Is Value Investing Dead?

Vitaliy Katsenelson, CFA, has an excellent post on LinkedIn:  “Is Value Investing Dead?”  Katsenelson concludes that it is not, and he is right, although there might be muted returns to value investing for several more years. 

There is a parallel between commodities and value stocks because both are devalued by monetary creation in the early phases of a bubble market. Something similar occurred in the late 1990s, when gold was bottoming near two hundred, and everyone was saying that Warren Buffett had gone the way of the Brontosaurus.

In the early phases of a bubble market, low interest rates stimulate competition. Hence,  enterprises that are viable in the long term face more competition than otherwise because  the Federal Reserve banking cartel subsidizes inefficient competitors.   In the commodity sector viable mines are forced to compete with mines that the Fed artificially makes viable with low interest rates.  The results are supply gluts. 

At some point increasing competition causes bankruptcies of the less viable manufacturers, natural resource firms, and mines. Given intensifying competition, the subsidized interest rates are no longer sufficient to sustain the inefficient producers.   For value stocks, oil firms, and mines, subsidized output strains the least competitive firms, which ultimately go bankrupt. 

At this point in time, we see depressed value in the gold mining, oil, and value stocks.  The depression in those stocks has lasted a long time because the monetary creation of the 2008-2016 period was exceptionally great. The bubble period might continue for several more years.  Before it ends, I would expect higher valuations in the bubble stocks, recently known as the FAANG stocks--Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google.  In the 1920s radio and automobile stocks played a similar role. In the 1960s the Nifty Fifty, including American Home Products and Xerox, did.  In the late 1990s the Internet stocks such as Drugstore.com and Beauty.com did.  

As artificially intense market competition ends because of supply gluts, the value stocks survive and enter a less competitive environment; so do the most efficient natural resource firms. In a less competitive environment, they thrive.  

Hence, oil wells, miners, and value stocks are depressed in this period, but they have a bright future.  In all bubble periods, the claim that "we have entered a new era" becomes common.  The mania is fueled by the myopic definition of risk as standard deviation, which is  favored by finance economists.  This statistical definition overlooks longitudinal patterns and the effects of crashes on individual well being and stress.

Late-stage-bubble buyers force up the stock prices of the favored, speculative stocks in what Steve Sjuggerud calls a speculative melt-up. The inevitable crash is worst for the most speculative stocks.  There is some spillover to all stocks because of panic selling, but the value stocks then outperform. 

The most important characteristic to make money is patience or persistence.  Another is focus. These are not characteristics taught or valued in American educational institutions, which function with a win-lose, socialistic mindset and emphasize scientism at the expense of common sense. 

DBA versus GLD

The top chart shows the historical trend of the agricultural index exchange traded fund (ETF) Deutsche Bank Agricultural Index, DBA and the bottom chart shows GLD since late 2005.  The DBA chart had a double top two years ago just prior to the crash of '08. Double tops are a classic technical signal of an impending decline, and it worked in the case of DBA.  I googled the DBA and found a few technicians commenting on it to the effect that it has been/is a weak stock because of the double top two years ago.  Note the contrast with GLD, which has had a relatively steady upward trend, having taken a small double top and dip during the '08 roller coaster but recovering quickly and profoundly.

I have a problem with that combination of facts, though.  If gold is going up it is because of monetary demand, that is, people want to use gold to save instead of dollars, then people anticipate inflation and therefore DBA should go up.  If gold demand has a logical foundation, then inflation is impending.  If inflation is impending, then agricultural prices should be going up. This is especially true because the inflation has been caused by over-investment in real estate due to Federal Reserve and commercial banking's counterfeiting money and then investing the proceeds in politically favored industries, namely construction and real estate.  To expand investment real estate, the supply of agricultural land had to be reduced. Hence, there would seem to be upward pressure on food prices.  Last week DBA went up six percent in one day.  Since June, when DBA hit its low, it has gone up 28%, from $22.85 to $28.52.

The technicians may underestimate the effect of the underlying process of monetary inflation on long term food prices.  I bought DBA about two years ago and I'm up about 12%. The DBA has underperformed both gold and the stock market during that period. It may be subject to further downward fluctuations (the technicians have asserted this until recently) but given the recent trend it may be that the lean years are coming to an end for DBA.

Is the Ride to $3,000 Gold Going to Hit Air Pockets?

