Martin Hutchinson (Money Morning):

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s latest thesis is that the home mortgage bubble had little to do with record low interest rates, and was actually much more a problem of regulation.

It sounds plausible – until you give it some real thought. After all, I believe that humanity has already tried a system with tight, vigorously enforced regulations, and no price mechanism.

It was called the Soviet Union.

Okay, that was a bit of a cheap shot – to some extent. Bernanke stated that “borrowers chose and were extended mortgages that they could not be expected to service over the longer term.” That appears to make the problem one of regulation: The types of mortgages that banks should be permitted to offer should be limited to ones that borrowers have a reasonable chance of servicing.

In theory this makes sense. However, it is a prime example of what I in the past have referred to as the “Keynesian Bureaucrat Fallacy,” or KBF.

Under the KBF, wise bureaucrats – who, like economist John Maynard Keynes, were presumably educated at Cambridge and steeped in the traditions of the Bloomsbury Group – will decide the appropriate regulations for every sphere of the economy.

They will then enforce them with draconian rigor, forcing the economy to behave in a way that optimizes economic welfare, measured by whatever means the bureaucrats devise. Irrational market-based signals – such as the price mechanism, will be ignored – unless the bureaucrats decide it is safe to take account of them.  . .

Click here for the rest of Mr. Hutchinson’s commentary on Money Morning.

Adam Lass (Taipan Daily):

Washington’s garden always starts with green sprouts… and ends with bitter fruit.

“If the past has taught us anything it is that every cause brings its effect, every action has a consequence. We Chinese have a saying: ‘If a man plants melons he will reap melons; if he sows beans, he will reap beans’ … We can say with certainty that, with the individual as with the nation, the flourishing of the wicked is an illusion, for, unceasingly, life keeps books on us all.”
– Soong Mei-ling (aka Madame Chiang Kai-shek)

I was thinking of kicking off this column with the famous line from Galatians: “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” But then I recalled Madame C.’s elegant rephrasing of the theme, and simply couldn’t resist.

For months now, Wall Street, Washington and their sycophantic pundits have lauded the economy’s plethora of green shoots. As proof of same, Washington is now touting the fact that our collective personal net worths rose 5% in the third quarter of 2009.

“See?” they say. “You CAN buy your way out of trouble! It’s just a question of planting the right seeds.” It doesn’t hurt to water them with trillions of freshly invented dollars.

Or does it?

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

This growth figure was calculated by totting up the cash in our bank accounts, the taxable value of our homes, and our various investments, and then subtracting our mortgage and credit card debts.

The ganged figure reached $53.4 trillion. Not quite the $64.5 trillion we were sitting on back in 2007. But hey – a gain’s a gain, right? We are told that we must accept the nature of these new times.

Perhaps I would be a tad more accepting of this “formula for success” if it did not overlook two factors that some might consider important.

Click here for the rest of Mr. Lass’ analysis at Taipan Daily.

Gold’s best part is still ahead. And this is not just a bull market; this is a fortune maker.

Bill Bonner (The Daily Reckoning, UK):
Yesterday, gold closed at $1,200. Long-term Daily Reckoning sufferers can finally hold their heads up. We bought gold at the beginning of the bull market. New readers, with no gold buried in their back yards, may wonder: is it too late?

Here is a quick answer: no. We’re still a long way from gold’s ultimate destination. Our ‘Trade of the Decade’ was to buy gold on dips and sell stocks on rallies. The idea of that trade was that gold and stocks were going in opposite directions. Stocks were supposed to go down. Gold was supposed to go up. They would meet at some point, we imagined.

But lately they’ve been going in the same direction. Yesterday, for example, stocks rose with gold; the Dow added 126 points.

Which poses a bit of a dilemma. We think stocks are more likely to go down than up. Will gold go down too? Yes, probably.

Does that mean you shouldn’t buy gold here? No, not necessarily. If you’re trading, we’d suggest you wait. Gold is ready for a correction.

