VIDEO - Fundamental & Technical Analysis of the S&P 500's Daily & Weekly Charts:

http://www.viddler.com/explore/zigzagman/videos/23/

Technical Analysis of the S&P 500's daily and weekly charts, plus a look at the important Economic and Earnings Reports due out next week...

This video is viewed best in Full-Screen Mode...Click the four arrows in the bottom right corner...Press the Escape key on your keyboard to exit back to Normal Mode...

Happy Trading this week...
zigzagman

Slouching Toward Despotism:

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/05/guest-post-slouching-towards-despotism.html

by Keith Hazelton May 27, 2010

Benjamin Franklin, when asked at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 what that assembly had created, purportedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it,” which seems likely given his remarks to Convention members on that September day immediately prior to their vote on the proposed Constitution in its original form.

Often, but on far more occasions in the last three years, we are reminded of a portion of those remarks. Dr. Franklin, given his age (81) and health, asked to have his commentary read to delegates preceding what he hoped would be a unanimous vote in favor of a nonetheless flawed agreement.

“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, (but) can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

And the question we keep pondering is, “Are we there yet?” Are we merely slouching toward despotism, or have we arrived? Are we already so corrupt so as to need despotic government, what with Vampire Squids and corporate/union-bought elections and Congressional bystanders and regulatory capture and Systemically Important Too Big To Fail and Gulf of Mexico oil well disasters?

(Despotism, by the way, describes a form of government by which a single entity rules with absolute and unlimited power, and may be expressed by an individual as an autocracy or through a group as an oligarchy according to Wikipedia, the world's leading source of made-up information, which is good enough for us.)

In previous posts we have observed the growing and discernible disconnect between several types of government-reported economic data such as Retail Sales and actual state sales tax collections, and the Employment Situation and withholding tax collections. Others also have made solid cases for these disconnects between statistical theory and economic reality and it occurs to me that, far from being isolated or random events, they are evidence of much more disconcerting forces at work.

Fudging on unemployment numbers or "rounding up" retail sales reports may seem like minor infractions, and many of these government data reports have been manipulated for years, maybe half a century, but they represent a pattern of conscious, calculated design of "don't worry, be happy, the government's in charge, nothing to see here, so move along."

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), for example, estimates who is working and who is not, but conveniently excludes millions of people from its composition of the unemployment rate who are not working but neither deeming them “unemployed” because they are “marginally attached” to the workforce or are “discouraged” by a lack of job prospects and no longer are looking for employment (2.3 million as of March 2010 plus another 3.4 million “persons who currently want a job,” who also aren’t counted as unemployed).

Side note: You are well aware, of course, the Social Security Administration probably could tell us monthly almost exactly how many people really are working, not working, working part time, self-employed, and so on based on its receipts of tax withholdings from employers. It is beyond the pale to imagine SSA could not furnish a version of the monthly Employment Situation that would be far more reliable by orders of magnitude than the guesses of the BLS.

As to why government statistical agencies may be reporting "happy" numbers, well, you know the answer to that...government statistics are lying's fifth circle of hell, just a shade better than Campaign Promises.

How about the major changes to the Producer Price Index and the Consumer Price Index which were made in the 1980s and 1990s to greatly reduce reported inflation numbers as a means of containing the cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security recipients, as John Williams at ShadowStats extensively has reported for years?

Or the March 2010 Monthly Treasury Statement, which understated the true government deficit last month by including a $117 billion collection described as “proprietary receipts from the public” by the Treasury, likely TARP repayments but not defined as such. Or the December 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement in which $45 billion extracted from the nation’s banks as a 13-quarter advance FDIC premium also was shown as a “negative outlay” which creates a significant understatement of the true FY2010 deficit picture (so far, $162 billion this fiscal year, which will understate our true deficit by about 10 percent).

Or the “New” General Motors wasting millions of (tax) dollars for print and television ads to promote a fictitious narrative that it has “repaid” government loans of $8.1 billion (to the U.S and Canada) “plus interest” five years early when in fact SIGTARP, the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Plan Neil Barofsky, told Congress and Fox News that GM did no such thing, that the loan “repayment” did not come the old fashioned way from sales and earnings but from a "cash advance" on another TARP facility which both governments will count as additions to their already significant equity positions. Nothing in those ads mentions the many tens of billions of taxpayer dollars borrowed from China which flowed into General Motors and Chrysler pre-bankruptcy which never will be repaid.

And now the New GM wants to create another automobile financing company, or buy back its former GMAC/Ally unit which itself has received nearly $20 billion of government Too Big To Fail largesse, so it may become even more profitable by returning to sub-prime auto and everything-else lending and have a happy IPO later this year, because as everyone knows, including the New GM's management, there's precious little profit in building cars no one wants and few can afford. "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly," (Proverbs 26:11) as Jesse's Cafe Americain recently observed.

How about the seeming inability to legislate any significant financial reform in the wake of the worst economic crisis in 80 years, a crisis which, mind you, needed fewer than eight years to erupt once the last shred of restraint – Glass-Steagall – was forcibly removed at the end of 1999 by those who, coincidentally (paging Messrs. Rubin and Summers), have profited so handsomely from its demise.

The Banking Act of 1933 – Glass-Steagall – was a wonder of simplicity in a simpler era. It set forth in a mere 37 pages of text the safeguards necessary to separate commercial banking from everything else and to ably prevent for 66 years – two full generations – any meaningful implosion of the nation’s financial system. Any search for cause and effect of The Great Recession must begin here. The useless financial reform act – the Dodd act – weighs in at a lobbyist-induced 1,500+ pages, and will do nothing to prevent another financial crisis, nothing to dismantle Too Big Too Fail, nothing to contain derivatives, nothing to audit the Federal Reserve and nothing to curtail abuses in consumer financial practices.

Yet where are the criminal investigations? Where is the FBI? Where are the Congressional inquiries and panels and special prosecutors? Where are the indictments? Where are the perp walks and the jail sentences? Where is the justice, Mr. Holder and your 50 friends among the states? Aside from two former Bears Stearns hedge fund managers in 2007, and a pretend hedge fund manager - Mr. Madoff - in 2009, a weak SEC civil show-case against Goldman Sachs in 2010 and the mostly voluntary, golden-parachute-enabled "retirements" of a handful of TBTF C-level executives, a number of which, John-Thain-like, merely have revolved around the door a couple of times and landed at another lucrative looting opportunity, nothing has happened. Nothing, nada, zero, zip, dick. Nothing. It's breathtaking in its design and execution.

We now are reliably told the TARP program will cost less than $100 billion when all is said and done. Huh? What about the $2 trillion-plus of added government debt which itself adds tens of billions to the annual interest servicing burden, or the $1.5 trillion-plus willed into existence by the Federal Reserve? Who are they kidding?

Or a Health Care Act which, in 2,500 pages manages to spend about another trillion dollars or so and leaves no health insurance company behind, effectively criminalizing, albeit with monetary penalties far less than the cost of individually paid health insurance plans, anyone not otherwise exempted who fails to purchase health care coverage.

It seems to us, after thinking about this topic for some time now, that we have arrived. We have arrived at that point in our civilization in which our government deems it acceptable to obfuscate about things both small and large on the basis that, Jack-Nicholson/Colonel-Jessup-like, we (the rest of us who aren’t lodged in the political/oligarchical castes) “can’t handle the truth.”

And most of the time it would appear they are right, that we – the rest of us – can’t be bothered with such discrepancies and inconsistencies, falsehoods and half-truths. We're too busy trying to keep the house, make the mortgage and auto loan and credit card and student loan payments. We're too focused on our own financial survival to be concerned with what goes on at a national leadership and direction level. And doesn't it just seem a little too convenient for those who wish to plunder the wealth of the nation to keep the other 90 percent of us so strapped with indebtedness and an outdated personal moral conviction that debts should be repaid regardless of their potential to physically and mentally harm one's well being or, heaven forbid, harm one's all-important credit score, when walking away from debt has been an accepted business practice for centuries?

It only seems to matter on those rare occasions when things blow up, and the average, non-voting, non-taxpaying citizen awakens from his or her media-induced stupor to ponder that when the curtain is drawn away, it reveals only humans and not wizards, or that the outgoing tide reveals who has been swimming naked or when the emperor is shown to be undressed. But interest in such matters wanes quickly, and the thirst for change recedes silently into renewed acceptance of the status quo, as we now discover.

Soon, no doubt, when markets resume their upward trajectory and the Dow returns to and surpasses 14,250 (probably by this summer) and oh-don't-worry-about-those-6.5-million-log-term-unemployed-because-they're-just-lazy, much of this unpleasantness of the last three years will be forgotten by those more interested in only good news and Dancing With the Stars and American Idol, and the continued warnings of the Cassandras will be deemed evidence that these are, once again, merely the musings of disaffected social misfits or bad-news-opportunists who deep down must hate America (right up until the point at which the next crisis erupts, and erupt it will).

