Alan Greenspan, 1926-2026: 'The Undertaker' passes away

Alan Greenspan, dubbed by Ayn Rand as "The Undertaker."  
Ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused: economic dictator

"Alan Greenspan died [earlier this week], and the man who spent two decades inflating bubbles will be eulogised as a maestro. Fitting, because he understood exactly what he was doing. 

"In 1966 a younger Greenspan wrote an essay called 'Gold and Economic Freedom.' [In it, he states that the gold standard is essential for economic freedom.] He laid out the case with precision. The gold standard protected savers from confiscation by inflation. Welfare statists hated gold because it stood in the way of their deficits. He wrote that the abandonment of gold made deficit spending a "scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth." He was right. He knew it. Then he took the job running the printing press.

"From August 1987 to January 2006 Greenspan sat atop the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything that essay defended. After the 1987 crash he flooded the banks with liquidity and taught a generation of traders that the central bank would catch them every time they fell. They named the reflex after him: the 'Greenspan put.' He cut the federal funds rate to 1 percent by June 2003 and held it there, and you watched housing prices detach from any sane relationship to income. Mortgage credit gushed. He went on television in February 2004 and suggested Americans consider adjustable-rate mortgages, roughly eighteen months before he started hiking rates into those very borrowers. The man who warned in 1966 about the hidden confiscation of wealth engineered the largest credit distortion in postwar history. 

"Then came the apology that wasn't one. In October 2008, sitting before Congress as the wreckage smoked, Greenspan confessed he had found 'a flaw' in his model of how the world worked. He was 'shocked' that lenders [licensed to print money] had not policed themselves. You don't get to spend twenty years pricing risk at zero and then act surprised when men respond to the incentives you built. Any committee of economists cannot set the price of money better than a market can. 

"Greenspan knew the answer at 40 and spent the next half century pretending he'd forgotten it. The savers he warned about in 1966 paid for that performance. ..."

"Every Fed chair since Greenspan has discovered this truth the hard way. Bernanke cranked rates to zero after 2008, then Yellen kept them pinned there, then Powell printed $4 trillion more during COVID. Each crisis demanded bigger interventions than the last."

~ Handre

 

"Greenspan was the Dr. Robert Stadler of our age: the brilliant man who knew the right principles and betrayed them, certain his own genius could control the evil he agreed to serve. 

"He was a member of Rand's inner circle. His essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" appeared in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. He argued, correctly, that the gold standard protected savers from confiscation, that statists hated gold because it blocked their deficits, and that abandoning it turned deficit spending into a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. 

"He even understood that Social Security was a Ponzi fraud that would help bankrupt the nation. He knew all of it. Then he took command of the Federal Reserve and did the opposite of everything he had written. 

"The 'Greenspan put,' rates held at one percent, the housing bubble, the very confiscation he had warned of, engineered by his own hand. 

"Here is the irony. Greenspan knew 'Atlas Shrugged' intimately. He watched Rand create Stadler, the genius who lent his mind to the looters' Institute believing he could outwit them, and who lived to see his knowledge weaponised as Project X. Greenspan studied that warning at the source, from the author herself. He understood the character completely. Then he walked the identical road and became the man the novel was written to expose. 

"When the wreckage came in 2008, he told Congress he had found 'a flaw' in his model. There was no flaw in the model. The flaw was in the choice to abandon what he knew. Some men meet the virus and are consumed by it. Greenspan had the answer at forty and spent the next fifty years pretending he had forgotten."

~ The Rational Animal

"Q: Alan Greenspan passed away [this week]. Alan Greenspan was a close associate of Ayn Rand for a while, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve … these things did not overlap, as people familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas wouldn’t be surprised to hear. So, Keith, I’m sure you’ve read [Greenspan’s essay] ‘Gold & Economic Freedom’ many times; so let’s get your thoughts on Greenspan’s passing…

"A: For anyone who’s read that essay, which was published in 1966 as part of [Ayn Rand’s] book 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,' and therefore endorsed by Ayn Rand, he had to evade everything he knew in 1966 in order to take the job at the Fed. And ultimately, he took the job that John Galt refused, which was economic dictator.

"Now … everybody is confused about capitalism … but … there is no greater area of confusion than the concepts around money. Both the critics of capitalism and of gold, and the FANS of capitalism and gold will tell you that he was 'a Maestro' — and if you ask “a master of what?’ you’ll be told he was a master of central planning of our economy, and of managing our little lives for us. …

"They’ll say ... ‘he managed a sound money regime’— and the problem with the concept of sound money they use is an anti-concept, that is, [it’s a notion] that destroys and obliterates a legitimate concept in order to smuggle something else in. And what they mean by ’sound money’ is an irredeemable fiat currency jammed down our throats by the government forcing us to use it as if it WERE money, but ‘sound’ because it’s somehow managed to avoid consumer prices going up [by no too much].

"So I’d like people to think about a simple fact, that in every industry seeking greater efficiency, that is, they want to produce more with less — with less cost, with fewer inputs, with less labour, land, physical commodities etc. — and of course that’s happening relentlessly across the entire economy in every sector (unless regulation prevents it…).

"So suppose the average across the entire [economy] is a 2 percent gain in efficiency every year, all else being equal, you’d expect consumer prices therefore to be falling comparatively across industries, as costs are falling. SO your expect consumer prices tl be falling roughly 2 percent per year.

"So imagine it it were possible as the manager of the currency to debase the currency at a matching rate. Now, this is pure fantasy [hoho!]; this is only interesting as a thought experiment … but suppose it were possible to debase the currency at a matching rate so that every company from Intel to US Steel to Rolls Royce making aircraft engines is cutting costs at 2 percent, [while] you are debasing the currency at a matching 2 percent, and the nett result is CPI = zero. Would anybody call that SOUND?

