Two Recession Benefits: Fewer Lawyers, More Farmland

[I never imagined that this commentary would revive the inflation-vs-deflation debate, but since it has, I’ll let it run for a second day.  Please don’t be shy if it is the good news concerning lawyers to which you would like to respond. RA]

Two wholly unexpected economic developments suggest that the Great Recession may have a silver lining.  How does an America with more farmland and fewer lawyers sound? Apparently, hard times are helping to bring about both. Regarding the farmland, thousands of acres that had been purchased by speculators for residential development have fallen so steeply in price that farmers are snapping up the parcels for agricultural use. In many cases, according to a story in the Wall Street Journal, the growers are paying distress prices for land that had been bid into the ionosphere by speculators as recently as five years ago, just before the Great Recession began. To take a dramatic example, a Phoenix-area dairy farmer recently paid $8 million for a 760-acre alfalfa and cotton field that had been sold to a developer in 2005 for $40.8 million, according to the Journal. “Everything in this area is coming back into farmer’s hands,” said the buyer, one of four brothers.  That’s the kind of news that could help take the sting out of high grocery prices, especially since a resurgence of family farming in the U.S. promises to reduce those prices over time. For now, though, because strong crop prices are helping to drive this healthy trend, we should perhaps keep the long-term benefits in mind when we watch the register tape unspool at the checkout counter.

As for the lawyers, the schools that train and graduate them are coming under heavy pressure from Congress to divulge data related to job placement and student-loan debt. The suspicion grows that the nation’s law-degree factories are using bogus numbers to lure students, acccording to the Journal. Moreover, they reportedly have encouraged the students to take out federally-backed loans that are becoming increasingly difficult to repay in a chronically sluggish economy. This will not be news to those of you who have heard stories suggesting that passing the bar exam is no longer an easy ticket to a career as an attorney. This was becoming a fact of life even before the Great Recession began, but students were able to delude themselves into believing a law degree would somehow prove useful no matter what profession they chose. These days, however, with the gap between available jobs and jobs requiring specific legal knowledge widening, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the time, expense and effort required to secure a law degree. Our own anecdote involves the son of a close friend who graduated from a top law school in 2006. He recently got a job with a small firm in Philadelphia, but only after he’d paid his dues for nearly five years, working as a translator/clerk in a Chinese-owned hardware store for two years, among other jobs, and, finally, using a family connection to ensure that his curriculum vitae made it to the top of the pile.

***

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • Davida Agnese November 22, 2011, 12:07 pm

    I just want to point out that my post of November 18 came out BeFoRe Moolman’s article of the 21st. But I am still scared.

  • Davida Agnese November 21, 2011, 12:05 pm

    What makes me sad about this thread is that buying gold or silver does not make paper dollars go away(the dollars are still in the system). Maybe that is why I like to buy a few shares of mining stocks…the dollars don’t go “poof”. but they do get used to make real stuff and hire real people. I just wish I could get dividends in gold or silver 🙂

  • Dave K November 19, 2011, 8:39 am

    Rob,

    Maybe if you read a little more than Harry Dent’s opinion you would be able to answer your own question yourself. You look like a parrot when you keep repeating the same source over and over again. Most of the replies here should give you days, if not weeks of research material. Seriously.

  • Davida Agnese November 18, 2011, 10:03 am

    Mava, I thought about suggesting using the silver to gold ratio divided by shadowstats’ inflation figures but that seemed too complicated to explain. All I know is, real stuff isn’t going to get cheaper in dollar terms….ever. thanks for answering my very first post online 🙂

    • Robert November 18, 2011, 6:50 pm

      I like your name…

      Daveeda Agneesee… (or is it Agnaysee?)

      Either way, I sound like Antonio Banderas when I say it. 🙂

  • mava November 17, 2011, 5:28 pm

    Davida,

    He is on a long route to the truth. Let’s wish him well. I like when people at least starting to crack their own brainwashing. Funny, he said “inflationary pressures”. It’s an old “approved term” that supposed to instill in our minds that there are actually “pressures” to inflate, as if they were different kind of pressures from the old and well known “desire to steal”.

  • Davida Agnese November 17, 2011, 8:35 am

    Dinen, Take 3 ounces of gold, go back 2000 years, buy a fine toga for one ounce, fast forward to 1000AD, buy a fine fur-lined medieval outfit for one ounce, and back to the present day, buy a fine Man’s suit for the last ounce….over the long run, gold’s purchasing power is not affected by inflation(because governments can’t print it). “Savings” in gold means a reluctance to be stolen-from by the fiat printers and is not really investment(although it might be the seed corn of future investment in industry). Antal Fekete has written some wonderful stuff on what investment is…and Ayn Rand wasn’t bad either.