In fact, our short attention spans are relied upon by the political class of both parties and by the oligarchical class which controls it, as magnificent wealth transfer schemes blossom anew (talk about green shoots...) and the all-so-brief period which has elapsed between the “days away from financial Armageddon” of September 2008 and the "all clear, business as usual" of May 2010 insures, like the watered-down, useless "financial reform" legislation written by financial industry lobbyists which certainly will pass soon, that the laudable goal of making safe our financial system and returning it to the status of handmaiden to legitimate capital-producing and jobs-creating enterprise, will be discarded in exchange for the pretense of life as we knew it, circa 2006.

Only this time, effectively having destroyed the middle class of Boomers, Gen X-ers, Gen Y-ers, Millennials and Echo Boomers, and having bought the complicit silence of the of a near-majority (47% of Americans paid no income tax whatsoever in 2008) in exchange for bread and circuses, and having largely destroyed the previous primary mechanism by which wealth has been stolen and transferred (credit creation and personal indebtedness), the masters of the universe will have to find a new scam, which, at this writing, appears to be sovereign government debt, currencies and commodities, because turning back the calendar to 2006 alone will never recreate the consumer spending/debt orgy of 1982-2006.

In fact we think the oligarchs realize this, and they are redoubling their efforts to pillage as much as possible before the real collapse occurs, even as its seeds already have been sown in this crisis which now appears, by design and deception, to be ending. That collapse draws nigh, and Roubini and Taleb and Ritholtz and Panzer and Jesse and Tyler and Mish and Yves and Charles Hugh Smith and Joe Bageant and many, many others already see it, yet all are being dismissed - again - as those nattering nabobs of negativism who, broken-clock-being-right-twice-a-day-like, were merely “lucky” in guessing about the immediate past crisis as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested in a recent television interview.

Tell us Greece is not the "sub-prime" of early 2007; that the US$150 billion "cure" to be soon applied by the EU and IMF is only can-kicking but will allow one and all to congratulate themselves on "containing" an isolated problem and to quickly return to the never-ending cocktail party, that is until the next Greece Fire which spreads to one after another country, including, ultimately, the possibility of the conflagration reaching bond markets in the U.S.

Or that a mere US$1 trillion of bailout/rescue/currency support recently proposed by the Eurozone and the IMF to "shock and awe" financial markets dominated by the recently rescued TBTFs who busily apace bet against the very governments which saved them (except now in Germany), is not merely another stealth rescue of these giant financial institutions which, having been caught with a bit too much Club Med sovereign debt on their books while their own prop traders work hard to destroy its value, now cry out - again - that the risk of their insolvency - again - threatens the global financial and economic systems.

Or that the battling machines of high-frequency trading, which briefly wiped out and then restored a trillion dollars worth of fictitious (paper) wealth in fewer than 15 minutes mid-afternoon May 6th in a dry-run rehearsal of things to come, won't now become even more emboldened and empowered to manipulate financial markets in any manner necessary to insure continued quarters of perfectly profitable trading days.

(May 6th should have been a non-event. We were expressly warned by the Manhattan Assistant US Attorney in a July 2009 court filing, in which it was alleged that a former Goldman Sachs quant trading programmer stole Goldman's "secret proprietary trading code," that "there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways." Well, duh. Doesn't it just seem like someone took this code, or a similar one, out for a test drive earlier this month?)

Soon, perhaps if not already, the wealth transfer will be complete, and a newly impoverished, former middle class will wake up from their recliners to find not only is Dancing With the Stars over, but also is their former debt-fueled way of life as the economy staggers, unemployment escalates, more good jobs are exported and living standards rapidly erode. (Irony alert: Their former U.S. employers, who effectively have downsized and off-shored their way to record profits, will find they have destroyed their own customer base - the former middle class - who no longer can afford their products.)

When 40 million people are receiving food stamps at one end of the economic spectrum (and probably another 20 million eligible according to the Department of Agriculture), and the bulk of financial and real assets have been concentrated into the top 10 percent of the other end of the economic spectrum, nothing good can come of it. So the well-off cohort will remain well-off and will conspire to direct through their agents in government only enough resources to buy the complicity and silence of the bottom 40 percent, like tax breaks, food stamps, health care subsidies and so on, and the soon-to-be-former middle class will be ground into yet lower levels of the economic ladder, such, that when the looting has concluded, we will see a top 10 percent and a bottom 90 percent, much as feudalistic Europe in the centuries of the Dark Ages.

(We strongly recommend two books on the subject, both of which in far more detail and eloquence lay out the symptoms, causes and effects of our slouch toward despotism: Survival +, by Charles Hugh Smith at Of Two Minds, and Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches From America's Class War, by Joe Bageant at Joe Bageant (and whose recent post about the American Hologram Lost on the Fearless Plain also is required reading).

“All lies and jest… Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest,” so said Paul Simon, which rings so true more than four decades later. We hear what we want to hear, and, apparently, what we want to hear is that all is back to normal, that all is good, that the wizards have everything under control, and that nothing bad can ever happen again.

So, are we there yet? Have we not already abdicated our responsibilities as citizens and tacitly embraced the despotism of which Franklin predicted 222 years ago, having become so corrupted (contaminated) as to require the despotic government of an oligarchy dedicated to insuring the truth never gets in the way of a good narrative, an enormous disparate accumulation of wealth and a firm grip on the levers of power to ensure the preservation of that wealth?

A few Tea Party primary victories and incumbent "mandatory retirements" aside, nothing will change in Washington as long as the strings of campaign cash and lobbyist perks are being pulled elsewhere. The "outs" who soon will replace some of the "ins" promptly will forget about their mandates from the voters the day they move into their new D.C. offices and townhomes and realize from moment one their only responsibility is to their own rational self-interest of being re-elected in 2012 and 2014 and 2016. Et tu, Barack?

And if Benjamin Franklin is not prescient enough for you, how about the Teacher, in Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, v.13-18, from about 2,300 years ago:

What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

Indeed, with wisdom comes sorrow, and from more knowledge, more grief. Would, sometimes, that we could empty so much of it from the mush of our remaining gray matter and then we wouldn't have to pretend it's all good, when, in fact, it’s anything but good, as soon, perhaps in a matter of a few short years, we shall see.

We first wrote the following paragraphs in June 2006, long before sub-prime lending, a bursted housing bubble, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, CitiGroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, GM, Chrysler, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and The Great Recession began to dominate our lives, when Franklin’s predictions and our inexorable slouch toward despotism first appeared on our radar screen:
The transition from unitary executive to dictator – conservative, benevolent or otherwise – will not happen in the waning months of the current administration, so uniquely manifested by America's First Triumvirate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and, until recently, Karl Rove, but succeeding chief executives may choose overtly to expand further the envelope-pushing and Constitution-trampling of the 43rd President and his neo-conservative command-and-control cabal as the American oligarchy, and the nation, slouches slowly toward despotism.

As such, we will one day awake from our debt-financed, pleasure-induced stupors to find one person or group firmly in charge, answering to no one, especially not Congress, and in complete grasp of the military, the intelligence agencies, the treasury, the Federal Reserve and the financial and judicial systems. It will happen – it is happening – an inch at a time, until the day comes when not only will we, the fun-loving, celebrity-worshipping, civic-duty-abhoring citizens of America, so embrace the notion of despotism, we will think it entirely our own idea.

Are we there yet?...

(Keith Hazelton is an Adjunct Professor of Finance at Oklahoma City University's Meinders School of Business and an Economic Adviser to the Oklahoma Bankers Association. His opinions are his own.)

25 Questions To Ask Anyone Who Is Delusional Enough To Believe That This Economic Recovery Is Real:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=8878

If you listen to the mainstream media long enough, you just might be tempted to believe that the United States has emerged from the recession and is now in the middle of a full-fledged economic recovery.

In fact, according to Obama administration officials, the great American economic machine has roared back to life, stronger and more vibrant than ever before. But is that really the case? Of course not. You would have to be delusional to believe that. What did happen was that all of the stimulus packages and government spending and new debt that Obama and the U.S. Congress pumped into the economy bought us a little bit of time. But they have also made our long-term economic problems far worse. The reality is that the U.S. cannot keep supporting an economy on an ocean of red ink forever. At some point the charade is going to come crashing down.

And GDP is not a really good measure of the economic health of a nation. For example, if you would have looked at the growth of GDP in the Weimar republic in the early 1930s, you may have been tempted to think that the German economy was really thriving. German citizens were spending increasingly massive amounts of money. But of course that money was becoming increasingly worthless at the same time as hyperinflation spiralled out of control.

Well, today the purchasing power of our dollar is rapidly eroding as the price of food and other necessities continues to increase. So just because Americans are spending a little bit more money than before really doesn't mean much of anything. As you will see below, there are a whole bunch of other signs that the U.S. economy is in very, very serious trouble.

Any "recovery" that the U.S. economy is experiencing is illusory and will be quite temporary. The entire financial system of the United States is falling apart, and the powers that be can try to patch it up and prop it up for a while, but in the end this thing is going to come crashing down.