"I wrote an article called ‘Sound Money is Not What You Think It Is,’ and I had a picture that I took from Norman Rockwell [above, with customer and butcher both cheating] … and I asked if that would be considered a sound measurement of the weight of the chicken, and therefore a sound price to pay … And at best, that’s what Greenspan did."

~ Keith Weiner from Monetary Metals, interviewed on the 'Daily Objective'

"Of course you can 'speak ill of the dead' ...  After all, wrote Shakespeare, 'The evil that men do lives after them; / The good is oft interred with their bones.'

"Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve System, just died at age 100. The general public wants to blame the United States president for the health of the U.S. economy, but the Fed chairman has much more influence over economic conditions. 

"Greenspan spent some time early in his career as an Ayn Rand acolyte, and in fact three chapters of Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, were written by the future Fed chairman.... Greenspan's opponents on the left therefore interpreted his whole career through a Randian lens, which serves to remind us how stubbornly they refuse to understand the world. 

"Had Greenspan wanted to run the Federal Reserve in such a way as to approximate a gold standard as much as possible, he could certainly have done so. Instead, he used it as an instrument for central planning, with disastrous results.

"Initially, Greenspan could do no wrong. He became known as 'The Maestro' ....  Meanwhile, Greenspan's contempt for the public was legendary: he confessed to Lesley Stahl of CBS that before congressional committees he would speak gibberish -- a tactic he called 'syntax destruction.' The next day the headlines would report two different things about what he had said, and for Greenspan that meant he had succeeded. Greenspan's policy moves (like arranging for a bailout of Long Term Capital Management in 1998) gave rise to the belief in a 'Greenspan put,' according to which investors could be assured that the Fed chairman was prepared to use the tools at his disposal to backstop the market if it should ever fall below a certain level. 

"And of course his monetary stimulus after the dot-com bust in 2000-2001, which looked to some observers at the time as a brilliant move, only delayed the reckoning, and transformed that bust into a real estate bubble (and eventual bust). When the lights of the economy should have turned red, Greenspan made them all green. That was the only recession on record in which housing starts rose rather than fell. 

"The Federal Reserve, like the government itself, has no real goods at its disposal, so while its various tricks can redistribute resources and simulate prosperity, it cannot generate real wealth. It simply arranges the economy into an unsustainable configuration that has to come apart. 

"Because of Greenspan's earlier association with Ayn Rand, and because the general public knows so little about the Fed, when the 2008 crash occurred, people generally went along with blaming 'capitalism' -- even though the Federal Reserve is a non-market institution created by act of Congress and enjoying a government-granted monopoly, and even though Greenspan's manipulations overrode what the market was trying to say. 

"Greenspan's legacy is 2008, and the undeserved reputational damage that the market economy suffered as a result."

~ Tom Woods

JIM GRANT: 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

 

"Q:We heard a stat recently that if you combine SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic potential IPOs, inflation adjusted, these are so large, they're as big as all the IPOs in the nineties combined. What do you think about that?

"A: I think that the excitement surrounding the potentialities of artificial intelligence dwarf the excitement generated by the worldwide web and by the internet and by fibre-optic cables. And I think the dollars, of course, even when adjusted for inflation are larger today. And I think that the role of the Fed[eral Reserve Bank] is more intrusive, more problematical than it was then. And I think that a great deal is riding on the efficacy of the technology on which the world's hopes are hanging. And a great deal is also contingent on whether we collectively have correctly calculated (or miscalculated) the demand for tokens, for data centres, and for the rest of the capital that goes into artificial intelligence.

"So you know, you'd think that any technology with 'intelligence' in the very word would be up to date [on the] supply and demand [for it]. But I think there's reason to doubt that. I think there's a great deal of overbuilding, double ordering, just like there was in the late 1990s [with the Dot.Com bubble]. People thought, well, such is the high degree of organisation of all the information relevant to the marketplace that there will be nothing like the macro miscalculations of yesteryear. But it turns out that the human speculative spirit is a pretty wild thing and is not necessarily grounded by better technology.

"On the contrary, sometimes that can only incite it. So I think that [this] today is one of the greatest bubbles of all time. ...

"A guy from Uber, a COO of Uber, a CFO, was quoted the other day as saying, well, it's it's certainly a wondrous technology. We don't see it in our profit and loss. We can't really rationalise the expense just now. This is all kind of the jury's still out on this. It's wonderful -- it's not wonderful; it is hallucinating -- it is smarter than you ever dreamt ...

"What we do know is that the capital draw on AI is as great as it was on the [nineteenth-century] railroad [boom]. And the value proposition of railroads is very simple ...Now it is what? AI, augmenting human intelligence, planning it?

"We don't know. But the capital draw is immense, and there are dollars that are riding on the success of this and on the correct calculation of supply and demand for semiconductors, for data centres and the like. All this is terrifically important and also unknowable at the moment. So this makes it a time well worth living in."

~ Jim Grant interviewed on the Meb Faber Podcast on 'AI Is “One of the Greatest Bubbles of All Time”'

RELATED: 

 

What Defines an Asset Bubble? What Got Us Out of the Depression? - ROBERT MURPHY SHOW

"... some notion of irrationality or mania intrinsic to it is ... a required ingredient [of an asset bubble]. Because if you don't have that, it's not a bubble. And and that's how I use the term. 

"So, for example, as opposed to a boom. ...  like if they got rid of the IRS ... and we're sure it's not coming back. I think that would lead to an economic boom, but that wouldn't be a bubble. Okay, there might be a bubble involved if it overshoots ... I wouldn't call that a bubble because a bubble's going to pop. Like that's the whole point. That's why they call it that ...

