Monday, January 16, 2017

Trump as Lightning Rod--Not Just for Disaffected Progressives, But For Panicked Insiders

The Eastern Establishment fears and loathes Outsiders, and seeks to destroy them, usually via the mainstream media.
Political agnostics who are skeptical about Big Government "solutions," left or right, view the current hullabaloo about the Trump presidency with some detachment. What's remarkable to us is the extremism, not just of those bitter about Clinton's loss, but by insiders who are threatened by the possibility Trump may upset their insider skims and scams.
As an opening observation, I don't recall bitter Nixon supporters issuing death threats to performers at John Kennedy's inauguration in 1961--and the 1960 election was extremely close.
I also don't recall bitter Gore supporters issuing death threats to performers at G.W. Bush's inauguration in 2001--even though the 2000 election came down to a few hundred votes in Florida.
Trump is a lightning rod for a spectrum of people and organizations. Let's see if we can separate the spectrum into socio-political groups.
In times of turmoil, identifying a bogeyman/woman as the cause of the turmoil is a classic mechanism for shirking responsibility and agency. This is the psychological source of witch-hunts (it's all the witches' fault!), scapegoating, show trials, and so on: it isn't our fault things are falling apart, or the fault of our institutions--it's the bogeyman/woman's fault.
This transference/projection concentrates the blame and responsibility on The Other--a scapegoated group, or even better, one individual or a small group. Those making the accusation reckon pointing the finger at some target lets them off the hook: I am blameless, it's all his/her fault.
Trump is tailor-made for the part of Bogeyman--ditto the Russians. Decades of films depicting the heroic Americans besting the low-down dirty Commies seem to have seeped into the American Id: when in doubt, blame the Russians. If they are temporarily unavailable for scapegoating, then blame an Asian bogeyman.
For Progressives, symbolism is more important than substance. Never mind that the incomes, wealth and opportunities of the bottom 95% have steadily eroded in the eight years of the Obama presidency, or that an American neocon-neoliberal foreign policy was running amok globally. To Progressives steeped in the mythology of political correctness, the symbolism of the speech acts being uttered mattered far more than the substance or the consequences.
President Obama did not just promise hope and change--he was a legal-eagle master of delivering the symbolic speech acts that Progressives longed to hear, because they confirmed the world-view of legalisms, "rights," and all the other high points of the mythology of political correctness.
In other words, we don't actually have to threaten the status quo by changing anything, all we have to do is utter the correct phrases, and the erosion of civil liberties, opportunity and wealth will all magically vanish in the warm and fuzzy phraseology of political correctness.
No wonder Trump is like a fingernail on a chalkboard to progressives lulled into somnambulance by eight years of symbolic speech acts. Politically correct speech acts are out the window, and this refusal to wear the robes of correct mythology is deeply upsetting to those seeking the reassurances of symbolic speech acts.
Even more interesting is the reaction of the Eastern Establishment--you know, Washington, D.C., Yale, Harvard, the entire Deep State of Eastern Establishment cronies.
In the long narrative of American history, presidents are either Insiders or Outsiders. Insiders go the Right Schools, meet the Right People, work in the Right Companies and serve in the Right Government Agencies. Outsiders grew up in The Outside World, and did not meet the Right People or work in the Right Companies or serve in the Right Government Agencies.
Franklin Roosevelt was a classic insider, Harry Truman, a classic outsider. John F. Kennedy was a classic insider, Richard Nixon, a classic outsider. G.W. Bush and Al Gore were both insiders. Jimmy Carter was a classic outsider.
The Clintons masterfully worked their way into the Insider Circle, despite starting on the Outside.
President Obama also worked his way into the Insider Circle via Harvard Law, etc.
Once you understand this narrative, you realize the party affiliation of the candidate is simply a matter of convenience; what really matters is their standing within the traditional Eastern Establishment. Will they faithfully carry water for the Establishment, i.e. be a loyal Insider, or do they pose a threat to the power and wealth of the Insiders, i.e. an Outsider?
The Eastern Establishment fears and loathes Outsiders, and seeks to destroy them, usually via the mainstream media. That the corporate media targeted Nixon is well-known. Though few discuss it now, it was equally true that the corporate media ceaselessly bashed and ridiculed Jimmy Carter, "peanut farmer," goofy grin, etc. After he was safely out of office and couldn't threaten the Eastern Establishment's power, skims and scams, Carter was quickly rehabilitated.
Though his wealth and New York base suggests Insider to many, Trump is a classic outsider--someone the Establishment fears and loathes because he might diminish their power, their skims and their scams. The Establishment's skims and scams are rentier skims and scams--wealth and income that is skimmed from the productive elements of the economy by virtue of the Establishment's power to impose the gatekeeper's toll on virtually every aspect of American life.
The Establishment's fear and loathing is laughably obvious. Why else drum up the hysterical, absurd narrative that Russia is responsible for Trump's election? The entire media blitz was a transparent attempt to discredit the results of American democracy because the Insider unexpectedly lost. Now the Establishment--from academia to the C.I.A.--is in full-blown panic, because all their precious skims and scams are for the first time in decades, at risk of being throttled or reduced.
Trump isn't just a lightning rod for delusional Progressives who were happy to see their real-world fortunes erode away as long as the Insiders in charge kept muttering the desired symbolic speech acts; he is also a lightning rod for Insiders fearful that their Insider apple cart is about to be upended, and they might actually have to work for a living, or actually compete in the real world--something they know they are ill-prepared to survive.