    • Dinen November 20, 2011, 11:06 am

      Interesting perspective mate and in hindsight, you are absolutely correct.

  • mava November 17, 2011, 4:54 am

    Yes, Harry Dent is likely to be wrong. I have not read his book, but I am judging by your application of his theory.

    In the deal that started this story, following happened:

    Let us consider two party to the transaction, “the market” (which includes the seller of land for $40.8 mil in 2005, and the purchaser of the same land for $8 mil today.), and “the Dude” (who purchased the land in 2005 for $40.8 mil, and sold it in 2011 for 8 mil).

    -The Market had sold some land to some Dude for $40.8 mil.
    -Dude had waited a few years and sold that same land.
    -The market had purchased it from the Dude for $8 mil.

    Why do you say that there was a deflation, that some money had disappeared?

    The Dude had lost $31.2 mil, but the money did not disappear. The Market had gained $31.2 mil, that same amount.

    Where is the total loss of money to the system? Where is the deflation?

  • Chris T. November 17, 2011, 1:51 am

    It’s good to see the aadjusment mechanism of assett misallocation at work.
    Too bad THEY don’t let that happen across the board.

    RIck doesn’t make it clear, but one can only hope that the 760 acre field was bought back by the same family that sold it for 5x back in 2005!
    So, $10k per acre is the going rate?

    Law school:
    http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/
    For an insider perspective, this is a great site to see, and to pass on to anyone still thinking about law school.

    The intro in the blue box summs it up succincly.

  • rob November 17, 2011, 1:18 am

    Where are all the private sector bad debts being stashed if some $20 Trillion is considered bad debt? We have not really written much of this off. right? Is our banking system loaded with bad debt parading as good debt? If so when does that game of pretend and extend stop?
    If the big banks got bailed out and we still have a huge bad debt condition with them holding most of the bad debt, what did they get bailed out from? A temporary condition of no liquidity? If these banks are holding farm deals like the one that started this story then what happened to the $32MM that was destroyed in that transaction.?( original debt $40MM – recent purchase price $8M= $32 MM gon)

    Is Harry Dent right or wrong about this huge debt overhang just from the private sector alone and never mind the public sector debt issues.? He maintains that the forces of inflation are no challenge to the forces of deflation.
    What is the verdict here on inflation versus deflation?
    thanks.

    • Robert November 18, 2011, 6:47 pm

      “Is our banking system loaded with bad debt parading as good debt? ”

      WOW… I hope that was a tongue in cheek question.

      In case it wasn’t, the answer is: yes.

  • Steve November 16, 2011, 11:06 pm

    Wow, great discussion. 1.00 federal reserve note, 1.06 debt with the fed. We can start over with 1 federal reserve note .94 debt to equal 00.00.

    Business bank deposit 1.00 federal reserve note (debt 1.06), fractional banking 5.00 federal reserve notes lent, 5.30 debt total 6.36 debt – 5.00 fraud, 1.36 debt.

    In order for that to work out to zero federal reserve note .64 value to find 00.00 debt.

  • mava November 16, 2011, 5:28 pm

    Dinen,

    The data on that is nearly impossible to find. The government manipulates that sort of data the most, as it is extremely important for them to hide the extent of their gold theft.

    But, check with Chris Powell of GATA (www.gata.org), he can give you the best sources you may need.

    To understand the game and the limitations of any information you will touch from here and on, you may want to check “The Gold Wars” by Ferdinand Lips. I had read it, and unlike others this is a very good executive summary of what had happen to gold, and why the information is so restricted.

    There are a couple of correspondents that post to GoldSeek.com, but they are in contact with Chris, so you should be set after talking to him.

    Best of luck and be like Greenspan. Tell them you’re on their side, and give them so much that they can’t swallow.

    • Dinen November 20, 2011, 11:03 am

      Thank you Mava.

      My supervisor is equally doubtful on the integrity of any information out there. There is no way “da boyz” just leave bread crumbs indicating the monetization of gold, just lying around…..especially for some lowly student to pick up on;-). Anyway I will press on, follow your advice and see where this leads. Once again your input is sincerely appreciated.

  • Dinen November 16, 2011, 2:05 pm

    I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could tell me where I could get the necessary data to analyse the respective influence that investment demand vs inflationary pressures, has on comex gold prices. I need it for a thesis I’m working on. I would be grateful for any pointers (preferably open source) as to where I may access this data. Ta

  • Benjamin November 16, 2011, 9:00 am

    “Please don’t be shy if it is the good news concerning lawyers to which you would like to respond. RA”

    Heh, yeah… I guess the declining number of law degrees has already rendered the matter into an issue not worth discussing!
    But seriously, I did have something to say about that. I just got sucked into the ‘flations talk. Anyway, I hate to be such a negative Ned, but I don’t think that this future lawyer shortage will be much of a silver lining. To keep it simple, I’ll limit my comment to a single pro and a single con…

    Pro: Fewer youngsters bothering to take on the debt of education (law school or otherwise).

