The Room : Colombia

The Room – 06/19/2009

David Galland — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:57:00 GMT

Dear Reader,

David is taking a well-deserved week off, so this week you’re hearing from Olivier.

While David may be off duty, it didn’t prevent him from submitting an interesting article sent by one of our subscribers, along with a couple of comments.

Telegraph: U.S. cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive

Dozens of U.S. cities may have entire neighborhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

Olivier again. Definitely a creative plan that may prove to be a better use of federal dollars than most of the other infrastructure development projects contemplated by the administration. The problem with most new infrastructure projects is that they end up adding operating and maintenance costs to municipalities and states that can’t really afford them. At least the “wrecking ball programs” should result in decreased long-term overhead for the cities that implement them.

The First 150 Days

Yesterday marked the end of Obama’s first 150 days at the helm of the U.S. of A. None of us doubted that Obama was a savvy and ambitious politician, but even we are impressed by the sheer number of new initiatives the president has undertaken. In less than five months, there are very few campaign promises he has failed to tackle.

One has to wonder, however, whether Obama may be failing to deliver on the biggest of his campaign promises – that of bringing change to Washington. Weren’t we supposed to see the end of politics as usual and of government waste and pork? Instead, we’ve gotten more of the same, with Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, and their ilk still in charge and Geithner replacing Paulson. The doors continue to revolve between Wall Street and K Street, with the same cabal influencing policy.

Given my inclination to look at facts rather than listen to pronouncements, here is my assessment of the State of the Union after 150 days. Let’s look at a balance sheet of achievements with assets and liabilities as of June 18.

Starting with the assets:

While we have not returned to a healthy credit environment, it is undeniable that the massive injection of liquidity into the financial system by the Fed and the Treasury has managed to thaw the credit freeze we experienced last fall.
After declining by 24% from January 1 through March 9, the S&P 500 has managed to recover and closed at $918 yesterday, up 3.4% for the year in spite of a sharp contraction of real GDP (-5.7%). This may be explained by a reported increase in corporate profits for Q1 (+$42.6 billion, although non-financials declined by $64.2 billion).

One may wonder, however, if the $116.1 billion Q1 increase in profits from the financial sector (following a $178.7 billion decrease in Q4 2008) had anything to do with the changes in the FASB mark-to-market rules that were conveniently adopted by this regulatory board on April 2. (This change did not allow financial institutions to restate 2008 results but, interestingly enough, allowed them to apply the new rules retroactively to Q1 results.)
A better-than-expected unemployment report for May 2009. Non-farm employment figures fell by “only” 345,000 compared to a decline of 504,000 in April. Yet the unemployment rate has continued to grow to an all-time high of 9.8% (for the record, it was 5.3% in May 2008).
Total housing starts increased to 532,000 in May from 454,000 in April. The lowest since the Census Bureau began tracking housing starts in 1959.
Foreclosure filings dipped 6% in May compared to April. Yet they increased 18% from May 2008, marking the third highest month on record. "There were almost one million foreclosure filings in a three-month period, and that's simply unprecedented," reported Rick Sharga, senior vice president at RealtyTrac.
The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index for May hit its highest level since last September, indicating that while consumers are still relatively glum, they are increasingly hopeful the economy will experience a turnaround in the next few months. The final index at 68.7 was higher than April’s 65.1 and November’s 28-year low of 55.3.

So maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel, and the markets are anticipating the 2009 fourth-quarter recovery Ben Bernanke promised us last March in his 60 Minutes interview. Given Chairman Ben’s track record, though, I wouldn’t bet on a recovery just yet, so let’s turn to the liabilities:

Back in early March, the Obama administration released its forecast for the federal budget for the remainder of 2009 (ending 9/30/09). While the 2009 deficit announced was a staggering $1.8 trillion – four times that of 2008 – the plan is that we will start to see a progressive return to reasonable levels after a few years. Unfortunately, it is already certain that once again actual deficits and unfunded liabilities will rise far beyond current plans. So far, tax receipts are $100 billion lower than forecasted in Obama’s budget, and I doubt that actual spending will come in below.
The Public-Private Investment Partnership (PPIP), announced with great fanfare by Tim Geithner in March, has yet to attract investors. While banks appear to have returned to health, they are still undercapitalized and loaded with toxic assets ready to explode with the next round of bad news.
Over the first five months of 2009, unemployment rose by 3.4 million to 14.5 million.
Foreclosures have declined slightly, but the number of foreclosures from prime borrowers (as opposed to subprime and Alt-A “problem” loans) is rising quickly as job losses increase. We can expect more defaults as a result of the recent layoffs, and we have yet to hit the next wave of Alt-A loan resets that is forecasted to hit later this year and to continue through 2011. The number of new homebuyers may be dwindling soon, too – while 30-year mortgage rates are still low, they are definitely rising. More stringent lending standards and higher rates do not bode well for a recovery in the residential markets.
Commercial real estate is only beginning to see the full impact of the recession. A tight lending environment, stricter loan-to-value ratios, declines in property values, lower occupancy rates, and the lower overall profitability of most properties mean that we will continue to see an increase in defaults in the commercial sector for quite some time.
The Obama administration’s big push for alternative, “green” energies and for a cap on carbon emission is sure to cost American taxpayers and businesses hundreds of billions of dollars while providing no guarantees that it will have any real impact on reducing our dependency on imported hydrocarbons. The administration shows very little support for the only real short- to medium-term alternatives: clean coal, domestic oil and natural gas, and nuclear. In fact, many projects are being curtailed due to lower energy prices and regulatory hurdles and threats.
Not only are we staying in the nightmare of the Iraqi war, we are expanding our involvement in Afghanistan and are drawing closer to involvement in Pakistan --