But as obvious as that may seem to most of us, there are still quite a few people out there that are absolutely convinced that the U.S. economy will fully recover and will soon be stronger than ever.

So the following are 25 questions to ask anyone who is delusional enough to believe that this economic recovery is real....

#1) In what universe is an economy with 39.68 million Americans on food stamps considered to be a healthy, recovering economy? In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts that enrollment in the food stamp program will exceed 43 million Americans in 2011. Is a rapidly increasing number of Americans on food stamps a good sign or a bad sign for the economy?

#2) According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005. So can you please explain again how the U.S. real estate market is getting better?

#3) The Mortgage Bankers Association just announced that more than 10 percent of U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment in the January-March period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago. Do you think that is an indication that the U.S. housing market is recovering?

#4) How can the U.S. real estate market be considered healthy when, for the first time in modern history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together?

#5) With the U.S. Congress planning to quadruple oil taxes, what do you think that is going to do to the price of gasoline in the United States and how do you think that will affect the U.S. economy?

#6) Do you think that it is a good sign that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of the state of California, says that "terrible cuts" are urgently needed in order to avoid a complete financial disaster in his state?

#7) But it just isn't California that is in trouble. Dozens of U.S. states are in such bad financial shape that they are getting ready for their biggest budget cuts in decades. What do you think all of those budget cuts will do to the economy?

#8) In March, the U.S. trade deficit widened to its highest level since December 2008. Month after month after month we buy much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. Wealth is draining out of the United States at an unprecedented rate. So is the fact that the gigantic U.S. trade deficit is actually getting bigger a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#9) Considering the fact that the U.S. government is projected to have a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in 2010, and considering the fact that if you went out and spent one dollar every single second it would take you more than 31,000 years to spend a trillion dollars, how can anyone in their right mind claim that the U.S. economy is getting healthier when we are getting into so much debt?

#10) The U.S. Treasury Department recently announced that the U.S. government suffered a wider-than-expected budget deficit of 82.69 billion dollars in April. So is the fact that the red ink of the U.S. government is actually worse than projected a good sign or a bad sign?

#11) According to one new report, the U.S. national debt will reach 100 percent of GDP by the year 2015. So is that a sign of economic recovery or of economic disaster?

#12) Monstrous amounts of oil continue to gush freely into the Gulf of Mexico, and analysts are already projecting that the seafood and tourism industries along the Gulf coast will be devastated for decades by this unprecedented environmental disaster. In light of those facts, how in the world can anyone project that the U.S. economy will soon be stronger than ever?

#13) The FDIC's list of problem banks recently hit a 17-year high. Do you think that an increasing number of small banks failing is a good sign or a bad sign for the U.S. economy?

#14) The FDIC is backing 8,000 banks that have a total of $13 trillion in assets with a deposit insurance fund that is basically flat broke. So what do you think will happen if a significant number of small banks do start failing?

#15) Existing home sales in the United States jumped 7.6 percent in April. That is the good news. The bad news is that this increase only happened because the deadline to take advantage of the temporary home buyer tax credit (government bribe) was looming. So now that there is no more tax credit for home buyers, what will that do to home sales?

#16) Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recently told the U.S. government that they are going to need even more bailout money. So what does it say about the U.S. economy when the two "pillars" of the U.S. mortgage industry are government-backed financial black holes that the U.S. government has to relentlessly pour money into?

#17) 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. Tens of millions of Americans find themselves just one lawsuit, one really bad traffic accident or one very serious illness away from financial ruin. With so many Americans living on the edge, how can you say that the economy is healthy?

#18) The mayor of Detroit says that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere around 50 percent. So can the U.S. really be experiencing an economic recovery when so many are still unemployed in one of America's biggest cities?

#19) Gallup's measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year. Do you think that is a good trend or a bad trend?

#20) One new poll shows that 76 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy is still in a recession. So are the vast majority of Americans just stupid or could we still actually be in a recession?

#21) The bottom 40 percent of those living in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. So is Barack Obama's mantra that "what is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street" actually true?

#22) Richard Russell, the famous author of the Dow Theory Letters, says that Americans should sell anything they can sell in order to get liquid because of the economic trouble that is coming. Do you think that Richard Russell is delusional or could he possibly have a point?

#23) Defaults on apartment building mortgages held by U.S. banks climbed to a record 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. In fact, that was almost twice the level of a year earlier. Does that look like a good trend to you?

#24) In March, the price of fresh and dried vegetables in the United States soared 49.3% - the most in 16 years. Is it a sign of a healthy economy when food prices are increasing so dramatically?

#25) 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008. Not only that, more Americans filed for bankruptcy in March 2010 than during any month since U.S. bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005. So shouldn't we at least wait until the number of Americans filing for bankruptcy is not setting new all-time records before we even dare whisper the words "economic recovery"?

"Warning: Crash Dead Ahead. Sell. Get Liquid. Now"...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/crash-is-dead-ahead-sell-get-liquid-now-2010-05-25

MarketWatch: by Paul B. Farrell May 25, 2010

ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "This game's in the refrigerator! The door's closed, the lights are out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the Jell-O is jiggling ..."

That was legendary Lakers' radio announcer Chick Hearn's signature way of calling a game early, telling fans the home team won ... you can head for the exits before the final buzzer. Chick wrote the book with popular sports phrases like "slam dunk," "air ball," "charity stripe," and a "bunny hop in the pea patch" for a traveling violation.

Niall Ferguson: Investing amid uncertaintyEconomic historian and author of The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Niall Ferguson gives his predictions on gold prices, emerging markets and the Swiss franc. Ferguson also tells Dow Jones Veronica Dagher where he's investing his money amid the uncertainty.

Chick's our inspiration today: Last March I wrote "6 reasons I'm calling a bottom and a new bull." Today it's time for a new call. We've had a good year. Net gains over 50% in 2009. But now: "Game over, head for the exits." Bears beating bulls.

No, no, "it's a buying opportunity," says another legend, hedge fund manager, Barton Biggs. Buying opportunity? For who? Remember, Biggs isn't advising Joe Lunchbox about what to do with his little 401(k). Biggs' customers are mega-millionaires in his $1.5 billion Traxis Partners Fund. Main Street investors like Joe are prey in his casino.

Read on, you decide: As you stare from high up in the nose-bleed bleachers watching the game, staring at a Dow that not long ago was above 11,000 and heading for 12,000. Now the Dow's sitting on the bench, ready for the showers, weak after a couple air balls around 10,000. No more timeouts. "This game's in the refrigerator."

How bad is your bookie's point spread in this game? A blowout? Will the Dow drop below 9,000 again? Now that it's broken technical supports, will it drop below 6,470, where the last bull rally started in early 2009? Can you handle the nerve-racking volatility generated by Wall Street's high-frequency traders playing the game at warp-speed with algorithms making thousands of micro-bets in milliseconds, betting billions daily?

So who should you listen to? Barton and I arrived at Morgan Stanley about the same time. He stayed decades longer, became one of the world's leading strategists, advising the kind of high-rollers who also bet at private tables in a Vegas casino.

You remember Biggs: In his book "Wealth, War & Wisdom" he advises his high rollers to prepare for a "breakdown of the civilized infrastructure." Buy a farm: "Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food ... It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson." Biggs is not advising small investors on what to do with their 401(k)s.

If you're gambling at Wall Street's casino, folks, the odds-makers are betting against Biggs. It's "game over."

Main Street lost 20% last decade ... yet like sheep keep going back.

Yes, if you're channeling Chick, here's your "mixed metaphor" cue card: "This game's in the refrigerator ... Wall Street won (proof, Goldman's $100-million-profit trading days and Blankfein's $68 million bonus) ... Main Street's headed for another losing streak ... Congress' lights are out ... the refrigerator door's closing on financial reforms ... the lobbyists are laying some rotten eggs, poisoning capitalism ... the Tea Party-of-No-No ideologies are hardening ... the bull's Jell-O is jiggling to a flat line ... and this market's going into hibernation, with the bears ... run, don't walk, to the exits, folks."

But will Main Street exit? Will we ever learn? No. The Wall Street casino makes mega-billions for insiders like Blankfein and the Goldman Conspiracy. Yet "The Casino" is still below the 2000 record of 11,722. So after accounting for inflation, Wall Street lost over 20% of Main Street's 401(k) retirement money between 2000 and 2010. Yes, Wall Street's a big loser the past decade. Their advice is self-serving. Period.

Given their miserable track record, only a fool would bet with Wall Street. Betting odds are Wall Street will lose another 20% in the next decade from 2010-2020. Yes, today's market is a "buying opportunity," but only for Wall Street casino insiders like Biggs, Blankfein and even low-level staffers inside "The Casino." But not for our 95 million Main Street investors, there's more pain ahead, this market's dropping.