    Con: The supply/demand for litigators will dictate that lawyer fees rise. This will bring about more expensive law suits. This can also turn out to mean that small businesses and the “rich” are done for. Why accept out of court settlements from them when fewer of them can afford legal defense? Vice versa, why settle out of court with a poorer party whom you know can’t afford to take you to court?

    Yet, I can’t say that it is better that so many kids jam-packed into the places of higher learning. Seriously, that was just stupid. I mean, really, how could anyone in their right mind expect to come out ahead in that deal? Anyway…

    The problem with lawyers is not the number of them. The modern-day burdens of litigation are not the result of having too many lawyers. The problem is how litigation was allowed to be utilized. For example, it’s perfectly acceptable today (and in more recent decades) to sue for well beyond the damages that were actually sustained by the wronged party. This is especially true if we’re talking about businesses, big and small alike, and “the rich”, yes?

    Right. So the problem is that litigation diverged from being a means of compensating damages to person and property, and became a means to the undue punishments prescribed by certain ideologies. Litigators, realizing that the well could then go so deep, were increased the costs of their services, thus pushing the cost burdens up higher. From there, becoming a lawyer was a sure way to $$$ville, resulting in a bunch of ignorant kids piling their student loans into law degrees. The rest, apparently, is history (or soon to be).

    So really, this new trend is just the tip falling off of the vast iceberg. As such, it cannot in itself change much, if anything, for the better. But I will say this, too…

    The legal elite will become fewer in number and will probably in time lose the sparkling, noble image they’ve managed to gain in recent decades. With many more people NOT aspiring to be like them, perhaps the ideologies they’ve used to poison the justice system will have no choice but to come under question or even decidedly unfriendly fire. So perhaps there is a silver lining after all. It just happens to be, imv, at the end of what seems to be a long tunnel…

  • ProfitsOn November 16, 2011, 7:15 am

    Good point! The long-term trend is still up.

    Since 1933, the CRB index rose for about 12/13 years from the bottom (1938/1951-1968/1980).

    Current trend started in 2002.

    Of course, past peformance does not guarantee future results.

  • mava November 16, 2011, 6:53 am

    gary,

    Why soak the rich? Why not soak, let us say, you and others like you? If you want to place someone on the sacrificial altar of communism, why not step on that altar first?

  • gary leibowitz November 16, 2011, 4:56 am

    Third world growth, not the devalued dollar is the cause of inflation. As the old regime is being replaced by the new virgin capitalists. I wonder if their fate will be similar to ours once they mature.

    Without this third world phenomena we would already be deep into a deflationary black hole.

    Imagine the current dominant economic powers fighting to get control of their debt by reducing services and employment. Now imagine 1 in 4 of their citizens living with negative equity value from their real estate. Once more imagine corporate america thriving on a new paradigm of reducing old work force with a younger cheaper and smaller one. Finally imagine the world banks having trillions of unresolved debt and trying to balance that with holding that debt on the books in order to prevent another 50 percent devaluation of homes.

    Ugly. We are already at the point of no return. We are spiralling around chasing our tails.

    Anyone expecting inflation to win out must still expect the 60 year government policies of replacing cash with credit to still work. To expect creditors to still accept that the IOU’s will be repaid after this massive unwinding. History has been temporarily distorted from the normal inflation/deflation cycles. The advent of the Federal Reserve combined with the easy replacemnt of cash with credit, the credit card, has a direct coorelation to the mega bull run from 1982. That run has shown that cash was no longer the driver of the economy. It was the “faith” that borrowed money would be repaid at a high interest that kept this train running.

    Do you really think anyone still believes this? Now I am sure all the doom and gloomers expect a scenario where a rifle, land to grow your own food, and gold for barter is the future. That is too far fetched for me. I expect a world deflation, aka 1930’s, that will take decades to recover from.

    Watch to see how high the yields on govenrment bonds from Italy, Spain, Greece etc… will go. My guess is that the risk takers will find it too risky. It is already happening. What do you suppose that does to our dollar and bonds? Flight to safety ironically will come to our shores. No, our dollar will not be trashed. In fact it should thrive. That alone will doom the equities/commodities market.

    Just one mans take on the macro economic picture that I believe is unfolding now.

