car every 10 years compared to every 3-7 years by a young guy. They may have a lot money but they are not productive anything at all or make inventions. So the sociaty is getting a "freak-sociaty" with ever ongoing decline. You can discuss if an fertility-rate of 1.8 is better for an intersection-time to release presure from the environment but a profile-fertility of 1.4 is suicide.

This may be a big advantage for the USA and Ireland with fertillity rates around 2.0 - and to some degree for France and the UK also - at least if you suggest that all people are equal and the subsaharian african immigrant in France (with around 4.5 offsprings per woman in France) will design the State-of-the-art Maschine-tool around 2050, when all the german and japan egineers which do this today have vanished/retiered. But this i suggest request some extented efforts in education and integration, than which is actually done.

Older people buy a car every 10 years compared to every 3-7 years by a young guy. They may have a lot money but they are not productive anything at all or make inventions.

I think the German engineering profession would disagree with you. Do you have sources for that?

Older people buy a car every 10 years compared to every 3-7 years by a young guy. They may have a lot money but they are not productive anything at all or make inventions.

I think the German engineering profession would disagree with you. Do you have sources for that?

I admit that this is not a proved conclusion - just an observation of everydays life. I also would admit that after the immediate retirement people aged 55-70 often buy more new cars than younger people. But also they have sometimes only one car left (if they are married) instead of two and after they reach an age of 70 - 75 they normally don't drive that much anymore - often by far less than younger drivers and that's proved (insurance-data) - and hold their cars very long.

The german engineering profession knows that and is allready accepting the fact that the german market will shrink more and more in the long run. They focus on markeds like china, india and also to some degree the US.

But also if you assume they buy the same number of cars and other stuff like young persons till they are 90, than they only can life by transfer-payment of the productive part of the society (the allready not retired, exept if they hold large amounds of foreign-stocks which is not the case in germany) - which is a big burden to the wellfare state. This is allready clear in germany and soon will become a bigger problem in the US as we now - but in the US the problem is by far not that big because they never see fertility-rates of 1.4, which are the normal state in germany since 1970. That's also a main reason for the problems in Japan since 1990 - of course it is not the only reason but a central reason and that's widely accepted in economics. The number of people in the working age and their relative strengh comparred to dependants is a central number for the economic power of a (developed industrial) society - their is much literature on this topic. And this number is allready shrinkung in germany and will shrink faster after 2010 and especially 2020, in the US after 2010 the growth will also slow down but the absolute number of people aged 20-65 will not shrink. The relative strengh of people aged 20-65 compared to all other will go down in all western states , but in the US by far less sharp than for example in Germany or Japan (with their low fercility-rates thince 1970). Democraphy is destination!

Ah, you're talking about post-retirement.

Well, the solution is obvious: later retirement. People are healthier, and living longer, so they should work longer as well. More productive, less bored...

As the pressures mount on people of working age, retirement ages will rise.

Ah, you're talking about post-retirement.

Well, the solution is obvious: later retirement. People are healthier, and living longer, so they should work longer as well. More productive, less bored...

As the pressures mount on people of working age, retirement ages will rise.

I agree this will help to some degree, and allready the (government specified) retirement-age in germany is now at 67 up from 65.

But this is not a solution in the long run, because it is political and also economical not possible to rise the retirement age like it must be raised because of the age-structure in germany or japan (for germany around 75 in 2045). There is much literature on this and nearly all modern demography-scientists figure out the problems of a fast shrinking society with fertility-rates below 1.6-1.8.

http://www1.bpb.de/wissen/1KNBKW,0,0,Bev%F6lkerungsentwicklung_und_Alter...
http://www.sozialpolitik-aktuell.de/tl_files/sozialpolitik-aktuell/_Poli...
http://www2.uni-jena.de/erzwiss/dup_3/Senioren_Idosebb/Bevoelkerung.html

The other point is that you could not avoid oconomic decline in the long run if your fertility-rate is to low, because one day people die, at least till the kypernetic days... Because the oconomic power of a nation is a function of the capital stock, the so human capital stock and the tecnological improvement you will either way get a problem in the long rung, because the second and third does not well in an aging an declining society. Thats a fact, it's commen knowledge in the oconomics. And please don't say the per capita income in an shrinking society is growing faster, because thats also a myth and not the case in reality.

it is political and also economical not possible to rise the retirement age like it must be raised

It's certainly politically difficult - I think that will change as it becomes more and more difficult to pay for pensions.

Why wouldn't it be economically possible? Older people are living longer because of better health. That means much lower levels of disability, higher energy levels, etc. People can and should work much longer.

I'm surprised to see that Germany's population is already shrinking. I thought that was the case for only Japan and Italy.

Obviously, you can't let your population decline forever...

What do you mean by "because the second and third does not well in an aging an declining society. "?

A couple of government charts on the UK situation.

Growth is minus 5% for the last 4 quarters.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=192

Government debt has ballooned to 59% of GDP, totaling £825 billion, around £15000 for every man, woman and child. Less than half the population actually work, so that leaves >£30,000 national debt for every worker.


http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

Not to mention that UK has external liabilities of 450% of GDP!!! Government debt is peanuts in the debt universe as a whole,

According to the Office of National Statistics, at the end of last year, UK gross external debt stood at ₤6.4 trillion.

, so that's around 10 trillion dollars or so.

UK GDP is around 1.3 Trillion pounds I reckon.

http://ukhousebubble.blogspot.com/2009/03/uk-external-debt-64-trillion.html

One mistake people often make is focusing on Government debt alone and not the whole amount of debt, this is like trying to focus on tar sands and forgetting about light sweet crude oil

Just like the peak oil situation can only be understood by factoring in EROEI, crude, biofuels, solar, wind etc. Debt must include Financial, Government, Private debt, external debt etc.

ummm...

ok I'm not sure what you mean here by 'external debt' but if you mean that debt which we owe to other countries then is it not fair to net off what they owe us?. The key word in your quote is 'gross'.

Don't get me wrong though. The UK is in so much debt that it is laughable. There is not the faintest chance of us paying it down. And then the ejiots calling for more government spending!

For anyone who might be interested, here's a link to the TAE primers explaining how our current predicament developed, and delving deeper into specific aspects, for instance the interaction between energy and finance. And here's the TOD post that started it all in 2007.

I very much enjoyed meeting you at ASPO, and I enjoyed talking to Euan again (can't say I "enjoyed" our talks though).

As you know, I guess my only real quibble is that from the point of view of oil importers, we are already in the early stages of a long term accelerating rate of decline in net oil exports, and IMO constrained energy supplies are acting as an accelerant, pushing us faster along the path to the ultimate conclusion. In round numbers, Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters shipped close to 5% of their post-2008 cumulative net oil exports in just the eight months since February, 2009--1/20th gone in eight months.

Incidentally, for those of you who haven't met Stoneleigh, she is a delightful, funny woman--who just happens to have a grim message.

WT - what is your point re net exports? Less oil would be inflationary in nominal terms but without surplus energy the existing claims can't be serviced. The house of cards Stoneleigh refers to then falls faster and dwarfs the nominal impact on energy prices.

I agree that there is not nearly enough exported oil to come anywhere close to generating the economic activity necessary to repay even a fraction of the total debts that have been incurred, nor is there enough exported oil to come anywhere close to generating the future earnings that the stock market is expecting.

Here is the crux of Stoneleigh's comment on energy:

In this way a demand collapse sets the stage for a supply collapse that could place a hard ceiling on any prospect of economic recovery. That is a recipe for extremely high energy prices in the future.

My point is that we are already in the early stages of a supply collapse, regarding net oil exports. Current volumes of net oil exports are still high, but that is extremely misleading, e.g., combined net oil exports from Indonesia, the UK and Egypt were only down by 9% in 1999, versus their 1996 rate (when they showed a combined production peak), but by the end of 1999 they had shipped 53% of their post-1996 cumulative net oil exports (CNOE). In other words, their initial three year net export decline rate was only about 3%/year, but their initial three year post-peak CNOE depletion rate was about 25%/year, calculated exponentially.

Calculated exponentially, Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters are now depleting their post-2005 CNOE at the rate of about 9%/year (from 2005-2013), versus an observed three year (2005-2008) net export decline rate of 1.4%/year (EIA).

