Faber: Nations Will Print Money, Go Bust, Go to War…We Are Doomed

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

This is a bit rich coming from someone who chose to build a house in Thailand, which is now a de facto military dictatorship on the brink of civil war! Some safe haven he has there :D

Also I notice that - yet again - he fails to mention his gigantic losses on his short US Treasuries position and short US dollar position. A bit like Rogers, Taleb, Schiff and all the other vocal bears who have been flat out wrong. Or maybe they didn't actually have those positions at all?

Last autumn - "Dollar to become worthless, says Faber"

Last November - "Dollar oversold, may rally before going lower"

This February/March - "Euro oversold at 1.32, expect a bounce"

Just a total joke I'm afraid.


You are really wrong, GUC.

Faber has been right on the money leaving most if not all competition far behind.

I could give you a dozen examples but will give you just one to show the amazing feeling he has for both short term and longer term market trends.


November 21 (C at 3.77$ a share)

Citigroup could see its shares rally by 100 percent or sink to nothing, investor Marc Faber told CNBC Friday.

"We've gone down from over $55 to $4 (a share), you could easily see a bounce of 100 percent before the stock goes to zero," Faber said.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27835292/Citi_Shares_Could_Double_or_Disappear_Faber

Where was C at november 28? At 8.29$ a share.

Where did it go to afterwards?

1.03 a share.

I guess he was wrong about it going to 0.... by 0,04 cents.

Anyway, let's not get into the he called this right or that wrong...

but to call him a joke is really a bit of a stretch in my view.

:)
 
Quote from NumLock:

Wrong !!!!

World War 3 is planned by small elite (Bankers, Royals) not mankind.

Mankind has nothing to do with wars. Except the dying part.
All the massive weapons that have been made, will fire one day. So World War 3 is the ultimate fate of mankind.
 
someone recently posted a link to a table of inflation in germany in the 20's. there was also very brief moment of deflation.
please post link again.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Zdreg - with regard to historical examples, understand that I expressly stated that the context is post Bretton Woods application of quantity theory principles where there is a credit contraction. Historically, the only other similar situation is Japan's long deflation that was caused by a credit collapse and banking crises and has not yet ended. Other recessions that have occurred since 1971 have not been the result of a credit collapse and private credit did not contract in any other recessions. we came close to that scenario in the 1981-82 deflation but the Reagan Tax cuts and the Volker easing after the Mexicon Peso collapse avoided a credit collapse and contraction. The Great Depression was somewhat similar in that it was the result of a credit collapse, but we were on a gold standard and the banking credit structure was different. So, your historical comp is only Japan as far as I can figure.

Its interesting that Japan's experience has been that all attempts to ease and reflate have failed and they merely created profound excess reserves that now fuel the carry trade...but Japan remains in a deflation of asset prices. Japan is different in its savings rate, with is related to its demographics...if it did not have such a high domestic savings rate it would be starting to have sovereign debt issues...after all they have a greater debt/gdp ration than Greece does...but this gets into another subject....the relationship between types and levels of soveriegn debt and prospects for growth.

Morganist - You asked if I meant that the increase in the amount of base money was not inflationary becuase it was offset by private credit contraction? The questions shows me that you really don't understand what I am trying to say...and I appologize for that. I am trying to say that old notions of base money supply need to be understood as of one piece with private credit formation. In a fractional reserve banking system you really can't seperate the two. Traditionally understood base money operates as predicate for credit formation in the modern system. Regulation of banks capital requirements and liability reserve requirements involves a threshold degree of traditional base money (really a minimum amount of shareholder's equity in the banking system). I say that base money is required in the banking system as a predicate becuase without minimum required base money a bank cannot lend, it cannot continue in business. However, if we are concerned about inflation, inflation in the real economy that manifests itself by a rising price of assets, that inflation occurs only when base money is leveraged in the private sector through the expansion of credit. In a fractional reserve banking system this is what the money multiplier actually is...its the leveraging of base money with the addition of credit to purchase assets. The greater the leverage the greater the expansion of the money supply is and the greater potential for inflation there is. This process is one of leveraging base money to purchase assets...the limit of the velocity is in the leverage ratio and not in the interest rate. Do you see how this can only be understood as of one piece...not through some duelism where part A is offset by part B? Where there is reduced leverage and no appettite for credit, where credit is contracting, any expansion of money supply A will have no place to go...Fed gives new money to banks by purchasing bad assets of banks and banks put new money back in Fed as excess reserves. This new money must be loaned back to the government as is not being leveraged out into the private economy...it does not result in too much money chasing too few assets.