If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Richard O. ($50), for your courageously generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Thank you, Ron O. ($50), for your supremely generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Will Our Grandchildren Wonder Why We Didn't Build a Renewable Power Grid When It Was Still Affordable?

In the logic of the market, it makes no sense to sacrifice trillions of dollars in current energy and income to build something we don't yet need.
Anyone seeking clarity on the energy picture a decade or two out is to be forgiven for finding a thoroughly confusing divide. On the one hand, we have reassuring projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) that assume current production of fossil fuels will remain steady for decades to come. Coal will continue to decline as a share of total energy consumption, and renewables will rise modestly. In other words, everything's hunky-dory, there's nothing to worry about.
The EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (64-page PDF) lays out the all-is-well, no-worries projections.
If you want to really dig deep into energy consumption, then the EIA has a treat for you: a detailed 390-page PDF report: Energy Perspectives 1949–2011 (link to 390-page PDF).
But just when you conclude fossile fuels will remain cheap and abundant until 2040 and beyond, you read this: Civilization goes over the net energy cliff in 2022, which references a 65-page PDF report that details a much different view of energy that will actually be available to us, as opposed to estimates of reserves awaiting extraction: Depletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve (65-page PDF, available by permission of The Hill's Group)
Here's an excerpt:
Determining the depletion state of a resource is, however, not merely a matter of determining how much of the resource remains in the ground. A resource's depletion state has as much to do with the efficiency with which it can be extracted and used as it has to do with the quantity of resource remaining in the ground. To define oil's depletion state it is necessary to look at the efficiency with which crude oil can be extracted, processed, and used. Therefore it is necessary to understand why petroleum is produced, and then be able to analysis the entire production process; not just the extraction portion. The Quality Control Engineer defines this as determining "fitness for use". To define crude oil's depletion state we must first determine the quantity of it that is "fit for use".
Every barrel of oil on average, has required more energy to extract and process than the barrel that came before it. Since the specific exergy of a unit of oil is, and always has been the same, less and less energy per unit remains for use by the end consumer. The "fitness for use" of crude oil must also then be dependent on variables relating to its energy delivery capabilities.
In other words--we cannot project future energy available for consumption without factoring in a host of other variables: not just the cost of extraction at the well head but of processing and transport. If this report is correct, the energy left over for consumption after we deduct the energy required for extraction, processing and transport is declining, as the easy-to-extract, easy-to-process, easy-to-transport oil has largely been depleted.
What's left is costly to extract, process and transport.
The success of fracking and other technologies has demolished claims of Peak Oil in most people's minds. But it may not be quite so simple, as Gail Tverberg (Our Finite World) argues in her recent essay, 2017: The Year When the World Economy Starts Coming Apart.
At the risk of simplifying a complex and nuanced analysis, here is my summary: Tverberg makes the case that today's global industrial economy is in a double-bind without resolution: if energy costs rise enough to make extraction and processing of hard-to-get oil/gas profitable, the high costs of the resulting energy will inevitably push the growth-dependent economy into recession or depression.
This is the inescapable result of structuring the economy so it optimizes continual, permanent expansion of everything: more resources, consumption, earnings, debt and taxes skimmed from the productive elements of the economy.
Once growth hits limits of any kind, the economy doesn't enter a steady-state--it collapses, because it is dependent on expansion.
But if energy costs decline to the point where households and enterprises can afford to expand consumption, the low prices render an increasingly significant share of fossil fuel extraction unprofitable.
Tverberg also ties this energy double-bind into debt and wages: we can play a game of borrowing the higher costs of energy needed to keep the economy afloat, but eventually the rising debt load is recognized as being unpayable, and buyers of new debt demand a risk premium. As the costs of debt rises, the window of paying for higher energy costs with cheap debt closes, and the economy is stuck paying the real costs of energy.
Since wages are ultimately paid out of the surplus energy and value extracted from consuming that energy, as cheap, abundant energy declines, so do wages, leaving households with less money to spend on consumption and debt payment.
So which narrative do we believe: the one in which fossil fuels remain relatively affordable and abundant for another 30+ years, even as hundreds of millions of new middle-class consumers clamor for energy-hungry autos, SUVs, motorcycles and air travel, or the one in which cheap energy becomes a cherished memory in less than a decade?
Here's my question: will our grandchildren wonder why we didn't build a renewable power grid when it was still possible? The time to build a renewable power grid that is self-sustaining and durable enough to outlast the end of cheap oil is when oil/gas are still cheap enough to fund the build-out.
The grand irony of human nature and the market economy is that as long as oil/gas are cheap, there's no need to build a renewable power grid. If we believe oil/gas will remain cheap for decades to come, why waste the surplus building a costly renewable power grid when we could fly to Bali with that cheap oil, or build another 100 million vehicles to sell to newly minted middle-class households?
By the time it's obvious that we could really use a renewable power grid, it will be far too costly to build without drastically slashing consumption. Once we blow up the borrowing-from-the-future machine, a.k.a. debt, it's going to be harder to fund the construction out of declining future energy surpluses.
Though we cannot know which narrative will prove correct, we do know that renewable energy is at present a very thin slice of total energy consumption.Courtesy of the EIA, here is a chart of energy  sources. (This is dated 2011, but the mix hasn't changed much.)
Note that all renewables are only 9% of total energy, and that 57% of that 9% is provided by the ancient sources of wood and hydropower (water wheels and turbines). A modest 15% of the 9% (i.e. 1.35% of the total energy) are generated by solar and wind energy.
How many trillions of dollars must be invested to replace even 20% of the energy currently provided by fossil fuels? There's an opportunity cost to this money, of course; if we blow trillions on another 500 million energy-hungry vehicles, thousands more airliners (at $100+ million each) and vacations to Bali, there will be trillions less available for investing in a functioning, resilient, sustainable renewable energy grid.
In the logic of the market, it makes no sense to sacrifice trillions of dollars in current energy and income to build something we don't yet need. So we'll put it off until we need it, but by then, we'll have squandered all the cheap energy and money on the "growth of any kind is good" economy.
Tragi-comedy in the making, or no worries, mate, energy will be cheap and abundant for decades to come? We won't know which is true until it's too late to fashion an affordable alternative.