But it is usually a mistake to trade in and out during a major bull market. If the trade goes against you, you end up sitting by the sidelines as the market roars forward. You miss the best part.

Gold’s best part is still ahead. And this is not just a bull market; this is a fortune maker. Gold still hasn’t entered the bubble phase. It is just a very strong bull market. Eventually, it will soar… adding $100 in a single day. It will take our breath away. You want to be in it when that happens.

But is $1,200 the best price you can get to enter the gold market? Probably not. But it’s not a bad price. You can wait for a better one; but don’t wait too long.

John Hussman puts the odds of a major market crash sometime in the next 12 months at 80%. If stocks go, gold is likely to go down too. And it could stay down for a long time.

We keep our Crash Alert flag flying… and have a hunch the crash will come sooner rather than later. Day after day, the bubble gets bigger… and the pins get closer. Greece? Britain? The US?

Click here for the rest of Mr. Bonner’s analysis at The Daily Reckoning, UK Edition.

Martin Wolf, speaking, gravely, for the world’s intelligentsia in The Financial Times last week, proclaimed that: “the only thing worse than rescuing the system would have been not rescuing it.” But he is wrong; of all the many blessings economists may bestow upon a grateful people, improving the economy is not one of them. An economy is a natural thing. It can be improved by the striving of entrepreneurs, the prudence of bankers, and the sweating of field hands. But when it comes to the macro-economic policy, forbearance is the quality that pays. Any initiative on the feds’ part inevitably makes things worse.

The Bubble Era, like the Great Depression, was largely –but not completely – the result of government initiative. Artificially low interest rates – intended to counter the modest downturn of 2001 – sent the wrong message. Consumers – notably those in Britain and America – bought things they couldn’t afford. Producers – notably those in Asia – made things for which there was no real market. Debt piled up. Mountains of it.

As consumers bought more and producers made more the economy grew. But much of the economic “growth” of the 2001-2007 period was fraudulent. It was based on debt spending, not on genuine increases in purchasing power. Debt pretends to be real money. It looks like the real thing, but it is not. It stimulates the economy like counterfeit money. It causes production and consumption, but of the wrong sort. Former Reagan era Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman estimates the level of “counterfeit GDP” at $4 trillion in the US alone.

The fraud was discovered, though misunderstood, when sub-prime debt began to implode.

Finish reading the complete article at The Daily Reckoning.

But they may be struggling in vain.

Since 1945, the party that has controlled the White House has lost an average of 16 House seats in the president’s first midterm election, according to the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan publication in Washington. However, losses for the Democrats could be far steeper next year if they fail to put unemployed Americans back to work.

Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton and the Democrats lost 52 House seats in 1994.

“Unemployment is the leading economic indicator when it comes to politics,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart told The Wall Street Journal. “Anytime unemployment hits double digits, it’s hard to see the party in control having a good election year.”

Right now, polls are showing that the majority of Americans list jobs as their top concern. And rightfully so.

The economy unexpectedly shed 263,000 jobs last month as the jobless rate soared to a 26-year high of 9.8%.  And many economists expect the unemployment rate will reach 10% by the end of the year and peak at about 10.5% next summer.

Lawmakers are scrambling to staunch the bleeding, but that process has been made difficult by an escalating budget deficit.

The government ended its 2009 fiscal year in September with a total deficit of $1.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said. That equates to 9.9% of gross domestic product and is the largest deficit since 1945.

Government spending rose by 18% in the year, with the bailout of the financial industry, which alone required $245 billion. The spending increases and tax cuts included in the economic stimulus package approved in February added almost $200 billion to the 2009 deficit, the CBO said.

The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan, which was touted as a catalyst for job creation, has been criticized for its slow progress and ineffectiveness.

Only about a quarter of Obama’s stimulus, or $164 billion, has been paid out. About half, nearly $400 billion, will be paid out over the next 12 months in the build-up to mid-term elections, and the remainder will be disbursed in 2011.