Of course deleveraging in the sense that I am explaining means less money in people's pockets...it also means less credit. Consider what it was like in the 1950's when people had to save before they purchased a home....had to put 40% down...had to pay cash for a TV....you are right there will be less transactions and the price of things that used to be leveraged will decline. We really are, through this crises, and the sovereign debt crises that is now beginning, to transition from the greatest era of leverage in history, to an era of profoundly reduced leverage. I do not think you can manage this transition well with old models of inflation that will not function during the transition.

Finally, morganist, you last paragraph reads as nonsense to me, maybe you can express your thought differently.

Canmo - Can you see from above that 'helecoptering' in money would not make it different so long as the private sector was already contracting; it would not promote private credit expansion that is required for inflation to manifest in increased asset prices?

Aggregate private credit formation is based upon long term expectations about the future. Government deficit spending does not replace private sector credit expansion becuase the Government spending is not leveraged, so the money has less power and creates no productivity increase. Unless we become comfortable with sovereign default as an everyday occurance we must acknowledge that deficit spending by sovereigns must imply the use of future government revenue to pay the accrued debt of the 'stimulus' spending. The private sector understands that this implies higher future taxes. So, the private sector is less inclined to risk capital and is more uncertain about future after tax profit from risk...So, both present growth and future growth is dampened by Government sitmulus spending.

This is a dangerous cycle of mistakes becuase debt can only be sustained if the cost of debt is lower than the rate of growth. If government revenues are collapsing, as they are, and government persists in increasing deficit spending, as they are, then the process will prevent the growth that is required to keep the government from defaulting on the debt. You can only pay debt with income. You can only get income from growth. The question is only how long it will take before the treasury auctions start to fail. Understand that Japan has not reached this point because of its powerful domestic savings rate over years and during the Great Depression this was not an important issue becuase there was no significant federal debt at the beginning and federal revenues continued to increase throughout the depression so that solvency was never at issue.

Daal - as above, spending has no lasting power without an expanding private credit market. Where the private sector contracts as the publich sector continues to borrow and increase accrued debt, despite decreased revenues...and where deflation persists, making the real cost of debt increase...the risk is not inflaiton but it is 'hyperinflation.' Hyperinflation is a misnomer becuase it does not result from accelerating inflation, it results instead from a currency collapse that occurs when insolvency makes it impossible to continue to service existing debt or to roll it over. Continued money creation in a condition of credit market insolvency will lead to a currency collapse. In contrast, inflation requires an expanding private credit context...otherwise there will not be too much money chasing too few goods. Its a completely different process from 'hyperinflaiton.

M22au - I respect the writing of Mish Shedlock and have read some of it. I don't agree with everything but he has unusual insight in understanding much of what is really happening, not trapped in an obsolete paradigm. I don't know where he says that we can't get to 'hyperinflation' because the Fed can't deflate. Maybe you can send me a link. If he said that I have to disagree strongly as it is deflation that lays the trap for a sequence of keynesian mistakes that can lead to 'hyperinflation.' As above, I think I explained how Hyperinflaiton is a risk of deflation; not inflation. It is a result of insolvency casued by increased debt and decreased growth, made worse by a deflation that increases the real cost of debt. Where a governemnt tries to protect entitlements at the expense of insolvency and has destroyed growth through high taxes, then it is on the path to a deflationary induced 'hyperinflation' collapse of its currency.