If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Cheryl A. ($100), for your outrageously generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Thank you, Richard R. ($5/month), for your supremely generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The Eight Forces That Are Pressuring Profits

These eight forces are structural, and cannot be erased by tax cuts or policy tweaks.
If there is any economic assumption that goes unquestioned, it's the notion that profits will remain robust for the foreseeable future. This assumption ignores the tidal forces that are now flowing against profits.
Any discussion of corporate profits must start by noting the astonishing rise in U.S. corporate profits since the heyday of the late 1990s dot-com boom. From $800 billion to $2.4 trillion in a few years is not just extraordinary--it's unprecedented.
Yet rather than wonder if this incredible spike higher is temporary, the financial media assumes nosebleed-lebvel profits are a new and wonderful plateau that can only move higher in the future.
This confidence ignores the systemic tidal forces working against profits.
1. Higher costs of capital. Another blithe assumption is that capital will cost almost nothing to borrow, as far as the eye can see, and that the demand for low-yield corporate debt will remain insatiable.
The yield on bonds is rising in important markets, and while many observers reckon rates will soon return to zero (or less than zero), others see the potential for a trend change from declining rates (a 45 year trend) to rising rates.
Rising borrowing costs pressure profits.
2. Rising wages and labor overhead. Even if wages remain stagnant, the overhead costs of labor--healthcare, workers compensation, pensions, etc.--are increasing for structural reasons. Factor in global pressure to raise minimum wages and competition for the most productive labor/skillsets, and the cost of labor is rising on multiple fronts. Rising labor costs pressure profits.
3. Urbanization. An unprecedented number of working-age people have migrated from largely self-sufficient rural economies to high-cost urban economies that require much more cash income. As Immanuel Wallerstein has observed, urbanization pushes wages higher, regardless of the era or the nation experiencing the urbanization.
While cheerleaders focus on the higher income of these tens of millions of new urban dwellers, and on the potential for corporations to sell them more products and banks to lend them money, low-wage workers spend the vast majority of their income on rent, food and transport. Beyond these essentials, opportunities to earn fat margins selling to the urban poor are scarce.
4. Expanding competition and market saturation. Have you noticed how companies are getting into everyone else's business? You see all sorts of non-building supplies being sold in Home Depot, for example. With sales stagnant in the developed world and in emerging markets hit by recession or currency devaluations, expanding into established markets is seen as one of the few ways to grow sales and profits.
There is an upper limit to this trend, of course. McDonalds can grow sales by opening branches in Walmarts, and Starbucks can expand sales by opening a shop in every Target, but we're clearly reaching saturation on retail outlets everywhere. As for online sales--everybody's trying to expand their online sales, but often at the cost of lost bricks-and-mortar store sales.
5. Trade wars and de-globalization. Profits have soared for corporations that have mastered long global supply chains that serve a wide range of regional markets. Any disruption in these long supply chains due to geopolitical tensions, trade disputes or domestic pressures to relocate production back in the home country will increase costs incrementally.
6. Higher taxes. The rotation from relying of monetary expansion (quantitative easing, bond purchases, etc.) for growth to fiscal expansion (borrow and spend for infrastructure, etc.) will eventually require higher taxes on labor and capital to fund the higher fiscal spending. Higher taxes pressure profits.
7. Debt saturation. Debt has been rising across the board for the eight years of "recovery," and a slowing of debt expansion means there will be less money available to spend on goods and services. Slowing debt and slowing sales pressure profits.
8. Decline of the wealth effect. Most of the wealth effect--the psychological sense of feeling wealthier and thus more prone to borrow and spend--is concentrated in the top 5% of households that own most of the assets that have bubble higher over the past eight years. (A lesser wealth effect has trickled down the next 15%.)