In January, the administration claimed the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8% and push it below 7% by the end of 2010 – a fact that has already been seized on by Republican opposition.

“We’ll continue to remind Democrats of their failed promises that led to what is now, at best, a jobless recovery,” said National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Paul Lindsay told The Journal.

President Obama said in his Saturday radio address that he would “explore additional options to promote job creation.”

But with a growing perception that the stimulus has failed and a deepening concern about the nation’s snowballing deficit, the White House has bristled at talk of a second stimulus package.

“This is not a discussion of second fiscal stimulus,” Jen Psaki, the senior White House economic spokeswoman told the Financial Times. “The president and his economic team have continued to look at a wide number of policy options to create new jobs and ease the burden of those who cannot find employment but any notion that we are any farther along than preliminary discussions about new proposals is wildly inaccurate.”

In particular, the administration is hoping to extend such stimulus measures as the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers.

When it expires on Dec. 1, the homebuyers credit will be responsible for nearly 400,000 sales of new and existing homes, out of total sales of 1.4 million, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told The New York Times. That’s roughly in line with estimates from the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

Zandi, who formerly advised Senator John McCain, recommends extending the credit through August 2010. Legislators are also considering extending the credit to current homeowners.

The administration may also consider expanding the federal transportation funding program, which comes up for renewal every six years. That 2003 program expired on Sept. 30 and is currently operating under a 30-day extension period.

Obama is also expected to push for an extension of the “Making Work Pay” middle class tax cut that accounted for about a third of the February stimulus.

Extending these programs could cost the government tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue.

For example, congressional analysts estimate the cost of the current homebuyer credit at about $1 billion a month. Expanding the credit through next August could cost as much as $30 billion, according to Moody’s Zandi.

That, in turn, could lead to another large run-up in the budget deficit, which in the last year was exacerbated by dwindling tax revenue. Individual income taxes, the biggest source of tax receipts, fell by 20%, and corporate income taxes dropped by 54%, the CBO said.

“There may not be anything we can do,” a Democratic Congressional leadership aide conceded to The Times. “Under any circumstances, it’s going to take a while for jobs to recover.”

Source: Can Democrats Anchor Unemployment Without Doing More Damage to the Deficit?

Yesterday, it touched a new record – $1,050 – even as the dollar rose, oil slumped under $70 and stocks dipped very slightly.

Well, what do you expect? The United States added $1 trillion to its monetary base in the last year or so. The federal government is running a deficit of $1.7 trillion this year. And along comes Barack Obama with an idea to stimulate employment – spend more money! This time, Obama’s plan is a kind of ‘Cash for Workers’ program…in which businesses get a tax credit for hiring new employees.

Gold investors must think the new program will be the straw they’ve been waiting for. Government has piled on bales of costly new initiatives on this poor camel’s back. Still, he stands up straight.

So, is gold at $1,000 a bargain…or a trap? Or both.

We begin by asking: where’s the inflation? We don’t see any inflation. What we do see is deflation.

Barclays Capital says gold could go to $1,500. We don’t know where they got that number. It could go to $15,000 for all we know. Or it could go down, too.

Our guess is that it will go down enough scare the bejesus out of speculators. Then, it will soar.

But, hey, we’re just guessing – along with everyone else.

Sooner or later gold is probably headed to the lunatic moon. We’re sticking with the yellow metal. We don’t want to miss that ride.

But when?

Ah…we’re going to stick our necks out and say “eventually.” We’re sure we’re right about this. Just don’t ask us for more precision; we have none. And what bothers us is that between eventually and now there could be a lot of time and a lot of trouble. And one trouble that could come up pretty fast is another crash in the stock market.

If the stock markets of the world take another dive…like they did last year…gold will probably go down with them. Not as much, but down nonetheless. So, if we were speculating…we’d probably be short gold and short stocks too. We’d bet against bonds too – even though we think they will probably go up in the short run. The smart, long term money – in both stocks and bonds – is probably on the short side.

