Austrian economics in the WSJ

[Here's another one from a few years back (we'll be back home soon) that featured Greg Ip, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and now in the employ of The Economist. As was the case for this item that appeared here on June 26th, 2007, during the month of June, Greg always had something interesting to write about after BIS Chief (and Austrian Economics sympathizer) William White submitted their annual report.]

ooo

A story about Austrian Economics showed up in the Wall Street Journal yesterday – but not in the newspaper. Fed-channeler Grep Ip wrote this in the Real Time Economics Blog:

Amid Financial Excess, a Revival of Austrian Economics
Does the U.S. risk repeating the mistakes that led to the Great Depression? The Bank for International Settlements’ annual report, released Sunday, suggests that it does, and offers a remedy steeped in the doctrine of Austrian economics.

In the 1930s adherents of the “Austrian school,” named for its Austrian-born proponents Ludwig von Mises, Joseph Schumpeter and Friedrich Hayek, argued the Great Depression represented the unavoidable remediation of misallocated credit and overinvestment in the 1920s. The Austrian school largely failed to become orthodoxy as first Keynesian demand management appeared to end the Depression and later monetarism blamed the Depression on inadequate attention to the money supply.

Austrian economics, however, has enjoyed a minor revival in the last decade, most prominently at the Basel, Switzerland-based BIS, which has few formal banking duties but is an important talking shop (it is sometimes called the “central bankers’ central bank.”) The BIS’s leading “Austrian” is a Canadian, William White, the head of the bank’s monetary and economic department and sometimes-rumored successor to retiring Bank of Canada governor David Dodge.

(more…)

Tagged with:  






Poverty in the U.S. is Not Quite That Bad

In defense of those who think the mainstream media sometimes misrepresents economic statistics, painting an even bleaker picture of our current condition than they really should, the headline to this McClatchy story is presented along with the underlying data from which it was generated – More Americans are poor than ever before, census finds.

Now, it is true that the 43+ million Americans living in poverty today exceeds the 40 million that fell into that category back in 1959, but the current population is about 310 million versus only 180 million 51 years ago and, as shown above, when adjusted for population growth today’s poverty rate is still about 40 percent below the previous high. The poverty rate is noted in the second paragraph of the story, but it seems to be an afterthought.

Tagged with:  

The New NetNet

Here’s a quick plug for John Carney’s new blog over at CNBC called NetNet. I’ve not yet looked at it but I always liked John’s commentary when he was toiling away at The Business Insider and he was quite gracious to me via email in apologizing about the chart kerfuffle a while back (see Now That Chart Looks Familiar at the old blog).

I guess I should go have a look at what’s over there – it’s funny how reading material at CNBC.com can be so, so different than watching them on TV…

Tagged with:  

Young Investors Wise Up, Shun Stocks

Another interesting chart from the folks at CNN/Money shows in graphic detail the changing views about stock ownership by age group, the accompanying report noting how the Generation Y crowd is currently being hit with a double whammy – a recent history of market crashes and a job market that is much worse than for older workers.

What’s amazing about this data is the 35-49 age group where decades of conditioning that your best bet is “stocks for the long run” appears to have produced a nearly unshakable belief system. Even after ten years of dismal returns for equities (with the notable exception of gold stocks), Wall Street and the financial media should give themselves a pat on the back for being so successful in their efforts to convince the public that stocks are still a good bet despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Tagged with:  

The “Bond Bubble”

[The following commentary is from the latest issue of the Weekend Update (Volume V, Issue 34) at Iacono Research. For subscription details, click here.]

The increasing amount of commentary on the subject of whether or not the world now faces a “bond bubble” combined with a recent article detailing the poor performance of inverse bond funds in 2010 seemed like sufficient justification to revisit a topic that was discussed here three weeks ago when I took “A Quick Look at Rising Rate Funds” (see Volume V, Issue 31).

Recall that, in the referenced discussion topic, short-term and long-term charts of Treasury yields were shown, in which it is clear to see that interest rates rose for decades to a peak in the early 1980s and have retreated from there to what now appears to be the end of another secular trend. Also, 13 inverse bond funds were presented in table form with the following three being suggested as likely candidates for the model portfolio when the time is right:

  • Profunds Rising Rates Opportunity 10 (RTPIX)
  • Rydex Inverse Government Long Bond Strategy (RYJUX)
  • ProShares Short 20+ Year Treasury (TBF)

Obviously, as should be clear when looking at the graphic below, the time has not been right over the last four months because all three of these “unleveraged” funds – a key consideration for a position that may be held in the model portfolio for a very long time – have been big losers. Funds that apply leverage of between 1.25x and 3x have done much worse than the 1x funds, in some cases the year-to-date losses exceeding 40 percent.

(more…)

Writing for the Vangaurd Blog, John Ameriks offers these thoughts about how the world’s smartest investors are foolishly piling into gold and how some of the richest people in the world are deluding themselves if they think the metal will help preserve their wealth.

We’ve been hearing a lot about gold over the last few months, related to concerns about inflation, the creditworthiness of various governments, and fallout from the financial crisis—all against the backdrop of what is the most significant increase in inflation-adjusted gold prices since the early 1980s.

Over this entire 140-year period, the average price of one ounce of gold was $480 (in 2010 dollars). If the gold price remains stable through the end of this year—not a given by any means—there will have been only one other year in the last 140 (1980) in which the inflation-adjusted average daily price of an ounce of gold was higher than in 2010.

In other words, there was only one year in the last 140 when it would have cost you more in terms of foregone alternative goods and services to become the owner of an ounce of gold. These data show that during some periods of extreme inflationary or broader economic distress, gold prices have increased sharply, only to recede back to lower levels as things return to normal.

Of course, what is conveniently omitted from the discussion above is that gold was money during 100 of those 140 years – that’s kind of important.  As for the future, somehow, it’s not clear to me that, this time, the gold price is going “back to lower levels as things return to normal” – whatever “normal” is these days.

Tagged with:  
Page 4 of 7« First...23456...Last »
© 2010-2011 The Mess That Greenspan Made