"I would say for it to be a bubble where it unmoored from the fundamentals, and people kind of know it is. ...[that] at some point, this is going to crash hard, but as long as you think you can get out, it can keep going. And so, to me that's clearly a bubble. And again, I think a necessary ingredient of that is there some element that people know this is unmoored from reality.  ... 

" I'm going to say I don't think loose money or government interference or whatever is a part of the definition. ... [T]here could be a bubble even in An-Capistan if there could just be a mania. That could happen, but I think it would be relatively modest, other things being equal, for the same amount of irrationality and willingness to take a gamble or whatever ...

[H]aving a Federal Reserve Bank thrown into the mix is only going to allow that irrationality to get multiplied... So, the biggest bubbles are necessarily going to go along with a central bank."

"Welcome to the most insidious form of inflation: when newly printed dollars bypass consumer prices and flow directly into financial assets."

"The [US] Federal Reserve created $4 trillion in new money [in the GFC, and another $4 trillion over Covid] yet your grocery bill barely budges while Nvidia stock doubles in six months. [Over Covid, from March 2020 to mid-2021] the NZ Reserve Bank created NZD $50 billion in new money, and here again groceries barely budged over that period compared to bonds, shares and housing.]

"Welcome to the most insidious form of inflation: when newly printed dollars bypass consumer prices and flow directly into financial assets.

"You won't see this wealth transfer reflected in the Consumer Price Index. The CPI measures bread and gasoline, not Bitcoin and Berkshire Hathaway. Meanwhile, the [central banks'] money printing operation sends fresh liquidity straight to primary dealers, who park those dollars in stocks, bonds, and real estate. Asset owners get richer. Wage earners watch their purchasing power erode in real terms, even as official inflation statistics claim everything is fine.

"This creates a vicious feedback loop that sound-money advocates have warned about for decades. Cheap credit inflates asset bubbles, which [govts and central banks] then feels compelled to support with even more money printing. Each cycle makes the wealth gap wider. The Tesla shareholder benefits from artificially suppressed interest rates. The school teacher saving in a current account gets destroyed by financial repression. ... 

"Expanding the money supply faster than real economic growth means that new money has to go somewhere. Since 2008, it has systematically flowed into assets that wealthy people own rather than goods that working people buy. 

"Your [portfolio] might look healthy, but you're watching monetary debasement in real time. The stock market is booming because dollars are dramatically less scarce, not because companies are dramatically more productive. 

"If you can, buy stocks, bitcoin, property, or gold. This makes you a beneficiary of this phenomenon, not a victim."

~ Handre

Bloomberg has things back to front.

Bloomberg just called New Zealand one of the world's clearest housing cautionary tales.

In a piece titled The World’s Most Extreme Housing Boom Is Now Roiling an Entire Economy, global business news leader Bloomberg has analysed what’s happening here and what other countries can learn.

The piece said New Zealand was once home to the “world’s biggest housing booms,” but is now in the grip of a prolonged downturn, “exposing how deeply the country’s economy depends on ever-rising home values.”

Well, they're right about that last. But they're wrong about how we should react to the leaking of that housing bubble. Cambridge developer John Kenel makes the counter-argument:

Prices down 16% from the peak. Wellington down 27%. The economy stuck in the mud.They are not wrong about the numbers.
    But I think they have got the story wrong.
    Bloomberg is treating falling house prices as the tragedy. I do not think that is the real tragedy. The real tragedy is what falling house prices revealed.
    We did not just build a country with expensive houses. We built a country where housing became the economy. And councils worked that out pretty quickly.
    Every new house became a chance to clip the ticket. Development contributions. Consent fees. Inspection fees. Infrastructure charges. Rates. More reports. More consultants. More delays.
    Somewhere along the way, councils stopped seeing new housing as something to enable and started treating it like a funding machine. Not just for the direct cost of growth. For everything.
    Then they act shocked that new homes cost too much.
    You cannot load cost after cost after cost onto new housing, and then complain houses are unaffordable.
    That is the bit nobody wants to say out loud.
    And now politicians and commentators want to blame mum and dad investors for the mess. The couple who saved hard, took a risk, and bought 1 or 2 rentals.
    Come on.
    Blaming them for the housing crisis is like blaming punters at the pub for the price of beer.
    They did not write the rules. They responded to the rules the system gave them. Just like everyone else.
    We do not have a housing problem.
    We have a country that decided housing was the economy.

A "country" that decided that? Or politicians who determined that, with planning and building rules restricting supply while central bankers gave us near-zero interest rates and pandemic-era stimulus. 

So house prices have fallen. Good. But fallen only to what they were only a half-dozen years ago.

The fall is not the tragedy. 

The fall is the correction. 

Or (if supply is allowed to increase) perhaps the beginning of one. 

'The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide to AI'

"Start with what a reverse centaur is. In automation theory, a 'centaur' is a person who is assisted by a machine. You're a human head being carried around on a tireless robot body. Driving a car makes you a centaur, and so does using autocomplete.

"And obviously, a reverse centaur is a machine head on a human body, a person who is serving as a squishy meat appendage for an uncaring machine.

"Like an Amazon delivery driver, who sits in a cabin surrounded by AI cameras, that monitor the driver's eyes and take points off if the driver looks in a proscribed direction, and monitors the driver's mouth because singing isn't allowed on the job, and rats the driver out to the boss if they don't make quota.

"The driver is in that van because the van can't drive itself and can't get a parcel from the curb to your porch. The driver is a peripheral for a van, and the van drives the driver, at superhuman speed, demanding superhuman endurance. But the driver is human, so the van doesn't just use the driver. The van uses the driver up.

"Obviously, it's nice to be a centaur, and it's horrible to be a reverse centaur. There are lots of AI tools that are potentially very centaur-like, but my thesis is that these tools are created and funded for the express purpose of creating reverse-centaurs, which is something none of us want to be. ...