Correction? New crash imminent, worse than 2008
More proof: Earlier economist Gary Shilling said price-to-earnings ratios are at a "nosebleed 22.5 level." The Dow was around 11,000. Money manager Jeremy Grantham recently said the market's overvalued 40%. That could mean a collapse to 6,600. Last week in Reuters' "Markets Could Be Derailed Again," George Soros echoed a "game over" warning with a "stark warning ... that the financial world is on the wrong track and that we may be hurtling towards an even bigger boom and bust than in the credit crisis."

Now Dow Theory's Richard Russell is warning the public of an imminent crash:

"Sell ... get liquid ... by the end of this year they won't recognize the country."

A bigger meltdown than the credit crisis? Yes, Bush's team drove America into a ditch. But now Obama and his money men, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, are digging the hole deeper. Soros says we have not learned "the lessons that markets are inherently unstable." As a result, "the success in bailing out the system on the previous occasion led to a super-bubble." Now "we are facing a yet larger bubble." Worse than 2008?

Yes, the game may be "in the refrigerator," the lights will go out, but as Soros hints, the electricity may get turned off too. Get it? This may not be a correction. Not even a bear. What's coming could be worse than the 2000 dot-com crash and the 2008 meltdown combined, a "Super-Bubble" says Soros. And the biggest reason, Nouriel Roubini and Stephen Mihm tell Newsweek, is that "the president's half-measures won't fix our failed financial system" because he refuses to "bust up the too-big-to-fail banks."

Yes, Congress will pass something. But unfortunately, as reported on MSNBC, Senator Dodd, the reform bill's sponsor, is a turncoat, working overtime with Wall Street lobbyists "to weaken financial reform," leave us vulnerable to a new, bigger crash in the near future. And Wall Street lobbyists are spending hundreds of millions to kill reform.

'White Swans:' 2000 and 2008 crashes were predictable, next one too.

Recently Roubini was interviewed by Charlie Rose in BusinessWeek. His message confirms the worst. Roubini was questioned about his new book, "Crisis Economics." Rose began by asking, "what have we learned from these crises of capitalism?" Roubini could easily have said, "nothing, we learned nothing." His actual reply:

"The first lesson is that crises are not 'black swan' events ... they're not just random outcomes. They are the result of a buildup of financial and policy vulnerability and mistakes -- excessive risk-taking, leverage, debt, and so on." They are 'White Swans' "because these events are predictable. But generation after generation, we seem to forget the past. When there's a bubble, there's euphoria. There's irrational exuberance. Consumers can use their homes like ATM machines. Governments and policy makers are happy because they get reelected. Wall Street makes billions of dollars of profits. Everybody's delusional."

Sound familiar? Yes indeed, in "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly," economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff pinpoint the key signal that will blow the whistle and call the game: The "90% ratio of government debt to GDP is a tipping point in economic growth." For 800 years "you increase it over and beyond a high threshold, and boom!"

Warning, fans, the numbers on the game-clock are flashing wildly. America's ratio is now 92%, thanks to Obama's $1.7 trillion budget, future deficits, exploding debt. Soon, Ka-Booom! Another great nation bites the dust. Depression follows. Goodbye retirement.

Warning: 800 years of history are calling 'game over'
But can't we change destiny? Or are Dodd, Congress, Obama, Wall Street, the Party of No-No and 300 million Americans all just playing their parts in a historical script well-known to historians like Reinhart and Rogoff, Kevin Phillips, Niall Ferguson and others? The message of "This Time Is Different" is very simple:

"We have been here before. No matter how different the latest financial frenzy or crisis always appears, there are usually remarkable similarities from past experience from other countries and from history. ... no country, irrespective of its global importance, appears to be immune to it. The fading memories of borrowers and lenders, policy makers and academics, and the public at large do not seem to improve over time, so the policy lessons on how to 'avoid' the next blow-up are at best limited."

So please listen closely: All the TARP bailouts, stimulus debt and Fed loans won't work. Neither will a new conservative government. This is not a basketball game. We are not channeling Chick Hearn, calling this game before the final buzzer. While we prefer the illusion that "this time really is different," eight centuries of history suggest otherwise:

"The lesson of history, then, is that even as institutions and policy makers improve there will always be a temptation to stretch the limits. ... If there is one common theme to the vast range of crises ... it is that excessive debt accumulation, whether it be by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom. ... Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang -- confidence collapses, lenders disappear and a crisis hits. ... Highly leveraged economies ... seldom survive forever ... history does point to warnings signs that policy makers can look to access risk -- if only they do not become too drunk with their credit bubble-fueled success and say, as their predecessors have for centuries, 'This time is different'."

No, "this time" it's never different. Get it? In the end, it doesn't matter what happens to the Dodd-Obama financial reforms. The endgame's never a Black Swan, it's a very White Swan well known to historians -- guaranteed, inevitable and inescapable. This time is never different.

The clock's flashing. Huge point spread. Think bear, think crash, think end of capitalism, think Great Depression II ...

This is no buying opportunity, this game's in the refrigerator, call it...

US Employment May Be Hammered By Euro Plunge:

By Daniel R. Amerman, CFA May 24, 2010

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1274726687.php

Overview

Still deep in recession / depression, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the US economy will be dealt a sledgehammer blow over the coming months. The full price for the European crisis might be paid in American jobs, with four categories of job losses imperiling the US economy and threatening the standards of living for millions of people. If you are employed in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia (among other nations), don’t pity the continental Europeans, because it may be a European that ends up taking your job.

The next stage of the sovereign debt crisis has arrived, and we are seeing how the differential recognition of national problems can rapidly redistribute the real wealth of nations as well as individuals. In this article we’ll discuss how some Europeans will be forced (kicking and screaming) into a state of “Accidental Virtue”, and how this may protect them from the worst of the damage that will occur in nations with stronger currencies.

Sharp Currency Changes & Market Share

Not everyone in Europe is upset about the fall of the euro. As Daimler Chief Executive Officer Dieter Zetsche stated in a Bloomberg interview, “Because of massive growth in markets like the US and China... The fall of the euro is a benefit."

According to Airbus Chief Operating Officer John Leahy, each ten cent drop in the euro adds 1 billion euros to operating profits at Airbus.

The relationship that turns a plunge in the euro from disaster into an occasion to pop the champagne, comes down to each company's cost and revenue structure. If most of your costs are in euros that are falling in value, but a big chunk of your revenues are in dollars that are rising in value, then a rapidly falling euro will redistribute wealth to you on a pleasantly rapid basis.

There is a particular benefit that goes to companies where a large portion of their expense structure is paying their employees. It just got significantly cheaper to pay European workers to make products relative to US workers – and the differential could grow with further euro troubles. This relationship of the competitive advantage dramatically shifting to Europe applies to all nations where the euro is suddenly much weaker compared to their own currency, including such countries as the UK, Canada and Australia.

While the financial media focuses on the effects on near-term corporate profits, let me suggest that the much more important fallout from a fundamental change in the valuation of the euro is market share, employment, and national economies. In the very short-term, yes, a plunging euro means companies that employ European workers are going to gain a powerful profit advantage. When we move to the medium and long term however, (assuming the euro stays down compared to the dollar), then the companies can gain something even more important from an economic perspective -- increased market share.

Companies that employ European workers, generally speaking, have just gained a 13% advantage over US companies this year. This means they can lower their prices by 13%, relative to companies employing American workers, and grab great big chunks of market share. Indeed, they can lower prices by 8% in dollar terms, and have the dual advantage of both grabbing a bigger share of the market, and having each dollar in that market of sales be more profitable than it was before the euro fell. (For ease of illustration, these examples assume 100% of costs are labor. If 50% of cost were labor, then the advantages would be 6.5% and 4%, roughly speaking.)

As the crisis in the euro continues to develop, some are calling for parity between the dollar and euro by next spring. (That and worse could happen a whole lot faster than that, of course.) This would be about a 30% plunge in the value of the euro compared to where it started in January. Thus, companies that employ European workers gain a extraordinary advantage over companies that employ US workers (and Canadian, Australian and UK workers, if their currencies move with the US dollar rather than the euro). An advantage that would of course lead to increased profits for those companies, but much more importantly, could lead to dramatic changes in market share – with sales rising fast at companies that employ European workers, while sales plummet at companies that employ US workers.

You may have wondered about my using the somewhat awkward phrasing of talking about companies that employ European workers, and companies that employ the American workers, rather than the shorthand of European companies and American companies. The distinction is far from minor, and understanding the difference is essential. Indeed, if you want to understand the makeup of the world economy over the next several years, if this situation persists with a very weak euro and strong dollar, it is this distinction between the location of companies versus the location of their workers that will be one of the most important influences on the national economies of both the United States and Europe.

A Powerful Blow To A Reeling Economy

A nation’s workforce taking on a 13% cost disadvantage would be painful for a healthy economy – but manageable. That’s the normal course with currencies over time, there are significant fluctuations. A potential 30% differential is a different story, however, and could fundamentally change economies and countries – but doesn’t by itself destroy a healthy economy. A more accurate assessment might be that a 30% differential could severely stress a healthy economy.

Unfortunately, the US economy is anything but healthy.

