Are the glorious years over?

May 18, 2011

Normandy, France

In our travels around the world, somewhere...somehow...we lost the re-charger to our laptop. ---------------------------------------------- Don't Miss! ----------------------------------------------

He's the Oracle of Omaha.

He's the world's most successful investor.

Your guess is right.

The Warren Buffett Quiz. Click Here to participate


So...this will have to be short...we're running out of juice!

Yesterday, the Dow fell again. Oil is still below $100. And gold is sinking.

In other words, everything is happening as it should. It's too early to draw a conclusion or spot a near-term trend. We'll have to wait to see.

But we have a strong suspicion that if you're betting on making money from the stock market, it's high time you became a seller rather than a buyer. Yes, we know. You did all right so far, by ignoring our advice since the dark days of 2009. The stock market is up. This year, it's up even more than gold.

But this time, ignore our advice at your peril.

Buy gold on dips; sell stocks on rallies. That has been our advice for over ten years. It hasn't been the best thing you could do every year - far from it. But it's been the best thing you could have done over the whole period. If you'd stuck to the formula from the beginning (we wish we had!) you'd have 5 times as much money.

What about the years ahead?

Still guessing...but it looks like the whole commodity complex, energy, and gold are about to take a breather. We wouldn't be surprised to see gold go down from here...and stay down for months, or even years. Major trends take time. This one has been remarkably consistent - so far. It's given us profits every year from our gold. There's no guarantee that will continue. But odds are good that the real payoff for gold is still ahead - perhaps far ahead.

Remember, a bet on gold is a bet against Ben Bernanke and the geniuses at the Fed and the Treasury. That's a bet we're happy to make. And we don't mind suffering the slings and arrows of contrary fortune for a few years before the bet comes good.

But we don't have much time this let's change the subject. Something has been on our mind...just a stray thought, really, probably with not worth mentioning...

In the vast pre-history of mankind, those dim beasts that were our ancestors lived on only what they could catch or gather up. Humans spread out, exterminated the easy prey...and probably the competing hominids...and populated the livable earth. Then, mankind increased his range by harnessing fire. It gave him more energy to work with - warmth, that would allow him to move to colder, more marginal climates. Next, he figured out that he could tame wild animals...and plant wild seeds. This gave him even more energy - calories - to support larger numbers of humans. Populations increased - up to the limit of what their energy-capturing technology would allow, and no further.

Man's rate of progress was painfully slow - with incremental improvements taking place over centuries or millennia. And then, each time he discovered a breakthrough - fire, domesticated animals, agriculture - he took a big leap where he had completely played out the advantage.

Arguably, the biggest leap forward of all came in the 18th century, when Europeans found that they could get a lot more energy - first out of coal...and then from oil. This new, condensed energy allowed them to make steel...and build ships and factories. It also permitted agriculture on an industrial scale.

What we've seen in the West - and Japan - over the last three hundred years has been nothing more than the adoption of this new breakthrough technology....and the expansion of living standards with it. And now, what we are seeing in China and much of the developing world is just the continuation of the trend - using oil and coal to power a modern, fully built-out economy. A simple way to look at it is just to look at energy use per person. Rich people use a lot of energy. That's what it means to be 'rich' - to have the things you make, deliver and service out of steel, plastic and other energy-intensive products. It means living in a house that consumes a lot of energy too - in appliances, heating and air-conditioning. And it means traveling - in energy-swilling trains, planes and automobiles.

Looked at this way, it is easy to understand what is going on in China, for example. People are merely catching up in their use of energy.

But wait. What will happen as 3 billion people try to use as much energy as we do? This is the question that aggravates worriers all over the planet. But we're going to ignore it and ask a different, but related question:

What happens when these 18th and 19th century energy breakthroughs are fully realized?

It is essentially the same question, but from a different angle. Yes, as more and more people increase their use of energy, we should see energy prices rise. Energy will be rationed by price - like everything else. People who use it efficiently and effectively will get more mileage out of it. They will go a little further.

In this respect, the USA is lucky. It is one of the more wasteful users of energy. People live far from one another. They live in big houses and drive cars about twice as big as they need to be. They put on the AC rather than open a window.

Besides, America - unlike most other countries - is rich in energy. Coal, wood, wind, sun - it's got it all. Americans can use substitutes...they can improvise. They can make do.

But the point we're reaching for is this: yes, you can stretch out energy...yes, you can use a lot less of it and still maintain your standard of living...and yes, you can probably increase your quality of life extensively - simply by getting some energy-related garbage out of your life.