"Tech bosses want us to believe that there is only one way a technology can be used. ... The promise of AI – the promise AI companies make to investors – is that there will be AIs that can do your job ... Now, if AI could do your job, this would still be a problem. We'd have to figure out what to do with all these technologically unemployed people.

"But AI can't do your job. It can help you do your job, but that doesn't mean it's going to save anyone money."

~ Cory Doctorow from his speech 'The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide to Criticising AI'

RELATED:

"You don't work less. You just work the same amount or even more."

~ Frank Landymore, 'Researchers Studied What Happens When Workplaces Seriously Embrace AI, and the Results May Make You Nervous'

"This is [is this?] the sound of a bubble popping."

"Mark Zuckerberg had exciting news to share yesterday. His company Meta had finished a great quarter—and would continue to increase spending on AI.

"He said that yesterday afternoon. But when the market opened this morning, Meta shares dropped more than $80. That’s $200 billion in market cap wiped out in an instant. 

Meta’s share price this week 

"Why don’t investors like AI? Only a few months ago, companies saw their shares skyrocket when they made AI investments.

"In September, Oracle’s stock shot up 36% in just one day after announcing a huge deal with OpenAI. The share price increase was enough to make the company’s founder Larry Ellison the richest man in the world.

"But then investors changed their mind. Since that big day, Oracle shares have fallen $60. Larry Ellison is no longer the richest man in the world.

"This is [is this?] the sound of a bubble popping."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'The Bubble Just Burst'

"Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta is spending untold billions on infrastructure and top talent for its AI ambitions.

"In fact, the CEO announced during the company’s earnings call on Wednesday, Meta will be spending between $70 billion and $72 billion on AI this year — up from its previous estimate of $66 billion to $72 billion, as CNBC reports.

"Unsurprisingly, that cash bonfire isn’t going over well with investors. Meta’s shares slid by more than 11 percent on Thursday, indicating widespread skepticism about the company’s ability to stop bleeding billions of dollars as it races to keep up with the AI industry’s ever-escalating expenditure commitments.

"That’s particularly striking because the drop comes in spite of Meta’s revenues exceeding Wall Street’s estimates. In other words, out of control AI spending is starting to rattle investors. 'The total dollar spend is just kind of what hangs us up a little bit,' [said one]...

"The AI industry is seemingly approaching a major inflection point, with Meta competitors Alphabet, and Microsoft tripling down on AI by increasing their planned spending to even loftier heights, fuelling fears of a growing AI bubblethat could take down the entire US economy with it if ever pops."

~ Victor Tangermann from his post 'Meta Stock Plummets as Investors Horrified at How Much Zuckerberg Is Spending on Misfired AI'

Moral Hazard + Bubble = ?

"The whole point of financial stability reports is to warn about stuff that might go wrong in the future but probably won’t. Even so, the latest missive from the IMF last week was bracing.

“'Valuation models show risk asset prices well above fundamentals, raising the risk of sharp corrections,' it said. ... Investors and policymakers should be alert to the prospect of 'disorderly' corrections and the potential for self-reinforcing doom loops, where a loss of confidence in the sustainability of government debt whacks the bond market, which in turn whacks risky assets priced for nirvana, which in turn hammers the banking sector, both traditional lenders and shadow banks that are locked in an embrace of 'increasing interconnectedness.' The Bank of England struck a similar tone, noting the risk of a 'sharp market correction.'

These things are extremely precisely worded. When such august institutions talk of valuations 'well' in excess of observable reality, and of 'sharp' or 'disorderly' corrections, they are very much switching on the fasten-your-seatbelts sign.

In the private sector, heavy-hitters are also urging caution, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, who observed that 'you have a lot of assets out there which look like they’re entering bubble territory.' ...

"And still, markets are humming along just fine. This is not complacency, as such. ... The foundation of this worldview is an unshakeable belief in the rescue squad — a sense that if markets do get seriously tricky, for any reason, the cavalry will soon arrive, in the form of large interest rate cuts or even asset-purchase schemes from central banks. Investors, both professional and retail, have become accustomed to this ever since the great financial crisis of 2008.

"Policymakers are keen to stress that the bar for emergency intervention is high, but investors are happy to call their bluff. ... The moral hazard is extreme here ..."

~ Financial Times from today's article 'Bubble-talk is breaking out everywhere'

Pay no attention to the (mad) men behind the curtain [updated]

Readers here might remember I got some stick for calling John Key a fucking moron a while back. A fucking moron, specifically, for repeated calls for the Reserve Bank to juice up house prices again, just so home-owning voters will feel better again. Feel better again, and then vote National.

"The guts of what’s wrong," explained the moron, "is that the housing market is going down, not up" — and "then you have a negative wealth effect," and voters feel bad. And when they feel bad, they vote for the other team.

Classic short-termism.  Stuff rocket fuel into the economy, and then all things will be jake for the governing political parties. This, by the way, was Key's "one simple trick" while Prime Minister: ensure massive house-price inflation, no matter the economic and social dislocation, and then sit back and watch home-owners fooled into feeling better off, and borrowing and consuming more, regardless of the economic consequences. (Consequences for which we're all still paying, by the way.)

In the US, the discredited "wealth effect" — "a gussied-up version of Keynesian stimulus, only targeted at the prosperous classes rather than the government’s client classes" — is generally felt in the stock market. Pundits there are starting to get nervous about a soaring stock market with anaemic growth in the economic system itself, with "important implications for the path of America’s stockmarket boom and its economy."

The good times could continue, at least for a bit longer [says 'The Economist']. ... [But] might a wealthier society also take a harder fall? Bears would point to the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000, when a brutal stockmarket slump pushed America into recession. ... The stockmarket might be more of the economy. It still is not all of it.

It's not. And nor is the housing market. We can't get rich just by selling each other houses. (And kudos to one National minister at least who understands that.)