Here at The Daily Reckoning, however, we never speculate – except in print. As to ideas about how the world works we have plenty. We speculate daily. As to gold, stocks and commodities, we prefer to hold onto our long-term positions.

What seems fairly sure to us is that this recovery is a fraud. It’s a mountebank and a flimflam.

And now approaches a moment of truth – earnings announcements. Stock market investors bid up shares on the theory that sales and profits would rise. Will they? We don’t think so.

We think sales are going to be disappointing…and earnings will be even worse. If so, we’ll see analysts begin to change their expectations…and announce that the results are “not as bad as expected.”

If we get a few really bad announcements – with results much worse than expected – it could sink the rally. Then again, if we’re surprised with exceptionally good reports…it could send the market in the other direction.

Good results will also cause us here at The Daily Reckoning to question our position. Maybe the economy is not sinking into a chronic depression, after all. Could we be wrong?

Ha ha…are you kidding, dear reader? Of course, we can be wrong. When we were younger we were uncertain about things. But now that we’re older, we’re not so sure.

Here is what we’re pretty sure about:

1) The credit cycle has topped out.

Americans are saving – think of the poor boomers, 10 years older but not a penny richer than they were in 1999. Stocks have gone nowhere but down in real terms. Houses hit a high in 2006…now, they’re off 30%…and still going down. Jobs? Forget it…there are already 15 million people who are unemployed and about 200,000 more every month. The job market is unlikely to recover for another 6-13 years – that is, after many of the boomers are retired! And if you are lucky enough to have a job, you’re not likely to get a raise…not with so much spare capacity in the labor market.

Under those conditions, a consumer boom is very unlikely.

2) We know that a period of credit contraction is deflationary.

Prices go down as demand falls. Buyers disappear from the malls that once knew them, while the factories that produce stuff grow dusty and quiet.

But we know the feds hate falling prices. And we know they are taking extraordinary actions to get prices to go up. So far, their efforts have been a giant flop. Prices are falling in the United States at the fastest pace since the ’50s.

Most of the feds’ efforts have been directed towards keeping the bankers fat and happy…and getting themselves a bigger share of America’s output. They took funds designed to relaunch the US economy, for example, and used them to buy themselves a big position in the auto industry, the financial industry and the insurance industry.

3) We know too, by the way they conducted themselves in those affairs, that the feds have become much more aggressive…throwing their weight around in the private sector as never before.

What we don’t know is how this affects markets in the short term. So far, consumer prices are falling, but the stock market is enjoying a bounce. It is a real, new bull market? Or just a bear market bounce? It is probably a bear market bounce…but it has been going for long enough that we have to at least consider the idea that it is a genuine bull market. That’s why the numbers from this quarter are important…they’ll tell us if the companies themselves are expanding earnings fast enough to justify investors’ optimism.

4) We know too that there is a whole lot of ’flation going on.

We are just unable to tell you what kind of ’flation it is. The monetary base is way up – it increased by $1 trillion in the last 12 months. But the money-in-circulation has barely budged. The feds give the banks overnight loans at practically zero interest. Then, the banks lend it back to the feds at nearly 4% more.

What happens to it then? Well, what do you think…it is wasted on typical federal government scams and humbugs.

So, relatively little of the money actually ends up in the consumer economy. And so, we can’t tell you whether the ’flation will have a ‘in’ prefix or a ‘de’ prefix. They’re just two letters. But they will make a whole alphabet of difference to the economy and to your investments.

5) Most important, we are dead sure that the people running America’s financial policies are jackasses.

We say that with all due respect, which is probably not much. They have only one idea – and it is a bad one. They think economies are improved by more consumer spending. They don’t seem to care why consumers occasionally cut back on their spending. All that matters to them is finding ways to get the consumer shopping again. So they try tax cuts and government spending…bailouts and boondoggles…zero interest lending and federal takeovers…cash for clunkers, cash for houses, cash for employees….