And as oil prices rose at 20%/year from 1998 to 2008, OECD consumption was flat to down, but non-OECD consumption has shown a large increase. This pattern appears to be continuing this year. Whether it will continue in future years remains to be seen, but the Thirties case history suggests that it is certainly possible.

In the Thirties, oil consumption fell early in the decade, circa 1930/1931, rising thereafter, and oil prices rose at 11%/year from the summer of 1931 to the summer of 1937.

You don't seriously think they'll be finished as exporters next year, though. Fiat money combustion will win this horse race. I wonder about the collapse in supply from lack of demand, too - why'd the industry survive 1986? Still enough P2/P3 to get by on? And drilling went bonkers in the wake of the early 80s demand retraction. What was the decline rate back then?

I see various silver linings in the KSA situation, too - 75% of their consumption is burnt up for electrical generation, some of that raw crude oil, too. They could offset their consumption gains at the very least by some dedicated utilization of non-associated NG, or, as Alan suggested the other day, by cutting a deal with Qatar or one of their other gas-rich neighbors. The fact that al-Naimi doesn't he bother to discuss this suggests to me that they view their domestic needs as a non-issue that they could deal with at anytime they felt necessary, as did the OECD in the 80s with massive fuel switching away from resid use for electricity.

KLR as far as I can tell they already have done the things your suggesting and hid declining oil production as increases in internal consumption.

In general it seems most of the oil exporting nations have optimized internal consumption of oil to transportation as much as they can. This was used to hide overall production declines.

Thus this card has been played they are holding nothing.

This of course implies export land is kicking in big time as they have no choice but to decrease exports as falling production can no longer be hidden and offset via a move to NG.

To some extent this also help explain why NGL's have been abundant as exporting countries expanded NG usage of both associated and non associated gas NGL production increased.

These NGL's also helped all over to cushion falling real oil production.

You don't have to believe me but then explain where the NGL's came from for export and what happened to the NG ?

Overally I'm very confident we are past the point where substitution of NG can offset production declines.

The fact that NGL's seem to have stopped increasing or are already in decline indicates to me its crunch time.

I think the rate of change in exports is accelerating fast enough right now that modeling it using historical data may be inaccurate. If I'm close to right about the actual decline in oil production then highly inaccurate.

Given the price of oil and the massive overcapcity in shipping and refining its clear regardless of the cause the amout of oil being exported right now has dropped dramatically.

Now of course you can except the claims that its from OPEC cutbacks and demand contraction or ...

Sooner than later given that in general storage inventories are tightening and oil prices are rising we will find out what the real situation is.

Although our economy probably has not recovered on the demand side demand seems to have at least stabilized esp at the global level.

Not a lot of sense in arguing as the truth should be obvious in a matter of months. How long all depends on what the real variables are but OPEC is approaching the point that if they cutback and have capacity and want to keep a bound on prices they will have to produce. Export land alone means even if they did cut back they will still be forced to increase production to keep exports stable.

The fact that OPEC is not reporting rising production and flat exports make me believe that what ever the real answer is the reported numbers are fake. Otherwise they would be reporting steadily rising production to offset internal consumption increases as they keep exports level. Exportland never sleeps.

I think the rate of change in exports is accelerating fast enough right now that modeling it using historical data may be inaccurate. If I'm close to right about the actual decline in oil production then highly inaccurate.

Apparently you don't understand the ELM. Using the ELM to model is very accurate. It has a built-in acceleration as a proportion to remaining available exports. The other bits of acceleration are accommodated by watching historical production declines. You cannot just go and redefine the data and the conventional ELM interpretation. It already accounts for everything you say. I don't know how many times WT has shown the numbers and charts. Does it still not sink in? Or do you refuse to read these posts carefully?

Besides, your statement about being right in the sense of some vague statements you have made seems awfully presumptuous. Do you have some chart that you have made to demonstrate "the actual decline in oil production" that you refer to? Can you provide a link? You always hint that you are "right" about something by referring to a non-specific post that you made. If you track that post down, it will also refer to another phantom post. This keeps going on and on. And it never leads to a concrete number, table, or chart that you have drawn up. I have tried to track the stuff down that you mention because I am interested in doing the actually modeling and giving credit to one whom credit is due. Yet I have wasted so much time tracking these vague statements down that I have frankly given up.

Note to self: That reminds me to remove all references to Memmel's statements in my documentation.

Actually you slammed me on it fairly hard since I called explained it as similar to the lambs-dip in spectroscopy.

The way he has it plotted it shows as a spike in pure price its a dip.

Here is the post.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4770#comment-436521

In this one I guessed the center at 1995 in later posts I've considered it might be slightly later.
If you look at his graph the sharp peak is from the price collapse but its a bit of a outlier.
Depending on how you weight that single point anything from 1995 to 2000 could work.

Note however there are other factors not included in this graph such as expanded debt so ..

I checked the original post and it did not mention inflation adjustments or if it did I missed it.

You can pick the min in prices off this chart.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_P...

However there is a bit of a shock right there. From Russia

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081003_global_market_brief_implicatio...

So it depends really on your definition just about any one of the years between 2005 to 1999 work. On the post peak side 2000 seems to mark the boundary arguments for 2000 including financial data would be dubious.

If you look at this chart you see the flatline for credit expansion during this period.

In this post I have resolved it a bit later 1998-2000.
http://peakoil.com/current-events/weekly-us-petroleum-and-ng-supply-repo...

That was posted in Sept 24 2009 a few weeks ago.

I have many posts between these two that discuss the interaction of economic data and oil prices over this span.

After 2003 the data simply becomes unreliable and murky at best. Not surprising since credit expansion had been well under way at that point.

I have many posts going back over this period for a number of years pointing out the divergence that occurred during these years.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5731#comment-542731

Given I generally end up with the symmetric peak most probably being slightly after 1995 my best guess is still 1995-2000.

The google hits generally seem to be on only the most recent ones.

In any case for the record the latest "model" that you will reject is we entered the plateau period somewhere around 1995 or a bit later. Oil production for all intents and purposes flatlined from 1995 to sometime in 2007 for heading down the backside of the production cliff again probably as and accelerating decline curve.

The data after 2003 seems throughly corrupt so no real telling what the exact changes in production where past that point.

In any case during the whole period from 1995-2007 you could readily claim production was flat or slightly rising or a undulating plateau all are probably valid given the reliability of the data.

The economic data is far more reliable and you can see the credit expansion and rising prices so looking back using economic data it clear we hit the wall back then.

Assuming that oil production and our economy is tightly coupled then that was peak oil regardless of the production claims.

The data given here is US centric which is ok for our purposes but global data may help or may add more error.

Regardless the basic thesis is that global credit expansion began because of peak oil or more correctly the flattening of oil supplies at the top of the shark fin and failed when oil supplies began to fall off sharply and the price of oil skyrocketed. Given the timing it seems that the peak in oil production started before the credit expansion so it can be viewed as the cause or driver.

Or you can say that oil production maximized credit was expanded oil production did not increase or increased little and credit was expanded over and over again in and attempt to keep growth going in the face of stagnant oil production.
Of course near the end the credit expansion was driving itself in its own bubble so ..

One more graph I like this one.

http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5304

Given the relationship between economic data and oil extraction is vague with the only real connection being the price of oil which is not enough tough to say.

I did find a book that gives a graph of investment in oil exploration and production which adds another tie back to the economic world.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Li8HLXw5tYC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Hist...

Page 172.

Investment in my opinion was obviously climbing by 1996 assuming it started climbing because current production was no longer adequate and its in agreement with other data.

Mixing economic data with oil production figures is a intrinsically blurry process however no matter how you do it the data always seems to overlap and points repeatedly at the 1995-2000 time period as when the major transition took place.

None of the traditional peak oil models treat this period as special despite the economic data practically screaming that it is.