leading to yesterday’s Senate approval of the war supplemental. Who knows, we may soon be liberating North Korea too.
While universal health care may be a popular concept, it will come at a hefty price, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will definitely add to the already staggering, unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security. Who will pay the bill?
Why, the “rich,” of course! By rich, I mean those earning over $250,000 a year. Of course, since raising taxes on the rich and carbon-emitting businesses won’t suffice, new forms of taxation – such as a federal VAT – are being seriously considered in DC. In fact, if you want to get a deeper understanding of the impact of the first 150 days of the Obama administration on future taxation, you should check this link to the Americans for Tax Reform website:. While probably not totally unbiased, it provides a sobering look at what may be upon us.
Inflation is still relatively tame. As we have explained time after time in our publications, we expect the deflationary impact of the recent burst in the asset bubble to soon be overcome by monetary expansion and runaway inflation. As the deficit widens and foreigners lose confidence in the dollar, we can expect the Fed to fill the gap by running its printing presses overtime.
The bailout of the financial, insurance, and auto industries has not only cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money, it is also a clear step towards government control of the private sector.
It is becoming clear that the federal government is challenging contractual rights in the name of the War on Crisis. In the past few months, the protection of stakeholders under bankruptcy has been trampled, contractual bonus obligations have been voided, mortgage lenders have seen foreclosure rights eliminated, and corporations have seen management and capital structure overhauled by bureaucrats without shareholders’ approval. Yet the administration states that private enterprise is the principal element of any economic recovery. Unless coerced, what private investor will want to invest in a challenging economic environment without contractual protections?

One of our subscribers, Tommy K, forwarded a cartoon that appeared in 1934 in the Chicago Tribune. It wouldn’t be too hard to make it current and relevant to our times.

Enough ranting on the state of the union, though. Let me turn to Bud Conrad, who will enlighten us on whether the current stock market rally is the beginning of a recovery or one of those bear market rallies common in serious recessions. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Where Did the Wealth Go?

Bud Conrad, June 2009

The drop in housing and the stock market decreased consumers’ desire to spend. To understand how big the impact is, I have taken the Federal Reserve’s latest data that was published on June 11 to see what the effect is on the assets of households and nonprofit organizations. The chart below shows all the assets added together are generally growing through the end of 2007. It then shows the levels of decline through the end of the first quarter of 2009. The drop in all assets combined was $12 trillion in just over a year's time. The biggest downturn is in stock market valuation ($7 trillion), and the second-biggest drop in housing ($3 trillion).

Household liabilities decreased a very small amount by comparison. That makes sense, because housing prices can move much more rapidly than the debt on those houses. This very big decline in asset value is both the result of a slowing economy and the cause of future slow growth. As consumers feel less wealthy, they are less likely to spend. The conclusion to be drawn from this loss of wealth is that the slow economy will be with us for quite a while.

Foreigners Are Slowing Investment in the U.S.

Bud Conrad, June 2009

Foreign investment in the U.S. has been one of the supports for our government deficits and for our dollar. With foreigners questioning how large their holdings should grow, a closer look at the total cross-border flows gives some indication of what is going on.

Breaking down foreign purchases of securities into long-term and short-term gives an indication that while foreigners are not yet running away from the dollar, they are reluctant to hold long-term instruments. A logical interpretation is that by holding short-term paper, they retain more flexibility to shift their money towards new investments.

The conclusion from the data is that foreigners are starting to look for alternatives to U.S. investments. Their pronouncements confirm what they are doing. Important meetings are occurring, such as that of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the U.S. was excluded this week and where they discussed looking for alternatives to the dollar.

Olivier again. There are still a few bears around on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O’Neill said financial markets could weaken in coming weeks amid concern over the government’s intentions to roll back stimulus packages.

See this link.

In fact, it does not take a seasoned economist or a PhD to figure out that there is more downside than upside in the stock market these days.