…trillions worth of claptrap and folderol. But what a nuisance! The fool consumer still won’t shop!

But they’re determined to keep trying. That’s why we can be pretty sure that, eventually, they’ll get inflation rates up. One way or another. And then, gold at $1000 will seem like an outrageous bargain.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: Gold Touches a New Record

“The Chicago Fed’s national activity index,” notes our macro adviser and fellow data dork Rob Parenteau, “continues to point to a second-half 2009 real GDP recovery. With the September release, investors focused on the index — a composite of more than 80 monthly indicators that provides a reasonably good proxy for real GDP momentum — slipping to -0.9 from -0.46 the month before. We have never seen this index climb consistently straight up after a recession month after month, and this decline is well within the range of monthly variation we tend to observe in this series.

“To be sure, growth above the long-term real GDP trend is not signaled until this index crosses the zero threshold. Typically, it takes until year two of a recovery to get there. Right now, all we are shooting for is growth, rather than recession. As displayed below, year-over-year growth at a 1.5-2% real GDP pace is within reach by year-end, given the sharp V-shaped recovery in the Chicago Fed index to date. We believe this will be sufficient to bring actual inventory accumulation into view in Q1, which can carry the economy in to midyear 2010 or so, at which point the unwinding of the fiscal stimulus becomes more of an issue.

“We continue to believe that is much more of a second-half 2010 concern, when the fiscal tide starts to go out, revealing a U.S. private sector that will still be leery of adding to its existing debt and will still be very keen on keeping spending growth below income growth.”

Source: We’re Back to Growth… For Now

Investors must be pondering the future.

What will the future look like? No one knows. But investors thought they saw things they liked.

For one thing, there was the Federal Reserve governor from New York, who told the world that there was no risk of a rate hike anytime soon. Bill Dudley knows which way the wind is blowing. He said the Fed would hold money policy loose “indefinitely.”

Indefinitely is otherwise known as “as long as it takes.”

But as long as it takes for what? Ah…as long as it takes until the economy appears strong again.

How long will that be? Ah…maybe longer than anyone realizes.

Yesterday, we were calculating how long it would take to get the jobless number back down to ’90s levels…that is, around 5%. There are now about 131 million jobs in the United States…and about 15 million people who would like a job but can’t find one. Meanwhile, population growth adds about 1.5 million new workers every year. That means the economy has to grow at 1% (in real terms) just to stay even with population growth. Currently, the economy is going in the wrong direction – backwards. It’s losing jobs…maybe 3 million this year…and maybe another 2 million or so before it finally stabilizes (who knows?)…for a total of 20 million jobs down (about 13% unemployment) by the time unemployment bottoms out.

Let’s suppose, by some miracle, the economy turns around…and begins growing at 3% per year. That should be about 3 million new jobs per year. Half of those, remember, are just to keep up with population growth. So the other half – 1.5 million – gradually reduce unemployment. Now, let’s get out the calculator…20 million divided by 1.5 million equals a little more than 13. By these numbers you can expect full employment again in 2022!

But what if the economy doesn’t grow at 3% per year? Ooooh…that’s the problem, isn’t it? All the feds – and practically all other economists too – are projecting a return to normal. They expect a ‘recovery.’ But what if there never is a recovery?

Heck, yesterday, the central bank of Australia said it was so sure that everything was going well it raised its key lending rate by 25 basis points.

“Canberra says risk of serious retraction over,” The Financial Times reports.

But they get a lot of sunshine down under. Possibly, the heads of the Reserve Bank of Australia got a little too much of it yesterday. Australia is also a supplier of natural resources to China; possibly, the sun burnt bankers failed to notice that China is a bubble.

Or maybe they failed to notice that China’s biggest customer is broke.

Right under The Financial Times’ article about Australia is the following headline:

“No sign of credit revival for US households.”