The wealth effect's influence on consumption is readily visible in this chart that shows spending by the top 5% has pulled away from the spending of the bottom 95%.
Should the bubblicious asset classes that have experienced strong gains--stocks, bonds and housing-- suddenly encounter turbulence or an actual downdraft (gasp), the wealth effect will quickly wear thin, potentially impacting the biggest spenders that have been driving corporate profits.
These eight forces are structural, and cannot be erased by tax cuts or policy tweaks.


If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, David B. ($50), for your magnificently generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Thank you, Diane O'C. ($5/month), for your supremely generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

What's Truly Progressive?

What's progressive? Pushing power, agency, skills, capital and solutions down to the individual, household, community, enterprise, town and city levels and focusing on doing more with much less.
We know what fake-Progressives support: neocon-neoliberal policies and narratives that enable elite privilege, power and Imperial pretensions.
So what's truly progressive? We can start with four things:
1. Focus on developing skills that build capital, not on issuing costly credentials controlled by cartels.
2. Accept that borrowing from future generations to pay today's expenses is morally and financially bankrupt.
3. Fix healthcare by integrating medicine with the causes of illness-- lifestyle, diet, fitness, agency and culture--and decentralized programs of prevention.
4. Accept that "growth" of consumption, debt, GDP, etc. is no longer the solution, it's the problem: Degrowth is the solution.
Focusing on issuing more credentials fails students and enriches the institutions that monopolize the credentials. As I explain in my book The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy, the solution is to accredit the student, not the school.
Education that actually has value in the emerging economy is based not on jumping through hoops at enormous expense to obtain a credential, but on acquiring the skills and values needed to build capital in all its forms.
Issuing a student another credential doesn't magically lift them out of poverty; to escape poverty, people need a wealth of real-world skills and the set of soft-skills/values I call the eight essential skills in my book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy.
Accrediting the student rather than the institution will require upending the costly bureaucracy of higher education, radically reducing costs while radically improving outcomes.
Take a look at this chart of federally funded debt-serfdom, i.e. student loans, and explain what is remotely progressive about debt-serfdom in service of credentials with marginal market value.
And while we're looking at debt, look at the trajectory of federal debt and ask yourself: "does this look healthy or sustainable?" The answer is obviously no; this trajectory leads to fiscal bankruptcy, and it is morally bankrupt to burden future generations to pay today's bloated, wasteful expenses just to maintain the status quo.
It is insane to encourage an unhealthy lifestyle and then wonder why the costs of treating the illnesses we've generated are skyrocketing. The obvious solution is to look at health as an ecosystem of inputs and dynamics that interact in predictable ways. If we put garbage in, we get garbage (poor health) out. In essence, the current system relieves the participants ("patients") of the responsibility to be part of the solution, and offers few ways for people to participate in regaining their health.
The solutions are visible, but they're not profitable to the status quo, so we get a system that is more expensive than any other on Earth while yielding subpar outcomes.
"Growth" as the solution to every problem may have worked in 1945, but runaway "growth" of debt-funded consumption was do-able when resources were abundant, the population of high-consumption humans was lower and debt was modest. None of those apply today.
The only solution going forward is Degrowth: doing more with much less. The only way to manage this progress is to decentralize the power and control; centralization, like "growth," is itself the problem, not the solution.
I lay out how to structure a global network of community economies geared to doing more with much less in my book A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All.
What's progressive? Pushing power, agency, skills, capital and solutions down to the individual, household, community, enterprise, town and city levels and focusing on doing more with much less. This requires completely disrupting the debt-based, wasteful, centralized, privilege-protecting status quo.