    • gary leibowitz November 16, 2011, 4:08 pm

      mava,

      Did you say soak the rich? Last I looked their pocket book has 3 times the amount it had one decade ago, while the middle class lost 10 percent. Yes thats 10 percent loss over a 10 year period.

      I guess the robber baron days are back!

      When the most wealthy among us declare that their share of the American dream is distorted in their favor something must be wrong. Instead of listening people decide it’s best to bash the looney liberals.

      FACTS are FACTS. Please show me why the super rich have to benefit on th nations backs? Surely you have stated time and again how broke we are. Surely it makes sense to get rid of this nonesense first before we attack the middle class and poor. I find it disingenuous to tout the ills of big government and all their social programs when the people most benefiting from todays action are the rich.

      Something is very wrong. Class warfare? You bet!

      Throughout history economies collapse from government complacency which breeds corruption, and that corruption always favors the rich. The disparity between the classes have never been higher. Imagine we are having a world debt problem and the first line of attack is against immigrants, social welfare, and the middle class.

      To recap: You favor cleaning up this debt mess by having every class except the rich contribute? Heck, lets not even say contribute. How about giving back the golden goose. Surely there is no possible reason the super rich should be benefiting from our burden. While I agree the give aways have been excessive and should be reigned in, I still think some semblence of class balance is in order.

  • John Jay November 16, 2011, 2:34 am

    I am sure the boys at the Fed know they are on thin ice with the games they are playing. If there was even one honest to god Treasury auction without the phony bids, it would all collapse. If the banks, Freddie/Fannie etc ever marked all the bad RE loans to market, it would all collapse. With ZIRP firmly in place and the flood of public employees taking early retirement increasing, a good actuary could easily predict how long before the pension funds hit a zero balance. It is a death watch now, and just a matter of time.

  • mava November 16, 2011, 2:15 am

    Carol,

    Firstly, no, if there is no limit to borrowing, then you will never have a problem paying interest. Essentially, because you borrow the interest too.

    You say, there must be a limit, because? Because there is a limit? So, here we come to the second point.

    Secondly, you have to ask yourself: “interest on what?”
    I think Robert is trying to tell you the same thing. They just print the money. Outright. There can be no limit, because whether there is an interest or not, they are “borrowing it” from their alter ego.

    The only way this can end, or there can be a limit to it, is that it will result in complete ruination of America. So what. Keynes was already asked this very question when he was describing his scheme to members of congress. Although they did very much want to take part in looting of America, this very same question did bother them too. They were criminals, but not idiots, as today. So they asked him, what happens at the end of a run.

    He shrugged and said “in the long run [yes, but] we are all dead”. So, right there they have agreed to sell America for their lifetime of personal leisure. And they did get their part of the bargain, didn’t they? Last I have checked, they all had pretty good life, and they all are dead now. So, now, it is our time to pay our part of the bargain, – we shall be ruined.

    We have a democracy, don’t we? These were the leaders that were elected, and they were fully authorized to make contracts for which we now shall be held responsible.

  • mava November 15, 2011, 11:00 pm

    Carol,

    …by borrowing even more debt!

    I am not defending the casino here. I am just pointing out that this is what their plan is.

    The plan is as follows:
    – We have an X dollars debt to pay.
    – We borrow a total of 2X dollars to pay it.
    – Now we need to pay 2X dollars of debt.
    – So, we borrow 4X of debt to pay it with.
    – Wash, rinse and repeat.

    This works, because there is no limit to how much we can borrow. This is why if you look at the total debt accumulated by various presidents, you see a progression pattern. What is shocking today, for instance, how much debt Obama is getting into, in comparison with all former presidents combined, will become an example of righteousness in the future, as we will be comparing “all of the presidents combined (including Obama)” to “the amount of debt this current president is getting us into”.

    • Carol November 15, 2011, 11:34 pm

      Rob >>”This works, because there is no limit to how much we can borrow. ”

      I understand you are not defending it but I must disagree that there is no limit. At some point even at .25% interest there will come a time where even the interest cannot be paid. At that point the whole system implodes (if not sooner).

    • gary leibowitz November 16, 2011, 12:03 am

      Why not just repeal the tax cut for the very wealthy from 11 years ago? Thats 1 trillion per year. Does anyone disput these numbers or where the money is going? I find it outragous that there is not an outcry to cut it off immediately. Guess I just don’t understand politics and mathematics.

      &&&&&

      Why kill the golden goose — i.e., those still willing to work for a living, and to employ the drones who vote Democrat — just for a paltry trillion dollars? The debt overhang is a thousand times that sum. Even the acknowledged Federal debt of $14 trillion makes your trillion dollar soak-the-rich scheme look ineffectual. RA

      ===================================

      A recent article citing Buffett:

      My Class Has Won’
      Buffett, the world’s third-richest person, reiterated his call for increased taxes on the wealthy.