So I looked here and eventually decided it probably means we are on a shark fin production curve.
Depending on where you wish to plase the start of the plateau period since you have a ramp up period that should be included lets say 1993-2007 1993 because OPEC showed a fairly clear plateau in production at that point.
Thats 14 years of stable high production rates. Now the economic data paint and even longer forcing period looking at credit expansion it oil production started being forced as early as 1980 or the first peak in oil production.
Using this as the starting point you get 1980-2007 or 27 years of forced production. Opec production cutbacks in the 1980's till into the 1980's lowered production but raised prices and the credit bubble started expanding in 1980 so for the overall picture the top of the shark fin is actually 27 years but given production varied this is a production capacity number. If you assume peak was reached near the midpoint of this forcing period you get 1994 and six months.
Valid capacity numbers are probably even more hopeless to find so ..

Regardless 27 years of forced oil production simply is not going to end well.

You can't compare it to a "lamb's dip" in spectroscopy. You can't go grab any arbitrary chart and claim that it justifies your own theory, whatever that is. What you have done with this response is to prove my point -- that you have no paper trail of reasoned logic, just a hodge-podge of random assertions and associations.

I don't know exactly what prompts this kind of activity, but it has a common name on the internet. Most people like to call it the Chewbacca Defense. In general, the aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the readers, and my favorite description is of an argument so "patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely".

So in this case you probably have no idea of the difference between a "lambs-dip" (sic) and a Lamb Shift in spectroscopy. You basically cherry pick for some oddball curve shape and then claim that it holds some relevance. Please, no one look up what a lamb dip is (I did and it is irrelevant, trust me). This is just plain ridiculous. If it all wasn't such a brilliantly concocted scheme that has been running on TOD for years now, I would have ignored it completely. Memmel's ongoing stream-of-consciousness is only interesting in its sheer audacity and endurance.

The quote from the Cochran character:

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

I'd say keep at it, WHT, but why? :-) I too, agree with your observations of memmel's stream of consciousness. I'm glad someone takes the time to call him on it. And, I think he's getting worse. A course I took in college on communication defined it something like this (and I'm recalling from years ago) - communication occurs when the receiver understands what the sender is saying. Clearly this is not occuring with memmel's writing. Memmel seems to be satisfied with what he has written, not with what he has communicated. I used to read all of his post. I no longer do that. However, I do enjoy your critiques!

by cutting a deal with Qatar or one of their other gas-rich neighbors

And herein lies the problem because sitting here in my nicely centrally heated house on the south coast of England I am expecting those nice Qataries to be sending me their gas, in exchange for my pounds sterling. They can't give it to everyone! So I had better hope my pounds maintain their value..

unless you mean next several years, I disagree we are in early stages of supply collapse -plenty of oil on markets now plus tanker storage plus spare capacity
b)Stoneleigh meant well into future re high energy prices - not soon
c)I think under BAU scenario prices would eventually get to $500+ a barrel in next decade - but when that supply demand situation materializes it won't be BAU scenario.

unless you mean next several years, I disagree we are in early stages of supply collapse -plenty of oil on markets now plus tanker storage plus spare capacity

I agree that you have summarized the conventional wisdom.

There is big difference between 'supply collapse' and 'supply shortfall'. Any near term supply collapse in oil would either be due to a demand collapse or some geopolitical event that no one can predict. Oil projects already finished and running will still bee pumped even if prices drop to $20 or lower (which even I can't imagine). So it's hard for me to see a supply led 'collapse' in production before 2012. You think supply is going to collapse on its own in face of stable demand in next couple years? I think this is highly unlikely but anythings possible in this environment...

My point is that the current slow decline in net oil exports is very misleading, since Sam's best case is that the top five (2005-2013) depletion rate is about six times higher than the observed net export decline rate.

Regarding demand, I expect to continue to see falling OECD demand, especially falling US demand. The key question is what happens to non-OECD demand, but given the recent 10 year trend and the Great Depression model, I basically expect to see a pattern of non-OECD countries outbidding OECD countries for declining oil exports.

Closer to home, remaining CNOE are difficult (probably impossible, at least for Canada & Venezuela) to model for Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, but what we can say is that combined net oil exports from our three closest major sources of imported oil, and three of our four largest sources of imported oil, dropped by one fifth in only four years--from 5.0 mbpd in 2004 to 4.0 mbpd in 2008.

There is big difference between 'supply collapse' and 'supply shortfall'. Any near term supply collapse in oil would either be due to a demand collapse or some geopolitical event that no one can predict.

Nate as far as supply goes if it does collapse then it has nothing to do with recent projects brought online or new oil production at all. Mexico's collapse was obviously caused by geological loss in oil production capacity.

I don't want to argue but nothing really prevents them from being the poster child for the future or more likely the past. The one well documented example of a recent collapse in production was because of geology.

At best until we see oil supplies increase again to meet growing demand the future is unknown. Assuming continued stimulus averts collapse over the short term then organic growth in China alone may be enough to cause this to happen soon.

I certainly have my point of view but it should be clear that regardless of what the real answer is at the moment nothing can be known for sure. OPEC could well choose to allow prices to climb much higher before responding if they can who knows ?

At the moment I think everyone would agree the future is more uncertain then it has ever been in decades from oil to financial to even most peoples personal future.

About the only people that can be certain are those dying of terminal diseases and have less than six months to live.
The rest of us are sitting at the point of maximum uncertainty regarding the future. A swan of any color is now highly probable for everyone.

Now with that said a fast collapse in oil production which is not unlike the terminal patient is the only case that can probably either be confirmed or repudiated over the next several months. Assuming its false this only eliminates one unknown from and almost infinite list. If its true then the outcome is obvious.

Nate WT I think the important part is to understand the difference between items bought with cash and those bought with credit see my long post below.

Basically the collapsing credit economy acts to boost the purchasing power of the cash economy over the medium term since commodities are purchased with cash in the end ( I explain the role of credit). The cash economy is resilient to the collapse of the credit economy. In particular commodities. As far as export land goes this means that oil exporting nations will get higher relative cash flows even as the credit economy tanks.

Now taking this a bit further you have a fairly interesting scenario developing. Since the influx of cash into the exporting nations results in them becoming creditors as they cant absorb the cash.

However the ongoing and probably quickening collapse of the credit markets makes investment even harder.

So on the macro economic scale you have cash balances growing rapidly in the exporting nations along with debasment of the fiat currencies and dwindling real investment opportunities. At first of course the natural reaction is to buy treasuries or government debt as no other investment is possible. This flight to saftey could well simply be a result of export land and cash piling up in exporting countries with literally no place to go.

However as it becomes obvious that fiat money is headed toward zero and the governments will default this cash becomes liquid i.e its spent on real goods in and attempt to capture value. Of course no way can the demand from exporters for real good expand fast enough to soak up the growing pile of cash so ..

This is why I call it rich mans inflation poor mans deflation. Hard money creditors that are connected to commodities see their cash hoards expand even as they are being devalued by falling real purchasing power of cash as asset prices fall evaporating the money. Everything is a losing investment for them its really just a question of how they want to lose money. The inflation is this power money doing its best to find the smallest loss. Often bubbling the prices in a sort of paradox and turning long term losses into temporary short term gains as money pours into a shrinking number of investment channels. And it pours out just as fast popping these bubbles rapidly.

This is also whats probably caused a good bit of the stock market bubble lacking other investment choices money has focused on the stock market as its liquid and result in a mini-bubble. Of course this is very very unstable.

So in my opinion if the cash economy proves resilient then export land itself serves to dramatically increase the volatility of the markets as you have cash piling up with no place to go.

Related of course is in many cases this hard money is used to secure loans in the new dollar carry trade because of low interest rates i.e a already bad situation of cash having no sound investment choice is leveraged up via borrowing in and attempt to make gains off of bets that are actually losers. Not only do we have to much power money but its also levering up ! Of course we have a good idea which bankers are helping the Saudi's leverage their cash hoard for returns so these guys rake it in.

If it looks like we have entered the abyss then you got it.

Eventually of course the money is lost the investment fails because of the leverage a substantial amount of the cash hoard is simply destroyed.

At some point the exporters of oil simply can't accept fiat currencies in exchange for oil its simply not worth it.
They have no choice but to move to something else in and attempt to actually make money that can stick long enough for them to reinvest it in a sane way.

I seriously doubt we make the last transition.

KLR as far as I can tell they already have done the things your suggesting and hid declining oil production as increases in internal consumption.

