Richard Sylla: This Is An Inherently Dangerous Moment In History

<img class=“alignnone” style=“width: 116px; height: 175px; float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;” src=“https://peakprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/51cDrxgQIpL.SX329_BO1204203200.jpg” alt="“A History Of Interest Rates book cover” width=“331” height=“499” />“The rates we’ve had in recent years, including right now, are the lowest in history. The book that I co-authored on the history of interest rates traces back to the code of Hammurabi, Babylonian civilization, Greek and Roman civilization, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and early modern history right up to the present. And I can assure our listeners that the rates that they’re experiencing right now are the lowest in human history.”

So says Richard Sylla, Professor Emeritus of Economics and the Former Henry Kaufman Professor of the History of Financial Institutions and Markets at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He is also co-author of the book A History Of Interest Rates (Wiley).

We invited Professor Sylla onto the podcast after hearing his work favorably referenced by the panel convened at the recent hearing held by the US Congress titled: “The Federal Reserve’s Impact on Main Street, Retirees and Savings.”

Based on his deep study across the scope of millennia of human history, Sylla warns we are at a dangerous moment in time:

What’s really unique about the current period is that these low and negative interest rates have not been some accident, but a policy target of central banks (...)

Large parts of the population haven’t seem to have gotten much benefit at all from these central bank policies or even the ‘recovery’. But the rich have done quite well, despite having to compete with one other to pay $100 million for a painting(…)

These low interest rates aren’t just affecting the asset prices though. There’s this search for yield that was going on before the financial crisis and it’s something we probably ought to worry about because money may be being mis-allocated now.

One area in which we see this is, despite low oil prices, the capital markets are feeding a lot of money into oil exploration in the United States. This is not wise allocation of capital because a lot of these shale oil, company oil and gas drillers are not making any money now – so Wall Street is putting money into a business sector where the returns don’t look to be that great. What if a lot of these junk bonds fail as they tend to do, or the shale oil drillers go bankrupt after Wall Street has put a lot of money in there? That’s one of the key worries about very low interest rates such as we’re having now – it causes distortions and mis-allocations(…)

I harken back to Hyman Minsky, whom I knew. Minsky said Stability breeds instability. I think we found that out in the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and I see that now they talk about the VIX being very low and the stock exchange people don’t seem to think there’s much danger out there in the world. If Minsky is right, this attitude of Things seem to be very stable now, therefore I can run out and buy stocks at prices that are at historic highs – that may be setting us up for the next financial problem.

There are a lot of similarities to what’s going on right now and what went on before in the 2007-2009 financial crisis. And people don’t seem to worry about that. It’s like things are really stable now and the Central Banks got us through the crisis without having a Great Depression, so it’s smooth sailing from here. There’s probably too much optimism right now about the economic future(…)

Looking at the tremendous growth of financial markets compared to GDP growth: there used to be a relationship between them that seemed to be pretty close. But in for the last 50 years or so, the financial markets have expanded at a much higher compound rate. What it means is that the world has taken on a huge amount of debt and has been compounding that debt at a much higher rate then economic growth. It does seem to me to be an inherently dangerous situation because all this debt has to be serviced, you have to pay the interest on it. Usually, you have to pay it back at some point. And so if it’s growing much faster and then the economic base that is going to generate the income to pay it back, I think we are making ourselves more vulnerable. It’s true in the United States; it may be even more true in some of the places in Europe where the banks seem to be more highly levered. And in China there’s been a tremendous expansion of credit(…)

And of course, if we’re at a slow rate of growth now and we have another crisis, the rate of growth will be even slower. My fellow economist Robert Gordon claims that we can look forward to a much lower rate of growth in the future than we’ve had in the past. And furthermore, the ordinary people, the ones who are an angry populace now, they’re the ones who are not going to experience much growth at all. What growth we will have is going to generally flow to the top of the income distribution – and in that way of the world is becoming more unequal. It’s a gloomy outlook.

I think history would say it’s more than likely that we’ll have another financial crisis. And based on a lot of what we’ve talked about here today, history says that crisis may not be far off.


Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with Professor Richard Sylla (47m:58s).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/richard-sylla-this-is-an-inherently-dangerous-moment-in-history/

Well, I listened to the podcast. I had mixed feelings. At times, I was enthralled/apathetic/disappointed with the answers. It seems that everything is awesome/meh/impossible. Oil has always been 20 or 30 years from running out. Interest rates have never been lower - but nothing mentioned about the consequences, causes, or how to rectify the situation. Professor Sylla addressed everything, more or less, from a historical biographer’s view. I’m more interested in living the future than the past.
Richard Sylla didn’t mention his other hand, but he certainly isn’t a “one handed economist.” It’s hard to nail economists down to anything substantial since they’ve spent a whole career obfuscating what passes for facts. I don’t know why I expected more. Thanks for trying, Chris.
Grover

Richard Sylla seemed completely unimpressed by the idea that energy resources were ever going to be an issue, let alone any time soon.
The logical fallacy on display can be summed up like this: “For my whole life people have been telling me that someday I will die, but they’ve been wrong and that has obviously not happened. Therefore I can conclude that I won’t die.”
I remain stumped by obviously intelligent people who cannot grasp the very simple logic of stuff. If you want more economic stuff to happen you need more natural resources stuff to facilitate that. More stuff requires more stuff.
Cast a lazy glance around and it’s obvious that stuff has to come from somewhere and that there’s less high quality stuff out there in the natural world than ever.
Cast an even lazier glance at human population numbers and you can see that humanity has undergone something of a population explosion over the past hundred years. During Richard’s life time population has gone from 2.4 billion to 7.4 billion. Astonishing.
But not as astonishing as imagining away the resource issue.

In case you missed it elsewhere, here’s my weekly update, shot in Maine, where the effects of humans on the environment is profound…and obvious.

Clearly energy resources have been a factor in most wars. Are they the cause of the wars? For example, Hallibuton made out pretty well in Iraq.

From Amazon:
“…competition to control access to oil shaped the geopolitics of the twentieth century and… contention for dwindling energy resources in the twenty-first century will lead to resource wars in the Middle East, Central Asia and South America.”
The book they’re describing is The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies: https://www.amazon.com/Partys-Over-Fate-Industrial-Societies/dp/0865715297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502208223&sr=8-1&keywords=the+party%27s+over+heinberg

main-qimg-996a5772e94c58fa4bcc0a7706991c46.webp

Things got interesting when Chris interjected some reality into the conversation. All of those estimates 20 to 30 years ago about running out now were probably based upon the assumptions that we would not be insane enough to create flammable tap water for a little more natural gas, consume huge amounts of water and forests for tar sands fuel, et etc etc etc. I wonder how Michael Hudson, another economic historian, would view all of this.
I can’t resist a related rant. I wonder if the powers that be (Koch, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc) see our present situation as the perfect perpetual motion profit machine since, in the very short term, a dwindling supply of conventional oil will be available. More and more of this ever increasingly costly (in the long term) conventional oil will be needed to produce a single unit of energy, which means more profits. If this poisons our water, even more energy/oil will be needed to purify it, which means even more profits. If Bechtel succeeds in privatizing our water supply (like they tried to do in Bolivia) this will drive the profits into the stratosphere. If this increases the cancer rates etc, that increases the health industry’s profits even more. If this drives people into poverty, it will force them into a crime spree which increases the prison industrial complex’s profits. To keep the cycle of crime going the drug cartels, with the help of the CIA, ship in even more drugs. This, in turn, helps keep the banking industry afloat by their laundering of the drug money. Of course, the military industrial complex profits handsomely by keeping the Taliban from wiping out those Afghan poppy fields and controlling the Iraq (and Iran?) oil fields. It is one very happy oligarchic family.

I’m not so sure about this:
“All of those estimates 20 to 30 years ago about running out now were probably based upon the assumptions that we would not be insane enough to create flammable tap water for a little more natural gas, consume huge amounts of water and forests for tar sands fuel, et etc etc etc.”
I think they just didn’t know it was ever a physical possibility.

Maybe my impressions aren’t accurate, but I feel like this sort of dismissal is common in a lot of your guests who talk about the economy. I seem to remember John Rubino saying more than once something like “if we can play our financial cards right, we can benefit from the economic badness ahead and have a wonderful life and benefit from all of this amazing technology that’s coming along.” Most of the time with John, you seem to let it go–this interview was a bit different because Prof Sylla said directly that he didn’t think it was a big deal.