Yet David Stockman is concerned that nothing has been learned from the last major crash. 

Roughly 15 years ago it was reasonably well understood that the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009 had been case of speculation run amuck on both Wall Street and main street alike. These credit and housing bubbles, in turn, had been fuelled by the massive money-printing sprees of the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed.

It might have been presumed, therefore, that the mad money-printers [at the US central bank] would have had second thoughts about the underlying cause of these great economic disasters—that is, the dubious Greenspan policy known as the “wealth effects” doctrine. In simple terms the latter held that if people felt richer owing to soaring home prices and their stock market winnings, they would spend more freely and fulsomely, thereby goosing the Keynesian cycle of ever more spending-sales-production-income-and spending, which was to be rinsed and repeated in an endless round of rising prosperity.

At the end of the day, of course, Greenspan and his heirs and assigns at the Fed turned out to be unreconstructed Keynesians and the wealth effects doctrine a monumental economic con job. The latter did not make society richer; it just made the rich richer. Or stated more directly, main street got inflation at the grocery store, gas pump and doctor’s office—even as the asset-holding class experienced unspeakable windfalls in their brokerage accounts.

Let's not repeat the same mistake again here — especially when local interest rates are already below our trading partners, with no noticeable effect on genuine economic progress. Please: pay no attention to the mad men behind the curtain.

UPDATE:

"The advocates of annual increases in the quantity of money never mention the fact that for all those who do not get a share of the newly created additional quantity of money, the government's action means a drop in their purchasing power which forces them to restrict their consumption. It is ignorance of this fundamental fact that induces various authors of economic books and articles to suggest a yearly increase of money without realising that such a measure necessarily brings about an undesirable impoverishment of a great part, even the majority, of the population."

~ Ludwig von Mises from an interview 'On Current Monetary Problems'

15 YEARS AGO: Houses are homes, not investments

A topical guest post from NOT PC first posted here from nearly 15 years ago (well, 13, close enough?) when house-price inflation was already rocketing ...

    Guest post by Vedran Vuk of Casey Research 

Recently, my parents were considering purchasing some real estate. As the financial professional in the family, they asked me, "What do you think? Will it go up in value? You know... not now, but eventually?" I've heard the same thing over and over again. In response, I shared my opinion: "Would you pay the current market price to live there even if its value never increased?" If the answer is yes, buy the property." Essentially, is the house worth it as a home, not as an investment?

In the past few decades, the concept of home ownership has been completely turned on its head. Previously, homes were considered a very long-term consumption good. Do you think anyone in the 18^th, 19^th, and prior centuries ever considered tripling the value of their homes by retirement time and selling them to move beachside? In the vast majority of cases, such ideas never crossed their minds.

Yet, somehow along the way, this became a reasonable investment expectation. Even today, home buyers still make their purchases with the hopes of escalating prices. But are homes really wise investments?

Consider the difference between your house and an investment such as Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) stock. At a major company, the opportunities can be truly limitless. Apple can produce cashflows from computers, iPods, iPads, and future innovations that are just dreams and concepts today. If the local market is oversaturated, Apple has the option of spreading out all across the world. As a result, Apple's stock price has gone from $17 in 2005 to $540 today. Can your house do the same? Unless there's a hyperinflation ahead or your house is located in the New York City or London of the 21^st century, the answer is no. Why? Because your house is ultimately a product--and products have an upper bound to their prices.

To understand this difference, there's no need to drag out the Case-Shiller Index or analyze complex statistics. Suppose one bought a single-family house over a decade ago for $200K. At the peak of the housing bubble, the price reached $500K; to his joy, the owner sold it and moved thereafter to retire in the Bay of Plenty. Can the house's price go higher from here? With Apple, the stock price can just keep climbing with greater profits and innovations. But is that true with real estate?

For the sake of argument, let's say that prices do keep rising. Eventually, the second owner sells to another buyer for $1 million a decade later. Guy number two also peacefully retires in bounty. Well, where does that leave the third guy? Unless real salaries make an incredible jump in the same time period, no one will be able to afford the home next. The median worker earning $51K won't be selling such a house for retirement; instead, it will take him until retirement to afford it. In many ways, this "investment" more closely resembles a Ponzi scheme. (Yes, Ponzi schemes work: for those who get in early and get out - as the recent real-estate bubble demonstrated.) Ultimately, there's an upper bound to housing prices - they can't continue rising perpetually with no end.

The same is true of any product. At $300 for the newest iPod Touch, Apple might be doing well, but at $10,000 per unit, there likely would be very few buyers. As a homeowner, you're not holding a company that can innovate, cut costs, and enter new markets. You're ultimately holding a product which must be either sold to the next user or leased to the next renter. Houses are a good created for a specific use - to put a roof over one's head. They are not magical money machines. Previous generations understood this very simple concept. One built a home as a place to live and escape the elements - and worse yet, the squalor of tenement housing. Homes were not retirement tools, but rather long-term goods.

Unfortunately, policy makers still view homes as investments and are always worried about low prices. But is it really healthy to play another round of the same Ponzi scheme? Suppose the Reserve Bank manages to inflate housing prices again. There will be another boom in which some folks will make a tremendous amount of money. Eventually, housing prices will hit an unrealistic upper bound. Again, home prices will violently drop, resulting in homeowners deeper underwater than now. Of course, the banks will again take a hit as the mortgage holders. As long as real incomes trail the rise in housing prices, there will ultimately be a correction of some sort.

So, do I think the current real estate market is just fine? No, of course not; but I don't think shocking houses prices back into a bubbly stratosphere is the solution. Ideally, I'd like to see increasing housing prices, but only at the pace of real growth in society's wealth. Over the last few decades, houses grew in value for good reasons and bad. On the good side, the economy had been expanding. On the bad side, central banks’ low-interest-rate bubble artificially inflated housing prices beyond what made sense for economies to sustain.

If US companies such as Apple are creating greater abundance in society, it makes sense for US housing prices to grow with greater wealth. But, bringing house prices higher on a wave of printed cash does not make anyone wise investors, but rather willing participants in a Ponzi scheme where someone else will be left holding the bag. Though that might be an attractive solution for those underwater on their mortgages, it's no solution for the economy as a whole--nor for the next buyer, or the next but one. 

Vedran Vuk is a senior research analyst with Casey Research

AI's Bubble. Ready to burst yet?

While politicians here in NZ bicker about who should get credit for an Amazon data centre that either is (or isn't) opening, over in the States they're already wondering whether these data centres are part of an AI bubble that's starting to show clear signs of being about to burst. 

"Even Open AI boss Sam Altman is now talking about an AI bubble," notes Ted Gioia. "Of course, he knows better than anyone because he is seeing it up close—the disappointing release of ChatGPT-5 played a key role in setting off the current turmoil."

Consider this: 

AI buildout is contributing more to measured US economic growth than all of consumer spending.

I want you look long and hard at this chart, and consider the implications.

Another sign? Mark Zuckerberg just paid US$14 billion for a stake in Scale AI, the data-labelling startup that's never made a dollar.

Meanwhile in the real world, McDonald’s CFO told Bloomberg that the company is struggling because many customers are now too poor to afford breakfast. And this isn’t some isolated anecdote—it’s a data-driven report from the biggest restaurant chain in the world. ...

There’s a mismatch here between two visions of the emerging economy. So which one is real? Are we entering an AI-driven boom time like an out-of-control Monopoly game? Or will [Americans] be too broke to eat breakfast?

Several signs, maybe, that both are happening —many signs of businesses struggling, closing, unemployment and debt rising, customers at any price simply disappearing. And meanwhile, 

• half the gains in the stock market are due to betting on the shares of five companies, who are betting everything on their spending up AI data centres
• consumers however are spending so little that this "investment" spending on AI by just four CEOs (two of whose money is made mostly by selling ads) totals more in the last 6 months than all the spending by all those consumers
• the energy grid simply can't support this growth in AI data centres, and there’s no indication that consumers are willing to pay for the enormous infrastructure. 

That last is the biggest sign right there. 

Fewer than 1% of ChatGPT users are paid business accounts. That total is no larger than the number of paid Substack subscribers (but what a difference in company valuation!).

In fact, most of ChatGPT’s traffic disappears when students go on summer vacation.

That tells you how wide the chasm is between reality and the crazy claims of AI fanboys—but many of them (I bet) are also reluctant to pay for AI. ... The tech simply doesn’t live up to the hype. The more people deal with it, the less they like it. That’s why AI companies must give it away (or bundle it into an already successful product) in order to gain any reasonable usage.

So everywhere I go online, companies are touting free AI. That’s funny. It doesn’t fit the narrative of a transformative technology.

But even four billionaires can’t change reality," warns Gioia. 

Yes, they are spending like drunken sailors, but that just makes the bubble bigger. It can’t stop it from bursting. The crazy level of investment only makes the eventual fallout all the worse.

How much longer can it last? Maybe a few weeks or a few months or a few quarters. Billionaires often throw good money after bad. But the whole economy is fragile—or beyond fragile—right now. And that’s the bigger reality.

By any reasonable measure, the current trend is unsustainable. And there’s one thing I know about unsustainable trends—there’s a day of reckoning, and it’s not a happy one for the people who caused it. But, even sadder, they take down a lot of others with them when the bubble bursts.

Read the whole thing here. (NB: He's opened up the article from behind the paywall.)

PS: How is this AI capital malinvestment even possible? Because of absurdly low interest rates set by the state's economic planners at the US Federal Reserve — rates that are so "economically absurd" they are only made possible "because the monetary fraudsters on the Fed's Open Market Committee (FOMC) had their big fat thumbs on the scales in the bond pits."

And we do mean fraud: The Fed’s balance sheet rose by $1.2 trillion or 17% during the 12-month period ending on July 7, 2021, and at a time, as we will amplify below, when the Fed’s balance sheet should have actually grown by essentially zero.

That is to say, the FOMC was buying government debt and GSE paper hand-over-fist with fiat credits snatched from thin digital air, thereby starkly falsifying yields and prices in the bond pits. There is not a chance in the hot place that tax-paying, real money savers left to their own devices would accept such niggardly real yields.

David Stockman explains the Fed's fraud.

Ludwig Von Mises explains the inevitable results of malinvestment — "meaning bad investment in
lines of production that would not otherwise take place."

John Key is still a fucking moron

Cartoon by Richard McGrail from The Free Radical

I've been reminded this morning about what a clueless fucking moron we had as a Prime Minister for two-and-a-half terms. Back a few years ago when we were "rock stars." Remember that?

Anyway, here's John Fucking Key last month giving his considered analysis of what's wrong with New Zealand's economy now:

"The guts of what’s wrong is that the housing market is going down, not up,' he said.
    “When house prices go up, everybody tells the pollsters, ‘Oh that’s terrible, my son or daughter can’t buy a house. I feel really bad.’ The technical term for that is ‘bullshit’.
    “What they really do, is they say to their wife – or the wife says to her husband – ‘God, we paid $1 million for this house and it’s worth $1.7 million now.’ Quietly they go, ‘Oh, we feel rich’.
    “And then they go and borrow a bit from the ANZ and they go on holiday and they upgrade their kitchen, they feel good about life. So when you have a negative wealth effect, they feel bad.”

And I bet the roomful of home owners and property "investors" and National Party political advisors — no to mention all his former colleagues on the ANZ board —had a smug little chuckle into their at their man's shrewd witticisms. It's hard to know where to begin at his economic acumen however, 'cos apparently it's never begun.