If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.
Thank you, Robert W. ($12), for your most generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.
Thank you, Edward T. ($5/month), for your supremely generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

The Path to $10,000 Bitcoin

So let's imagine a scenario in which tens of trillions of at-risk wealth suddenly seek an alternative--any alternative to staying in an asset class that's circling the drain.
As my colleague Davefairtex observed recently, the paint isn't quite dry on bitcoin and the expanding host of other cryptocurrencies. Initial enthusiasm for the latest cryptocurrency that's going to eat bitcoin's lunch generates outsized returns for early investors, but as glitches in the vision arise, the bubble of initial euphoria pops.
Differing visions of bitcoin's future have divided its community of participants and miners, and hard forks have split other cryptocurrencies into competing camps.
Meanwhile, the spectre of outright bans on bitcoin and cryptocurrencies by nations such as China adds uncertainty to the entire sector. Many observers expect that China's increasingly pervasive attempts to staunch the flow of capital out of China via capital controls will lead inevitably to strict limits on bitcoin or even a total ban on bitcoin transactions and mining in China.
Since the majority of mining and transactions occur in China, severe limits or a ban would have an outsized impact on the bitcoin community. Many observers foresee the potential for a massive decline in the price of bitcoin should such a ban be imposed.
As if all these issues didn't generate enough uncertainty and skepticism, it seems as if every time the general public starts getting interested in cryptocurrencies, another exchange is hacked or another entry in the cryptocurrency sweepstakes blows up, sending the sector back into the "untrustworthy" abyss.
But this minefield shouldn't blind us to the possibility of a path to $10,000 bitcoin. Skepticism is always prudent in any financial matter, especially a speculative one, so put on your skeptical thinking cap and follow along.
The problem is everything is now speculative. Do you really think the $100 trillion private-sector bond market (i.e. the bet that debtors will pay back what they borrowed with interest) is "safe," as in guaranteed, bullet-proof, no serious loss of capital is possible, etc.? How about the $60 trillion sovereign (government) bond market?
The problem with sovereign bonds is governments with central banks can create "money" out of thin air to pay interest and redeem maturing bonds, but this devalues the currency. So getting back 100% of your nominal investment doesn't mean you're whole; if the currency the bond is denominated in fell 50%, bondholders suffer a 50% loss in the purchasing power of their initial capital. Ouch. How is that not speculative?
How about the $70 trillion in global stocks? Yes, we all "know" that stocks will never go down ever again because central banks can keep inflating new credit bubbles indefinitely--but let's not kid ourselves: history tells us that stocks remain a speculative gamble.
How about the $62 trillion in unsecuritized debt instruments? How much of this debt is collateralized by fast-dying malls, bubble-priced real estate, or Unicorn-type valuations in other assets?
Take a gander at this chart of financial assets, roughly $300 trillion, and note that this doesn't include real estate, housing, etc. Global real estate is estimated at $217 trillion, roughly two-thirds of financial wealth.
Together, these assets add up to over $500 trillion.
Once again, the larger context here is: all these assets are speculative. Yes, even real estate. Consider this, if you missed it: When Assets (Such as Real Estate) Become Liabilities.
Then there's the currency market. Care to argue that currencies are non-speculative investments? Is that why Chinese wealth is gushing out of the yuan, because it's so guaranteed to never lose purchasing power? Is that why the euro fell from 1.40 to 1.05, because it's a guaranteed safe investment? Venezuelans learned the hard way that fiat currencies when mismanaged by the issuing nation/central bank can destroy wealth on an unimaginable scale.
So now let's turn to bitcoin, with a market cap of about $14 billion, down from a recent high of $18 billion. Now compare that to $500 trillion. If we take 1 measly little trillion, bitcoin's entire market cap is 1/70th of that.