The graphs above are of the Power Shares DB Commodity Index (DBC) which tracks sweet crude oil, heating oil, RBOB Gasoline, natural gas, brent crude, gold, silver, aluminum, zinc, copper grade A, corn, wheat, soybeans, and sugar; the Power Shares DB Agricultural Index, (DBA) which tracks corn, wheat, soy beans and sugar; and GLD, the SPDR gold trust, which tracks gold.  On May 28 Smart Trend.com reported that the agricultural index is in a bearish trend.  

As you can see in the charts above, the DBC and DBA peaked in 2008 and have stayed off their peaks, while GLD, the third graph, has risen consistently.

Personally, I have no more faith in the word of the US Congress than I do in the word of a three card Monty dealer on 42nd Street.  Given the massive increases in deficits under President Obama and the even more massive increase in the monetary base in 2008 (and consistent increases in the US money supply ) there is no reason to think that gold and commodities will do anything but increase over many years. Ultimately, speculation and replacement of the dollar with gold by frenzied Americans trying to escape the government's legal tender law will push up the gold price further. 


But gold has increased almost five-fold since 2001, while other commodities have not kept place and have significantly fallen since 2008.  A general rule is to buy low and sell high.  It is possible that the gold market is more rational than other commodities because industrial demand is greater for oil, food and other metals than for gold. But it is just as possible that it is less rational because gold is subject to romance and speculation. The other commodities tell a story different from gold.

Gold is going up because of speculation in anticipation of inflation, and if there is inflation then the other commodities will go up as well.  Also, hyper-inflation might mean a two-fold increase in prices, but gold has already gone up five-fold.

I do not doubt that gold will continue to go up.  But if there were shortages in gold due to insufficient production in the 1990s, there ought to have been shortages in other commodities as well.  Hence, in the long run I wager that there will be continued speculation in gold and that when inflation takes off there will be a gold bubble. But I would think that other commodities where there is less speculation, romance and publicity are more reliable investments at this time.  When inflation starts, many will flock to gold, but the ride can be bumpy because there is speculation in the gold market. 

Let's say the Fed decides to increase interest rates.  There will likely be declines in the stock market, but gold could be even harder hit.  Over time the price will come back, but I find it hard to believe that without a concomitant increase in other commodities' prices the gold price will continue a secular increase. The reasoning for buying gold is that gold is a hedge against inflation, but so are the DBC and the DBA, and they haven't increased for two years. So if I were buying commodities now I would buy those and hold off on the gold.

According to Thoughts.com the dollar ought to be worth .7734 ounces of silver.  Today silver sells for $17.95 and gold sells for $1,207 per ounce.  Thus, the dollar is worth .0557 ounces of silver, 0.3% of the level at which the Coinage Act of 1792 defined it. If you think the decline in value was directed into the hands of the middle class, which William Greider claims in his book Secrets of the Temple, you're on drugs.  The money is created by banks who collect interest and they lend it to speculators, hedge funds, corporations and most of all, Wall Street. As well, it boosts stock prices because low interest rates increase the present value of future earnings.  Left wingers like Greider, who advocate Keynsianism, like to avoid discussing how their ideas support Wall Street and the banking lobby.

The additional money causes inflation, raising prices for everyone. Hence, it harms those who do not own stocks and real estate and are not bankers and helps those whose entire livelihood comes from stocks and real estate.  The middle class gets something back through increasing house prices, but those who save and work hard are penalized in favor of those who borrow.  Hence, it makes everyone poorer as the public learns that invention, innovation, hard work and creativity are for suckers, and borrowing to buy a condo is how to make a living.

The inflationary economy and the triumph of the left in terms of three card Monty government means that America's prospects are much worse than they've been.  A collapse of the financial and monetary system would seem to be a possibility. Hence, gold and silver are good bets. But I'm going to buy when they fall.

New York Times Aims to Destroy Your Pension

In a December 22 editorial the New York Times openly advocates inflation as a "cure" for unspecified "ailments" in the economy. Goldbug Howard S. Katz, who runs an investment newsletter, brought the article to my attention earlier today. Katz has been tracking the rapid expansion of Federal Reserve Bank Credit, monetary reserves and the money supply and argues that the safest way to secure your retirement is to take a pro-gold, anti-dollar position despite recent run-ups in the dollar. The stimulus the Fed is providing will lead to a bull market in stocks but a super-bull in commodities. Katz also argues that the current "crisis" has been a media phenomenon fabricated in response to bankers' demands for extra liquidity in order to extract additional wealth from America's declining economy (by declining I mean suffering from long-term, century-long misallocation of resources due to Federal Reserve and "Progressive" policies).