KugsCheese wrote:
Clearly energy resources have been a factor in most wars. Are they the cause of the wars? For example, Hallibuton made out pretty well in Iraq.
Came across an interesting post out on the web today. Given the timeliness, here's food for thought.
Quote:
"I wouldn´t think so. NK have been on the list since 2002 at least. Yes, the speedy tit-for-tat response of a threat from NK to launch an attack on Guam seems ill-thought through, but regardless of diplomacy, here is a nation that has known itself to be in the cross-hairs of US imperialism for at least three decades, if historic sanctioning is taken into account, and whose only strength lies in convincing it´s isolated public that it will be the belligerent and courageous victor in any shootout with the US. Although technically unsophisticated in comparison to how the US conducts its own nefarious propaganda, NK´s state media broadcasts are easy to intercept and demonstrate as proof of a threat. The US, being run by you-know-who´s, has form and historic experience in presenting itself as the helpless victim. China´s approval of the UN sanctions resolution on NK yesterday means little if you consider the worth in attempting to veto it. As with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, none of which we´d consider to be CIA-collaborative, all were purported to be dictatorial and starving their people. We see the same pattern with NK, while the US make no mention of the historic sanctioning that had really starved the people of all these mineral-rich nations. The intention as far as I see it, is that WW3 is being carefully choreographed to go off on ALL fronts simultaneously. NATO are expected to take care of a heavily distracted Russia in the Baltic regions and Ukraine, whose post-coup puppet,Poroshenko, is now being armed by the US. The US will concentrate their own forces on China, NK and now probably the Philippines, with the help of Australia, a Crown territory, if Malcolm Turnbull´s interjection into affairs today is considered significant. Meanwhile, in the melee and with all others preoccupied, Israel will attack Iran, probably with the help of Saudi Arabia, who, lets face it, will need to serve the purpose of their installation by the British Crown at some point. Sorry for the essay :) The West are at the point of getting found out and losing control of their militaries. It´s now or never for the Zionist controlling infiltrators."

A charming interview. The benefit I have from studying the history of my species is that I never underestimate human stupidity, nor human short-sightedness. We have a penchant for ignoring the obvious that is both quaint and terrifying.

But, my pole beans are producing and I spent an hour in my garden among the bees buzzing by, pollinating the very plants I may someday rely on to live, and feed my family and my neighbors. I was “connected” in a way my culture and society have never been able to do.
All is not lost, once you give up everything you know.

Chris, you are looking very fit. Well done on that aspect of preparing!

Hi Chris, What happened to your measured, neutral interviewing style?
You used to have a lot more open questions: “What do you think about this?”.
Lately, I sense that you’re looking for validation: “I think x, do I have that right?”.
Contrast this interview to the Harry Dent interview when he said many things you wouldn’t agree with, but you let it go. Similarly, as another commenter noted, John Rubino says things about the wonder of technology but you let that go, too.
I used to share links to these interviews with people who weren’t on-board with the PP theme yet, but might find the information eye-opening. Unfortunately, there is too much of your agenda in them now to share as “unbiased information”.
Just some feedback on something I’ve noticed more and more over the last few months.
Otherwise, keep up the good work and quality information flow.
Cheers!

Dlumb77 wrote:
You used to have a lot more open questions: "What do you think about this?". Lately, I sense that you're looking for validation: "I think x, do I have that right?". Contrast this interview to the Harry Dent interview when he said many things you wouldn't agree with, but you let it go. Similarly, as another commenter noted, John Rubino says things about the wonder of technology but you let that go, too.
To summarize; I don't challenge people enough with my own opinions, I challenge them too much with my own opinions. Any middle ground in there I'm missing? ;)

I’ve listened to half the interview and I had to stop and read other’s comments because I’m shaking my head. In contrast to others I enjoyed listening to you tactfully ask him questions based on your own line of thinking. I thought it was very civil and thoughtful, unlike some of the interviews these days where two smart people end up in a yelling match because one side is unable to convert the other party to their line. I found the last two questions about placing your chips on the black or red to be the most telling. Based on how the interview I was sure Mr. Sylla was going to choose 50/50 on red/black. frown

Dlumb77 said -

"I used to share links to these interviews with people who weren't on-board with the PP theme yet, but might find the information eye-opening. Unfortunately, there is too much of your agenda in them now to share as "unbiased information". Oh for Pete's sake: "unbiased", really? If people with views that were 180 degrees opposite of Chris's were interviewed - well that would be a difficult interview because they would be very uninformed and to put it bluntly - stupid. IMHO of course. Agenda, like leading by example or caring about people other than himself. Let's review - The Crash Course is FREE wholly cow who gives anything away for free these days? Ghandhi's in good company with Chris and Adam!
AKGrannyWGrit

I was actually just more curious about the reasons you let some people go and not others. John is a regular guest, so I don’t see it as a temporal shift in style of interview.

Dlumb77 wrote:
I used to share links to these interviews with people who weren't on-board with the PP theme yet, but might find the information eye-opening. Unfortunately, there is too much of your agenda in them now to share as "unbiased information".
Chris, I spend more money subscribing to your site than I do on my daily newspaper subscription, so I have good intentions. I think perhaps the element to which Dlumb77 refers is a certain attitude that emerges in this particular interview. There are some half-submerged chuckles during the interview and a moment in which you seemed to be somewhat condescending in your challenge to Scylla. It's your podcast, so challenge away. I think, though, that your tone in places would be off-putting to someone who isn't already one of the converted.

Not my impression at all.

debu wrote:
Not my impression at all.
I could be wrong, certainly.