So let's imagine a scenario in which tens of trillions of at-risk wealth suddenly seek an alternative--any alternative to staying in an asset class that's circling the drain. We're accustomed to "rotation," the nice little game where bonds can be sold and the capital invested in real estate or stocks, or vice versa.
We're less accustomed to all the conventional asset classes toppling like dominoes. Where do the fleeing trillions go when stocks, bonds and real estate are all going down in a chaotic sell-off? Gold and silver are time-honored safe havens, but it's not too difficult to foresee the potential for limits or bans on gold, or supply constraints. Some percentage of investors will consider alternatives.
In such an environment of a crowd rushing for increasingly narrowing exits, what thin slice of institutional and individual investors will take a chance that bitcoin might hold or even increase its value as a major currency melts down, or some other global financial crisis unfolds?
Shall we guess 1/10th of 1% of the panicky fleeing wealth will take the chance that bitcoin will be a safer haven than the conventional assets that are cratering?
So 1% of the $300 trillion in financial assets (setting aside the $200 trillion in real estate for the moment) is $3 trillion, and a tenth of that is $300 billion.
So what happens to bitcoin's price if $300 billion rushes through the wormhole? On the face of it, market cap would go up 20-fold from current levels. Since the number of bitcoin is limited to around 18 or 19 million (subtracting those bitcoin lost forever to hard drive crashes, etc., and those yet to be mined), price would also have to rise 20-fold.
OK, so 1/10th of 1% of global financial wealth flowing into bitcoin strains credulity. Let's make it 1/20th of 1%, or $150 billion. That still pushes bitcoin's market cap and price up 10-fold.
That's the pathway to $10,000 bitcoin. Unlikely, you say? Perhaps. But if you're of the mind that $500 trillion in current assets might be revalued considerably lower in a global crisis, then a tiny sliver of that fast-evaporating wealth finding a home in bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies) doesn't seem all that farfetched.
You want farfetched, how about $3 trillion in panicky fleeing capital flooding into bitcoin? Yes, a whole, gigantic, enormous 1% of speculative financial "wealth" and "money" seeking a home in cryptocurrencies.
(It's worth doing the same exercise with gold, only substitute $6.4 trillion in market cap (i.e. all the non-central owned bank gold) for bitcoin's $14 billion market cap.)
Cryptocurrencies are intrinsically volatile and speculative. Anyone pondering them must keep this firmly in mind at all times. There is no "guaranteed" safety or guaranteed anything. Everything that appears solid can melt into thin air (to borrow Marx's phrase) without advance notice.
Disclosure: the author has a tiny speculative position in bitcoin. This is not a recommendation to anyone to speculate in any financial instrument, including cryptocurrecies. Please read the site's full disclosure here: HUGE GIANT BIG FAT DISCLAIMER.


If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by 
becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.
Check out both of my new books, Inequality and the Collapse of Privilege ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print) and Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle, $8.95 print). For more, please visit the OTM essentials website.

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, CJeffrey C. ($50), for your stupendously generous contribution to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.
Thank you, James L. ($5/month), for your supremely generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Terms of Service

All content on this blog is provided by Trewe LLC for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at anytime and without notice.


Our Privacy Policy:
Correspondents' email is strictly confidential. The third-party advertising placed by Adsense, Investing Channel and/or other ad networks may collect information for ad targeting. Links for commercial sites are paid advertisements. Blog links on the site are posted at my discretion.


Our Commission Policy:
Though I earn a small commission on Amazon.com books and gift certificates purchased via links on my site, I receive no fees or compensation for any other non-advertising links or content posted on my site.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP