Believing The Impossible

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

~ Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass

To borrow from Lewis Carroll: To have confidence in today's central bank-created bubble markets, we have to believe in six impossible things.

Thing 1: Fundamentals Don’t Matter.

In our brave new world of money printing to infinity, we're supposed to buy into a “new paradigm” story. You know, that It’s different this time.

Spoiler alert: It never is.

Companies either make money or they don’t. They're either good investments or they aren't. They'll either return risk-adjusted cash to you over time, or they won't.

Here’s a simple exercise. Using a publicly available stock screener at Finviz.com, a favorite site of mine, I set two filter parameters to obtain a list of companies that have::

  1. A market cap of over $2B
  2. A P/E ratio in excess of 50x

These are the biggest companies that, in theory at least, require investors to wait 50 years (or more) to be paid back in profits for each dollar invested.

236 companies fit this description right now. 236!

Here’s a screenshot of page 11 of the results. Every company listed here has a P/E multiple of over 190(!). 

(Source – here’s the exact screen I used, so you can troll the results for yourself)

Again, these sky-high ratios mean that investors are willing to wait more than 190 years for these companies to earn back their principal at current stock earnings prices.

In a word, folks, this is nuts. Not even during the height of the 2000 and 2007 bubbles could we find such an enormous number of extreme results spread across every sector as we see today. The small selection in the table above includes companies from the stodgy food, machinery, energy, and insurance sectors, also joined by traditional high-fliers like biotech and internet.

This is exactly the sort of indiscriminate optimism that identifies a late-stage classic bubble market. Nothing can ruin the party vibe. Anything and everything is priced beyond perfection. Each sector has its own story to rationalize the exuberance. “Oh, energy is poised to rebound soon, and Amazon has monopoly pricing power that will never be challenged, and Netflix is investing in premium content, and food, well, uh, food…you know, this particular company is special…maybe a takeover target?”

In the table above, I’ve highlighted a few companies in yellow just as conversation starters.

Let's start with Yelp. I don’t even grasp how Yelp deserves a P/E of more than 15, let alone 192. Its business model of using crowd-sourced reviews to drive eyeballs/traffic to sell advertising against is facing competition from every possible direction. Google is squeezing them on every front, and new apps come along daily to parse the same review & locator territories.

Schlumberger is not a soon-to-recover story. Even if it were, that doesn’t help to justify the 21 other oil & gas companies returned for this particular filter I ran. Taken together, seeing so many super-high P/E companies from this sector is difficult to explain -- outside of the markets throwing all caution to the wind.

Netflix is almost a special case of willful investor denial, similar to Twitter, Uber, and Amazon. In each case “investors” have waited year after year after year for earnings to finally materialize, but none do. Worse, it’s been nothing but a steady parade of red ink.

Does this look like the sort of explosive earnings growth you’d want to see to justify a P/E of 220?

(Source)

And those are "earnings", which are easily doctored by accounting gimmickry into telling a picture rosier than true reality. Netflix’s cash flow burns are much better at showing how colossally this company loses money:

Quarterly burn rates in excess of $500 million are not the sign of a maturing, successful company. This is a company that is completely dependent on continued access to new inflows of funds from generous suckers -- ahem!, investors -- in the capital markets.

If those inflows stop and the company have to actually earn positive results from what it has already built, then Netflix would have to abandon its current cash-bleeding business model. In a more normal market environment, such pause would justify a P/E ratio of perhaps 1/10th the current ratio of 220.

And one last example to show that stocks are not the only asset class experiencing a price bubble. Without getting bogged down too much into the details of bonds, seeing Greek 2-year debt trading today with a lower yield (i.e. a higher price) than US 2-year Treasury debt tells us that similar massive price distortions exist in the bond markets as well.

The bottom line here is that fundamentals have been entirely tossed out the window. To believe in today's asset prices you have to believe in a future so bright and full of explosive growth that it’s literally going to eclipse every other growth period in all of modern history.

In other words, you have to believe that This time is different.

Thing 2: You Can Print Prosperity.

For nearly a decade now, central banks have been pretending they are printing up prosperity.

Our weak-minded and subservient media has been dutifully parroting these claims, even though they're easily refutable by anyone willing to do a little fourth-grade math. 

Money printing can only ever do one thing: take from one group while giving to another. It's wealth redistributive, not additive.

As I've frequently said, if it were possible to create true prosperity by printing money, the Romans would have succeeded long ago and we’d all be speaking Latin. 