Allow me to quote the from the December 22 article entitled "The Printing Press Cure":

"The Federal Reserve as much as admitted last week that lowering the benchmark interest rate — even to zero — would not be powerful enough medicine to revive today’s ailing economy. And so it has opted for the printing-press cure, pledging for the foreseeable future to pump vast sums into banks, other financial firms, businesses and households.

"Economic history — of the Great Depression of the 1930s and Japan’s lost decade in the 1990s — suggests that the Fed is doing the right thing. Confronted then, as now, with the twin scourges of deepening recession and incipient deflation, governments did more damage with too little intervention than they would have done with too much.

"But that doesn’t make such intervention 'good.' It’s a big and unfortunate risk in itself."

One of the outcomes of inflationary Fed policy will be the destruction of retirement benefits based on wages earned prior to the inflation (that is, pensions of people who retired prior to the inflation during the coming 5-10 years). Many boomers will likely fall into this category. As boomers retire on annuities, traditional pensions or hold assets in Guaranteed Investment Contracts, savings accounts, safe bonds or other dollar-denominated assets, their well-being will be destroyed as the Times and Wall Street cheer on.

As well, wages do not typically keep pace with inflation. Thus, the already stretched worker will be stretched ever tighter in a Wall Street drawn noose. Employment relations, already weakened by past rounds of inflation, regulation, and globalization, will become weaker. Employers will find it in their interest to terminate post-retirement medical insurance and other benefits that keep pace with inflation. During the 1970s and 1980s employers resented indexing and escalator clauses that caused wages to keep pace with inflation. It is likely that they will be encouraged to reduce or terminate benefits just at the time that health care costs go under exponentially increasing pressure because of the retirement of the baby boomers. The problem cannot be solved by nationally sponsored health insurance because the cost pressures are demographic. All nationally sponsored insurance can do is ration care so that none of the fingers will be sewn back on, just as they wouldn't be in Cuba or France.

The Times does not say exactly why it thinks the economy is in so much trouble that inflation is necessary. Is there a law of economics that states that a few years of excessive mortgage lending necessitates inflation? Why was late nineteenth century America able to produce rising (instead of falling, as the Times advocates) wages, rising productivity, rising employment levels, absorption of massive amounts of immigration and the very deflation that the Times so dreads? Why was it possible to thrive before the Fed was founded, and why are we now in so much trouble after a century of the Fed's existence?

Two of the funnier sentences in the editorial are these:

"To jump-start the economy requires getting money to those who will spend it fast and in full. That includes unemployed workers, low- and middle-income families, and state and local governments."

Back in the 1940s and 1950s the Times supported urban renewal on the pretext that it would lead to better housing for the poor and middle class. Instead, the funding, which was huge in New York City, was given to developers, some of whom were friends of the Times's owners, the Ochs Sulzbergers. The developers used it to exercise extensive private-use eminent domain, banishing factory jobs from New York, destroying low-income neighborhoods and building expensive office buildings and co-ops for millionaires. The middle class was set up in dreary suburbs on Long Island like Levittown under the same programs (of Title I and Title II) and high-crime urban ghettos for minorities were established featuring dreadful public housing projects built with the Times's glowing support. Yes, the Times always has the interests of the poor and middle class in mind.

Now, the Times tells its readers that there is a "crisis" (what it is is never specified) and that Barack Obama's leadership in the interest of inflation is essential.

I do not normally pay attention to what the Times has to say, and this article sums up why. There are two categories of people who read the Times. The first is the people who take them seriously as an information and opinion source. Such people are lost souls at the fringes of society, and I feel sorry for them. The second is the people who read the Times in order to find out what the lost souls are thinking. But the lost souls are headed for the poor house, and the times when the Times's opinions mattered are passed. Let us bury the last copy of the Times in Adolph Ochs's grave.

As far as your own retirement goes, I would seriously consider gold, gold stocks, silver, agricultural commodities, the "DBC" and Swiss Francs. Keeping your money in US dollars is akin to flushing it down the drain.

WHAT's IN A NAME?

Howard S. Katz wrote this blog here.
8-18-08

In commenting upon the recent (July-August) decline in commodity prices, Bloomberg news service recently reported:

"Commodities, measured by the CRB, are down 20 percent….”

Bloomberg, 8-15-08

This would seem to be an unobjectionable statement, mathematical in its precision. There is, alas, one problem. What is the CRB?