The US economy is currently in the worst shape that it has been since the 1930s. The economy has been shrinking for at least two years, and if we accept official government statistics and then adjust them for the different measurement methodology we use compared to the 1970s and before -- then some current estimates for the real rate of US unemployment range between 17% and 22%. For what holds it down to the official total of about 10% is simply that when people are unemployed for too long the government decides they are no longer part of the labor force. So technically, the “long-term discouraged” are no longer unemployed, they merely cease to exist for the statistics that are reported by the government to the media.

The economy is reeling, employment has not been growing, and unemployment claims were rising again even before the euro's plummet began. Yet, the so-called recovery remains a prediction of many economists and government officials, almost all of whom would've assured you two or three years ago that the current situation was impossible.

The US economy was already knocked down to the floor and in the worst shape in more than 70 years, even before it received the current kick to the stomach. Currencies are not weight-lifting competitions, being strongest is not necessarily the best, and ironically, a strong dollar can potentially pummel US employment in four distinct ways.

One. Companies that employ US workers just likely lost substantial international market share to companies that employ European workers, not only in Europe but around the rest of the globe. It may take six months or a year before the full damage occurs and makes it through official reporting channels, but the effects are already likely beginning to occur today in terms of contracts and purchases that are still being negotiated – or are being suddenly renegotiated. This substantial loss in market share of course translates to large numbers of US jobs being lost.

Two. Companies that employ US workers to make products for the domestic US market are likely to lose substantial market share to cheaper European imports over the coming year. With globalized trade, a major change in the competitiveness of your workforce necessarily can hit your domestic market every bit as hard as international markets. Again, this substantial loss in market share translates to large numbers of US jobs being lost.

Three. The strong dollar leading to decreased competitiveness for US workers (through no fault of their own) means that “job flight” is likely to return with a vengeance. Companies that employ American workers, whether they are US companies or foreign-owned companies, are not going to passively accept a major, perhaps even bankruptcy-inducing loss in market share. Naturally, they are going to aggressively do everything they can to try to protect their market share in markets around the world. That will likely mean a rapid shift in jobs inside of multinational corporations, as plants and offices employing US workers are closed down, with the jobs shifted to new or existing subsidiaries and suppliers abroad, particularly in Europe. If the euro plunges further versus the dollar, this migration of jobs within companies could happen fast and hard, dealing a third blow to American workers.

Four. All of this is taking place in the midst of a global financial and economic crisis that means economies outside of Asia are in many cases shrinking rather than growing. When the sales “pie” to be split is shrinking – so is employment. If American workers are being underbid by European workers for shares of a shrinking pie, this is a devastating one-two combination for total US employment. This also creates a feedback loop as falling US employment lowers US sales, which leads to further job losses. US workers then attempt to secure employment at lower wage levels, which would usually put a floor under the fall.

However, in this case, an artificially high dollar means that wages must fall further than would otherwise be needed, to overcome the cost advantage enjoyed by Europeans. This means that the jobs aren’t created, or that they are at such low wages that discretionary spending is near non-existent. Each of which then leads to lower sales, which lead to further job losses. Effectively, the currency driven decline in the price of employing Europeans at least partially jams the self-correcting mechanism within the US labor market that would usually kick in.

Thus we have a recipe for national economic disaster. Indeed, with a further plunge in the euro from today’s levels, there is potential for real US unemployment to reach levels last seen in the 1930s, unless aggressive action is taken by the US government to bring down the value of the dollar.

The Perils Of Differential Problem Recognition

What makes this situation quite ironic is that the reason the dollar has soared versus the euro is not because the US economy is fundamentally sounder, but rather that Europe has been forced to recognize its problems, while the US continues to refuse to deal with its own equally powerful economic problems. The dollar is soaring because Europe has a “sovereign debt” crisis (which is just the current catch phrase for saying governments have made more promises than they can pay for). But when it comes to unfunded government promises – the US has no equal, with approximately $100 trillion in unfunded obligations for Social security, Medicare and pensions.

So even while the dollar “wins” versus the euro in the headlines, what is going on is a fundamental weakening of the US economy, which brings forward the day when the US experiences problems that are every bit as severe as the problems in the eurozone.

Another way of looking at this is differential problem recognition. For a long time now – because these pressures have been building for a very long time – the US and Europe have both had fundamental economic and demographic problems coming at them like a freight train, which the markets have by and large ignored. Now the markets are recognizing the problems in Europe, while ignoring similar and equally massive problems in the United States. While the headlines may sound very negative for Europe – and Europe is indeed in crisis mode – it's worth noting that a couple of the side effects are that European investors can now command a higher return on their investments, all else being equal, because the prices of those investments have fallen even while European competitiveness has increased on a global basis. So lower prices for better economic performance relative to what would otherwise be the case with a higher value on the euro. Economic growth may still be negative, but less negative than would otherwise be the case.

On the other hand, the US dollar status as a reserve currency means that US investments become relatively more expensive for US and global investors to buy even as economic prospects for the US economy grow steadily worse. This translates to higher prices for lower fundamental economic strength. Which then operates to increase the differential between current prices and future value, and therefore increases the size and pain associated with the eventual convergence between market prices and economic fundamentals.

Crisis Economics & Accidental Virtue

Stefan Hofrichter, chief economist at Allianz Global Investors RCM unit, made a statement with wide-ranging implications when he said, “My concern is that the (falling euro) benefits will at most compensate for the headwind stemming from fiscal tightening, a more restrictive Chinese monetary policy and weakening growth momentum.”

His point, of course, is that a greater market share– in a market that has been shrunk by the economic chaos accompanying the global financial crisis – may work out to be about the equivalent of breaking even for some European companies. If this works out to be true for Allianz, it means that they will likely be doing much better than many other companies in the world.

A falling euro is not all sunshine for European workers and consumers. Everything Europeans import from abroad just became substantially more expensive. This includes the oil from Saudi Arabia and the natural gas from Russia, as well is the other raw materials that must be imported from around the world. European manufacturers with cost structures that are heavily tilted to the acquisition of raw materials may be badly hurt, with accompanying job losses.

Indeed for the more efficient economic producers in Europe, the main side effect of the fall in the value of the euro may be to be pushed into a reluctant state of what I will call “Accidental Virtue”. By the time all is said and done, there's a good chance that consumption will fall across European countries and that the standard of day-to-day living may fall for many or most Europeans. Every finished product imported from the US and Asia just grew more expensive. Even as every raw material and commodity imported from the rest of the world grew more expensive. This drop in consumption lowers the standard of living, even while jobs associated with exports grow rapidly.

This could lead many of the citizens of Europe to become more like the citizens of China and Japan, as they become much more competitive producers of real goods and services, even while their consumption of foreign goods and materials drops. In at least some nations, this may lead to the Accidental Virtue of being a nation of savers with strong jobs but lowered consumption. The word “Accidental” is important, because those involved may be quite reluctant, indeed they are likely to be dragged to this state of virtue kicking and screaming – but once they are there, they may be substantially better positioned for the coming decades than those in the US.

They will need every bit of “virtue” – and the jobs which come from that “virtue” – that they can get, because we have to remember that the fall of the euro is not the problem, but a symptom. The problem is the fundamental economic and societal crisis of a continent that has entered into promises with its own population that it will be unable to honor. The breaking of these promises, which must occur in substance, even if not in legal form (meaning inflation), will be painful – and that price will be very real. There will be turmoil, popular government safety nets will not have the funding that has been promised, and investment markets will be devastated. As always in times of major economic and monetary crisis, the workers will likely find a way to adapt (so long as the jobs are there), but the heaviest pain is likely to fall on the retirees.

While reduced consumption in combination with austerity programs and broken pensioner promises is not likely to be politically popular, even with a relatively stronger global economic position, it is nonetheless an enviable state compared to the alternatives.

What will hurt even more is if you have just as many or more government promises to be broken, but instead of having a resurging real economy – your real economy is imploding. This may be the fate that awaits the US, particularly if it continues to ignore this emergency and does not take the urgent action required.

Do keep in mind that this article is an extrapolation of current events in the news, and not a prophecy of unavoidable doom. If the US were to go a step further than Europe in recognizing its problems, and deal with its real issues, then it would be the US real economy that would be at the competitive advantage. The short-term turmoil would appear catastrophic to markets, politicians and the banking system – but you have to keep in mind that markets and banks aren’t what determines standards of livings for a nation as a whole. It’s the real economy that does that, and a strategy that attempts to mask real pain with short term manipulations – which has the result of increasing the damage to the real economy of workers, jobs and production – goes directly against the national interest.

When it comes to the “sovereign debt” crisis, the earlier a nation steps forward to accept what is inevitably coming – the better the real economy of that nation performs relative to how it otherwise would have, and the less the long term damage from the breaking of promises.

Euro Collapse Could Be Catastrophic For US & World

In order to explore the vital issues covered in this article, an assumption had to be made that the euro would be deeply wounded, but that it wouldn’t collapse. That is, whether we’re talking about the current 13% drop in the value of the euro versus the dollar, or the potential for a 20%, 30% or 40% total decline, these all assume that the euro and European Monetary Union remain intact and functional. It is these assumptions that lead to our hypothetical future state of “Accidental Virtue” in Europe with a reduced average standard of living for employed families, but with greater employment levels.

In the real world we have no such assurance. The situation is grave, a monetary union among sovereign nations with different objectives and situations is inherently fragile, and a collapse in the euro remains a strong possibility. While there will be winners, and lucrative windfall profits will be realized in the event of a monetary collapse (as covered in my article linked below), for the average citizen, living through a monetary collapse has always been – and will be – a nightmare scenario.

http://danielamerman.com/articles/Windfall.htm

Savings are wiped out across the continent. Pension plans become meaningless. During the peak of monetary crisis it is difficult for an economy to function at all, and unemployment becomes massive. These times of monetary crisis also can bring radical political change in a very short period of time that the average person would have said was impossible just two or three years beforehand. It is this political change that makes the process so unstable and unpredictable, as parties previously on the fringe may end up taking control. Politics and even culture can become quite pliable during crisis, and the characteristics of the Europe that would emerge on the other side of crisis can almost be considered a roll of the dice.

As this article has demonstrated, this is not just a European problem. And what needs to be clearly understood is that in a globalized world, if the euro collapses then the problems described in this article become much larger, much faster. The European market for US exports collapses – taking the associated US jobs with it. Meanwhile, the cost advantages of using highly educated and trained European workers over their American counterparts just grew much greater than that which we’ve been discussing.

This means that unless trade barriers are erected, US workers will be at a terrible disadvantage, and likely face a declining standard of living. However if political pressure leads to rapid erection of trade barriers, then the US inability to pay for its own standard of living unless it has cheap foreign imports, immediately comes to the fore. The US could face a 28% decline in discretionary income, as well as a series of rapid exogenous inflationary supply shocks, as covered in two videos / articles in my “Crisis & Globalization” series:

http://danielamerman.com/Video/PSL.htm

http://danielamerman.com/Video/Shock.htm

The Sharp And Unfair Redistribution Of Wealth

The first step in dealing with any problem is to accept that it is real, and that wishing, hoping and ignoring won’t make it go away.

Impossible promises get broken by definition. One way or another. If the real economic resources are not there to cover the retirement standard of living than had been promised to an entire nation, then the average retiree is going to have a lower standard of living than what was promised. No amount of legislation can overcome that simple reality.

If the retirement plan for a nation is to invest with the assumption that we already know the future, and it is one of never-ending economic growth -- but that growth does not occur -- then the investment implications are grim for the average retirement investor who has been following conventional financial planning techniques.

But here's the key, as we are seeing with Europe: bad news has an uneven distribution. Not everyone is affected equally, far from it. What economic crisis does is rapidly redistribute wealth. The unfortunate likelihood is that tens of millions of people who have lived good responsible lives, are going to see their lifestyles crushed, through no fault of their own. Other tens of millions of people will experience substantial but manageable declines in their standard of living. There will be another group, and the Europeans are particularly well-positioned at this time, where they will more or less break even.

There will be a smaller group that will position themselves so that the rapid redistribution of wealth will radically increase their net worth. These individuals will be found in every nation, but their numbers will be relatively few.

To position yourself to have a fighting chance of keeping what you’ve built, and maybe even increasing it substantially – there is simply no substitute for understanding how wealth is rapidly redistributed by economic crisis. If you don't understand how the redistributions work and you keep the same investments and strategies that everyone else has, then you will just be impoverished along with everyone else. To protect your financial capital, to protect what you have for you and your family, the very best step you can take is to build your intellectual capital.

Seek to acquire an uncommon education in the redistribution of wealth during crisis...

Naked Truth on Default Swaps:

By Floyd Norris May 20, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21norris.html

Should people be able to bet on your death? How about your financial failure?

In the United States Senate, Wall Street won one this week when the Senate voted down a proposal to bar the so-called naked buying of credit-default swaps. If that were the law, you could not use swaps to bet a company would fail. The exception would be if you already had a stake in the company succeeding, such as owning a bond issued by the company.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Germany announced new rules to bar just such betting — but only if the creditors were euro area governments.

None of this argument would be taking place if regulators had done their jobs years ago and classified credit-default swaps as insurance.

As it happened, however, clever people on Wall Street followed the prescription laid down by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass:”

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

When Alice protested, Humpty Dumpty replied that the issue was “which is to be master — that’s all.”

The word here is “swap.” It used to mean, well, a swap. In a currency swap, one party will win if one currency rises against another and lose if the opposite happens.

Credit-default swaps are, in reality, insurance. The buyer of the insurance gets paid if the subject of the swap cannot meet its obligations. The seller of the swap gets a continuing payment from the buyer until the insurance expires. Sort of like an insurance premium, you might say.

But the people who dreamed up credit-default swaps did not like the word insurance. It smacked of regulation and of reserves that insurance companies must set aside in case there were claims. So they called the new thing a swap.

In the antiregulatory atmosphere of the times, they got away with it. As Humpty would have understood, Wall Street was master. Because swaps were unregulated, calling insurance a swap meant those who traded in them could make whatever decisions they wished.

That decision, perhaps more than anything else, enabled the American International Group to go broke — or, more precisely, to fail into the hands of the American government. Had it been forced to set aside reserves, A.I.G. would have stopped selling swaps a lot sooner than it did.

The decision that swaps were not insurance meant that anyone could buy or sell them — or at least anyone who could find a counterparty.

Had credit-default swaps been classified as insurance, the concept of “insurable interest” might have been applied. That concept says that you cannot buy insurance on my life, or on my house, unless you have an insurable interest.

Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, recently laid out the history of that concept. It did not exist until the 18th century, when many people — not just owners of ships or cargos — began buying insurance against ships sinking.

More ships began sinking, and insurers cried foul.

The British Parliament outlawed such sales of ship insurance in 1746. Ever since, to buy that insurance you had to have an interest in the ship or its cargo. But it was another 28 years before Parliament extended the idea to life insurance.

So should it be illegal for me to buy credit-default swaps on companies even if I have no other interest in the company? And if I have an interest, should I be limited to buying only enough insurance to cover my exposure? That is, if I own $100 million in XYZ Corporation bonds, should I be able to buy $1 billion in insurance against an XYZ default?

To most on Wall Street, the answer is obvious: let markets function. My buying that insurance will probably drive up the price, and serve as a market indication that people are worried about the credit, which is good because it gives a warning to others.

In any case, it is legal to sell stocks short. That, too, is a way to bet that a company will fail. So what’s the difference?

One difference is that many people short stocks because they deem them overvalued, not because they think the company will go broke. They can profit even if the company does well, so long as the stock does turn out to have been overvalued.

Many who despise credit-default swaps argue that they can be used to force companies to fail. The swap market is thin, and even a relatively small purchase can drive up prices. That very movement may make lenders nervous, cause liquidity to dry up and bring on unnecessary bankruptcies.

There is another, little noticed, possible impact of credit-default swaps. They can undermine bankruptcy laws.

Normally, a creditor wants to keep a company out of bankruptcy if there is a decent chance it can survive. If it does go broke, the creditor wants to maximize the value of the company anyway, so that more will be available to pay creditors.

But what happens if a major creditor, who might even control one class of bonds, has a much larger position in credit-default swaps?

Will he not have interests directly at odds with those of other creditors, since he will do better if the company ends up with less to pay its creditors? Might that creditor seek to, and perhaps be able to, sabotage the company’s best hopes for revival?

At a minimum, such things should be disclosed, but that gets tricky when one part of a megabank (the one with the bonds) claims it is run independently from the other (the one with the swaps).

I don’t know whether it is necessary to treat credit-default swaps like insurance and require someone to have an insurable interest before swaps can be purchased.

The financial reform bill now being debated in the Senate has provisions intended to assure that many of the previous swap abuses are not repeated.

But I do think Germany’s decision was ill considered. First, it may have little effect if other countries do not join in. Buying a swap in New York or London, rather than Frankfurt, will not be difficult.

But the more important issue is one of limiting the targets of credit-default swap purchases. If Germany had simply required buyers of credit-default swaps to have an insurable interest, it would have been standing up for a principle.

By limiting the scope to swaps on debt of euro area governments, the German government sends two signals: it is acting in self-interest, and it is still worried that it may have to finance more bailouts.

VIDEO - Fundamental & Technical Analysis of the S&P 500's Daily & Weekly Charts:

http://www.viddler.com/explore/zigzagman/videos/22/

Technical Analysis of the S&P 500's daily and weekly charts, plus a look at the important Economic and Earnings Reports due out next week...

This video is viewed best in Full-Screen Mode...Click the four arrows in the bottom right corner...Press the Escape key on your keyboard to exit back to Normal Mode...