But the common narrative we're being told/sold is that financial markets are going up because more wealth is being created. Metrics like record total market capitalization and home values are used endlessly on the airwaves as unassailable proof of the "everything is awesome" meme.

But even a cursory examination of the underlying data reveals that these increases in price are not the same as an increase in wealth. In fact, the efforts of the central planners result in an increasingly unfair distribution of wealth, where the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.

For example, savers are losing, while equity holders are gaining. That’s a redistribution forced upon the system by central banks that have crammed interest rates to never-before-seen 5,000 year lows while also directly supporting stock prices by buying them. Yes, Virginia, purchasing financial assets with freshly-printed thin-air money spikes their prices higher .

Is that the same as creating wealth? No. Not at all.

Thing 3: Currency, stocks and bonds are “wealth.”

We have to accept with the very simple, but difficult, concept that wealth is not money. It's not currency either. And it’s not debt, it’s not stocks, and it’s not Bitcoin. Those are all claims on wealth.

Real wealth is real things. Land, food, cars, houses and other tangible and/or productive assets that we can use or consume.

We use markers to make claims on real wealth. Those claims are always, by definition, in the future.

For example, if I have a pocket full of money, I don’t have to worry about going hungry. I can always exchange my money for food later on when I am hungry. I use my claims on wealth as convenient placeholders for when I want to consume or use something later on, in the future.

By way of example, suppose you're starving but your pocketful of money can't buy any food because none exists in the stores. How much “wealth” would you say you have in that situation? A lot, some, or none?

This very circumstance faces many people in Venezuela right now. People who recently believed themselves to be wealthy because they had money suddenly discovered to their dismay that holding those claims is not at all the same thing as holding real wealth.

(Source)

At Peak Prosperity, we classify wealth into three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary wealth is sourced from the land. It is rich soils, thick stands of timber and abundant reserves of ores and fossil fuels in the ground.

Secondary wealth is the means of production that has been extracted and/or converted from primary wealth and brought to market. It's lumber, steel, food in the grocery store, and factories.

Tertiary wealth, better known as 'paper wealth' (stocks, bonds, etc), is merely a claim on either primary and secondary wealth. Without either of those two forms of wealth, tertiary wealth has no value.

It was only recently that people somehow forgot this simple logical progression. Two hundred years ago, the answer to the question “Who are the wealthiest people around here?” was as simple as pointing to those who owned the most land (primary) or factories and stores (secondary).

But after 50+ years of intellectually-bankrupt experiments with “financialization”, people have entirely lost this thread and now confuse wealth with claims on wealth. Today the “wealthiest” are far too often composed of the skimmers and grafters that best learned how to exploit an ill-advised system of exponential credit expansion.

In order to believe in this system you have to believe that true wealth is created by the financial system, rather than by hard working people who take risks and deploy their talents to convert primary wealth into secondary wealth.

That just isn't the case.

Thing 4: The World Is Infinite.

To believe in the endless expansion of claims on wealth (i.e. that ever-rising stock and bond prices are rational) means that you also have to believe that the world is infinite.

To explain why, let's take a closer look at debt. Total credit market debt has been expanding exponentially in recent decades.

In order to believe the recent narrative of continued credit expansion alone (leaving aside the exponentially growing equity claims for the moment) you have to believe that somehow, magically, it’s possible to increase claims on wealth faster than actual real wealth…forever:

In the above chart, the green dotted line tracks the increase in global GDP while the blue dotted line tracks the increase in global debt. (Note: we're not including here under-funded liabilities such as pensions and entitlements which, if we did, make this story approximately 4x worse).

We can easily see that credit has been increasing much faster than GDP. This is an impossible, unsustainable condition -- mathematically certain to end in tears. Yet everyone is pretending as if we'll be able to continue this way perpetually, with no consequences.

Any grade-school child can work out the bad math involved here. It’s simply impossible for your debts to rise at a faster rate than your income forever.

So to be a believer in the current market's valuations and trajectory, you have to believe in a world with "no limits".

Thing 5: History Doesn’t Matter.

In every single case throughout history when claims on wealth have badly exceeded the real wealth itself, the claims have devauled. Usually quite painfully so.

World wars have resulted as a consequence. As have dark periods of great economic depression.

The core model of the central banks is predicated on endless growth on a finite planet. Do try your best to overlook the fact that hundreds of ecological warning lights are flashing bright red and clearly indicating the even more exponential growth is precisely what is not needed at this moment in history. Missing insects, bleaching coral reefs, eroding topsoil, plunging counts of everything from human sperm counts to oceanic phytoplankton, and plummeting migratory bird counts are all saying the same thing: the old economic model of endless growth is now destroying itself.