The Commodity Research Bureau was an organization founded in the 1930s by a group of economic types to study the commodity markets. In the mid-1950s, they started to compile an index of the most prominent commodities to do for commodity traders what the Dow Jones Index had done for stock traders. This index was called the Commodity Research Bureau (CRB) Index, and for half a century it served its function well. It told commodity traders what commodities as a whole were doing.

But in 2004, with the founding generation gone, the CRB, now a successful and established organization, had passed into the hands of a new generation. A generation educated in the new way of gathering knowledge. The new generation sought knowledge by hiring a group of authority figures with long and impressive titles to rework the CRB.

I will save you a lot of complicated mathematics and say that the new index they came up with was half crude oil. Each commodity was given a special weighting, and when all the calculations were in, crude oil and its associated commodities (heating oil, unleaded gasoline and natural gas) had a weighting of close to 50%. Since there was a high probability that the other commodities in the index would cancel each other out, the new index pretty much moved up and down with crude oil. The authority figures with their impressive titles had taken away the CRB index and in its place put in its place one commodity. It would have been like taking away the Dow Jones Index and substituting a new index based on GM. GM may be an important stock, but it isn’t a proxy for the market.

Fortunately, the new Commodity Research Bureau knew that they could not just throw out the old CRB Index. That would risk another group picking it up and taking their business away from them. So they kept the CRB Index and changed its name to the Continuous Commodity Index. The new index they called the Reuters/Jeffries CRB Index (hoping that it would be abbreviated to CRB Index and thus confused with the old index).

Of course, if one wants an objective record of what commodities have been doing for the past half century, then one needs to track the same index over that period. It would not be valid to track the DJI from 1956 to 2004 and then switch to GM all the while calling the whole thing the DJI.

In short, the new Reuters/Jeffries CRB is a worthless piece of garbage, and any commodities trader with half a brain will give it no further thought. It was to head off this kind of thinking that the modern CRB gave the new index the name of the old one and changed the old one’s name.

Now perhaps you might say, “Well, these people originated the index. They named it in the first place. They have the right to change the name to anything they want.” The problem, however, is that a name stands for an object. If a young couple has a child, they have the right to call him “Bill.” But if they have a second child 20 years later, they do not have the right to call this second child Bill and rename the first. The character of the first child has become associated with the name “Bill.” People who know him will become confused, and his reputation may (undeservedly) suffer. This is the kind of confusion inherent in the idea that definitions are arbitrary.

Let me take another example. Ever since there has been a science of economics, economists have known what money is. Money was the economic good with which you could buy things. For example, if you want to buy a car and go to the dealer, the dealer will only accept one thing in exchange. If you bring a famous painting to exchange for the car, you will be refused. They will tell you, “Sell the painting for money, and come back and give us money for the car.”

But in the 1980s, Milton Friedman announced a new “money” (which he called M-2), which included short term loans (bank certificates of deposit). This has the same problem as the painting above. It cannot be used to buy things. If you take a bank CD to the car dealer, he will tell you politely to turn it in for money and come back. Soon M-2 had spawned a dozen brothers, up to M-13.

To come up with something like this takes a Nobel Prize winner. Oh, excuse me. I forgot that there is no such thing as the Nobel Prize in economics. It was not one of the 6 prizes described in Alfred Nobel’s will. Indeed, it came along more than 70 years later. Somebody just announced that they were giving a prize in honor of Alfred Nobel. By calling their prize by this name, they were trying to give it the distinction and honor which the prize had acquired over the years. The world press fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The creation of M-2 is a serious problem because in trying to predict a rise in prices, one must take account of any rise in the money supply. If two people cannot agree on what money is, then they cannot predict when prices will rise. Prices only rise as a result of an increase in the economic good which is used to buy things.

Another of my favorite examples is the concept of capitalism. This concept was first used by Karl Marx, and he never defined what capitalism was. For the next century, Marx’s followers would call anything they did not like “capitalism.” For example, Hitler called himself a socialist (as in National Socialist – NAZI), but his leftist enemies called him a capitalist. Adam Smith never used the word. Neither did the classical economists (including Herbert Spencer). I have learned from bitter experience that whenever I hear the word, I am sure to be served up a pastry of confused gobbledegook.

The advantage of simply making up one’s own definition is that you can prove pretty much anything you want. But this is a big disadvantage in the honest search for truth. If you want your ideas to correspond to reality, then you must have accurate definitions of the concepts you use. And since any society has intuitive definitions for all its concepts, intuitive definitions which capture our minds and in terms of which we think, your explicit definitions have to correspond to these intuitive definitions. Otherwise you will confuse the two. Pretty soon you have won the argument and lost the search for truth. (The intellectual world is full of people who “cleverly” start out with formal definitions they know will lead to the conclusion they wish to reach. But these definitions do not correspond to the concept. For example, some sound money types, with whom I am in basic sympathy, defined inflation as an increase in the money supply. They did this so that they could “prove” that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. They have been hammering away at this point for over half a century and have still not convinced any of their opponents. If they define inflation as a general rise in prices, they will have a bit more success.)

For example, I define a witch as a woman who has magical powers used for evil. I don’t believe that witches exist. But when I define the concept, I have to put into words the (intuitive) idea of the people in my culture even if they do believe in witches. If I don’t do that much, then I will never be able to convince them that witches don’t exist.

The problem is that modern intellectuals support the arbitrary nature of definitions. It creeps into our culture, and it makes (most) people stupid. For example, do you remember being told early in the year 2000 that the DJI was going to 35,000? It was in all the papers. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal cooperated in shoving that idea down our throat. Did you buy stocks just before the horrific bear market of 2000-2002? Well, you are allowed a few mistakes, but you are expected to learn from them.

When I first took philosophy courses at Harvard, I was told that all they could teach me was that they didn’t know anything. Hey, wait a minute. The reason I went there in the first place was that they told me they knew more than anyone else. If they couldn’t teach me anything, then what was I paying them money for? How about a class action suit to get my tuition money back?

One of the things I learned about Harvard was that of all the things I learned there, nothing worked. I couldn’t do anything with my “knowledge.” Fortunately, I studied on my own before going to college, and this gave me some ability to question my professors. After college, I continued to study on my own, and now I realize that they are nothing but a collection of frauds.

Unfortunately, this collection of frauds continues to corrupt our youth and dominate our society. They make everybody dumb. We are so dumb that we even buy Books for Dummies. In a previous generation, any book reader would have been offended by such a title, and a book with such a title would not have sold. Today’s book buyer meekly accepts it because he feels himself to be a dummy.

Unlike my college professors, readers of this blog are expected to admit and learn from their mistakes. If it doesn’t work, then it isn’t true.

If you do nothing more than read The Federalist Papers or some of the other works of the Founding Fathers, you realize that the intellectual level has collapsed over the past 2 centuries. We are now seeing the cultural and economic collapses which are the result of this. And if nothing is done to stop it, we will eventually follow the path of ancient Rome.

# # #

Howard S. Katz can be visited at http://www.thegoldbug.net.

Open Letter to Herbert M. Allison, Jr., Chairman of TIAA-CREF, Re Threat of Future Stagflation to Account Holders' Funds

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494
May 19, 2008

Herbert M. Allison, Jr.
TIAA-CREF
730 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3206

Dear Mr. Allison:

I hold a TIAA-CREF account through my employment at the City University of New York and have done so since 1991

TIAA-CREF should implement a commodity index fund and a foreign-currency denominated interest bearing fund. Doing so would fulfill your responsibility to be prudent to your account holders. I say this despite current short-term overheating in the commodities markets.

The 1970s were a period of significant challenge to TIAA-CREF because the stock market declined while inflation accelerated. This caused pensioners to receive reduced payments at the very time that inflation posed high costs. TIAA-CREF has a fiduciary duty to take action to anticipate the realistic risk that Federal Reserve Bank policy will again cause stagflation. Conversely, it is imprudent to pretend that stock and interest bearing investments provide all of the diversification that investors need when the Federal Reserve Bank has expanded the money supply by eight percent annually for the past two and one half decades.

To be prudent, you ought to diligently consider the risk of stagflation and take action. Both the stock market and interest bearing dollar denominated accounts are ultra-risky in a stagflationary period, yet those are the only alternatives TIAA-CREF currently has on offer. By failing to diversify into alternative currencies you are shooting craps with shareholders’ accounts. Inflation-indexed bonds are a crap shoot as well because interest rates may skyrocket at the very time that inflation goes up.

Sincerely,


Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

Cc: Chronicle of Higher Education

Global Food Crisis Caused By Federal Reserve Bank

In a recent American Thinker post (hat tip Larwyn), JR Dunn is right to be concerned about potential United Nations and governmental interference in the food market, but in his capable discussion of causes of today's food shortages Dunn omits the fundamental cause: economic distortion or malinvestment for more than a decade due to the Federal Reserve Bank's monetary expansion. Those of us who remember the 1970s recall that the Nixon administration's monetary expansion's resultant price inflation was blamed on OPEC and oil prices. Dunn commits a similar fallacy and blames current food shortages on a litany of proximate causes,such as ethanol, which while important are not fundamental. Dunn is right that ethanol is a mistake that causes food shortages, but it is not the only mistake. For the past fifteen years, from America to China, economic resources have been diverted away from commodity and food production toward real estate investment and construction. In China, farmers have been uprooted to build dams and cities. In America, farmers have sold land to real estate developers. This amounts to malinvestment of artificially created credit. Now there are food shortages. The beneficiaries of the monetary expansion primarily have not been oil producing governments but Wall Street, hedge fund managers, real estate developers and the commercial banking system. Those who pay are those who cannot afford food now, those in dire poverty. Warren Buffett, George Soros and the new residents of Greenwich, Connecticut have waxed rich at the expense of those starving to death now.

Food shortages occur only if demand exceeds supply and supply cannot adjust. Several things can increase demand. These include the factors that Dunn enumerates in his blog: ethanol and the like. But in a free economy supply will expand to meet the higher demand. Supply shocks can be handled over a few year period. If this does not happen it is because there are blockages. None of the factors that Dunn enumerates explain the failure of farmers to anticipate or respond to shortages. Yet most economic theory suggests that firms are rational enough to at least approximately do this. What would explain farmers' hyper-irrationality? Distortion or malinvestment.

Worse, Dunn's analysis overlooks increasing prices across a range of commodities, not just food and oil. Gold has more than tripled in price in the past four years. Copper and other construction materials, rubber for instance, have increased since the millenium. The factors that Dunn enumerates do not explain an across-the-board increase in commodity prices. Does ethanol explain a three-fold increase in the price of gold?

Moreover, Dunn's discussion of OPEC omits the force of mistrust. OPEC has found it difficult to act in unison because of what game theorists call the prisoner's dilemma: economic actors find it difficult to act in unison in their own self interest when any one member can make side deals to sabotage collusion. That is why OPEC failed in the 1970s. Today, a broader swath of nations produce oil, so trust will be considerably less than it was then. Higher prices would motivate players to go behind the backs of their collaborators.

Dunn is correct to argue that the relationship between politics and food should be severed. But he omits the fundamental cause of the global food shortage: malinvestment away from commodity production toward real estate and stock market investment. This follows directly from Alan Greenspan's and Ben Bernanke's monetary policy, which is necessarily the cause of all general inflation.

Fed and Financial Community Cause Global Food Shortage

Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard has posted a blog about a New York Sun article concerning food riots. The current global food shortages are a symptom of Alan Greenspan's and Ben Bernanke's excessive liquidity policies. As Howard S. Katz has pointed out in his blog, the banking system in the United States and globally has lent counterfeit Fed money (or excess liquidity) about which the financial community has been ecstatic for the past three decades (calling it stabilization of the credit markets, priming the pump, reducing unemployment, ending recession, stopping depression) to build homes that no one could pay for. At the same time, too little investment was made in commodities. Thus, the sub-prime crisis and the current global shortage of food are direct products of the banking system's lending practices and the Fed's expansion of the money supply since 1981. Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist, called this process malinvestment. For the past 25 years the Fed printed money and stimulated home building. Too many homes were built and sold to people who could not pay for them. Too little investment went into expansion of food and commodity production. The sub-prime crisis of today results from the mistakes that the banking community made in response to the hot Fed money that Greenspan and Bernanke have been creating under four presidents, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II.

The Bush administration's solution to the malinvestment of the past three decades has been...more malinvestment. The Bear Stearns bailout, the current loose monetary policies of the Bernanake Fed and further government transfers to banks to prevent defaults from incompetently made loans keep real estate prices high and continue the massive malinvestment that has occurred in the housing sector.

From an investment standpoint, it is clear that commodities will be hot for the next few years as rising interest rates freeze out new investment in commodities (see Howard S. Katz's blog for more on what he calls the "commodity pendulum"). From a moral standpoint, the American public should be ashamed of itself for allowing this orgy of self indulgence among the various players in the financial community; for allowing transfer of wealth from people who need to eat to wealthy stock investors and hedge fund managers; and for allowing the incompetence and mismanagement that the economics establishment and the Fed have demonstrated.

To quote Gaius:

"The New York Sun reports on a trend that is not at all pretty. In some areas of the country, rice, flour and cooking oil are in such short supply that retailers are limiting the amount people can purchase. This is happening right here in the United States.
The curbs and shortages are being tracked with concern by survivalists who view the phenomenon as a harbinger of more serious trouble to come. "