During the month of May, the S&P 500 traded at an average P/E ratio of 127.48, shattering the previous average monthly high of 58.66 in April. For historical reference, the average P/E for publicly traded U.S. stocks has been around 15.

You may ask, if we see clear signs of a correction and weakness in the dollar, and if inflation is around the corner, why hasn’t gold gone through the roof yet? I can give at least three reasons for its relative lack of strength ($934 this morning):

Seasonality. The gold price typically shows signs of weakness in the summer and picks up in the fall and winter months because of increased jewelry demand.
IMF gold sales. It is expected that the IMF will sell one eighth of its gold reserves (12.97 million ounces) to finance aid programs to developing economies hit by the current crisis.
Deflation. While we are forecasting inflation, there are still some strong deflationary forces at play. We do not anticipate the gold mania to start until deflation fully subsides.

So am I long on gold? More than ever. I see the current softness in prices of precious metal as an opportunity to continue to load up on bullion and stocks of major gold producers, as advised in our BIG GOLD newsletter. If you are not yet a BIG GOLD subscriber, you may want to check it out and follow our recommendations.

Speaking of gold, you may have seen the following article on our site or others: Mint moves to halt possible “run” on gold.

On the same subject, one of our subscribers reports:

Notes from the Field

Although he was just back from a trip to Colombia, Louis James hopped on a plane again this week to go down to Mexico and check out Mexican silver properties there. Louis just sent along preliminary notes from his visit.

International Speculator

A Centrally Controlled Economy?

This week has seen another flurry of activity in Washington. It started with an announcement by Obama on the Financial Regulatory Reform granting the Fed broad authority as a super regulator. After studying the White Paper issued by the White House, our Bud Conrad had the following comments:

We are quickly moving to a centrally controlled economy, private ownership be damned. The source of my opinion is the already 80 pages of general description of the thousands of bureaucrats that will be assigned to direct the economy and not just limit the excesses.
One of the most problematic parts of the proposal, in my opinion, is that the Federal Reserve would be given yet more power and responsibilities in the face of its abject failure to understand and deal with the ongoing economic situation.
The Federal Reserve has stepped beyond its original charter to manage the monetary system and has been taking on loans and responsibilities for specific financial institutions. Look at Mr. Bernanke’s reaction to the simple inquiry by Congress to reveal the names of the institutions to which the Fed handed out almost $1 trillion: he flatly refused to comply.
We don't need more bureaucracy. We need more accountability and prosecution of the crooks that brought us here in the first place. What we will get is an expensive bureaucracy, many reporting requirements, and overhead. This system will add a great burden to the efficient operations of our financial systems.
If exporting manufacturing jobs offshore has hurt our economy, think of what a constipated regulatory system will do to our financial institutions: they will go somewhere else, taking jobs and wealth with them.

I have to say, having the Fed as an unregulated super-regulator is a scary thought.

But there are reports on more activities on Capitol Hill…

Audit the Fed

Don Grove, Casey Research Washington correspondent

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would require the first audit ever of the Federal Reserve. The bill has 234 sponsors, a comfortable majority of the members of the House, and is gaining momentum.

The Obama administration should be delighted, given its commitment to transparency in government.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee adopted an amendment to its energy bill that would allow oil and gas drilling within 45 miles of the Florida coast. If the Senate climate bill becomes law with the Florida drilling amendment intact, it could be sufficient to derail the whole climate bill. "We're simply not going to let this happen," said Bill Nelson (D-Fla).

Yes! That's what I like to hear! As long as they are bickering among themselves, there is less chance they will do any real mischief.

Back to Olivier .

On the subject of hydrocarbons, you may be interested in this article about the recently released 2009 International Energy Outlook. This year’s report released by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) includes the first acknowledgement of Peak Oil by this agency.

At Casey Research, we are so bullish on energy that it will be the central theme of our next conference on September 18-20 in Denver, Colorado. Marin Katusa, Senior Editor of Casey Energy Opportunities, has been working on an extraordinary line-up of experts to cover both conventional and alternative energies in depth. If you have not done so, mark your calendar – registration will open soon.

As we all know, Europe has been struggling with the recession just as much as we have. For a while it appeared as though Italy might have just found the solution ($40 billion more or less) to its financial problems, thanks to the diligence of its border patrol officers, who detained two supposedly Japanese men with $134 billion worth of U.S Treasury bonds in a suitcase.

Check out this story from Asia News: U.S. government securities seized from Japanese nationals not clear whether real or fake.

Unfortunately for Italy, Bloomberg reported yesterday that according to the U.S. government, the notes are fake..

Building Without the Proper Permits

Jacques T. sent us this very funny email I would like to share. Purportedly, this is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, State of Pennsylvania.

While we haven’t verified if this is real or a hoax, it’s quite amusing nonetheless.

SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. DeVries:

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:

Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.