That's a major supposition on your part; conversely we can have doubts about their stated claims of being unable to find customers for their excess sour crude. My point is that they are using a lot of oil for electricity, which is wasteful. I forget where I read the 75% figure, here's what the EIA says for their domestic consumption of products, in kb/d and percentages:

Jet Fuel	Kerosene	Distillate Fuel Oil	Residual Fuel Oil	
Liquefied Petroleum Gases	Other Products	Motor Gasoline 
93.25	4.45	533.77	327.07	101.73	597.13	362.63
4.62%	0.22%	26.42%	16.19%	5.04%	29.56%	17.95%

International Energy Statistics

As I stated they're also burning crude directly for power: Saudi Arabia Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis - Oil, Gas, Electricity, Coal

According to a June 2008 report by Facts Global Energy, some 200,000 to 250,000 bbl/d of crude is being burned directly for power generation. All of Saudi Arabia’s electric power generation is thermal.

These are low-hanging fruit they could pick when the need arises, whether through increased production or import of NG, solar thermal - they are the Saudi Arabia of solar power - or nuclear. They also claim that only 15% of the country has been adequately explored for gas.

Memmel,

So on the macro economic scale you have cash balances growing rapidly in the exporting nations along with debasment of the fiat currencies and dwindling real investment opportunities. At first of course the natural reaction is to buy treasuries or government debt as no other investment is possible. This flight to saftey could well simply be a result of export land and cash piling up in exporting countries with literally no place to go.

....At some point the exporters of oil simply can't accept fiat currencies in exchange for oil its simply not worth it.
They have no choice but to move to something else in and attempt to actually make money that can stick long enough for them to reinvest it in a sane way.

Strangely enough, most of the exporting nations do not have strong fiscal balance sheets today for different reasons. I suppose it is possible that they will in the future, but some major changes within those nations would need to come about to make that happen. I've always feared that if and when that day comes, assuming we and other nations may be in much weaker positions than we are now, that the world's farmlands, mines, forests, and other natural resources would be selling at huge discounts. Even now, there is immense interest in farmland as investment in Africa, U.S., Russia, and South America.

Saudi, for example, is in an interesting position in that it cannot feed itself due to lack of water and environmental destruction. They are ready to import 100% of their grain (wheat and corn) within eight years. source

...Khariji also said domestic wheat production would be eliminated ‘within eight years’, hinting apparently that authorities may speed up the process. The issue of food security is thus getting higher on Riyadh’s priority list. The country recently announced the creation of Saudi Company for Agricultural Investment and Animal Production, with a capital of $800 million that will focus on cultivation of wheat, rice, sugar and soybeans abroad. The state-owned firm would attempt to generate interest of private Saudi investors in foreign farm projects by providing them credit and by negotiating deals with Australia and Argentina, as well as with countries in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe....

My overall point is that these cash-rich nations, if there are any, will want to exchange their fiat currency with real assets sooner, not later. As oil supplies become constrained, the waste will be cut out of the system. Agriculture will be given one of the priorities for its use. Could it happen that we, the nation who has outsourced many of our jobs would become owned by cash-rich nations, and essentially have the tables turned on us, that is, become their outsourced workers? By owned, I mean they would have purchased our farmlands, commercial real estate, homes, factories and so on. We would be paying rents to them, working to produce food for them, and other goods.

But, this is really just a thought experiment, because for the most part, at present, this economic crisis is a global economic crisis and that fact offers a good deal of protection from my scenario materializing any time soon.

I enjoyed meeting you too Jeff :)

I find your ELM very interesting. It doesn't surprise me at all that the seeds of supply destruction have already been sown. I think oil will bottom early in this depression.

Stoneleigh, it was a pleasure to meet you at ASPO and this article does a brilliant job of explaining many of your ideas we only had a brief time to touch upon. I particularly find the concept of how credit expansion fits in with multiple claims against dwindling petroleum supplies.

...credit expansion creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie. Once a credit expansion reaches its maximum extent, and contraction begins, these excess claims begin to be extinguished. Unfortunately, the leverage is such that there are probably over a hundred claims to each piece of pie.

The particulars of HOW this deleveraging occurs will be of great significance. Do you have any more predictions as to how this might proceed?

This article's more detailed explanation of how rates and the bond markets are intertwined really helped me understand your arguments more clearly.

Much like the first posting in the comments, I think that particularly in the US we may be underestimating the power of mania and herd-thinking in supporting the market. I love your quote:

There is no perfect information, perfect competition, stabilizing negative feedback, rational utility maximization or efficient markets. Markets are irrational, driven by swings of optimism and pessimism, or greed and fear, in an endless tug of war, and largely in an information vacuum.

I agree the fundamentals point toward an implosion and I would expect one, yet I see our world leaders and so many in Wall Street propelling things further into unreality simply by wishing and thinking it so. I'm frankly baffled at this and much of our Western culture. But as discussed on TOD many times, engineers, scientists and rational thinkers do not run or lead the world, we analyze it and make predictions but irrational humans (magnified to the nth power by energy use and population explosion) are a big singularity in the system and the things we don't know are are the equivalent of "dark matter" in the universe.

Thanks Stoneleigh- you've been saying these things for a long time - as you know I largely agree with you - in direction if not in magnitude.

Yesterdays 3.5% Q3 GDP has many thinking recession is over. It amazes me that so many people can overlook the governments role in defusing/delaying the financial crisis of our overinflated assets. Without massive government intervention many of your predictions might already be occurring - of course it's human nature to defer the day of reckoning in any way physically (or digitally) possible.

This commentary out this morning on Q3 GDP

. Dollar-for-dollar we're losing money. Instead of thinking in percentage terms, think of GDP in dollar terms. The 3.5% growth is from a jump in total seasonally-adjusted output from $12.901 trillion dollars in 2Q to $13,014 trillion last quarter. In other words, the economy added approximately $112 billion dollars in output quarter-over-quarter. Yet we have spent $173 billion worth of the $787 billion dollar stimulus plan so far.

In other words, the stimulus plan is 'returning' just 65-cents for every dollar spent.
Factor in future interest on the stimulus debt or the reduced buying power of a dollar once the money-printing stokes inflation and that 'return' may fall even more.

What the conventional analyst community is missing, in my opinion, is the grandness of scale of our current complex situation -from a historical perspective the overinflation of assets (and I don't just mean prices, but affordability and serviceablity into the future) with respect to biophysical inputs is akin to a mass delusion.

That's an important point you touch upon, the marginal productivity of debt.

http://bit.ly/4hLkCe

As this chart shows, the usefulness of one extra dollar has been declining for a long time. It's like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, where the economy has to keep borrowing more and more money every single year just to keep afloat. A million dollars in 1980 was worth a lot more then it is today due to the fact that the marginal productivity of debt was much higher (you got more bang for the buck!),this is akin to a declining EROEI on oil fields over the years from 100:1 in the 20's to today's 10-20:1

But ofcourse you know this :-)

measuring return on massive investments over a very short term is exactly why we are in this financial mess in the first place. hopefully that $173B is being spent wisely, which means that it is precisely *not* being spent for immediate gratification.

I find it hard to believe that much of the stimulus is being spent wisely. We know, for example, that a large fraction of Q3 stimulus funds went to the absurd cash-for-clunkers and the $8000 new home-buyer credit. I think it unlikely that the former has long term benefit. The latter may briefly, slightly prop up housing prices that need to fall further. In fact, however, 85% of the new home-buyers said they would have bought without the credit.

I agree with the principle that we not evaluate long term investments in the short term. I just don't believe very much of the stimulus package is long term. One exception that comes to mind is the renewable energy tax credit.

And yesterday's temporary rally over the 3.5% GDP lie just got crushed by a 249.85 point fall in the DOW today. Lots of people actually stopped and read that GDP report and they are discovering that what's inside doesn't really make those numbers outside look believable.

In other words, the stimulus plan is 'returning' just 65-cents for every dollar spent.

I think that's a bit over simplified. One can imagine lags of all sorts on different time scales that will feed in over time.

In no more than 10,000 words can you explain briefly the key elements of the stimulus package - spent so far. Paying people to buy new cars whilst taxing people who buy new cars is perhaps the poster child of the new economy.