“The latest data from the Federal Reserve show consumer credit declined at an annual rate of 10.4% in July – the fastest rate since the crisis began two years ago.”

Yes, dear reader, Americans are shedding debt. They are cutting back. They are saving.

Another headline in The Financial Times tells us, “Holiday sales [are] set to fall.”

Hold on. Who makes all that junk that Americans buy for Christmas? And how can China buy more raw materials from Australia when it is selling fewer finished products to Americans?

Perhaps China is focusing more sales on the domestic market; we don’t doubt it. But you don’t refocus the world’s second or third largest economy in 12 months. It takes years. And you don’t get this kind of rebirth without some kind of suffering. The big, old oak tree has to fall down before the sapling can take its place. And when the oak falls – it makes one helluva mess.

Meanwhile, President Obama is adding more gin to the party punch. He says he’s considering ways to create more jobs without a new stimulus program. Among the schemes under consideration is a $3,000 new job tax credit.

Hey, why not! They had such great success with the Clunker tax credit…and with the first time house buyer tax credit. Of course, when you pay people to do things, you can’t be too surprised that they do them. And then, you can’t be too surprised when they stop doing them after you stop paying them. Thus, when the Clunkers program conked out in August car buyers stopped buying. And when the new house purchase tax credit expires in November, don’t be surprised if house sales collapse too. So, if the feds are going to pay people to hire other people, they better be prepared to do it for a long time.

Which brings us back to our calculations. How long will it be before this economy can walk without the feds clutching both arms? A few months ago, we wondered how long it would take consumers to put their finances back in order. Five years? Ten years? There are so many assumptions required that the numbers barely make sense. Still, if you think the total debt burden is headed back to under 200% of GDP, where it was for most of the last century, that would require the elimination of debt equal to about 160% of GDP…or more than $20 trillion worth. How do you eliminate debt? Well, some of it simply disappears…through defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. The rest is paid off. How? By saving. Now, imagine that the United States could put an amount equal to 15% of GDP to work paying down its debts. That’s savings and capital formation of all types – corporate as well as individual. It ignores government, which is going in the other direction. At 15% of GDP per year, paying America’s private debt down to under 2 times annual output is still about a 7-year project.

So, prepare for a long dry spell. In the best of cases, the American public has to stay on the frugality wagon for 7 to 13 years.

And in the worst of cases? Oh, well…that’s a different matter. The aforementioned US government is desperate to short-circuit the process of balance sheet repair. It is propping up the old tree every way it can. Thus, the whole period of adjustment may take much, much longer than it should. Instead of coming down with a crash, the limbs fall off one at a time. At this rate, the whole process could take nearly forever.

As the private sector eliminates debt, for example, the feds add it. The deficits are scheduled – by the Congressional Budget Office – to be monstrous, but controllable. Cash for clunkers, cash for houses, cash for jobs – it adds up. But the CBO projections are based on very optimistic assumptions, in which the economy ‘recovers’ quickly and grows strongly. They do not take into account the real nature of the slump. It is not a pause…it is a permanent change. The Obama administration cannot, ultimately, prevent change. But it can slow down the process so much that the depression begins to seem eternal.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: The Eternal Depression

So with some historic irony, one year and two weeks after Lehman Bros. bit the dust, another debt-burdened, credit-reliant, potentially “too big to fail” institution is looking to either stick its bondholders with a raw deal or enter sudden bankruptcy. We won’t pretend to know exactly how this one will end, but the market has certainly voiced its opinion:

Heh, and of course, Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) has a horse in this race. They stand to make about a billion bucks if CIT goes into bankruptcy — the fruits of a smartly designed loan agreement. Hank Paulson, despite his GS pedigree, didn’t make such a deal when he put $2.3 billion in TARP funds on the line… a CIT bankruptcy would mean a near-total loss of taxpayer bailout loans.

CIT is one of the biggest lending sources for small- and medium-size business in America… what happens to this recovery when this well runs dry?