Let's make it simple, since that's the best description of Key's grasp of things. Trump's been called a fucking moron for not understanding the economic destruction of tariffs. And rightly so. But Trump doesn't pretend to be in any way clued up about economics. Key does. And yet the fucking moron apparently knows nothing about a simple enough concept: capital consumption. It's a process of converting someone else’s wealth into your income.

And this is his one simple trick to fix the fucking economy.

You wouldn't believe it.

Here's what the fucking moron either doesn't know, or doesn't care to know.

That fucking "wealth effect" the moron talks about is paid for by one thing: it's paid for by eating the fucking seed corn. The seed corn is the part of your harvest you put aside to plant again next year. Without that seed corn, you have nothing to plant, and nothing further to harvest. What Key wants to "fix" the economy, the simple guts of it, is for is to eat the fucking seed corn. That's his recipe for success. 

Any fucking moron could get a "wealth effect" (and a poll bump) by consuming the seed corn.  But ultimately the farmer will pay a price; he'll no longer have anything to farm.

Fellow on the right enjoys Key's "wealth effect." Not so much farmers on the left.

But the difference in what Key proposes is even worse: he wants home owners to consumer other people's seed corn. Hayek used to call this "forced saving." Savers have to save more, or else, because the "seed corn" being consumed is theirs. 

Here's the thing: When mum and dad borrow a bit from the ANZ and go on holiday and upgrade their kitchen and put in another fucking ensuite, that's paid for by what was, or would have been, accumulated capital. The accumulated capital of those other savers. It's called "forced saving" because what pays for John Key's fucking borrowing is new counterfeit capital: i.e., new money that's been borrowed into existence to pay for the holiday, the new kitchen, the fucking ensuite. That counterfeit capital means savers are forced to save more just to keep up.

That's because this new borrowing is new money "injected into the economic system at a specific point" that advantages those consuming the counterfeit capital while disadvantaging those trying to save.

If the money or credit were evenly distributed among all economic agents, no “expansionary” effect would appear, except the decrease in the purchasing power of the monetary unit in proportion to the rise in the quantity of money. 

However if the new money enters the market at certain specific points, as always occurs, then in reality a relatively small number of economic agents initially receive the new loans. Thus these economic agents temporarily enjoy greater purchasing power, given that they possess a larger number of monetary units with which to buy goods and services at market prices that still have not felt the full impact of the inflation and therefore have not yet risen.

The purchasing power of these home-owners is paid for by the losses of savers. 

Hence the process gives rise to a redistribution of income in favour of those who first receive the new injections or doses of monetary units, to the detriment of the rest of society, who find that with the same monetary income, the prices of goods and services begin to go up. “Forced saving” affects this second group of economic agents (the majority), since their monetary income grows at a slower rate than prices, and they are therefore obliged to reduce their consumption, other things being equal.

In a nutshell Key's quick-fix for poll-driven success, and economic growth, is to grant home-owners purchasing power by quietly, secretly and unobserved, stealing from savers. ("By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens." ~ John Maynard Keynes)

Recall that he said something similar when the problem erupted of paying to repair leaky homes. He said quite bluntly, not to worry,  inflation would fix that. Remember that when housing unaffordability was bad before he took office, and he promised to fix it. He didn't, of course. Instead, he did everything he could to put rocket fucking fuel under house prices. It would, he claimed, 'fix" the problem of paying for the problem. 

This prick has form.

He's either a calculating Machiavellian.

Or he's pig ignorant.

My money's on the latter.

RELATED:

• Key on housing affordability and elsewhere - NOT PC, 2007
• Counterfeit capital - NOT PC, 2008
• Mr Key’s dirty little secret - NOT PC, 2009
• We’re rock stars! - NOT PC, 2014
• How Do People Destroy Capital? - Keith Weiner, SNBCHF, 2015
• Housing bubble is consuming our capital - NOT PC, 2015
• The Reserve Bank’s war on capital - NOT PC, 2016
• Key admits to ‘crisis theatre’ and talks up house-price inflation - NOT PC, 2016
• John Key has had an unbelievable solution for affordable housing - NOT PC, 2017

"The AI market bubble is a con. People are pouring billions into it, and they're not going to get it back. Most of the new AI companies will go bust."

"'The real golden goose for America’s economic future [claims Preston Byrne at the Adam Smith Institute] isn’t re-onshoring manufacturing by erecting new trade barriers; it’s artificial intelligence.'

"No it isn't [explains a commenter]. The current models don't have any general intelligence, or actual understanding of the data they are manipulating. They are statistical models that note that certain words are statistically associated with other words in their training data (the text contents of the internet), and estimate the probability distribution of what words are likely to come next.

"So it might note that when the word 'Adam' occurs next to the word 'Smith' in a sentence, words like 'markets' and 'economics' and 'trade' will be especially common. It's a lot more sophisticated than that in the s'rt of patterns and relationships it can recognise, but that's basically all it's doing. It doesn't know what 'Adam' and 'Smith" denote. It doesn't know what a market is. It just has a big bucket of related phrases and combinations that people have put together in the past, and it picks them randomly from the bucket and pastes them together.

"If lots of people have written about a topic on the internet, it has a bigger bucket to pick from, and can generate something that is at least originally phrased, repeating the information in those phrases. If it's only been discussed once or twice on the internet, it will reproduce what they said verbatim. And if it hasn't been discussed before, it will make something up that seems plausible. So if you ask it for a biography of Adam Smith, it has lots to choose from. If you ask for a biography of Joe Random, it will select randomly from all the biographies and news articles it has read, which is why people have put their own names in and been shocked to find it falsely accusing them of crimes and scandals.