A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.

The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2009.

Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

David L. Price

District Representative and Water Management Division.

Here is the response sent back by Mr. DeVries:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County

Dear Mr. Price,

Your certified letter dated 12/17/07 has been handed to me to respond to. I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout Run, Pennsylvania.

A couple of beavers are in the (State-unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my spring pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of nature’s building materials “debris.”

I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.

My first dam question to you is:

(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my spring pond beavers, or

(2) do you require all beavers throughout this state to conform to said dam request?

If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.

(Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)

I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled to legal representation? The spring pond beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the state will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the spring pond beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names…

Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Thank you,

Ryan Devries & the Dam Beavers

Miscellaneous

We have received requests for new phyles. Several subscribers want to know if there are existing phyles in either Chicago, Manhattan, or in Massachusetts. No formal group have formed in these areas yet, but if you are interested in organizing or participating in such a group, let Megan know by sending an email to phyle@caseyresearch.com. She will be happy to facilitate contacts in these cities.

Tom in Melbourne, Australia, is interested in starting a new phyle there. Contact Megan if you live in the area, and she will coordinate with him.

Finally, Tommy K. is wondering if the Denver area phyle members would be interested in a summer meeting in Vail he would host with his wife.

12:50 pm… I’m afraid it is time for me to sign out. The Dow is slightly down, the S&P and TSX are up again, and commodities markets are quiet.

Thank you for reading and being a Casey subscriber.

Olivier Garret
CEO, Casey Research

The Room – 06/12/2009

David Galland — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:08:00 GMT

The Room Special Alert:

Casey Research Summit, this one dedicated to Energy and Special Situations

September 18 – 20 at the Westin Tabor Center in Denver

David

Dear Readers,

Again this week, I was admonished by one of your fellow dear readers, who recommended that I keep my political comments to myself. And furthermore that I, and the entire Casey team, should focus solely on finding the next great investment.

While I can’t and won’t argue with the latter part of his advice -- that is, after all, our overarching mandate, and a mandate we take seriously – I suspect the real issue is that the political views we occasionally express run contrary to those of the author of this rebuke.

Even so, if you give the matter any thought at all, you will almost have to conclude that the business of America is now hugely dependent on the business of government.

As a refresher, the following – compliments of the Encyclopedia of Business – describes the two major foundations economies have typically been built on in modern times: central planning and capitalism.

centrally planned economy

capitalism,

Now, I may be naïve about certain things, for example the autoeroticism of the sort apparently favored by the late David Carradine, but I’m not naïve enough to think that there is such a thing as a "pure" economy that fits either of those two descriptions to a T.

Therefore, the important thing is to understand where your particular economy – in my case, that of the United States – falls on the scale between the two systems.

I usually refuse to jump into the same rumpled bed as the hard right wing of the U.S. political spectrum, but they are probably waving their arms about the same economic concerns we comment on here and in our other publications from time to time.

What makes me different from the Limbaughs et al., and maybe it is a fading difference, is that I really would like the current administration to succeed. As I don't really like either party, either party will do – as long as that party makes intelligent choices about the role government should play in our daily lives.

President Obama appears to be a reasonable, intelligent, and certainly articulate human being. Therefore, I hold out hope that he will eventually come around to making the only logical decision that can be made about the path forward. If for no other reason than that choosing the wrong path will inevitably lead to election defeat.

To prove that simple point, it is hard to miss the rising tide of fiscally conservative attitudes evidenced in the polling booths during the recent European elections. Europe, which is not exactly known for its free-market policies, rose up as one and soundly defeated the hard left socialist candidates on the ballot.

Unfortunately, at this point, Obama and his many government operatives and sycophants appear to be speeding down the wrong road – the road that leads to a continued shift in the direction of a centrally planned economy.

For example, this week the House of Representatives passed a bill that meddles with the choices that Americans make regarding the cars they drive. The idea is to give a marketing boost to the new U.S.-owned auto companies. enticing consumers to buy new cars by taking up to $4,500 out of taxpayers’ pockets and giving the money to others. Those, in turn, give it to automakers that provide cars that drive at least two miles further per gallon in the tank.

Here’s a quick take on the bill from politico.com…

There has always been a problem with a centrally planned economy. When you remove the free market from the supply and demand equation or tamper with the free market, you cause unnatural dislocations and all manner of unintended consequences.

Of course, Mr. Obama enjoys strong union support, and we as taxpayers now own large shares in the American auto manufacturers. Therefore, the good intention of the central planners in Congress is that this "cash for clunkers" law will unleash a new wave of naked consumerism, returning the economy to the happy days we all wish for.

There are, however, more than a few flies in the ointment. Starting with the fact that for the last six years, the top-selling cars in these United States have all been produced by Japanese companies. While many of those cars are now built in the United States, they are not built in Detroit, and they are not built by GM or Chrysler.