But can you expect a big increase in your standard of living, when the real source of it - cheap energy - is exhausted?

US wages stopped growing at about the time of the first oil shock in the early '70s. Since then, US standards of living have improved...but only by stealing time. More people spent more time working. And much of what they consumed was borrowed or stolen from the future.

Even those additions of 'phony growth' largely came to an end after the Nasdaq crash of 2000. In terms of real, private sector growth, the US has been flat for a decade.

And look at what happened in Europe and Japan. Almost all developed, mature economies enjoyed a big growth spurt in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. The "thirty glorious years," they call it. And then what? Growth rates slowed down. Japan goosed its economy with lower interest rates, after the Plaza Accords of the mid-'80s; its bubble economy blew up in '89. Since then, Japan has made almost no progress economically. France is locked in its own social welfare delusions; it seems to think it can make people better off by adding labor law protections. England grew in the '90s and '00s largely by offering the world 'financial services' whose real effect was mainly to increase debt levels. Only Germany seems to have come up with a formula for sustained growth - by selling capital goods to the growing economies. Almost half the rolling stock of China seems to have a German mark on it - either Audi, Volkswagen or Mercedes.

And now America's manufacturers are stirring once again too. The falling dollar has lowered real US wages. As long as the developing nations continue to use more energy, exporting energy-rich products will almost surely be a good business for those who can do it.

But what about the rest of the economy? What about the economies of the mature, energy-satiated nations? Are the days of real, rapid growth over? Are we just trying to become more efficient...and hope for small increments of growth? Are we merely hoping to hold onto our standards of living, while reducing the inputs of energy and raw materials?

Are we all retired now...counting our pennies and our buts until we finally adjourn.

Are the glorious years over?

Bill Bonner is the President & Founder of Agora Inc, an international publisher of financial and special interest books and newsletters.

Disclaimer: The views mentioned above are of the author only. Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Equitymaster do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader. Please read the detailed Terms of Use of the web site.

Recent Articles

A New Infrastructure Boom March 26, 2019
Selva Freigedo talks about the potential in 5G network and how it could transform the way we communicate.
A 40 Somethings Guide to YouTube Hits March 20, 2019
Vivek dwells into a new YouTube phenomenon.
As the Economy Slows Down, Maruti and Two-Wheeler Companies Cut Production March 19, 2019
The country's largest car maker has cut production by more than a fourth.
In Supporting Demonetisation, RBI Behaved Like an Old Uncle Not Willing to Take a Stand March 13, 2019
The minutes of the meeting of the RBI Board which happened before demonetisation have been released.

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Are the glorious years over?". Click here!

4 Responses to "Are the glorious years over?"


May 18, 2011

THE MISSING LINK remains missing in all budgets. I am reminded of what the great Einstein said: "There are two things permanent: the universe and THE STUPIDITY OF MAN and I am not too sure about the first !!!
Any sensible redution in the trillions that is spent on armaments by ALL countries will dramaticlly reduce budget deficits. The political leadership will not do it because unlike animals we do not trust our own species . . .
RELIGION continues to be the biggest cause of conflict. If only the very influential religious leaders would stop promoting their faith as the ONLY true one and the very best, there would be far more harmony in the world and hope for real PEACE
For example, the stock of nuclear warheads requires millions worth of protection each year. Why not immediately reduce it by half ? There will still be enough to destroy the world in case of a nuclear war. How unrealistic can our leaders be ????
So our writers and analyists of ecnomic trends need to refocus their attention on this criminal waste. It is an available rescue act, but will stupidity be cast aside and realism prevail ?? Sultan Fazelbhoy Mumbai India


R Verma

May 18, 2011

Is it also not possible that the prosperity of the Western developed world was based on exploitation of newly-discovered lands, colonies, slavery, indentured labour, availability of natural resources like oil at artificially low prices because of "friendly rulers" etc.?

Even the US which did not have formally have "colonies" effectively exploited cheap labour and resources of South and Central America and the Arab world as if they were its

Post World War II developments- decolonisation and countries like India, China and other developing countries being able to take charge of their own econonies- has adversely affected countries whose prosperity was based on their exploitation.



May 18, 2011

Good to read. Go nuclear. Learn to use it safe or become radiation resistant.


Om Prakash Sharma

May 18, 2011

The well thoght out and reasoned article I have come across

Equitymaster requests your view! Post a comment on "Are the glorious years over?". Click here!