What the US really needs is really high gasoline taxes - phased in overtime.

Should have done that back when Alaska,North Sea and Cantarell were discovered.

I don't attach any credibility at all to that 3.5% figure. I suspect that it very likely will be revised downward substantially when the final numbers come out.

There probably was a bit of an uptick, just due to replenishment of depleted inventories in advance of the holiday season, and that cash for clunkers things probably contributed a one-off uptick as well. Sustainable recoveries are not built on such things.

What the media doesn't explain to the public is that USA GDP numbers are mostly consumption based. In other words, an analogy would be for the spending of a family to increase this quarter by 3.5%-if this increase has been caused by increased borrowing for consumption, obviously it isn't sustainable or even relevant. The USA economy overall suffers from a major lack of actual investment (not churning and burning of funds)-for all the talk of a phony China, they are spending a lot of money on actual things that will be needed in the future (railways,nuclear plants,wind,etc.etc.) not just propping up current consumption numbers.

I don't understand this existential fear of debt(hundreds of paper trillions).

If a company has too much debt then just they go bankrupt and the debt basically disappears. Somebody buys the assets at fire sale prices and rebuilds the company.
A debt collapse just reprices everything.
If a country goes out of control into debt, the currency gets repriced (inflation)
which is exactly what happened in Germany in 1923 with the Rentenmark.
The assets are still there.

There is a feedback effect in a debt collapse in that the failure of companies causes the market to lose its 'self-organizing' function(so it makes sense to let companies 'reorganize').
In the US we have bankruptcy protection and anti-trust regulation to
control the growth/death of companies.

If the USA went bankrupt, the dollar would collapse and either foreigners or the US government would buy cheapened assets.
The USA has huge debt obligations from social programs. Either
'rewrite' the obligations (legally tricky) or inflate the currency or tax the rich(bondholders). In the 1930's the top rate of income tax was 90%.

If the oil supply crashes, there is a repricing of everything that nothing can stop because it is obvious that money/capital has been misallocated by the market. Initially everyone loses money because of a decline in the self-organizing ability of markets which I would guess is about 50% of the value of capital(multiplier effect)
but then it's matter of shifting allocations.

Well part of the fear is the social instability that would accompany such a 'shifting allocation'.
But if your point is that a system more closely aligned to our real balance sheet lies in the future and that this would be a positive development then I agree.

I agree, maybe my biggest fears concern the social instabilities that will accompany the 'shifting allocation'.

A couple of data points from the Great Depression:

Reinhard Heydrich, tasked with organizing the 'final solution' in Nazi Germany, came to Goering's attention as the head of the secret police unit tracking down Germany's last remaining private holdings of gold and foreign exchange in 1939.

During his speech to the Reichstag on the 6th anniversary of the Nazi ascendency, Hitler claimed that "international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe" could again "instigate a world war".

My take-away points:
1. A desperate government will take by taxation and/or siezure any assets they can identify, and
2. There may well be a lot of rage directed towards bankers, which along with scapegoating will be exploited by demagogues to rationalize their agenda (resource wars or whatever).

Errol in Miami

I learned in accounting 101 that debt is a liability. The amount of debt a system, country, company or individual has is a meaningless number unless it is stated in relationship to assets. A rapid rise in debt is sustainable if assets are also increasing or if assets remain larger than debt and cash flow is adequate.

This article does not get into assets at all nor does is analyze cash flow to service the debt. I therefore content its deflation thesis has not been demonstrated. Citing extreme examples of mismanagement/misgoverning as in the case of Wall Street or California ignores vast sections of the economy that are doing quite well. IMO for every defaulter there are many times over those who pay up and are solvent.

For every debt there is a lender who holds the debt as an asset. So debts and assets cancel each other out in a system, unless the debtor defaults. And defaults on debt although much ballyhooed are really a small percentage of the total debt.

In any case if deflation is the outcome of the current situation which I do not believe it will be, it increases the real value of dollar denominated debt which benefits lenders and savers. It seems to me this would be a good outcome rather than something to fear. For too long savers have been heavily punished by inflation and taxes on savings interest while inflation rewarded debt and interest was often deductible for debtors.

Any deflation that may occur will be short lived and isolated to the most extreme cases such as California real estate. Other areas of the country will not see much of it.

Damn that was a good one.

Problem is I think your serious...

More likely your and alien impostor from and alternative earth that works under a different economic system.
Thats the only reasonable explanation for your comment.

Well welcome to earth I hope your friendly maybe you can teach us your magic economic system we could use it.

i concur with mr. x. even if unemployment is understated by about 100% (meaning: 20% unemployment nationally) four out of five able-bodied workers have jobs. four out of five are paying their bills and paying down their debt. if those bills and payments are translating into productive activity/output/investment, then the economy slowly makes its way out of the gutter. i'd argue that in most industries/sectors, money is flowing to productive ends (though we are certainly in a period of uncomfortable adaptation).

which industries/sectors are not directing resources to productive ends? imo finance is a major problem -- too much short-term gambling, not enough long-term investing, and too much money at stake -- and needs to be reformed substantially. and then you have the issue of state governments... which need to get serious about hiring smart people and running their operations with common sense. depressing wages in the private sector with regulation (as in finance) and depressed salaries due to short-run unemployment may have a salutary effect on hiring those smart people to do work in the public interest. rhode island is having major problems because the government has made lots of promises that seemed great at the time, but that it can't now keep.

U6 is already pushing 20%, without any "understatement". When you include the large number who have retired early (to become a drain on SS rather than a productive member of society), the numbers are worse still.

Part of the "makes its way out of the gutter" would include debt implosion on that 20-25%, which of course results in losses for the other 75-80% as well -- it's not at all clear that we're anywhere near the bottom of such a spiral down -- quite the opposite really.

I think we won't have an opportunity to get any sort of recovery going until all the debt (personal, state, gov't) washes out to a large degree. So far the gov't is still growing and all we're doing is centralizing the debt, albeit inefficiently. That's got to come crashing down as well.

I think "slow" means "decades", but with a lot of ups and down and thrashing along violently along the way. Oh, and then peak oil bites in that period too -- better add another decade to the doldrums and another step to the slide.

Part of the "makes its way out of the gutter" would include debt implosion on that 20-25%, which of course results in losses for the other 75-80% as well -- it's not at all clear that we're anywhere near the bottom of such a spiral down -- quite the opposite really.

debt implosion? is that a technical term? what happens when people go bankrupt is that banks take a hit on their balance sheet -- money they expected to be repaid vanishes. this does not cause losses for those who did not default. yes, lending is constrained, but over time as you suggest, this "washes out" as less risky lending practices for new loans improve bank balance sheets.

i agree with regard to many people still needing to pay off debts and some of them going bankrupt. but i wouldn't call it a spiral - people are being forced to pay for things they bought five years ago -- some can and some can't. i also agree with stoneleigh that arm/balloon loans will impact a portion of those currently in homes, but who knows... perhaps banks will determine to rewrite more of those loans instead of kicking people out, or perhaps big g will mandate it.

for reference, here's a chart that shows the state-by-state percentage of bankruptcy filings in the us for the last 3 years. it's bad, but it's not as bad you might think.

i think it's also safe to assume that people prone to go bankrupt typically have less net worth on average. so the bite they take out of the bank balance sheets is relatively small.

Bert bankruptcies are a trailing indicator esp with our new laws. Until bankruptcies start decreasing and employment starts increasing then using trailing indicators to prove a point is simply not correct.

They only prove something when they are both obviously slowing and are really only important on the decline side after they have peaked. Even slowing rates of increase are possible false positives.

I'd argue that other indicators will turn positive well before these do. Thats the talk of green shoots when however until the bankruptcy rate actually shows significant decline we simply don't know how much is left.

Now historically the primary reason why people would file bankruptcy in the first place was to save their home.
Given our current situation one has to expect many people are not even bothering to officially file bankruptcy.
They may later on if they expect to actually need to get their financial house in order but I suspect many people
are simply walking away and hiding their new address and number from their creditors. Not even bothering with the expense of a formal bankruptcy. Given this credit card defaults are probably the best indicator of our real economic situation not bankruptcy filings.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/06/16/credit-card-update-bank-of-am...

