Inflation Coming Soon?

We hold up USA Today as the ultimate sign of what is not, in fact happening. If the rag says to do one thing, we know it's a bad idea; if it says that something is happening, we know it isn't. Which is, as an aside, how we expect to know the bottom of the 2007 Depression is in: USA Today will be screaming that the end is near and everyone is going to die... metaphorically speaking.

That is all a bit arch, of course, but you get the idea. As a for-profit company of popular persuasion, USA Today and other information sources have to amend what they publish in order to maintain mass appeal. The public at large does not want to read or hear especially gloomy news, which is probably why our Depression Gazette will never hit the big time. USA Today, as long as enough people feel it provides the desired style and quality of information, will continue to limp along.

Limping along, however, does not make what the company prints actually accurate. And in that vein, we present this article from USA Today, which spews some very impressive fallacies about the nature of inflation. We recommend reading the article with popcorn, as it is quite a laugh, but we'll take on some of the most egregious errors.

"If inflation does hit, it won't be this year, barring a major jump in oil prices or a drastic change in government philosophy." We wonder how oil prices cause inflation. Additionally, according to ShadowStats.com, the Federal Reserve is printing physical money (i.e. growth in the M1 Money Supply) with abandon. That trend is about as iron-clad a guarantee of inflation, at some point in the future, as one can get. Indeed, the USA Today writer himself writes "The ultimate cause of inflation is an unwarranted increase in the money supply."

"...Unemployment... [is] 9.4% now and widely expected to break above 10% this year."Again according to ShadowStats.com, unemployment is cooking at well over 20% and rising sharply. We personally expect to see 25% unemployment be a reality sometime very soon, if that level has not been hit already. That's not to say that particular non-fact is necessarily the writer's fault, though: it's an artifact of the purposefully inaccurate and under-reporting nature of Government statistics.

The best part, though, was this:

If you're worried about inflation rearing its ugly head soon, relax... You don't get inflation in an economy that's as slack as this one... Inflation just isn't going to happen in this economy.

"A lot of the worries about immediate inflation are examples of financial illiteracy," says David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "You won't get inflation until the economy gets back, and that's at least five years out."... To get to inflation... you need a humming economy, and the [U.S.] economy is barely breathing.

Oh, where do we start, dear Reader? How do we assail such a monument to stupidity? To say that inflation cannot happen except in a 'humming economy' is like saying... oh gods, we don't know! Words fail us utterly!

So instead, we would like to take a trip to reality for a moment and provide an example: Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's economy has not been truly 'humming' since it was a colony of the British Crown (pre-1965). In fact, it has been in negative 'humming' since 2000 (source), and official unemployment in the nation is now a horrifying 94%. Yet this nation is experiencing an inflation rate so high it is effectively meaningless: 231 million percent annualised. It is lunacy - or perhaps misinformation - to say that inflation requires a 'humming economy' to take place. Zimbabwe is chilling proof of the total untruth of such an assertion.

These errors we've expounded upon, plus a few more, are shockingly out of character with the rest of the article, which is fairly sober and accurate. The writer seems to be going out of his way to drive home his fallacious definition of inflation, and we can only wonder why. Whatever the case, though, we take this as a sign for the contrarians: inflation this way comes. And soon.

Think the Fed is Out of Ammo? Think Again

The Federal Reserve has been publicly clamouring about how they've used up their "conventional monetary firepower." It seems that the media is rather confused about the situation: they apparently think that interest rates, quantitative easing, and balance sheet debauchery are the only tricks that the Fed has to play with. Oh, how wrong they are. There are "still arrows left in the quiver."

At this point, we'd like to assure you, dear Reader, that if what we write about seems familiar, it is. Mr. Gideon Gono of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has played with most of them... but not all. He didn't use every little trick, because he was trying to contain inflation. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, is desperate to stoke the flames of buying power destruction.

In May 2003, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Vice President Evan Koenig and Senior Economist Jim Dolmas wrote a piece titled Monetary Policy in a Zero-Interest-Rate Economy. Read it, and read it well, dear Reader. This will be the game plan of the Federal Reserve in the future... perhaps even the near future.

We will glide over the more pedestrian methods that Messrs. Koenig and Dolmas list, and instead focus on two of the most powerful tools they discuss: taxing bank deposits, and making currency have an expiry date. If and when the occasion arises, we posit that the two tools will be applied simultaneously. The why is easily demonstrated:

Would you, dear Reader, keep your money in a bank account if your savings and chequing accounts suffer a -1% or -2% monthly tax? No, you'd pull your money right out of those accounts and stuff them in a mattress, the same as every other citizen or business. However, the physical money you get from the bank will have a little stamp on it, saying something like 'legal tender until July 1st, 2011.' You're damned if you keep your money on account at a bank, and you're damned if you sleep on $100 bills at night.

So... the only thing you can do is spend, spend, spend. The Fed will see the velocity of money shoot to the moon, and everything will seem better - for a while. But these policies -- along with all the other ones the piece listed -- are ultimately destructive beyond belief. The economy would be gutted, the U.S. Dollar would become worth more as a heat source than as a currency.