Intradaybill - Can't you see that I am trying to offer you a new economic paradigm?

Great post, Ed. A lot of information to think about.

My question is how can the USA government end this downward spiral, if at all?
 
Kass , the only way to repay debt is with income. The only way to increase income is through growth. Growth, in a nation, is a matter of fiscal policy that is not interferred with by monitary policy. The solution is that we need to grow faster and stop spending so much. In order to grow faster we need to put in place a fiscal policy and culture of positive future expectation that you can make an after tax profit on risk capital in the U.S.

A good start would be to repeal corporate income tax so that dividends are taxed only once as regular income. Reducine capital gains tax to zero or at leas keeping them at 15% would also help.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Kass , the only way to repay debt is with income. The only way to increase income is through growth. Growth, in a nation, is a matter of fiscal policy that is not interferred with by monitary policy. The solution is that we need to grow faster and stop spending so much. In order to grow faster we need to put in place a fiscal policy and culture of positive future expectation that you can make an after tax profit on risk capital in the U.S.

A good start would be to repeal corporate income tax so that dividends are taxed only once as regular income. Reducine capital gains tax to zero or at leas keeping them at 15% would also help.

Long term I think this is a great plan. But in the short term, don't you think this could actually serve to decrease confidence? Unless the government can reduce spending by more than revenues are reduced, net debt will obviously increase. I have no idea how far in debt the USA can go before the breaking point, but eliminating any source of revenue surely will speed up the process.

In my opinion, the first step should be to reduce spending in order to reduce the deficit. I think a deficit reduction via reduced spending will serve to create a culture of positive future expectation that you can make an after tax profit by giving businesses confidence that the country is headed in the right direction with respect to fiscal responsibility.

Once reduced spending is in place, then tax cuts can be made to further improve the positive culture and thus growth. I just think it's too risky for the government to eliminate a source of revenue without first bringing spending in line.

There is no easy solution, but clearly something must be done.
 
ok - some jabs here...:)


Quote from Ed Breen:Kass , the only way to repay debt is with income.

Really? In fact in the past few decades inflation and in particular asset inflation was much more common way to repay.



Quote from Ed Breen: The only way to increase income is through growth.

are we talking in nominal or real terms here? are we talking per capita or total income - big differences!



Quote from Ed Breen:Growth, in a nation, is a matter of fiscal policy that is not interferred with by monitary policy.

well that is a bit rich even for Keynes^2.



Quote from Ed Breen:The solution is that we need to grow faster and stop spending so much.

haha - no shit sherlock. yeah - that would certainly help.



Quote from Ed Breen:In order to grow faster we need to put in place a fiscal policy and culture of positive future expectation that you can make an after tax profit on risk capital in the U.S. A good start would be to repeal corporate income tax so that dividends are taxed only once as regular income. Reducine capital gains tax to zero or at leas keeping them at 15% would also help.

i would also love to live without taxes. the question is who is going to finance all these deficits? maybe if you suggested we start another war in middle east i'd have to say "deja vu"...
:cool:
 
Posted in other forum-:

The *world* will go to war...over what???

The Why answer is that it might provide political cover for the bad economy.

Some also believe that the winning side always gets freebee stuff and it juices up the economy when the troops return home....hungry, for families, property, kids....family.

In any event if the economies of the world are collapsing...then countries may go to war as another option versus default on loans.

Isn't that what eventually occurred in pre-WWII Germany with Hitler ? War as a means to "work out" of your debts ?

War is usually the response to some need to control resources, populations, or fixing economies some way.