It is also worth pointing out that all of the top sellers will easily qualify for the largess being offered by we the U.S. taxpayer. Perhaps the legislators hope that GM's new hybrid, the "Volt,” will ride to the rescue. But Toyota’s well-selling Prius hybrid – which has recently been redesigned, is a huge hit in Japan, and is expected to fare equally well in the U.S. – could throw a wrench in GM’s poorly laid-out plan. Especially because the Prius sells for about half of what the Volt is expected to debut at. With either car, you get the $4,500 rebate, so the choice comes down to this: do you want to pony up an extra $20,000 for a GM-made experiment or get a proven high-quality winner from Toyota for a lot less?

According to a study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon, the premium sought by GM can’t be rationalized:

plug-in hybrids

The problem is the added weight – and the cost of the batteries. The lifespan of the batteries is also a big question mark. According to an article on Mixed Power…

K.G. Duleep, managing director of consulting firm Energy & Environmental Analysis Inc. in Arlington, Virginia, and a researcher on a U.S. study on plug-ins and other advanced autos, said he is very skeptical about the lifespan of the batteries. “I’m very skeptical about the prospects for near-term durability of the batteries. Even in the lab, they aren’t lasting more than seven years,” said Duleep.
So, into the dogfight for what few automobiles will be sold in the crunch years ahead, the new and supposedly improved Government Motors (GM) will send an expensive, so far unproven entrant... which, according to the central planners, will be snapped up in such quantities as to knock off the reigning champs, all Japanese. My take: GM is a dead duck, and the Japanese will be the primary beneficiaries of this latest bit of central planning.

GM was delisted from the NASDAQ this week, and investors looking to buy it must turn to the disgraceful OTC Pink Sheets for their shares.

And this is what the central planners have deemed worthy of dropping $25 billion in taxpayer funds on.

Health Care, Everyone?

The central planners are also hard at work on putting the final bullet into the head of American healthcare. The first shot, Medicare, only severely wounded it.

Speaking of Medicare, the following data points may prove useful as you hear more and more about the greater efficiency supposedly gained by having the government expand its health options to cover everyone.

(FYI: Medicare Part A, passed into law in 1965, covers hospital visits for those over the age of 65 or with certain types of medical conditions; Part B, passed later, covers doctor’s visits and certain outpatient services; Part C allowed private insurers to provide the Medicare benefits; and Part D, passed in 2003, provided prescription drug benefits.)

So, how has that whole Medicare efficiency thing been working out?

The following is from "Medicare for All" Universal Health Care Would Not Solve the Problem of Rising Health Care Costs by David Hogberg, Ph.D.

The fiscal future of Medicare itself is bleak. The Medicare Trustees report notes that, by 2018, revenues for Part A will only be sufficient to cover 80 percent of its costs. By 2080, revenues will only cover 29 percent of costs. “Closing deficits of this magnitude,” the report warns, “will require very substantial increases in tax revenues and/or reductions in expenditures.” The prospects for Part B and Part D are not much better, with the report stating that revenues for those parts will “have to increase rapidly to match expected expenditure growth under current law.” From 2005-2080, the report predicts, Medicare’s share of GDP will rise from 2.7 percent to 11 percent.
There are numerous fiscal problems associated with any government-provided program, especially one that ignores pre-existing conditions, as is the case with the current legislation now being proposed. One is that greater accessibility at a lower cost – or for many, at no cost at all – and providing credits toward government payments to households with revenues of up to $110,000 will make people flock to the docs in large and steady numbers. And that, of course, will drive the cost of healthcare even higher. Call it an unintended consequence if you will, but I will call it a completely natural and to-be-expected consequence.

Thus, though the Obama administration projects that the nation will have to spend another trillion dollars it doesn't have providing medical care for all -- that number is certainly far off the actual tally required.

Again, according to Dr. Hogberg…

Why anyone would want to put every American in a program that is already nearing fiscal collapse is perplexing, to say the least.
As for dislocations, in the current legislation, private insurers will not be able to deny a person coverage for pre-existing conditions or charge them a higher premium. This bit of central planning means simply that everyone will have to pay a higher premium. Furthermore, companies in the healthcare industry will almost certainly have to compete with a government-run insurance program whose mandate will be to ensure that everyone can afford insurance.

Shareholders in private U.S. health insurance companies are already burdened by their share of the costs that those companies have to incur in order to comply with an estimated 130,000 pages of Medicare-related regulations. Now they will not only see the sheer quantity of those regulations ratchet up exponentially, but they’ll have to pay even higher taxes to support direct competition to their companies by the government.

All of which is to say that private insurers are going to have a very hard time competing against their own government, leading to the very real potential down the road for a sole U.S. healthcare insurance provider – “Mama Sam.”