But hey! At least Mr. Ben Bernanke can get his inflation. Unfortunately, he will get far more than he bargained for.

Tragedy, or Farce?

With the latest joke rolling out of the Zimbabwe Central Bank, we wonder why such ridiculousness is able to thrive so long. In all honest, we feel that a $100 trillion note is probably Farce, but we really cannot be certain.

The history of Zimbabwe is most definitely one of Tragedy: a nation in continual economic collapse, aided and abetted by non-stop embargoes brought on by the United Kingdom and the United Nations, among others. The fine, upstanding governments of the world really know how to dole out "change," don't they?

It seems in history that every Tragedy has a correlating, and larger, Farce. In this case, the Farce is the embargoers -- the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union -- following in the footsteps of the Tragedy they helped create. Many policies, such as price controls and rapid expansion of national money supply, have been well-tested by Zimbabwe's central bank.

In the flaming tailspin of the 2007 Depression, this collection of nations are flirting with the very same financial policies that Gideon Gono used to make Zimbabwe's hyperinflation-from-Hell. As the Wikipedia article notes, perhaps ironically, Mr. Gono is a "proved deflation-fighter." Mr. Bernanke, of the Federal Reserve, M. Trichet of the European Central Bank, and the Rt. Hon. Mr. Darling of the Bank of England are all working to fight deflation, as well.

They might not have noticed, but they're following in the footsteps of a failed nation.

Don't Buy a New World Map Anytime Soon

Due to circumstances beyond our control (i.e. we screwed up), we regrettably did not post yesterday. Rest assured that those responsible for this travesty have had their dessert privileges revoked.

With the increasing potency of the 2007 Depression shaking the starch out of the world economy, a surprising amount of dirt is presenting itself. Take Bernard Madoff, whose nimble fingers seems to have found every pie. But in this game of musical chairs, it won't be just individuals and organisations which end up with no chair beneath their tush. With the global implications of this depression, we expect some nations will be among those looking stupid when the music stops.

Take the obvious, our favourite whipping-boy for all things hyperinflationary: Zimbabwe. With several name-changes behind it in the recent past, this much-embargoed country may be due for another. There are also the faux nations of Somalia and Yemen, where the 'official' government draws lines on a map of where they'd like their sphere of influence to be.

However, the bigger threats, at least according to the United States military, are Pakistan and Mexico. Neither nations are the paragons of stability, as both are wraked with violent resistance against the central government: Pakistan is fighting 'The Terrorist'; Mexico has lost chunks of Chiapas to the Zapatistas. Mexico is also facing the collapse of their Cantarell oil field (which suffered a 36% drop in 2008 production alone), upon which the government is heavily dependent for its budget.

A facet of world events we've been missing for a while is the novelty of a brand-new world map. Our only wall-sized map, for instance, still has the U.S.S.R. on it. And just when we were beginning to think about getting a new one, the whole world goes into a depression. Thank heavens, we say: now we have an excuse to not get a new map!

The Trauma of Making Money in Hyperinflation

As we were working today, eking out our honest dollar, a thought occurred to us: how will we get that dollar when hyperinflation hits? Sure, we'll be making something, but as the people in Zimbabwe have discovered, that something might not be worth a whole lot by the time one gets to the store.

Let's look at a simplistic business model: buy inventory at price X, sell at price Y, lock in profit at a comfy 7%. What happens when the inflation rate in the time between the purchase and sale is 7%, or -- especially -- 14%? Not being able to replace the inventory for less than it sold for, one loses on every sale (but makes up for it in volume, we suppose).

A similar thing will occur in wages; one may indeed make $25 an hour, but by the time the paycheque is cut and the tasty eats (extra fries, hold the mayo) from McBurger Kong costs $25, the apparently higher pay is pointless.

We like our eats, and our apartment, 'n stuff, and we cheerfully work to keep all that going. Right now, with inflation relatively 'stable,' it's easy to budget our expenses as a percentage of our income. It'll be a different story, when inflation is burning through cash faster than Bernard Madoff. Contracts, rent, interest, profit margin... all these things will become very, very different in the coming year. And we are very, very worried about that.

You should be too, dear Reader.

The Risk Bubble

As one may have noticed, many of the strange financial instruments blowing up world-wide deal with risk. The sheer complexity of these instruments makes understanding them completely almost impossible, but a few generalisations can be made. Typically, these exotics disassociate the risk usually connected with a certain investment, packaging them into a 'security' and selling them off as an investment in their own right.

The how and why these instruments are blowing up is not particularly important, merely that the nuclear mushroom clouds are appearing across the world. It is our opinion that these exploding instruments are indicative of a major shift in the world's economy. Namely, a shift in how investment risk is managed.

For (a somewhat oversimplified) example, to ship cheap plastic crap from China, a manufacturing company will hire a freighter from a shipping company, since the manufacturing company does not own any shipping. The shipping company, at the same time, doesn't own the ships it rents out! It leases the ships from yet another company, which only owns commercial freighters and doesn't actually operate them.