      “Through the tax code, there has been class warfare waged, and my class has won,” Buffett said. “It’s been a rout. You have seen a period where American workers generally have gone no place, and where the really super rich as a group increased their incomes five for one in this rarefied atmosphere.”

    • Robert November 16, 2011, 12:56 am

      Carol: “Ok Robert tell me how this works when ALL new credit/money is issued as debt so to issue a new $60T of new debt to pay off the present debt will leave …. drum roll please…. $60T of new debt that will need to be paid off…. But HOW?”

      Carol… tsk tsk tsk.

      Not all credit/money is issued as debt. Only all credit money is issued as debt (note: no slash “/” character).

      There is, and always has been, such a thing as debt free money.

      But, to respond to your question using a riddle:

      Q: “When is it ok to use your Visa to pay your monthly Mastercard bill, while still declaring yourself solvent?”

      A:”When you are the US government” or:

      A:”When you have adequate firepower to destroy your creditors”

      Carol: “I understand you are not defending it but I must disagree that there is no limit. At some point even at .25% interest there will come a time where even the interest cannot be paid. At that point the whole system implodes (if not sooner).”

      – Eh, the sun will still rise the following morning.

    • Benjamin November 16, 2011, 9:25 am

      @ Gary L.

      More of that soak the rich crap, eh? Man… What is it going to take to get you off that addictive drug?!

      If I’ve said it once, I’ll say it 1,000 times. When the tax burden goes up, the mega-rich and corporations come up with ways to avoid paying it. And they can always get away with that because the more money that needs to be protected, the better the services you can find in the tax-shelter biz.

      At least, that is what I think. But I have good reasons for thinking so. I mean, really, if someone called you and said they needed a place to stash $1 million, but you could make as much or more than that in an honest job… Why bother? On the other hand, if they needed a safe place for $1+ billion… Well, I, for one, would be all ears.

      Meanwhile, stupid governments would be feeling secure in their budgets. They would most likely increase spending, only to find out that the money isn’t really there. At the very least, government will sustain spending levels (much as it pains the heck out of them to do so!).

      Oops! Oh, well. Just borrow some more, I guess, and levy a new tax(es) on the peasants to pay for it. And when they start to complain, then just suggest that the mega-rich aren’t paying their share (perferably, have the peons assemble at Wall Street and in the parks of other major cities).

      Wash, rinse, repeat…

    • Larry D November 17, 2011, 12:25 am

      Gar, you continue to bring up the 1 trillion per year tax cut that the rich were given by the rest of us. As if.

      In my fingers I have a sheaf of printouts from the Congressional Budget Office detailing Federal revenues and outlays for years 1970 to 2009. Individual income tax revenues first exceeded 1 Trillion per year in the year 2000.

      In 1990, individual income taxes collected were 466.9 Billion, rising to 879.5 B by 1999. The aforementioned 1.004 Trillion was reached in 2000, then dropped through 2003 when only 793.7 B was collected. The 1 Trillion mark was again topped in 2006 and 2007, reached a peak of 1.145 T in 2008, then fell in 2009 in the aftermath of the financial meltdown to a mere 915.3 B.

      The statistics don’t show a 1 trillion per year tax cut anywhere – even if you add up the shortfall in individual income taxes for 2001-2005, which totals 640 B.

      FACTS are FACTS, no?

  • rob November 15, 2011, 7:57 pm

    Help me out here, if we have a financial crisis caused by a huge debt over hang, how can we have inflation until the forces of deflation are over taken by the forces of inflation? In Harry Dent’s book, “The Great Crash Ahead” he says that the private sector debt was increased from $20 Trillion $’s to $42 trillion from years 2000-2008 and this debt is only worth $20 trillion today. If I understood Harry Dent correctly, he says that our economy has to deal with this $22 TN money/debt destruction which is a much larger force versus the obama inflation force of approximately $5 TN. .
    If we have not really seen much more than a few trillion dollars in bad debt write offs versus the obama stimulus spending then we have some inflation but isn’t logical to expect that this huge debt hang has to be dealt with unless the Fed can reflate the economy? But, I thought they were basically out of options to relate the economy.
    Is there someone who can explain to me if this is a proper analysis or if not then why not?

    • Robert November 15, 2011, 10:04 pm

      It’s pretty simple to understand if you consider that “they” are trying to solve the crisis by using the same methods that caused it:

      The notional debt of $42T that is has about $20T in market value, yielding a $22T deflationary overhang is NOT expected to be met not by the $5T in new public sector debt- it is expected to be met by the $60T that the new $5T will be levered up to via fractional reserve and financial derivative insanity.