Options:
1. Inflation: print out of your situation...but ONLY if your local fiat currency has any value remaining...if its worth nothing...then Zimbabwe.
2. Austerity: riots will follow or destruction of the economy...similar to deflation.
3. Restructuring/Default/Bankrupt: similar to austerity...just much quicker....may end up here anyway from austerity.
4. Reset: worldwide, global, restructuring...in the worx now ?
5. War

All are "viable" options in a dismal economy.
 
Quote from Ed Breen:

Kass , the only way to repay debt is with income. The only way to increase income is through growth. Growth, in a nation, is a matter of fiscal policy that is not interferred with by monitary policy. The solution is that we need to grow faster and stop spending so much. In order to grow faster we need to put in place a fiscal policy and culture of positive future expectation that you can make an after tax profit on risk capital in the U.S.

A good start would be to repeal corporate income tax so that dividends are taxed only once as regular income. Reducine capital gains tax to zero or at leas keeping them at 15% would also help.

We are a mature economy. We have not had real (sigificant) growth for over 40 years. It's all been manufactured by defense spending, other types of government spending, and an expansive monetary system whose inflation was masked by productivity advances in agriculture and global wage arbitrage.

Grow faster? Doing what? We have entered an era where fewer people produce more than ever. To consume all this increased production, we elevated ponzi finance. But debt, in the aggregate always surpasses the productive ability to service it.

What we need is to replace the current irredeemable currency with something that truly extinguishes debt. And we need to accept the fact that we live in a finite system and excessive expectations of growth need to be reined in.

I think you misunderstand Faber as well. Faber speaks simply to the masses on TV interviews, his writings are more nuanced.

Have you ever heard of John Exter or Antal Fekete?

I highly encourage serious ET'ers to read Fekete. You may not agree with everything he says, but your understanding will expand:

http://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFPositionPaper1.pdf
 
Kassz7007 and Dhpar, you both set up a false straw man by saying that I suggested that there would be no taxes. Look at what I wrote exactly...I suggested that we eliminate corporate income tax....Right now corporate income tax is a very small part of the total revenue stream. In addition I suggested that dividends be taxed as regular income...right now they are taxed at 15%...regular income is top 36% and after Bush cuts expire 39%...that is a tax increase for diviends paid to shareholders. Right now Corporate top tax is at 36% and subsequent remaining dividend is taxed again at 15% if distributed...present proposal is to increase dividend to the same as income...that would mean that total tax on dividends adding in corporate tax levied before dividend is currently, 51% and is set to rise to 78% next year. I suggested eliminating corporate tax and raising dividend tax to 35% / 39%....hardly a tax reducing strategy...you would actually collect more tax at that rate and you would attract foreign direct investment and create jobs.

Under present double taxation of dividends the corporate tax revenue stream to the government is very small releative to other sources as is the dividend tax receipt. The change I suggested would likely result in corporations paying more dividends...it would likely also encourage more sub-s corps to convert to C corp and pay dividends. It is really is a no brainer that would not make any material reduction in the income we presently collect from these sources and is very likely to increase government revenues materially.

You would not loose much revenue reducing capital gains tax to zero either, but I suggested the curren 15% should be maintained at very least. The proposal to raise capital gains to regular income rates is a money loser, history shows that. Zero capital gains would lose some revenue for a short time but then the growth created by the increased capital available would more than pay back the temporary reduction. It is capital that you need to grow, and it is capital that combined with labor increases productivity.

You are right that you can inflate debt as a way of reducing the cost of debt...but that is a form of theft...it steals from the creditor and it steals from the saver...so you really don't pay the debt back...its a stealth default that people tolerate becuase they are stupid. My point of view in these posts is that the current credit contraction is preventing the attempts at reflation, which as you comfortably, though immorally, endorse that strategy, I am sayin in my posts that it is not working, as I explained. If it is so easy, then why after the Fed has increased its balance sheet to over 2T, almost two years ago, the largest expansion of base money in history...why don't we have inflation...why will the YOY Core PCE show decline when it is released tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. ?
 
Back
Top