And corporations that already provide insurance, or don't, will be forced to pay even more to the government in order to cover the cost of bringing all the uninsured under the umbrella.

Again quoting politico.com...

R. Bruce Josten, a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: “We are disappointed, clearly.” He participated in weekly meetings with Kennedy’s committee, and the bill that resulted suggests “the only person who has skin in the game is the employers,” Josten said.
Josten is, of course, talking his own book. That's because employers – i.e., corporations – don't actually pay taxes. Consumers do when they purchase the products of those companies, whose costs are calibrated to cover expenses such as taxes. And so, American industry will have to raise the cost of its products, making them less competitive on the global stage.

This reduced competitiveness will result in American corporations going out of business, and more and more people will be added to the unemployment rolls, moving them out of the category of "net contributors" to the new healthcare system and into the category of "net recipients," sending costs ever higher.

Of course, one way that the government, having laid this bed of nails, might decide to respond is by adding entry barriers for foreign-made goods. Which, when you think about it, may be the solution to the automobile conundrum as well?

I'm not sure where one goes to school to learn the fine art of central planning, or even if such a school exists, but I'm fairly sure that even the best of such a school can adequately train its graduates in the effective, long-term, micromanagement of a complex system such as the U.S. economy – or any economy, for that matter.

Is there a potential bright spot for investors in all of this? I think passing of this healthcare legislation, which is a near certainty given the Democrats’ majority, will shake out the weaker insurance companies already buried under mountains of bad investments that are about to get a lot badder. And I have to believe that unless and until Mama Sam passes legislation prohibiting private insurance altogether, there will be a niche for an insurance company that charges very high premiums but promises quick care of the highest quality in return.

Faced with the alternatives of doing business with the upscale private provider or the far less expensive government option (or one of the private companies that try to compete on price with that entity), the bulk of individuals with pre-existing conditions or generally poor health will choose the less expensive option.

Now, I know this whole thing about universal healthcare will strike a negative chord with many of you, including many of our neighbors to the north. And, please don’t think of me as hard hearted. But this gets back to the idea of positive vs. negative rights. If you believe that we the people have the inalienable right to healthcare, then you might as well believe that we also have the right to three square meals a day, a respectable roof over the head, dental care, a top-quality education, a decent wardrobe, transportation to get to our jobs, day care for the kids, and so on and so forth.

The problem is, and always will be, how can you pay for all of this without coercively taking the money out of one family’s pocket in order to shift it into another’s? And by coercively, I mean the direct threat of imprisonment if you don’t hand over the cash. That violates the morally correct right that we should be free from threats of personal harm, extortion, and outright theft.

In fact, the very idea that some faceless government functionary can walk into my house, or my office, at any time and on any pretense and require me to spend my time and resources assisting him in going over my books so that he may demand more money from me – money that will then flow through the machine to be used to purposes I find personally abhorrent -- is a truly warped and disturbing concept.

At least with a consumption tax, you can make a voluntary decision as to which products you buy, with full knowledge of the taxes you’ll also pay. That is very much not the case with income taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, etc., ad nauseam.

Don’t get me started…

No More Big Bucks for You!

For today’s catalogue of evidence that we’re heading toward a centrally planned economy, I provide the following from Bloomberg this week…

Now, far be it from me to champion the insane pay levels of public company officers. But to actually get into the trenches and try to engineer those pay levels to something considered more politically correct strikes me as a serious step in the wrong direction. Shareholders of companies, which these days are mostly mutual funds and other institutions, need to pay a lot more attention to compensation practices than they obviously have been. And if they are too lazy to do so, then they deserve what they get, should they fail to get a level of corporate performance reflecting said pay.

Fortunately, We Have the Law

I wish I could stop there, but I can't. That's because this week, the faint glimmer of hope evaporated that I had felt when the Supreme Court put a halt to the Chrysler bankruptcy so that it might study the legality of the structure the government had imposed on the company’s stakeholders.

The claims of the secured bondholders in that company were – by tradition and legal rights that extend literally back to the beginning of America and to English law before that – superior to the unsecured claims of the union pension operators. Nevertheless, they were ignored and their legitimate claims set aside "for the public good."

Again, my sympathy goes out to pensioners who dedicated their working lives to a company whose executives may have been better qualified as washroom attendants. But to let one's emotions (or political ambitions) willy-nilly trump well-established law seems the height of insanity.

How, now that the precedent has been re-set, are bond investors – or, for that matter, any stakeholder in a company – supposed to evaluate the investments being offered to them? When commercial obligations can be tossed out the window for political expediency, what does that do to the legal certainty that is supposed to be such a big competitive advantage for America?

Commenting on the transaction, an official of the Treasury, which strong-armed the deal into existence, had this to say…

“This morning’s closing represents a proud moment in Chrysler’s storied history. The Chrysler-Fiat alliance has now exited the bankruptcy process and is poised to emerge as a competitive, viable automaker.”
Since we are relying on dictionaries today, let’s look up the word “proud” just to be sure we are understanding this member of officialdom clearly.