      The issue is, of course, that the fractional reserve leverage system also broke in 2007 with Bear Stearns; but the Geithners of the world are oblivious to this fact. The Fed and the Treasury seem to honestly believe that the US Dollar is so sought after that people will gladly pay them $1.06 in the future for the privilege of being the first one to spend their brand new dollar today.

      The challenge is that a declining number of people are interested- People are learning and understanding that the AAA rated mortgage backed security “investment” that they bought into in 2007, and went “poof” in 2008 was nothing but a structured financial vehicle purposely designed to defraud them out of their money, so why would they turn around today and buy even more of this leveraged house of cards financial garbage?

      So, back to the $22T notional debt overhang- If the $5T that has already been printed fails to lever up adequately to offset the deleveraging grind, then you can bet that the $5T will be printed up to $10T, and then $15T…

      Meanwhile, the overhang will grow from $22T to $30T, and then $50T as unfunded governmental liabilities continue to mature and come due (social security being the most relevant)

      Eventually, the genius-squad has only one of two options:

      1) Figure out new and creative methods to con the world into resuming the reckless borrowing that typified the decade of the 2000’s so that the leverage party can start back up, or

      2) Print the money that must backstop all those Trillions of future promises to pay.

      I guess there is a third option- They can go create some good old fashioned death and destruction and then applaud the miracle of growth that sprouts from the need to rebuild.

      Everyone (including the Fed) knows that prosperity does not come out of a printing press, but the Fed also knows that without the printing press, it has no reason for being…

      The failure of the EFSF to garner any leverage interest in Europe last week might be the first warning shot that registers with these clowns, but they seem to be too obtuse to even pay attention to that.

      Wiemar and Zimbabwe happened not because hyperinflation was inevitable or even necessary- they happened because the Bankers were not willing to simply crawl under a rock and die while the market purged itself of the disease organism that ailed it.

      Bankers are very much parasites- they will kill the host system before they will voluntarily detach from it. Altruism is not in the banker vocabulary.

    • Carol November 15, 2011, 10:24 pm

      Rob >> “The notional debt of $42T that is has about $20T in market value, yielding a $22T deflationary overhang is NOT expected to be met not by the $5T in new public sector debt- it is expected to be met by the $60T that the new $5T will be levered up to via fractional reserve and financial derivative insanity. ”

      Ok Robert tell me how this works when ALL new credit/money is issued as debt so to issue a new $60T of new debt to pay off the present debt will leave …. drum roll please…. $60T of new debt that will need to be paid off…. But HOW?

    • mava November 15, 2011, 11:10 pm

      The huge debt overhang you’re referring to, is not the cause of crisis. The cause of crisis is the fact that we are eating into our capital. This is almost impossible to detect, because the fractional reserve banking practices along with irredeemable paper money obscure the big picture.

      Again, what specific forces of deflation are you referring to? If it is a credit destruction, then as Robert have already pointed to it, it will be taken care of by fractional reserve lending.

      If it is the non-credit money debts being written off, then to that end, it has nothing to do with deflation. If you borrow my dollar and then refused to pay back so I had to write it off, that dollar still exist, either in your wallet, or in the wallet of whoever you gave it to. All there was, was just a redistribution of existing money. For this reason, gold, for instance, does not create deflation.

      Hope this helps.

    • Rick Ackerman November 16, 2011, 2:01 am

      All debts are not equal. When can I expect MY printing press dollars to get out from underneath a burdensome mortgage? Regardless, as C.V. Myers wrote, every penny of every debt must eventually be paid — if not by the borrower, then by the lender. So far, the political equation has skewed pathologically, if not to say criminally, to the benefit of lenders. Those who would suggest there’s a middle way don’t understand the problem. You can’t remedy a collapsing, quadrillion dollar debt bubble with half-measures.

  • rickj November 15, 2011, 6:17 pm

    I agree with most of the above and would add that I believe the velocity of money is relatively low right now, but this will pick up as people stock up once they see and believe prices are rising. But fear may slow even that equation. For example, you stock up on consumables, knowing they will rise in price, but refrain from investing in stocks or housing improvements.

    I believe that the real flood of price increases lies in the coming devaluation of the US dollar, since Chinese, etc. imports will soar in price. At that point, some of the mountains of new money sitting in banks, at least whatever is left after bank runs and derivative bets gone bad, might actually get lent into the economy. Too positive a thought?

    &&&&

    Lent on what collateral…or on what future income?
    RA

  • mava November 15, 2011, 5:55 pm

    You also ask about inflation versus deflation. This is a very easy issue to predict. There will always be an inflation, and never a deflation. Why? Because, the thieving politicians are here to steal. They can always print new money, – why would they ever stop?

    Deflationists argue, that bad debt can bring about deflation proper – the decrease in money quantity. Technically, yes. Of course. Practically, – no chance in hell. And why? Because central bank will always print more than enough of new money to replace the lost money due to debts written off.

    Think about it, when AIG was bailed out, why didn’t bankers allow it to collapse, why did they printed the money instead and showered the AIG with it? Because they are supported by the AIG. Every politician accepts billions in bribes, but not directly. This is why they all go to Washington, this is why they all spend millions on their campaigns, only to receive miserable $400,000 a year (in president’s case). It is all about theft. And they will always print money (safeguard the economy from collapse) when those who pay their bribes are hurting. You can take this to the bank.

    There is more complication to this issue, as only credit can be written off. Real money continue to exist, no matter how bad the debts are, but this is not material to your question.

  • mava November 15, 2011, 5:44 pm

    Many innocent young students have graduated from these universities, not knowing what inflation is. As a result, you have many people today, who, despite their diploma, are unable to diagnose economic situation, as they were never taught the subject in its entirety. They are running around and shouting inflation when they see rising prices. In the meantime, behind their backs, the central banks could be increasing or decreasing (right, we shall hope) the money supply, and they would never know what to pay attention to.

    Deflation, then accordingly, is nothing but the decrease in quantity of money. As explained, you won’t find too many people actually knowing what it is, no matter how simple, because they will not admit that they have wasted their time and money on listening to the likes of Krugman. Decrease in prices, may or may not follow deflation.

    So, now having said that, you question is how come we haven’t seen runaway inflation yet?

    What are you looking at? Which specific consequence of money printing are you watching? If it is prices, then they are rising alarmingly fast, you just need to pay attention. For instance, I like to do automobile repairs myself. This sunday I was finicking with brakes, and noticed that the spindle nut I usually buy for $1.50 is $5.50, and a can of brake fluid is $8, and so on.

    I also happen to have a habit of meticulously entering my outflows into Quicken, so I can see the tendencies by using a chart feature of Quicken. Prices have gone up in last few years.

    Now, the price have not gone up as much as the money supply was increased. Why? Because, as I said above, other things can also be adjusted, for instance more items being imported of lower quality, but sold as the same old quality item, for the same price. Secondary, if you want to go into details, there supposed to be a constant price decline in a healthy economy. This is because there more and more goods and services produced, and so, naturally, there is less and less demand, and to keep the demand, the price is lowered.
    Some of the recent money printing, went into rising the falling prices, and as such had masked the effects of inflation. Don’t let this deceive you, however, as you still have the negative effect of money printing in that the prices that should have gone lower as a result of your work, haven’t.

  • mava November 15, 2011, 5:23 pm

    rob,

    Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money. It is always and everywhere a result of central bank creating new and additional claims on goods and services, claims that are counterfeit in nature, as they are marked just the same as old, in order to deceive the recipient. Inflation is NOT rising prices. Rising Prices is one of several possible consequences of inflation, but it doesn’t have to be the case. All money is representing all the goods and services in an economy. So on one side we have all money, on the other side we have literally everything else. “Everything else” is a sum of all other things, and as such is a case, then for instance, the price doesn’t have to rise per item, as the item quality can also be lowered (replaced with item from china), and so there will be no price rise, but there necessarily must be a negative consequence to inflation, in our case this would be worse item for the same price.

    Somewhere in the near past, the central banks paid big money to the economic universities, so that the universities hire certain quacks as their economics chairs. Krugman, for instance, or Friedman. These quacks, tried to change the definition of inflation to that of rising prices. Since rising prices can be easily contained, by substitution with a cheaper item, then the government could easily say that there is no inflation.

  • rob November 15, 2011, 3:07 pm

    Can anyone explain why we have not seen big inflation yet. With all the money the gov’t has printed in the past few years, it seems to me that we should have runaway inflation showing up. Then I saw an interview the other day on C-span with Fed Chairman Bernanke at Fort Bliss. He said that there mission is to keep inflation at 2%.
    Also, I hear that the US banks are in good condition. Can someone explain if this is true?
    I thought our financial system has a huge amount of bad debt and that this is a deflationary force. Harry Dent says that there is some $22 Trillion of bad private sector debt that has to be written – off .Where exactly is this bad debt and is Hary Dent correct when he says that the private sector debt increased from $20 TN in year 2000 to $42 Trillion by 2008 and that this debt is now only worth $20 TN? It seems to me if Harry Dent is right we should have deflation over inflation.
    I need some help with understanding this.
    Thanks.

    • Robert November 15, 2011, 3:32 pm

      Use (and trust) your own eyes.

