Time to Buy Gold

Once upon a time I was taught by Danny Blanchflower. No, I have never played football, I'm talking about the economist of that name - well his name is really David Blanchflower but he told us that only his mother still calls him that. He was moonlighting from his day job at the University of Guildford to teach we humble Open University students.

He was ambitious and found himself a job at an Ivy League College in the States. Some time spent on the other side of the Atlantic is an essential stepping stone to a successful career as an economist, and membership of the Monetary Policy Committee a proof that you have arrived. So Blanchflower is an entirely pukka economist - the fact that he has published his latest tirade against spending cuts in the New Statesman is more an indication of the pusillanimous behaviour by the mainstream media than that he is a radical outsider.

What Blanchflower is trying to say, or scream, is that the recession is not over. If you look at the figures this is clear. Just look at the one graph that I've included with this post. It plots a comparison between the Baltic Dry Index and the price of gold. The first is a direct measure of how much stuff is trekking around the world; the second a measure of investor fear. When the shit really hits the fan you should put all your spare money into gold (I won't charge you for that nugget of advice since I know that if you read this blog you don't have any spare money!).

Of course I also agree whole-heartedly with Blanchflower's critiques of the economics profession. I remember him as a fairly conservative person, who thought I was a crazed hippy, but he did ring alarm bells about the house-price boom and he did call for cuts in interest rates long before his fellows on the MPC - and at a time when they might have made a difference.

He thought I was naive, but I would like to repay the compliment. Is it not rather naive to expect economics professors and politicians to come out and criticise an economic system that is deliberately constructed to suit their interests? And even more so to think that either party will give a damn about youth unemployment and the psychological pain caused to a 'lost generation'?

The meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh was apparently intended to address the imbalances and distortions in the world economy. But the vision does not seem to extend beyond talking about limiting the bonuses of bank executives and the media is dominated by headlines about Iran. In one sense this is not so illogical: another foreign war would boost economic activity for certain sectors and might well put some of our young people back to work - and remove others permanently from the risk of unemployment.

But genuine attempts to address the causes of the economic crisis are either not being made or not being reported. The elite leaders of global capitalism are still seeing their role as trying to persuade us that all is fine and we should just carry on shopping as usual. I wish Danny well in his attempt to appeal to a more democratic tradition, where we still felt our power might be expressed through the ballot-box rather than the credit card. Tweet

Lies, Damned Lies, and Accounting

I spent a small but significant amount of time yesterday searching for a cost code to justify the spending of 60 pence. I mention this partly, I confess, to get the frustration and rage that caused me to scream in my office and cause consternation to my colleagues out of my system. But also to offer it as an example of how, in an era where the accountant is an unlikely king and accountability is espoused on all fronts, the petty is rigorously enforced whereas fraud on a grandiose scale is routinely ignored.

I am thinking, you will have guessed, of corporate fraud, of the type practised by Enron executives. Inflating the value of your stock by counting money you haven't received or even invoiced for yet. That particular techniques, known as counting 'unbilled receivables' was invested by the leading accountancy firm then called Arthur Anderson. Oil companies also engage in this creative accounting when, as Shell recently admitted it had done, they overestimate the value of their reserves, which, in oil companies terms, is the value of your companies and hence your stock.

It appears that the rule is, the more preposterous the fraud the more unlikely it is that we will notice. As Kierkegaard famously pointed out about Christianity, if you want to get a whole mass of believers you need to create a really big lie. Which brings me to the money system: the biggest example of fraud that it is virtually impossible for us all to avoid. Galbraith pointed out that the gap between one financial collapse and the last is roughly equal to the length of time it takes those who suffered to forget about it. You can find it detailed in economics books, but who is daft enough to wade through those?

So, here is a brief quotation from Galbraith about how the last crash came about:

Speculation begins when a price is going up and the presumptively wise expect a further increase. They buy and thus produced the increase. More buy, and more and yet more are attracted. Each price increase affirms the good sense of those who have bought before. Those who doubt are reviled as creatures of defective imagination. The buying and the supporting mood continue until the available supply of mentally vulnerable, economically viable buyers is exhausted. Then come the changed views of the prospect, the rush to get out, the pressure now of creditors demanding repayment of the loans that financed purchase, thus forcing sale. In short, the crash.

Sound familiar? I wouldn't be taking on too much debt if I were you. If you own bricks and mortar it is still yours after the crash. But if you own debt it will not be very much use to you. Tweet

There's No Way Like the American Way

I spent a small but significant amount of time yesterday searching for a cost code to justify the spending of 60 pence. I mention this partly, I confess, to get the frustration and rage that caused me to scream in my office and cause consternation to my colleagues out of my system. But also to offer it as an example of how, in an era where the accountant is an unlikely king and accountability is espoused on all fronts, the petty is rigorously enforced whereas fraud on a grandiose scale is routinely ignored.

I am thinking, you will have guessed, of corporate fraud, of the type practised by Enron executives. Inflating the value of your stock by counting money you haven't received or even invoiced for yet. That particular techniques, known as counting 'unbilled receivables', was invented by the leading accountancy firm then called Arthur Anderson. Oil companies also engage in this creative accounting when, as Shell recently admitted it had done, they overestimate the value of their reserves, which, in oil companies terms, is the value of your company's assets and hence your stock.

It appears that the rule is, the more preposterous the fraud the more unlikely it is that we will notice. As Kierkegaard famously pointed out about Christianity, if you want to get a whole mass of believers you need to create a really big lie.

Which brings me to the money system: the biggest example of fraud that it is virtually impossible for us all to avoid. Galbraith pointed out that the gap between one financial collapse and the last is roughly equal to the length of time it takes those who suffered to forget about it. You can find it detailed in economics books, but who is daft enough to wade through those?

So, here is a brief quotation from Galbraith about how the last crash came about:

'Speculation begins when a price is going up and the presumptively wise expect a further increase. They buy and thus produce the inrease. More buy, and more and yet more are attracted. Each price increase affirms the good sense of those who have bought before. Those who doubt are reviled as creatures of defective imagination. The buying and the supporting mood continue until the available supply of mentally vulnerable, economically viable buyers is exhausted. Then come the changed views of the prospect, the rush to get out, the pressure now of creditors demanding repayment of the loans that financed purchase, thus forcing sale. In short, the crash.'

Sound familiar? I wouldn't be taking on too much debt if I were you. If you own bricks and mortar it is still yours after the crash. But if you own debt it will not be very much use to you. Tweet