With or without CIT, “The real job creators in the U.S. economy, small businesses, will not expand hiring as expected,” forecasts Dan Amoss. “There are many reasons for subdued hiring plans; an emerging reason to avoid expansion and hiring will be heightened expectations that tax rates will soar in the future to pay for out-of-control government spending.

“So I expect over the next several months, mainstream pundits and forecasters will start worrying about tepid hiring, even as the pace of job losses slows. As we ‘lap’ the 2009 corporate cost cutting by early 2010, and top lines fail to rebound, earnings estimates will have to come back down. I’m amazed at how many sell-side analysts are modeling V-shaped recoveries in 2010 earnings. Most stock prices are disconnected from reality…

“The labor market is dealing with a structural imbalance fueled by government-sponsored housing and credit bubbles. Many will call for the government to ‘solve’ this labor market problem, which will cause a new type of market dislocation. By early 2010, some will push for the federal government to start hiring the chronically unemployed in ‘New Deal’ types of programs.”

Source: The Lehman of 2009

He noted that “These people who were often truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the aristocracy,” he says, “only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.”

This goes along with an article in the St. Petersburg Times about Tom James, chairman and chief executive of Raymond, James Financial, who had “some tough words for the wizards of Washington, DC who oversaw the $700-billion bailout package”.

He reports, “The Brave And Wonderful Mogambo (BAWM) was right all along! Those government weenies are the biggest freaking morons you ever saw, and we as a country should be ashamed of ourselves for having elected such corrupt, half-witted, utter failures and congenital idiots!”

As you have probably guessed by now, he did not say those exact words, but he implied every syllable when he said, “Legislators were almost embarrassingly ignorant of how the financial system works”, which I figure explains how they don’t understand the linkage between their own Bad, Bad Performance (BBP) as legislators and the subsequent Bad, Bad Performance (BBP) of the economy, and he says that only 3 of 16 legislators that he talked to actually understood what was going on in the “credit crisis.” Less than 20%! Hahaha! We’re doomed!

Well, maybe these Congressional losers will understand the unfolding economic slowdown, as evidenced by the Baltic Dry Index, which is an index of the cost to transport stuff by cargo ship, and which has fallen precipitously, which seems very important to me, and to Junior Mogambo Ranger (JMR) Riccardo, too, who is also alarmed by this like – as I previously said – me.

It’s actually beyond scary, in a terrifying kind of “ain’t nobody buying nothing in a consumer economy” kind of way, which means that without the consumer buying stuff as his or her contribution to the famous statistic of “the consumer is 70% of the economy”, we are, in case you ain’t heard, freaking doomed!

Well, maybe not all buying is drying up, as silver market analyst, Ted Butler, reports that in the last 10 months, “some 150 million ounces of silver can easily be documented to have been bought by investors. Undocumented purchases would add tens of millions more ounces.”

In fact, when you add it all up, “Investment demand for silver this year is running at a full 25% of world mine production and over 20% of total production (including recycling). This is a remarkable historical turnabout.”

Thus, it is easy to see why Mr. Butler is “bullish beyond belief for silver”, since this kind of demand means that “In silver, the documented 150 million ounces bought in the first ten months of this year is equal to 15% of all the silver bullion equivalent thought to exist!” Wow!

More than one-seventh of all the silver bullion “thought to exist” in the whole world was suddenly bought up in less than a year, and yet the price of silver has been pounded down to less than 10 bucks an ounce? No wonder I am so bullish on silver!

He also notes that the gold/silver ratio is at more than 80, which is “one of the biggest differences in history.”

And not only that, but since there are 4 to 5 billion ounces of gold in the world versus only 1 billion ounces of silver, that means that “the total dollar value of all the gold in the world is worth 300 to 400 times more than all the silver in the world (80 times 4 or 5)”.

Talk about undervalued! Hey! This investing stuff is easy! Whee!

Until next time,

The Mogambo Guru

Source: A Bull in a Silver Shop