I think its obvious that the bankruptcy rate is simply not keeping up with the credit card default rate.
All this suggests is no one wants to keep their houses.

what does it matter if bankruptcies are a trailing indicator or not? that makes no sense to me. all i'm saying is that the rate and number of bankruptcies are not astronomical.

1.4 million are going to go bankrupt this year. is that good? heck no. but is that a "debt implosion" -- on the order of 20-25% of the workforce like paleocon is suggesting? heck no. and is that going to force the us economy to collapse? heck no.

banks are failing. more banks will fail or be bought up. that's what happens when you make stupid loans.

and what i mean, paleocon, about assuming that it's low net-worth folks that tend to go bankrupt is: the super-wealthy are not (for the most part) going from riches to rags. the people going bankrupt by and large are people that couldn't rack up massive debts, because they didn't have any collateral or high enough earnings when loans were being handed out.

there is still more economic woe to come. lots. don't get me wrong. i mean, look at this doosie... but i don't think the economy collapses. if it does, you can send a messenger pigeon to rhode island with a note that says, "i told you so!"

have a good halloween weekend, all.

Along the way the banks themselves go insolvent, and with less credit the velocity of remaining money slows, and with a shrinking GDP the national debt ratio goes way up and tax receipts go down.

I guess my take is "working out" will be like Japan's malaise, measured in decades. Banks carrying homes sans payments and without foreclosing defers the pain too, but it'll still come.

Wouldn't a contribution from bankruptcy be based on net debt, not net worth? I would think those going under would tend to hurt a bank more than most. The 50% who have a paid-for house aren't going to get foreclosed on...it's those who owe a fortune more than it's worth who will walk away, or be foreclosed upon when unemployed.

what happens when people go bankrupt is that banks take a hit on their balance sheet -- money they expected to be repaid vanishes. this does not cause losses for those who did not default.

It causes losses in the value of non-defaulters' assets because defaults increase the supply of those assets at fire sale prices when banks try to recoup what they can off the collateral to the loan. If non-defaulters' assets were purchased with debt then they may walk away from underwater investments, thereby further increasing the number of defaults. They can also have their loans called in - meaning they are forced to sell assets to cover them - increasing supplies and driving down prices even further. This is a spiral.

Meanwhile, highly leveraged banks can go under even if only a small number of loans default. And systemic risk can take down the whole banking sector because banks' obligations to each other are so intertwined. Even if they don't go under they're usually scared to lend because: (1) they might need the cash to buff up their balance sheets or cover their own debts, (2) they don't know who to trust to lend to. They may also call in loans that would otherwise seem good to cover their losses or because deteriorating conditions make them seem less sound.

When banks aren't lending but are still receiving payments on existing loans, the supply of money in the economy declines, which causes deflation. Falling asset prices can also perpetuate deflation - see Dave Cohen's recent articles and consider Japan's decade long asset-deflation induced recession. This does not create a confident lending/borrowing environment, and so the downward spiral continues; in fact, it can continue for a long time. It can also wreak incredible damage to the whole economy and innocent bystanders can be hurt by it. The process is not so neat and tidy as you try to make it sound and "implosion" is not necessarily so far off the mark, technical term or not.

When the banking system collapses is it considered a implosion or explosion ?

My opinion is it can be considered a vacuum since nothing really exists in a fractional banking system thus its a implosion.

I think the problem with deflation is that the value of debt rises relative to incomes making it impossible to service the debt resulting in a cascade of defaults.

In the housing market, this means negative equity, and where home "owners" cannot meet debt payments then they are out on the street. Empty houses everywhere and a growing number of homeless, who can't afford to buy milk.

Just like in the Great Depression, only a little worse. That was pretty short-lived and isolated, wasn't it?

I learned in accounting 101 that debt is a liability. The amount of debt a system, country, company or individual has is a meaningless number unless it is stated in relationship to assets. A rapid rise in debt is sustainable if assets are also increasing or if assets remain larger than debt and cash flow is adequate.

sorry but that is nonsense. It may work for a company balance sheet but only if you use realistic mark-to-market prices to construct the asset side. Realistic means exactly that: what someone else is able and willing to give you in exchange at the moment in time. Not theoretical, but at what price could you actually complete the transaction at right now.

It would be delusional in the extreme to believe that all the asset values of all the assets of a country - houses, stocks, land, pigs etc - would be achievable if all the assets were to be immediately liquidated.

The value of a nation's assets, independent of property laws and monetary value, are in what they do or provide, not what they are 'worth'. A house provides shelter irrespective of whether there is a mortgage on it or not or how much the estate agent values it at.

There is another layer of this, which is that overvalued assets, such as loans, are themselves leveraged again to buy other "assets", and some of these assets are derivatives...so when the base crumbles, you must necessarily end up with a cascade. That's how a "few percent" of loan losses turns into entire portfolios imploding, companies disappearing, individuals looking for high ledges to leap from, and markets locking up. Even with massive bailouts we're teetering on many of those tipping points, and probably before long we'll topple into them again.

All of this turns into more gov't debt -- a centralization from washing out decentralized individual, corporate, and state debt on the national public dole -- and that in turn will drive the bond defaults (or hyper inflation, or both).

IMHO, debt-free and employed is the only way to be. Good luck getting there and staying there! Hoard your cash and pay off your debts, and enjoy being part of the problem for a change!

IMHO, debt-free and employed is the only way to be. Good luck getting there and staying there! Hoard your cash and pay off your debts, and enjoy being part of the problem for a change!

I agree, but also if (like me) one has a small amount of debt but no assets one can also sleep easy because there ain't nothing they can do about it when I can no longer afford to pay the loans off. I'm not smirking here, just making a point.

My accountant has just submitted my annual return to the Treasury - my small company owes Her Majesty's Esteemed Plonkers (aka the government) £3,028 in tax. I also have about £2,500 VAT outstanding. I am in no position to pay either of them as business has been painfully slow and my bank is not answering my calls for short term funding. I have a perfect credit history, have been depositing more than £60k into my Barclays business account every year so they know I have a genuine business but when I asked for £10k over five years I was turned down on the spot. The offered me the money over just one year at 23% interest and £250 admin fee!! The monthly repayment would be over £1,000 which my cash flow can't support.

So, long and short of it is that when the Treasury Goon Squad show up at my door demanding my taxes I will calmly tell them that I ain't got it and have no way of getting it and that I have no assets for them to take. Am I bothered? Not one tiny little bit. If the system is broken - and it clearly is - then why should I lose sleep over it!

why should I lose sleep over it!

Because, being the state, if they can't take the money, they will take you instead - to prison.

I read somewhere that 40% of our prison population is there for financial 'crimes'.

Then he'll have a warm place to stay.

There is another layer of this, which is that overvalued assets, such as loans, are themselves leveraged again to buy other "assets"... so when the base crumbles, you must necessarily end up with a cascade.

George Cooper's The Origin of Financial Crises is an excellent analysis of this phenomenon. Positive feedback loops on the way up and the way down.

There was no mention in your outlook of the likelihood of war breaking out. If this plays out as you anticipate and governments are unable to re-inflate the economy it seems like someone will launch WW3 in desperation.

War is a given under such a scenario, especially resource war. I wrote a primer on this called Energy, Finance and Hegemonic Power.

Many governments around the world, including those of all the major powers, are well aware of peak oil. In a very real sense in a modern world, oil IS power, as there is no comparable source of concentrated, transportable and flexible fuel. Securing access to it is therefore of the utmost strategic importance. Some governments, like many of the anglo economies, have so far appeared to place their trust in the global markets and their own perceived ability to outbid the competition. Others, notably China, have been quietly arranging long term bilateral supply contracts directly with producers, thereby taking production off the market.

China's strategy is likely to prove far superior in difficult times when international trade is drying up, the fungibility of oil comes under threat and no one can be sure of being able to outbid the competition. By the time others realize that trusting the market to provide is essentially a modern day cargo cult, they may have been completely out maneuvered. In my opinion, this will be the foundation of the coming shift in hegemonic power towards the Far East, but it will not be a peaceful transition. Resource wars are a given under these circumstances.