Relying on Webster this time,

prūd,

prod, prud, prou

prode

“Advantageous?” Sure, for the unions and, by extension, the political fortunes of Mr. Obama.

“Just?” Hardly. How is it that the unions put up nothing and get 55% of the company?

“Wise?” Politically, maybe. But turning commercial law on its head to try and bail out a twice bankrupt company? And handing the “new” company another $6 billion of money the government very much doesn’t have as an “exit” gift hardly seems intelligent, at least to me.

“Bold?” In my book, that is not the word I would use to describe the government’s bullying tactics, including publicly vilifying legitimate bond holders.

No, proud is not a word I would associate with this takeover. Expedient, reckless, capricious… all of those words seem far more appropriate.

This is one of those seminal events that has the potential to be with us for a very long time – in future bankruptcy proceedings, which I expect we'll see a lot of – and in the very structure of capital markets.

Capital Gains… What Capital Gains?

David M., the coordinator of our SoCal Phyle, sent along an interesting essay written by Chriss Street, the treasurer/tax collector of Orange County, California. He argues against states spending beyond their means, and also against a bailout of the states by the federal government. The essay is worth reading, and you can do so here.

I thought the following excerpt from Street’s essay is especially noteworthy, given the coming increase in capital gains taxes…

All of which raises the question, where is California going to get the money it needs to dig itself out of its current hole… now expected to ring in at about $25 billion for the year?

Why, Mama Sam, of course.

The Road Less Traveled

While we don’t talk about it much, I feel compelled to give a tip of the hat to our senior researchers who think nothing of hopping on planes to far corners of the world, literally risking the worst in their quest for opportunities ahead of the crowd.

What compels me this week was a trip to Colombia Louis James of our International Speculator just returned from. Accompanied by heavy security, he walked the ground on a new discovery with the credible potential to host five million high-grade ounces of gold, and maybe more.

While the armed escort is still advisable in those parts, it is increasingly becoming less so and is mostly just a holdover from the bad old days of the 1990s at this point. Back then, the area Louis visited was bristling with guerillas and out-of-control paramilitary groups who, some say, were even worse. Today it’s peaceful, and the locals couldn’t be happier to see a new gold rush. Colombia has a truly fabled history in gold mining, and it is now politically stable and pro-business – perhaps the most pro-business country in South America. This has led to big profits for investors in successful junior gold explorers (the company Louis visited saw its share price shoot up 104.5% in two days).

Louis will report on the opportunities he found on his trip to Colombia in the next issue of the International Speculator. You can learn more by clicking here.

There is much opportunity, even in challenging markets… but sometimes nothing but putting your boots on the ground will do. And for being ever willing to do that, my hats off to the tireless team!

21 Economic Models Explained

(Thanks to our regular correspondent and longtime friend, “the General,” for sending this along. Sorry if this gores anyone’s ox… or, cow, such as the case may be.)

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk
away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead.

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.
No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called “Cowkimon” and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No one believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.

Promoting Free Market Economics…

By Louis James

As you may recall, Doug Casey joined me in my yearly teaching sabbatical in Eastern Europe last summer (click here for last August’s report on how it went). It was a smashing success, and the students had such a good time learning about free enterprise and entrepreneurship, most of them are returning this year and bringing friends. The result is a record group of students – about 90 – who will come to learn more about rational economics, creating businesses, investing, and more, at what we now are proud to be able to call the first Casey Youth Conference on Liberty and Entrepreneurship (CYCLE), to be held from June 29 to July 5, in beautiful Trakai, Lithuania.

This year, they’ll have to write a complete business plan to complete the course – we’re excited. The students are as well and are building a web site for CYCLE. It’s still in beta-testing as we go to press, but you can try it here: CYCLE.

Doug sees CYCLE as one of the most cost-effective ways to teach young people about free-market economics, and better yet, to enable them to join the producers and creators in the world who make progress possible. Eastern Europeans have living memory of soul-crushing communism, and they are hungry for this sort of learning – it’s a great environment. In fact, if you have college-age children who would like to join in, drop us a line at feedback@caseyresearch.com, and we may be able to squeeze in a few who can pay their own way.

When we wrote about this last summer, several subscribers wrote to ask how they could help. One simple way to do this is to make a tax-deductible contribution to the same non-profit we are working with to run our CYCLE program. That’s the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. Doug generally believes most charities aren’t worth the dynamite it would take to blow them up, but CYCLE is an educational investment with potentially near- to mid-term returns. And if you’re going to pay for something, it’s nice to be able to take half that money out of the government’s pockets in order to do so. To pitch in, click here for ISIL’s secure donation page or call ISIL directly at 707-746-8796 and tell them you’d like to support CYCLE.