Happy Trading this week...
zigzagman

Market Decline Based On More Than Fear:

Comstock Partners, Inc.
May 20, 2010

http://www.comstockfunds.com/default.aspx?MenuItemID=29&&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Today marked a new phase in investors' understanding of the EU crisis. Although the Euro itself recovered a bit, investors realized that Europe's problems could spread to the U.S. and impede or stop its economic recovery. This would possibly mean that the 14-month market rebound in U.S. stocks may not have been justified. The possibility is more than just a fear, but a realistic assessment of a dire situation. Even if the EU and the Euro survive, all of the member governments, including the relatively stronger ones, would have to undertake severe spending cuts and pay down debt to rectify their budgets. These actions would lead to a long and serious economic slump that would most likely spread across the globe.

The crisis is also reminding investors that we have undergone two 50% plus market declines in the same decade and that the S&P 500 today closed at same level it first reached over 12 years ago in mid-March 1998. The two major declines are a reminder to traders of the benefits of getting out relatively early, while the lack of progress over 12 years make long-term investors wonder what they doing in the market. For those who didn't get out on time at the tops in early 2000 and late 2007, the bell is ringing for a third time.

The potential impact of the European crisis on the American economy and markets is not just Comstock's opinion. In testimony before a Congressional committee yesterday, Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo stated that sovereign debt problems in "peripheral" Europe could spill over and cause problems throughout Europe that, in turn, could be transmitted to global financial markets. This, he said, could cause banks and other financial institutions to pull back on lending as they did following the Lehman bankruptcy. "The result could be another source of risk to the U.S. recovery in an environment of still-fragile balance sheets and considerable slack".

The Fed's minutes of its last meeting, released this week, indicated that the economy was not doing quite as well as advertised, even before the impact of Europe's problems. Attributing the recent increases in consumer spending to temporary factors and a lowered savings rate, they concluded that it was unlikely that consumer spending would be the major factor in driving economic growth. They added that the housing market appeared to have flattened despite major government support and that both sales and starts had stalled at depressed levels. They also saw the possibility of increased foreclosures adding to already bloated inventories of vacant homes, threatening a downside risk to prices. The minutes mentioned that commercial real estate continued to fall as a result of deteriorating fundamentals, while bank lending was declining and credit remained tight.

Other recent economic releases were also not encouraging. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) reported a record 4.63% of mortgages in foreclosure in the first quarter with combined foreclosures and delinquencies amounting to 14% of all mortgages. We note that this is before an expected surge of new defaults and foreclosures as a result of foreclosures being delayed due to attempted workouts and the pending increase of adjustable-rate mortgages due for reset in coming months. In addition applications for new mortgages for home purchases plunged in the week following the expiration of the latest home buyers' tax credit. It was also reported today that initial weekly claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly jumped to 470,000. While one week doesn't necessarily mean anything, we note that claims have now been flat since year-end, indicating that the labor market still remains weak.

We would be remiss if we didn't mention increasing concern about China as a negative market factor. The Chinese housing market has been booming, and the authorities have been slowly tightening monetary policy. In the first quarter the nation reported its first trade deficit since 2004. If the Chinese economy slows down at the same time that Europe is dealing with its crisis the U.S. and global economy will stall. This is already being reflected in a sudden decline in commodity prices on anticipation of a drop in Chinese purchases. We'll have more on this topic in subsequent comments.

In our view the 14-month rally since March 2009 is over and a major decline is underway. The recent decline has been extreme in the short-term, and some sharp rallies are likely. However, we believe that none of these rallies will hold and that the eventual market bottom will be far lower than today's level.

Europe's Mounting Crisis: "We're on Life Support," Chris Whalen Says:

May 19, 2010 07:30am EDT by Heesun Wee

http://tinyurl.com/262m6oa

Despite a nearly $1 trillion rescue plan, concerns about Europe continue to haunt the financial markets. Late Tuesday, the euro slid to more than a 4-year low against the dollar, triggering another sell-off in U.S. stocks.

Beyond the obvious problems with Europe's "PIIGS", investors worldwide are nervously wondering how badly Europe's sovereign debt crisis is affecting the banking system -- both over there and here at home.

"In some ways European banks are worse than ours. They're certainly less transparent," says our guest Chris Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics. "It's a strange time. And I think it talks to the basic lack of competitiveness, the lack of productivity really in Europe. And you also have the same problem in the U.S. We just have the flexibility of being able to print money."

So what does Europe's end game look like?...

"For Europe, basically they have two options: Individual countries can continue to borrow money until they can't. Then they hit the wall," says fellow guest John Mauldin, president of Millennium Wave Advisors and author of the Thoughts from the Frontline e-letter. "Or they can willingly throw themselves into a Depression by cutting their deficits dramatically."

For now, Whalen says politicians aren't willing to make the tough choices about spending and cutting deficits. Instead, "we're just managing bubbles here," he says. "To me we're on life support right now. We still haven't figured out as a society, both Europe and the US, how we fix these economies and make them go again," Whalen says.

Anxiously Watching the Euro...

With the global financial markets seemingly hanging on its every move, the fate of the euro is obviously a huge wild-card right now. But Mauldin or Whalen believe it's unlikely the EU will disintegrate and the euro disbanded, as Paul Volcker suggested last week, but both believe the currency is heading lower.

"I think the euro's going to parity. The pound's going to parity," Mauldin says. "And we're going to see the yen go to $100, then $125, then $150. Pretty soon we'll get a bid for $200 and $250," which will have huge implications for global trade.

"Not one of those countries [in Europe and the rest of Asia], not any of those businesses, and any of those exporters in those countries are going to be upset," Mauldin says. "They're going to be happy because they're going to be able to export with cheap currencies against us."

The Government as Identity Thieves:

Dr. Ron Paul Tuesday, May 18, 2010

http://www.thedailybell.com/1056/Ron-Paul-The-Government-as-Identity-Thieves.html

The spotlight remains on the Greek sovereign debt crisis as the riots continue. The terms of the Greek bailout from the IMF and Eurozone countries remain contentious with citizens on all sides. Europeans hate having their governments throw public money away as much as Americans do. The Greeks are not happy about having their taxes raised while their pensions and salaries are cut. Meanwhile, it is rumored by the Financial Times, AFP and others that Greece may spend more than it saves from austerity measures on arms deals with Germany, France and the US as a potential condition of receiving bailout funds. If true, it is certainly not unprecedented for the global military industrial complex to benefit from deals made by their friends in the central banking community. After all, war is the health of the state. The last thing big government proponents want is for peace to break out in the world.

This free flow of fiat money from around the globe to Greece will not really save Greece as much as it will grant a temporary reprieve to central bankers from the consequences of their mistakes. Sadly, this will come at the expense of the Greek people and taxpayers in Europe and America. Taxpayers are of no consequence to either European or American central bankers. Even the mere desire for complete information on what they are up to in our name is rebuffed, as we saw last week in the Senate with the failure of Senator Vitter's amendment containing my language to fully audit the fed. The hubris of powerful and secretive central bankers seems to know no bounds.

If someone incurred debts against you as an individual, without your knowledge or consent, you would call it identity theft. You would call your bank for a full accounting of the debts incurred in your name, and after some verification, those debts would be declared invalid and you would not be held responsible for them. Furthermore, if the culprit was found, they would be prosecuted and sent to jail.

Not so with governments and central banks. Governments that are supposed to be of the people and for the people routinely incur debts against the people. Some governments even borrow money to oppress their citizens, and then expect them to pay for their own oppression with interest. With a fiat monetary system, the sky is the limit for how much debt a government can place on the backs of the people.

We have reached the point in the United States where the debt our government has accumulated against us is mathematically impossible to pay off. Harder times, likely due to a wave of hyperinflation, will eventually find its way to our streets and I am fearful of how Americans will react. My hope is that we will come together peacefully and help each other, and that enough of us will be aware that the blame rests securely on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve and the special interests. They should not be looked to for salvation. They should not be given more power. Rather, they should be stripped of the powers that allowed them to create this mess in the first place.

Resistance to public transparency regarding public debts should be denounced in the strongest of terms, and the central bankers that incurred them should be seen as no better than common identity thieves.

The US Intelligentsia and Middle Class Are In the Firm Grip of Fear, Fraud and Denial:

Posted by Jesse at 11:27 AM May 16, 2010

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-is-in-grip-of-fraud-and-denial.html

The lie is comfortable, an illusion easy to live with, familiar, and safe.

Writing from the 'disgraced profession' of economics, James K. Galbraith speaks of the unspoken, the many frauds and deceptions underlying the recent financial crisis centered in the US. Many will read this and shake their heads in agreement, but will be unable to take the next logical step and internalize the implications of the depth and breadth of the dishonesty that enabled it then, and continues to sustain it, even today. Galbraith is asking 'why' and framing a further inquiry into the consequences of this unwillingness to reform.

