Outside the Box

Absolute Zero

September 26, 2011

It was Gary Shilling – way back in the last century – who first woke me up to the real whys and wherefores of deflation, with his 1998 best-seller, Deflation: Why it's coming, whether it's good or bad, and how it will affect your investments, business, and personal affairs. I had read various works on deflation, but nowhere was it put together as well as Gary did it. He followed it up the next year with Deflation: How to survive and thrive in the coming wave of deflation, and in that one he strongly urged his readers out of the stock market – just ahead of the 2000 dot-com bubble burst. But Gary has been so right over the past three decades. (He recently updated Deflation with The Age of Deleveraging: Investment Strategies for a Decade of Slow Growth and Deflation. It’s on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Age-Deleveraging.

Today’s Outside the Box is a condensed version of Gary’s monthly INSIGHT newsletter, and in this one he tackles the lack of effectiveness of the Fed’s QE1 and QE2 and delves into the “strange things [that] happen in security, currency and commodity markets that don’t fit normal rules” when the Fed and other central banks take interest rates down close to zero. He notes that at the same time QE2 was fomenting a global commodity bubble and stock-market advances through 2010 and into early 2011, it was also punishing lower-income households with higher food and energy costs, and saddling them with falling home prices “that are likely to drop another 20%.” Crucially, the Fed is “pushing on a string” that, with “the depth and breadth of the financial crisis, the collapse in housing, the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in Europe, Japan’s continuing two-decade-old deflationary depression, the impending hard landing in China, etc. make the monetary policy string much more limp than usual.”

Picking up a theme from his most recent book, The Age of Deleveraging, Gary also examines the question of whether the US is headed for a deflationary depression like the one that has beset Japan for more than two decades. I won’t spill the beans on his conclusion here, but let’s just say that we have our work cut out for us.

If you appreciate Gary’s lucid analysis and want to subscribe to INSIGHT, be sure to mention Outside the Box, and you’ll get 13 issues for the price of 12, PLUS their January 2011 report in which Gary lays out his investment strategies for the year. The price via email is $275, and the address is insight@agaryshilling.com, or you can call them at 1-888-346-7444.

Your loving London but lusting for Ireland analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Are you missing out?
Look over John Mauldin's shoulder and find out.

As a reader of Outside The Box, you already profit from John Mauldin's insights on vital information you may not get anywhere else. But you could be doing even better... you're still missing out on most of the unique research and commentaries that John receives from his network of elite investors and analysts every day. Discover how easy it is to look over John's shoulder, and get everything you've been missing today.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder


Absolute Zero

(excerpted from the September 2011 edition of A. Gary Shilling's INSIGHT)

In its written release after its August 9 Federal Open Market Committee policy meeting, the Fed included a statement that was highly unusual because of its specificity. “The Committee currently anticipates that economic conditions—including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run—are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least…

Discuss This

3 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Ronald Nimmo

Nov. 1, 2011, 5:46 a.m.

What does this statement mean?

“As we noted then, the average maturity on the public U.S. debt outstanding was only 4.75% in 2010, at the low end of the yield curve. Furthermore, long-term Treasurysâ?? share of the debt outstanding has shrunk in the last decade.”

4.75% is not a maturity; it is an interest rate. What was Schilling trying to say in this statement?  If he actually meant an interest rate, that is not accurate either because in the last paragraph he says:

“Its net interest paid projections divided by the CBO’s debt forecasts yield its effective interest rate for financing the debt, and it rises from 2.2% last year to 4.6% in 2021.”

David Harrold

Sep. 28, 2011, 12:09 p.m.

Great article, much to consider.  In my probably naive view, I believe the bottom line to our current economic woes is the US Government deficit spending and debt.  Seeing our congress act like a bunch of jr. high boys and not be able to address issues, inspires absolutely no confidence that our debt problem will ever be resolved.  Consumers and business are leary of spending and investing, and banks don’t want to lend,  if we think our government is going broke.

We as a nation need to swallow lots of very bitter medicine and get this under control. I realize that paying down debt, cutting speding and raising taxes will lead to a very poor economy.  But we need to do it for the next several years to get back on track. 

That is what you would do in your personal life if your were going broke.

Nelson Swanberg

Sep. 27, 2011, 2:11 a.m.

I still maintain that one of the unstated objectives of quantitative easing by the Fed is to get the Chinese to allow the yuan to truly float on international currency exchanges. The Chinese are not stockpiling our dollars but rather buying our debt instruments. Like good communists they will continue to steal our jobs and wealth creating manufacturing by keeping the yuan pegged at artificially low levels to the dollar and as long as they can buy our debt they will not get caught holding worthless dollars.

The key to a real recovery, as measured by new private sector jobs, is getting the yaun to float. That is not going to happen until our fiscal deficit is reduced to near zero. Our gross domestic product is not down but federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows. That tells me that some groups of citizens and corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes to operate our country. If tax revenues as a percent of GDP were returned to historical averages what would the deficit be? Any individual or corporation making more than 10 million dollars a year ought to be happy to pay 40% in federal income taxes in order to protect the political stability of the nation that allows you to earn such an income!