The programs is very cost effective – about $150 per student (they pay part of the cost) – but there are a lot of students this year, so CYCLE could use your help. Thanks!

Miscellany

More Casey Phyles Starting Up. If you are interested in meeting up and sharing notes with other Casey subscribers, this week we received indications of interest from individuals in the following locales. South Africa, New York (Manhattan), Massachusetts, South Carolina, France and Chicago. If you are in any of those places and want to be connected, drop us a note at phyles@CaseyResearch.com.
Poker, Anyone? Our own Doug Casey, who is known to enjoy a game or two of cards now and again, forwarded me an article from the Wall Street Journal about a grab by the Feds of 27,000 bank accounts totaling $34 million. The sole rationale for the grab was that the miscreants apparently had the gall to enjoy playing poker online. What’s next? Users of online adult sites pop to mind. Then what? The slippery slope gets more slippery by the day. You can read the full article here.
IMF Gold Sales. This just in from our Washington correspondent, Don Grove, who is keeping a sharp eye on the proposed vote to allow the IMF to sell on the order of 13,000,000 ounces of gold (to the Chinese).
The Daily Room Thing… Thanks to all of you who weighed in on the idea of converting this letter from a weekly to a daily room. The vote came in slightly in favor of keeping this a weekly. Even so, I think we’ll try going daily for awhile (but not until a couple of weeks from now.) For one thing, there is so much that I could, and even should, be addressing that trying to cram it into one issue at the end of the week is impossible.

Currently, I think that we would segment the daily room (name still not decided), by major topic areas. For instance, commodities, energy, equities, the economy and, of course, politics (with some miscellaneous scattered throughout). We would then focus on those major sectors on the same day each week. Thus, if energy was not of interest to you, you could just skip Tuesday, for instance. In this way, we could focus our research a bit more on what’s important in each of these key areas, while keeping the segments shorter. For fans of the weekly version, at the end of the week, we could do a round-up edition.

Hate the idea? Like it? All input always welcomed at david@caseyresearch.com (though I apologize profusely for being a poor correspondent of late. While I have read all of your emails, I just haven’t had the time to respond.)

Speaking of The Room… this week is my wife’s much-deserved annual road trip, a wonderful week during which I play full-time father and relearn to appreciate what it’s like to manage a household 24/7. If history is any guide, the week will start out with a fair amount of chaos but eventually settle into something resembling order. In any event, Casey Research CEO Olivier Garret has gallantly offered to step in and write The Room next week, while I concentrate on the simple things – like not burning down the house with that new wood-burning tool I bought the kids.

As I sign off, I see that the stock market is just barely keeping its lips above the water line. I continue to believe that a big wave is about to change things, and fairly soon. There are now so many new and existing negatives looming over the market that it can’t be overly long before Mr. Market runs for cover. Among the things to watch for is a surge in commercial mortgage defaults, which are anticipated to almost double from recent months, to some 4.1% of the total outstanding.

(In The Casey Report, we are currently shorting two especially ripe commercial real estate companies… you can, too… details here.)

Then there is the pending wave of Option ARM resets, which will hit later this summer and then soar into next year.

And there is the soon-to-be-widely-reported-on smack up the side of the head to mortgage originations, caused by the recent 75 to 100 basis point jump in mortgage rates.. a jump that occurred over the period of a week and a half. Speaking with insiders in the banking business who shall be unnamed, I learned that the rate increase caused mortgage originations to hit the proverbial wall. Full stop. While the punditry has begun to comment on the likely impact of the jump in rates, when the full extent of the impact becomes apparent in the weeks ahead, it will send a signal that Mr. Market will surely not appreciate.

Rates are going up, and we are positioning ourselves to take full advantage in The Casey Report.

Meanwhile, U.S. exports continue to fall, Treasuries continue to come under pressure as Russia and other countries announce they are going to invest in IMF paper vs. that of the U.S.

And one more thing, especially interesting, that came my way via Steve H. It is about a meeting on June 16 by senior officials of the BRIC nations, in a remote mountain resort in Russia. The concern is that they are working on plans to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Start by watching this somewhat odd video linked here…

The presenter comes across as something of an odd duck, and so I asked Steve (who is a very successful money manager and a very solid guy) if the guy was credible. Here’s his response:

www.comdig.com

www.deanlebaron.com

www.leadership.gather.com

So, I did a bit of looking around and found this reference on the pending meeting, from the Beijing Review.

Now, it is a bit of a leap to think that this meeting will indeed amount to a Bretton Woods II, but without the U.S. in the room… you can bet the dollar will be on the agenda.

Interesting times, indeed.

And with that, I must run… I think I smell smoke.

Until the week after next, thank you for reading and for being a subscriber to a Casey Research service.

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.