"Some appear to believe that "confidence in the banks" can be rebuilt by a new round of good economic news, by rising stock prices, by the reassurances of high officials – and by not looking too closely at the underlying evidence of fraud, abuse, deception and deceit. As you pursue your investigations, you will undermine, and I believe you may destroy, that illusion."
It is easier to go with the flow, relax, rationalize, and be diverted and entertained by 'the show.' The truth may set you free, but before that it can make you feel very insecure and uncomfortable, especially when it requires challenging the 'official story' and policy decisions. Better to say nothing offensive to the oligarchs, and even occasionally to utter intelligent sounding condemnations of those who dare to question the very things you wonder about, and fear, in order to prove your loyalty and to reassure yourself that you are a right-thinking, practical individual. For the disparity that is unavoidably noticed between what is seen and what is said makes one uneasy, fearful that they are losing their bearings, if not reason. And the vested interests play on those fears. See Techniques of Propaganda

The consequences of 'extend and pretend' will be to worsen the final outcome, the day of reckoning.

"The initial deviation from the truth will be multiplied a thousandfold." -Aristotle
The banks must be restrained, the financial and political system reformed, and balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why the 'Experts' Failed to See How Financial Fraud Collapsed the Economy:

By James K. Galbraith
May 16, 2010

Editor's Note: The following is the text of a James K. Galbraith's written statement to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered this May.

Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Subcommittee, as a former member of the congressional staff it is a pleasure to submit this statement for your record.

I write to you from a disgraced profession. Economic theory, as widely taught since the 1980s, failed miserably to understand the forces behind the financial crisis. Concepts including "rational expectations," "market discipline," and the "efficient markets hypothesis" led economists to argue that speculation would stabilize prices, that sellers would act to protect their reputations, that caveat emptor could be relied on, and that widespread fraud therefore could not occur. Not all economists believed this – but most did.

Thus the study of financial fraud received little attention. Practically no research institutes exist; collaboration between economists and criminologists is rare; in the leading departments there are few specialists and very few students. Economists have soft- pedaled the role of fraud in every crisis they examined, including the Savings & Loan debacle, the Russian transition, the Asian meltdown and the dot.com bubble. They continue to do so now. At a conference sponsored by the Levy Economics Institute in New York on April 17, the closest a former Under Secretary of the Treasury, Peter Fisher, got to this question was to use the word "naughtiness." This was on the day that the SEC charged Goldman Sachs with fraud.

There are exceptions. A famous 1993 article entitled "Looting: Bankruptcy for Profit," by George Akerlof and Paul Romer, drew exceptionally on the experience of regulators who understood fraud. The criminologist-economist William K. Black of the University of Missouri-Kansas City is our leading systematic analyst of the relationship between financial crime and financial crisis. Black points out that accounting fraud is a sure thing when you can control the institution engaging in it: "the best way to rob a bank is to own one." The experience of the Savings and Loan crisis was of businesses taken over for the explicit purpose of stripping them, of bleeding them dry. This was established in court: there were over one thousand felony convictions in the wake of that debacle. Other useful chronicles of modern financial fraud include James Stewart's Den of Thieves on the Boesky-Milken era and Kurt Eichenwald's Conspiracy of Fools, on the Enron scandal. Yet a large gap between this history and formal analysis remains.

Formal analysis tells us that control frauds follow certain patterns. They grow rapidly, reporting high profitability, certified by top accounting firms. They pay exceedingly well. At the same time, they radically lower standards, building new businesses in markets previously considered too risky for honest business. In the financial sector, this takes the form of relaxed – no, gutted – underwriting, combined with the capacity to pass the bad penny to the greater fool. In California in the 1980s, Charles Keating realized that an S&L charter was a "license to steal." In the 2000s, sub-prime mortgage origination was much the same thing. Given a license to steal, thieves get busy. And because their performance seems so good, they quickly come to dominate their markets; the bad players driving out the good.

The complexity of the mortgage finance sector before the crisis highlights another characteristic marker of fraud. In the system that developed, the original mortgage documents lay buried – where they remain – in the records of the loan originators, many of them since defunct or taken over. Those records, if examined, would reveal the extent of missing documentation, of abusive practices, and of fraud. So far, we have only very limited evidence on this, notably a 2007 Fitch Ratings study of a very small sample of highly-rated RMBS, which found "fraud, abuse or missing documentation in virtually every file." An efforts a year ago by Representative Doggett to persuade Secretary Geithner to examine and report thoroughly on the extent of fraud in the underlying mortgage records received an epic run-around.

When sub-prime mortgages were bundled and securitized, the ratings agencies failed to examine the underlying loan quality. Instead they substituted statistical models, in order to generate ratings that would make the resulting RMBS acceptable to investors. When one assumes that prices will always rise, it follows that a loan secured by the asset can always be refinanced; therefore the actual condition of the borrower does not matter. That projection is, of course, only as good as the underlying assumption, but in this perversely-designed marketplace those who paid for ratings had no reason to care about the quality of assumptions. Meanwhile, mortgage originators now had a formula for extending loans to the worst borrowers they could find, secure that in this reverse Lake Wobegon no child would be deemed below average even though they all were. Credit quality collapsed because the system was designed for it to collapse.

A third element in the toxic brew was a simulacrum of "insurance," provided by the market in credit default swaps. These are doomsday instruments in a precise sense: they generate cash-flow for the issuer until the credit event occurs. If the event is large enough, the issuer then fails, at which point the government faces blackmail: it must either step in or the system will collapse. CDS spread the consequences of a housing-price downturn through the entire financial sector, across the globe. They also provided the means to short the market in residential mortgage-backed securities, so that the largest players could turn tail and bet against the instruments they had previously been selling, just before the house of cards crashed.

Latter-day financial economics is blind to all of this. It necessarily treats stocks, bonds, options, derivatives and so forth as securities whose properties can be accepted largely at face value, and quantified in terms of return and risk. That quantification permits the calculation of price, using standard formulae. But everything in the formulae depends on the instruments being as they are represented to be. For if they are not, then what formula could possibly apply?

An older strand of institutional economics understood that a security is a contract in law. It can only be as good as the legal system that stands behind it. Some fraud is inevitable, but in a functioning system it must be rare. It must be considered – and rightly – a minor problem. If fraud – or even the perception of fraud – comes to dominate the system, then there is no foundation for a market in the securities. They become trash. And more deeply, so do the institutions responsible for creating, rating and selling them. Including, so long as it fails to respond with appropriate force, the legal system itself.

Control frauds always fail in the end. But the failure of the firm does not mean the fraud fails: the perpetrators often walk away rich. At some point, this requires subverting, suborning or defeating the law. This is where crime and politics intersect. At its heart, therefore, the financial crisis was a breakdown in the rule of law in America.

Ask yourselves: is it possible for mortgage originators, ratings agencies, underwriters, insurers and supervising agencies NOT to have known that the system of housing finance had become infested with fraud? Every statistical indicator of fraudulent practice – growth and profitability – suggests otherwise. Every examination of the record so far suggests otherwise. The very language in use: "liars' loans," "ninja loans," "neutron loans," and "toxic waste," tells you that people knew. I have also heard the expression, "IBG,YBG;" the meaning of that bit of code was: "I'll be gone, you'll be gone."

If doubt remains, investigation into the internal communications of the firms and agencies in question can clear it up. Emails are revealing. The government already possesses critical documentary trails -- those of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Those documents should be investigated, in full, by competent authority and also released, as appropriate, to the public. For instance, did AIG knowingly issue CDS against instruments that Goldman had designed on behalf of Mr. John Paulson to fail? If so, why? Or again: Did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appreciate the poor quality of the RMBS they were acquiring? Did they do so under pressure from Mr. Henry Paulson? If so, did Secretary Paulson know? And if he did, why did he act as he did? In a recent paper, Thomas Ferguson and Robert Johnson argue that the "Paulson Put" was intended to delay an inevitable crisis past the election. Does the internal record support this view?

Let us suppose that the investigation that you are about to begin confirms the existence of pervasive fraud, involving millions of mortgages, thousands of appraisers, underwriters, analysts, and the executives of the companies in which they worked, as well as public officials who assisted by turning a Nelson's Eye. What is the appropriate response?

Some appear to believe that "confidence in the banks" can be rebuilt by a new round of good economic news, by rising stock prices, by the reassurances of high officials – and by not looking too closely at the underlying evidence of fraud, abuse, deception and deceit. As you pursue your investigations, you will undermine, and I believe you may destroy, that illusion.

But you have to act. The true alternative is a failure extending over time from the economic to the political system. Just as too few predicted the financial crisis, it may be that too few are today speaking frankly about where a failure to deal with the aftermath may lead.

In this situation, let me suggest, the country faces an existential threat. Either the legal system must do its work. Or the market system cannot be restored. There must be a thorough, transparent, effective, radical cleaning of the financial sector and also of those public officials who failed the public trust. The financiers must be made to feel, in their bones, the power of the law. And the public, which lives by the law, must see very clearly and unambiguously that this is the case. Thank you.

James K. Galbraith is the author of The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, and of a new preface to The Great Crash, 1929, by John Kenneth Galbraith. He teaches at The University of Texas at Austin.