A brilliant, and sobering post, Stoneleigh.

I'm an optimist, which means I only ever get unpleasant surprises...

I take the view that the direct instantaneous connections of the internet open up new Peer to Peer Finance ways of organising the economy.

In particular, we may reconfigure national economies by 'unitising' the use value of land/location, as I said almost a year ago to the day at my FEASTA lecture. As one of your diagrams shows, the Irish were streets ahead of anyone else in their property bubble, and I advocate a move from a deficit-based & land backed currency, to a new generation of land-based currency. This is IMHO achievable through a debt/equity swap (both Taleb and Buiter, among others advocate a switch to equity) - it just wouldn't be equity as we know it.....

I think that the necessary global reserve currency can, and should, be based upon energy pools and have posted at TOD to that effect. This is my most recent article on that subject.

Stoneleigh: Your analysis is very strong. It differs from some notable analysts such as Faber, Schiff and Willie in that these guys feel that the US dollar collapse or continued decline is far more imminent than it appears you do. They feel that the US dollar carry trade is free money for the players from the public and there is little motivation to raise rates even if the currency declines. Politically, the vast majority of the public views the US dollar as a constant value, so even a very large devaluation would be politically advantageous if it forestalled a deflationary collapse. They are convincing, you are convincing so when I put it all together it appears like a consensus opinion of a total collapse of the USA economy along with a huge devaluation/collapse of the US dollar. Real estate values would totally collapse with the exception of areas of strong foreign interest or areas in demand by those with access to taxpayer funds (DC,Goldman,etc.).

yeah brian.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/10/faint-odour-of-melons.html

i think the dollar is going to be trusted for a briefer time period than stoneleigh; & the crisis will magnify tremendously then.

See Mish's post today.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/spotlight-on-eastern-...

Other currencies of weaker nations will collapse first. There is a very strong ordering in collapse :)

So far only Iceland and Zimbabwe have had their currency collapse. They won't be the last.
Until the weak currencies start collapsing stronger ones will stay around.

In fact as Mish points out initially the collapse of the weaker currencies will strengthen those that remain.

The lifeboat effect. And of course our boat is slam full of holes.

Not that the dollar won't eventually collapse but it certainly won't until after other currencies have collapsed.
So you just have to wait until these start collapsing before you can talk about the dollar.

There is a good chance that a collapse in Eastern Europe will collapse the Euro and this would massively strengthen the dollar.

Personally I think the US has bet everything on this that collapses elsewhere will keep the dollar strong and we can print to basically infinity.

In fact the Feds recent moves to let long term interest rates rise slightly may well be designed to hasten the collapse of other currency resulting in a renewed flight to safety and and artificial drop in rates.

This rapid move out of secondary currencies and into major ones is supposed to lift the system at the expense of the loser.

Of course the low interest rates have also result in a growing dollar carry trade with the dollar loans converted to these same faltering currencies to make risky investments in these countries because of the higher yield as the currencies falter.

So the end result is probably default on dollar/Euro loans poking massive holes in the lifeboat currencies.

How all that plays out is anyones guess but until it does the dollar won't collapse.
Now of course that does not mean the time between when these currencies start to collapse and when the dollar collapse might be brief but the order is fixed.

I don't dispute that the US dollar will eventually go the way of all fiat currencies, but IMO that time is not now. Now is the time to be liquid, and dollars should perform best over the next year or so. The dollar should benefit from a huge flight to safety, and the deflation of dollar-denominated debt, of which there is more than any other kind, should cause the dollar to appreciate more than any other currency.

However, the value of currency relative to available goods and services domestically will be more important for most people than the relative values of currencies internationally ( see The Special Relativity of Currencies).

this clever use of imagery i especially enjoy...

People tend to extrapolate recent trends forward, but this amounts to stepping on the gas while looking only in the rearview mirror.

...but mostly because it's followed almost immediately by...

I think the market will fall hard (intervening short rallies notwithstanding) for perhaps 18 months. This was the length of the first leg down (October 2007-March 2009) and so represents a reasonable first guess at how long the next leg at the same degree of trend might last.

(i'm sorry, that was snarky... but it did amuse me. i think the part that's missing from this analysis is that every nation around the world is determined to make sure that no big economic player crumbles, because we're all interlocked. as a global economy, we're adapting after a shock. it's going to be a long haul.)

Euan, Stoneleigh,

thanks for this post. Very informative.

Here in the UK, how does the minimum wage affect the outcome of deflation and its resulting mayhem. During the 'good' years since the minimum wage was introduced many have benefited but in a deflationary environment that you speak of the minimum wage is going to be a killer. There is no way that any government could realistically scrap it or decrease it - it would be political suicide and there is even video footage of David Cameron at one of his 'Cameron Direct' roadshows telling a women point-blank that he would never reduce or remove the minimum wage. However in a deflationary environment maintaining it would only exacerbate the unemployment situation.

What are your thoughts on this?

Fixed wages in a deflationary environment would amplify unemployment (I think). In the first instance, I think rising unemployment will be the real problem. Next year they will start laying off increasing numbers of public sector workers and once the public mind set adapts to the gravity of the situation then workers may be more receptive to the idea of the minimum wage being cut - of course they may just all go on strike instead.

I agree. Wages wouldn't be cut immediately, with the result that unemployment will be significantly aggravated. The psychology is similar for home prices. Sellers do not cut at first, so the first symptom of a property price collapse is an increase in inventory. Sellers eventually have to cut, but always do so too little and too late, so that they follow the market down. Wages could follow the same pattern, at least initially, so that workers continue to price themselves out of the market for a long time, due to their understandable need to meet their own fixed costs (this is a recipe for War in the Labour Markets). Most will probably default on the obligations they will be unable to meet as they will not be able to find employment. Eventually the logjam will break, for both home prices and wages, and a drastic repricing lower will take place. General strikes are a given in the meantime.

Upping the minimum wage and re-empowering unions as we go into the first inning makes for a long, hard ballgame. For better or ill, under-the-table jobs (cash only) will necessarily increase for legal citizens in a manner similar to those of illegal immigrants. Once unemployment runs out and welfare doles become slim, ANY job will seem valuable.

I already see the invisible cash economy growing. Just last weekend I had a couple of guys offer to haul off some junk for "free" -- just for scrap value, and they offered to do any labor I needed as well. They mentioned augmenting their unemployment checks as their incentive, to better support their families.

Paleocon,

To put things in better perspective-

Even with the economy in the shape it is now scrap metal is a very valuable resource-it's bringing about a hundred and fifty dollars a ton paid in cash no questions asked for steel and iron -all other common metals are four or five times that , minumum.Most are ten times and more.

Just to remind everybody that it's not only oil that is scarce, and that oil and coal , etc, prices are working thier way thru the industrial economy as usual-meaning another round of price increases in finished metal producta of course.

I expect fertilizer prices will probably jumo up again soon too.

Not everyting is deflating -some things that are critically important are going up.

Which leads to another thought-how about the fire sale of ethanol plants-is anybody keeping up with who bought them?My guess is people with a strong belief in sharply escalating oil prices to a large extent.Sometimes it's rather interesting to contrast the public prounoncements of such companies with thier actual actions.

Even with the economy in the shape it is now scrap metal is a very valuable resource-it's bringing about a hundred and fifty dollars a ton paid in cash no questions asked for steel and iron -all other common metals are four or five times that , minumum.Most are ten times and more.

Just to remind everybody that it's not only oil that is scarce, and that oil and coal , etc, prices are working thier way thru the industrial economy as usual-meaning another round of price increases in finished metal producta of course.

As with most things, I expect the value of scrap metal to fall initially and later to increase substantially, at least in real terms, and possibly in nominal terms as well (ie skyrocket in real terms against a backdrop of a collapsing money supply).

I am hoping for a shorter work week instead. Congress passed a law mandating a 30-hour work week during the Depression, but FDR vetoed it, calling it "socialism." The idea is to spread what work there is around. The effect would be the same as cutting wages (and be as deflationary).

However, I think the result would be much better. Better to have everyone working a little than a few massively overworked while the rest are unemployed. Also, having that time off would give people time to prepare for the new reality. They could learn new skills like cooking, gardening, sewing, carpentry, etc. The things you do when you have more time than money.