"If it doesn't know, it won't say 'I don't know,' because fundamentally it never knows. It has no concept of truth. These are not facts about the world. They are strings of meaningless symbols that it is looking for patterns in. So it can never solve a problem that hasn't already been solved and written about on the internet. It doesn't know anything that isn't on the internet. You either get the product of human intelligence regurgitated, or you get sentences picked and put together at random.

"There are some very basic new word-smithing capabilities that it may be able to help with. It can generate summaries and paraphrases, and restructure information scattered across multiple sources to pull out the bits relevant to a particular aspect. It might be usable as a first-pass helpline assistant to answer questions from people who haven't read the documentation. But it can go no further, because it is a statistical model of the text on the internet, not any sort of general intelligence. We still have no idea how to do that.

"The [AI] market bubble is a con. People are pouring billions into it, and they're not going to get it back. Most of the new AI companies will go bust.

"That said, it's their own money to lose, and I'm very much in favour of deregulating it and letting innovation try. You never know. Somebody might come up with an actual advance in the process of all the messing around. But I will note in passing that the main obstacle to doing it in the UK is energy prices — it uses vast amounts of electricity to do the training — so if you want to do it [in the UK], the best thing you could do would be to abandon Net Zero.

"And that's not likely to happen, so as usual, it's politicians talking about how they're going to solve all our problems ('Growth!') while misguidedly doing everything in their power to prevent that."

~ commenter NiV arguing against the post 'AI, not Tariffs, is the Future of U.S. Economic Dominance'

“LLMs [Large-Language Models] are regurgitation-with-minor-changes machines. When a particular prompt is close enough to a bunch of prior data points, LLMs do well; when they subtly differ from prior cases in their databases they often fail. …
    
“As … Brad DeLong just put it in a blunt essay, ‘if your large language model reminds you of a brain, it’s because you’re projecting—not because it’s thinking. It’s not reasoning, it’s interpolation. And anthropomorphising the algorithm doesn’t make it smarter—it makes you dumber.’”

~ Gary Marcus from his post ‘OpenAI’s o3 and Tyler Cowen’s Misguided AGI Fantasy’

"OpenAI launched its latest AI reasoning models, dubbed o3 and o4-mini, last week. According to the Sam Altman-led company, the new models outperform their predecessors and 'excel at solving complex math, coding, and scientific challenges while demonstrating strong visual perception and analysis.'

"But there's one extremely important area where o3 and o4-mini appear to instead be taking a major step back: they tend to make things up — or 'hallucinate' — substantially more than those earlier versions ...

"According to OpenAI's own internal testing, o3 and o4-mini tend to hallucinate more than older models, including o1, o1-mini, and even o3-mini, which was released in late January. Worse yet, the firm doesn't appear to fully understand why. ...

"Its o3 model scored a hallucination rate of 33 percent on the company's in-house accuracy benchmark, dubbed PersonQA. That's roughly double the rate compared to the company's preceding reasoning models.

"Its o4-mini scored an abysmal hallucination rate of 48 percent, part of which could be due to it being a smaller model that has 'less world knowledge' and therefore tends to 'hallucinate more,' according to OpenAI."

~ Victor Tangerman from his article 'Open AI's Hot New AI Has an Embarrassing New Problem'

"The greatest achievement of AI might be in the irony: by oppositional example, it will teach us to love human creativity more than ever. It turns out that human intelligence, while deeply fallible, offers something AI cannot: Sincerity, creativity, and apparently (and for now) a greater degree of old-fashioned accuracy."

~ Jeffrey Tucker from his post 'How Much Can We Really Trust AI?'

'China's Trade Surpluses are Not a Source of Strength'

“'China believes it has a mandate to rule the world,' and that it is using trade balances to accomplish this. ... But, ultimately, Chinese trade surpluses [don’t] help ... '[Right up to] 1839 ... trade favoured the Chinese.' Little good it did them: China [eventually] experienced military humiliation, political and social disintegration, and an eventual descent into communism. ...
   "China’s 'strategy of generating massive trade surpluses [would] not have worked [when money was] backed by bullion ... the trade surpluses incurred by exporting more than its imports [would] have caused China’s currency to appreciate ... [making] Chinese manufactures more expensive and less attractive for outsourcing…'
   "'That never happened' ... because [without a gold standard] China [could devalue] its currency, harming its own people...' .... China’s currency manipulations have imposed costs on its citizens in terms of reduced real incomes. 

   "That isn’t all. The currency creation necessary to keep the yuan’s exchange rate with the dollar somewhat stable when new dollars are being produced at an impressive rate has helped fuel one of the biggest property bubbles in history [in both China and the US] .... [A] US deficit on the trade account must be offset with a surplus on the capital account ... [so] to maintain its export advantage was devious: it invested in the United States, 'buying US assets with US dollars ...The CCP today sits atop a $3 trillion hoard of assets, many of them American.' 

    "And, again, little good it did them. Holding significant stocks of depreciating US government debt isn’t, in fact, a source of strength. China cannot dump them to drive Federal borrowing costs up without tanking their value, which the Federal government is doing itself. As for those US assets, like farmland, it isn’t going anywhere, just like the buildings bought to much distress by the Japanese in the 1980s.
   "China’s government might well be running a trade surplus as a matter of policy. It may even be doing so with the aim of strengthening itself relative to geopolitical rivals like the United States. But ... it has tried this before [and] that same history indicates that the prospects for the government in Beijing are not good. Little good it did the Qing dynasty and little good will it do the Communist Party....

   "As Adam Smith observed in 'The Wealth of Nations,' mercantilism can enrich a few individuals but not entire countries – it detracts from, rather than adding to, the general welfare."

~ Composite quote from John Phelan, Kevin Roberts and Richard Fulmer from the post 'China's Trade Surpluses are Not a Source of Strength'