This circuitous system is, at its simplest, merely a way the manufacturing company can avoid the risks associated with owning freighters. The risk of ship ownership is held by one company, the operating risk another. This particular intermediation is already breaking down: shipping companies are losing access to credit to finance their cargoes, and having difficulty making their lease payments to the actual owners of the ships proper. At the same time, the ship owners are having trouble making their financing payments...

It is our observation that one of the effects of the 2008 Depression is the collapsing of risk. This can be seen in the shipping example, as well as exotic investment vehicles. We posit a bubble of risk intermediation is popping. The symptoms of this bubble should become more apparent in the coming months, as the companies which depend on sloughing off their risk feel the squeeze; and in the coming years, as organisations who took on the risk of others cannot meet their obligations.

On the positive side, we feel there will be opportunity in the disintermediation of risk. Having intermediated risk is similar to credit leverage, and if one can avoid it at all costs, one likely has a higher chance of economic survival in the 2008 Depression.

In an extreme example, this is why holding one's money in one's mattress may be far better than leaving it on deposit in a bank. If a true bank run develops (i.e. every bank has its own run), cash and deposits will be rationed-by-queue. One only needs to look at Zimbabwe today to see how bad that sort of thing can get. People in Zimbabwe right now are queuing up at banks every day to withdraw the equivalent of 25 cents U.S., the maximum withdraw allowed by law. One shouldn't think it will never happen in the United States, or in other developed countries.

How Likely is Hyperinflation in the USA?

Hyperinflation is certain in Zimbabwe, but can such a thing happen in the USA? Typically, hyperinflation occurs quickly when economies are under extreme stress such as during wartime. The USA had that experience during its Revolution, and many European countries did so during and after the World Wars, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

Are present economic conditions suitable for the formation of hyperinflation in the USA? The use of paper money creates chronic inflation, but what speeds up inflation to the point where doublings of prices occur not over decades, but weeks?

Typically two factors occur to induce hyperinflation. The first is when governments spend money well beyond their ability to collect taxes. This can occur when spending increases significantly (such as for a war). The second is when tax receipts fall significantly such as during a depression, and the government is unable to borrow money, and yet the government maintains, or even increases, spending.

Clearly, the first factor may come into play since the USA is presently engaged in expensive military campaigns abroad, and is undertaking a nationalisiation of the financial system. More subtly, the federal government has liabilities of over $60,000,000,000,000 (or $200,000 per person) - and growing. There is no way to tax the population sufficiently to honor this commitment in full, so 'printing up' money will be a temptation. Whether debasing the currency will continue at a fairly moderate pace, or will get out-of-control, waits to be seen.

The second factor has come in to play only so far as tax receipts are falling and spending is increasing. The USA still maintains its ability to borrow, at least for a time. Three things may come to pass that may end that privilege. First is the unwillingness of lenders - though at present that seems unlikely since Treasury Debt and Federal Reserve Notes are highly regarded. The second is the incapacity of lenders. As foreign trade crashes, foreign central banks and other corporations will simply have less money to invest in the USA. Increasingly poor domestic investors will be similarly unable to buy. Finally, the knowledge that increasing public borrowing at the expense of private investment (e.g. more money for unemployment benefits and less money to dig new oil wells) would likely make the Depression worse, may prompt the government to 'print' rather than borrow.

We do not care to make specific predictions of how much prices will rise and how quickly. We do believe that hyperinflation in the USA is a definite risk, as the 2008 Depression causes increasing income loss. At the moment, hyperinflation is not imminent, but stand by for further updates.

The Looming Tax Catastrophe

The 2008 Depression is lowering tax revenues due to investment losses, declining earned income, and falling property values. To raise taxes at this point, even to maintain revenue, will create even less investment if levied on business, thus hurting prospects for job creation; and if levied against individuals, will lower discretionary spending and further the crash in consumer spending.

Governments can cut spending, as is happening in most U.S. states, but the effects of that are also depressing - government spending is, after all, somebody's income. Governments at present are actually increasing their spending in a big way via the bailout mania both by 'investing,' and by covering the losses these 'investments' will inevitably bring. Additionally, there are plans in the works for a new, New Deal.

Governments tend to have pretty good credit ratings, so they can borrow quite a bit to cover the shortfall of tax revenues, but there are limits. There comes a point when lenders begin to doubt whether the funds will be repaid and that source is precluded. Currently the USA has a direct federal debt liability of about $40,000 for each and every person in the country. Evidently the USA's creditors (mostly trade partners) think that is a viable sum. How much higher will they let that go, especially as incomes start falling? We don't care to hazard a guess, but probably not too much higher. So while this option is open to the USA Federal Government for the time being, it is a temporary phenomenon.

There is a darker 'solution' to where a government could get money to spend - the printing press. This would, of course, cause a ruinous decline in purchasing power - furthering deepening the depression.

Raise taxes to cover spending - deepens the depression. Cut spending to match the fall in taxes - deepens the depression. Max out the Federal Debt 'credit card' - keeps the bills paid for the time being, but what to do when it's maxed out? 'Print' money - one way ticket to Zimbabwe. This is looking like a no-win situation.