We are seeing some movement to 4-day weeks - some still 40 hrs (4 X 10), and some down to 36 (4 X 9) or 32 (4 X 8). If people actually stay home that extra day, then that would have the effect of reducing commuter energy consumption by 20%. On the other hand, if that enables people who would otherwise stay home most weekend to drive hundreds of miles every 3-day weekend, then there go the energy savings.

I don't see a shorter work week as saving energy. It might; I have a feeling people won't be able to afford to spend their three-day weekends shopping or going on weekend getaways.

But I see it mainly as a way to deal with the shrinking/localizing economy.

I am hoping for a shorter work week instead. Congress passed a law mandating a 30-hour work week during the Depression, but FDR vetoed it, calling it "socialism." The idea is to spread what work there is around. The effect would be the same as cutting wages (and be as deflationary).

However, I think the result would be much better. Better to have everyone working a little than a few massively overworked while the rest are unemployed. Also, having that time off would give people time to prepare for the new reality. They could learn new skills like cooking, gardening, sewing, carpentry, etc. The things you do when you have more time than money.

This would be by far the best option for the reasons you state. I doubt if we will see it happen though. It's not the cheapest option for employers, who will be holding all the cards in a world where employees will have lost almost all bargaining power. Keeping people overworked and terrified of unemployment keeps them quiet and powerless (like Mr Scrooge's assistant Bob). It also helps with a divide and rule strategy (the working poor versus the burgeoning underclass). This is likely to suit many of the people who will be holding the purse strings in a neo-Dickensian dystopia.

The wages of developed country workers would have to fall to the level of BRICs to solve the problem.

The wages of developed country workers would have to fall to the level of BRICs to solve the problem.

Indeed, and the BRIC wages will also be falling was export markets die. Wages in the developed world will plummet, leaving people will fixed costs or debt repayments in a pickle (to put it mildly).

Developing countries have more economic potential in the form of unexploited technology, therefore, they can still manage to grow. (Some of them are good at ignoring intellectual property rights too, so they son't have to invest as much in R&D.)

The 1930's Depression is so misunderstood. The work week fell and those with jobs saw their money go further, thanks to productivity!
Developing nations are in a similar situation now. I am not saying that this transition will be painless. It will certainly cause dislocations and hardship.

...and those with jobs saw their money go further, thanks to productivity!

Those who still had jobs saw their money go further thanks to deflation. This time as well, the minority who still have significant purchasing power will see it go a very long way indeed. For them deflation will make things cheap, but for the majority most things will be unaffordable.

this of course is the great debate "inflation" vs "deflation"

Jim Puplava on Financial Sense just held a series of presentations on both sides

you should post the inflationist arguments. I think I am in that camp right now

I cannot make a credible inflationist argument. For more on my position see From the Top of the Great Pyramid and Inflation Deflated.

To quote a few relevant paragraphs from the two articles.

Large economic bubbles, typically formed in dominant economies during periods of manic optimism (see McKay's Extraordinary Public Delusions and the Madness of Crowds), have the same underlying dynamic. Without continual buy-in from new money - new investors or more money from existing investors - they cannot grow, and when they can no longer grow, they will collapse. Although grounded initially in legitimate business activity, they morph into structures where one has to question the motives and understanding of key individuals. In some cases there may be intent to defraud, but what is far more common is a characteristic recklessness as to the risks those in control are prepared to take with other people's money.

In their latter stages, such structures hollow out, feeding on their own internal substance as they lose the ability to attract new investment. In the terminal phase, there is the appearance of great wealth, but it is virtual, and therefore extremely ephemeral. The next step is implosion, as the virtual wealth disappears - where the claims to wealth generated through leverage that exceed the amount of underlying real wealth are extinguished en masse. Enron was a prime example, and on a much larger scale, so is the derivatives market. Bubbles, like all Ponzi structures, are inherently self-limiting and will always collapse in the end.

and

We have a very long way to fall, and the deleveraging process is likely to play out over several years. During this time we can expect to be mired in a worse depression than the 1930s, as the excesses that led to our current situation are far worse by every measure than were those of the Roaring Twenties. Unfortunately, we are much less prepared to face such an occurrence than were our grandparents.

Our expectations are far higher, our knowledge and skill base is much less appropriate, we are far less self-sufficient and we have a structural dependency on cheap energy. This will be a very painful time. Deflation and depression are mutually reinforcing, leading to a vicious circle of decline that is very difficult to escape. It will be over when the (small amount of) remaining debt is acceptably collateralized to the (few) remaining creditors. At that point trust will begin to rebuild.

Stoneleigh: But there must be a level of USA fiscal deficit spending which would bring you to the inflationist argument-I realize these levels are not there yet, but if the massive debt default can singlehandedly buoy the US dollar, then in theory government spending could be ramped up enormously (and I expect it will) even as tax revenues plummet. If this does not devalue the currency, then there would be no limiter on the government at all-the level of monetization could increase indefinitely. So my question is: what is the level IYO? A 4 trillion annual fiscal deficit? 10 trillion? IMO you might be right in the near term, but I just find the whole situation and the math behind it surprising. The trend appears to be for a decreasing % of USA federal expenses funded by taxation, almost indefinitely, a magic money creation machine for the guv to use. Maybe pretty well everybody in the USA with a job will be working for the federal government in a few years-that appears to be the trend.

The things that the US government are doing and are going to do that would certainly be inflationary in other contexts are not going to be inflationary in this context, because the context is so overwhelmingly deflationary. Stoneleigh is absolutely right in her analysis of this.

The FedGov will still be doing these things, nevertheless. The reason why is not to cause inflation, but to change the winners and losers in the game. The interventions that the FedGov is undertaking will not cause inflation, but they will change the game, and will change who the winners and losers are.

This is something really fundamental, and a lot of people just are not getting it. I am convinced that this is what is really going on.

Wnc,
I generally think you are at least in the money every single comment-but I might have missed some.

Who are the losers and winners going to be in your estimation-specifically?

There are a LOT of different kinds of businesses and industries and there will probably be classes of winners and losers that are not immediately obvious to most of us.

I would say that in general, those who have paid the politicians have gotten their money's worth. A lot of political money has come from financial firms like Goldman Sachs, and we all know that they are making out like bandits (literally!). The trial lawyers have done very well for themselves too, keeping any possibility of tort reform off the table and thus assuring that they reserve their place at the feeding trough. GM and Chrysler are still in business; does anyone think they still would be without government "help"? The political money that both those corporations, and their suppliers and dealers, and the autoworkers, invested has sure paid off for them far better than have their common stocks for everyone else. I could go on. There are places where one can find who gave money to which politicians, and how much. I'm not on that list, and neither are most ordinary people, which I believe explains very well why we ordinary people are getting the short end of the stick.

By the way, some might object that Lehman Bros and Bear Sterns were allowed to fail, and they paid to play too, so doesn't that negate my hypothesis? They might have paid to play, but consider that the surviving firms paid even more. Getting rid of one's competitors is worth a very great deal, and is yet another way that government can be used to obtain a return on one's political investment. The big payoffs only come to those at the top of the donor list. If you are the politicians, you want to occasionaly impress upon your donors the point that if they don't give enough, it may not be enough to protect their interests. Making sure that the ones you make an example of are completely done away with and not just hurt is essential, so they won't be around to be enemies later.

Life in a crony capitalist banana republic. Third world gangster government kleptocracy, now showing at a national capital near you.

Life in a crony capitalist banana republic.

Indeed. Re-jigging the winners and losers through graft and corruption is a major part of the game. The well connected take risks with other people's money and don't have to eat their losses. Those are force-fed to the taxpayer.

Stoneliegh,

High speed internet made it's appearance late in my community and I haven't had time yet to check out a lot of interesting commentators.

Up until this piece hit TOD,I just had you lumped in with the deflationists and knew virtually nothing about you beyond that.

You have a new fan!

Thanks :)

I'm not an economist, but a systems thinker/big picture person. I have a formal background in science and law and I used to be an academic (a research fellow at Oxford). I've been working in energy for most of my career, and currently specialize in ag energy (focusing primarily on dairy operations).

My aim to to make complexity comprehensibl