      How much does a tank of gas cost you? how much did one cost you in early 2007?

      walk down the cereal aisle in any grocery store, then saunter over to the meat department.

      The price increases are there. Cofee is up 50% over the past 24 months Sugar is up nearly 100%

      In the 70’s the “inflation” was more obvious because wages were rapidly rising, and prices were rising even faster. Today wages are stagnant, and prices are creeping up in stealth mode.

      Rising prices in food and staples are bad enough for people who have not seen income increases for 2 years, but what about the unemployed?

      If you do not believe there is price inflation, I encourage you to have a discussion with an unemployed person about their monthly expenses….

      My monthly maintenance costs are up 20% from 2008 levels (and 2008 had a huge price spike in oil if you remember).

      Don’t tell me there are no price increases; there are, in fact, the worst type of price increases occuring. Standards of living for many are declining.

    • Mark Uzick November 15, 2011, 3:51 pm

      The BLS has a simple way to keep the CPI low: They simply eliminate anything that’s going up in price (essential goods) out of the equation.

      Harry Dent believes that the political capital that’s necessary to devalue the dollar to the extent that’s needed to bail out profligate debtors, the financial institutions that hold this debt and local, state and federal debtors is insufficient. I disagree for now.

      I’m don’t know whether Harry Dent is either right or wrong, but I favor the opposite: that the interests that want the devaluation of the dollar through both price and monetary inflation will be the winners.

      I think you should be prepared for either outcome.

    • Benjamin November 15, 2011, 4:28 pm

      rob,

      Every FRN created was borrowed into existence. Two problems result…

      The burden of debt causes the borrowed money to go into gambling mode, aka “speculation”. This is where the big players try and fake each other out, hoping to pay back their debt and snag enough profit in the process. Naturally, winning a round means having to put like competitors out for the count.

      As this vicious and thoroughly wasteful game plays out, prices gyrate in big swings because productive activity drops. In the end, there’s three things that are unavoidable… All players broke, productive capacity obliterated, and high consumer prices, due to scarcity. This is not deflation. It’s not stagflation. It’s depression, both in the making and sustaining.

      As for the dreaded hyperinflation (in case you’re wondering), that all depends on which side you’re on. Some believe the crushing depression must come first, followed by a hyperinflationary blow-out. Others yet believe that the hyperinflationary blow-out will come first, followed by crushing depression. Other views do not matter because they are either deceitful or clueless. FWIW, I think it’s clear that we’re having the excruciatingly slow, crushing depression first. Hyperinflation may or may not follow it (nothing absolutely necessiates that it occur). We’ll have to wait and see. But it doesn’t really matter which side turns out to be right. It is and will be awful, either way!

    • Rick Ackerman November 16, 2011, 1:42 am

      Relatively few of those trillions of phony Fed dollars have escaped the banking system’s digital ledger. Remember, it is the banks that have been bailed out, not homeowners and wage earners. Money must be borrowed into existence to be “actualized,” and that simply isn’t happening. A corporate surplus of $2Tr testifies to the fact that there is little to invest in with money you already have, let alone with money you would borrow at interest.

  • Robert November 15, 2011, 7:10 am

    hmmmmmmm…..

    Robert can’t decide if the time is right to purchase his dream property.

    My crystal ball is disheartingly murky.

    • Benjamin November 15, 2011, 8:28 am

      I hear ya, Robert. $8 million, just for the 760 acres, on top of the rest of the input costs? Seems a bit expensive, to me.

      Too, what of unemployment? Fine and alright that farming seems primed to be “in” once more, but I doubt that alone would solve the problem of presistently high unemployment. Methinks because of that, farmers would be producing at a loss or… Just not using this glut of land to grow as much (or at all).

      That said, I can’t exactly say that this trend _isn’t_ a silver lining. More like a heavily tarnished silver lining. It needs more in order to shine like it should. By that, I mean resource development and rebuilding the manufacturing base. Without that, the country will remain mired in… sigh… depression 🙁

    • Mark Uzick November 15, 2011, 1:21 pm

      Robert: If you can afford your dream without getting into debt that you couldn’t handle under the worst price deflation that’s possible, then live your dream while you’re young enough to fully enjoy it; that’s what you’ve been working, saving and investing for.

      If you can buy it with a non-recourse loan, with a down payment that you can afford to lose, then you can go for it anyway. The more likely scenario of massive price inflation would let you profit by the loan’s devaluation, even if your dream property’s real value declines.

      &&&&&&

      If you’d borrowed 100% to buy a potato farm just before the Weimar hyperinflation took off in 1921, you could have paid off the entire loan with proceeds from your first harvest. This was documented by Andrew Fergusson in “When Money Died”. RA