But this time we're supposed to believe that the lessons of history and scientific data don't apply to our unique situation in time. Our moment is special; magically so. This time is different.

It’s never different.

Thing 6: They Know What They're Doing.

A central theme of the dominant narrative is faith in authority. Our leaders have everything under full control.

Well, after watching the central banks get things wrong over and over again for decades, it’s quite impossible for me to believe that they suddenly have everything right.

They famously claim to not be able to spot bubbles in advance. They also firmly assert we are not experiencing an asset bubble now. Of course, they said the same thing right before the housing bubble burst in 2007.

This is just how large bureaucratic organizations operate. The toadies say what they think their bosses want to hear, and the higher ups are pleased to have someone to blame when things go awry.

But now, suddenly, as the central banks are conducting a massive globally-coordinated expansion of the world money supply at a magnitude higher than anyone has ever imagined, we're supposed to believe that now they’ve suddenly got everything under control and correctly divined?

Yeah, sure.

Interest rates have never in all of human history been this low. There’s no guide to steer by. But don’t worry – the central banks will get it exactly right this time. This time is different.

Further, negative nominal interest rates such as we see in the many trillions today, are not so much a monetary experiment as they are social engineering. The price of money is a very important social signal. What does it even mean that money has a negative price? Having to pay to lend your money has unknowable impacts on decision-making by businesses, banks and individuals. Could anyone truly have had an accurate prediction of what the implications would be?

Well, the results of this experiment are in and have been for years. Rather than spurring spending as the Bank of Japan supposed, negative interest rates spurred saving. Rather than driving corporate investment as the ECB imagined, negative rates instead drove corporate borrowing which was then spent on stock buy-backs and other financial gimmickry.

Now I can’t fault the central banks for trying something new; but I can fault them for failing to adjust after it became obvious the effects were deleterious and other than intended. How much longer should we permit these same fallible central banks to continue unchallenged as the stakes get increasingly higher?

In conclusion, it’s impossible for me to believe that the central banks know what they're doing.

Shifting From The Impossible To The Probable

Look, either I have all this very badly wrong, or I don’t.

If I do, that means that this time is indeed different, that it’s possible to print up prosperity, that history doesn’t matter, that fundamentals don’t matter, that the world really is infinite, and that the central banks know exactly what they're doing.

If I’m wrong, I’ll have to carefully reexamine all of my data and assumptions to find out where the error(s) lay. And issue a very humble public apology. Oh, and then go long the market.

But if I'm right, and I really would prefer not to be, then a brutal market collapse is nigh. One that may well end in war, ecosystem breakdown, or financial Armageddon -- possibly all three.

In Part 2: How To Avoid The Pain Of The Coming Market Downturn, we lay out the specific steps to take now, while the system is still tranquil and functioning, to position yourself to sidestep the wrath of the coming collapse(s).

Remember that bubbles end remarkably quickly. When they burst, their job is to create the greatest misery possible for the greatest number of people possible. 

The only way to avoid that fate is to be positioned wisely in advance. Take steps now to ensure you're one of those prudent few.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/believing-the-impossible/

If you haven’t noticed certain guns and ammo are at prices lower than I have witnessed in a long time. AR for $389.00, good 5.56 brass ammo for 24 cents a round. If you shop the sales prices are really low. Long term storage food is really cheap now. If you need it now is a good time to stock up.

I often get a great a wry source of amnusement when I think about the similarity between those that defend the current infinite growth paradigm and the “flat earth” wackjobs. Just goes to show what credibility consensus can buy you :slight_smile:

of drafts will be worth a lot.
Best to get your mare settled

Just out of wondering, don’t guns now have to have electronic locks that only fire with the owner’s hand?
So if those new ARs do have electronic protection, are they hackable? Has the Federal government ever shown an interest in embedding weaknesses to their own advantage?
Hmm… in a related issue, I was this morning minded of the slaughter of the Polish Cavalry by a few machine gun nests in WWI… iirc. And it occurred to me that it would be like the chinese (or even the Dutchy of Grand Fenwick) hacked our nuke controls, so that when we gave an order to launch, ALL of our weapons launched at once, and blew themselves up 100m into the flight, thus making our great and feared nation … nothing. And how we would be the new polock joke, as terror gave way to hatred, and hatred to despising, and despising to derision.
Point being, the big bully doesn’t last forever, and sometimes the comedown happens at the hands of an amazingly small event.
In other words, I’m inclined to think even trusting in our nuclear arsenal is a mistake.

Hi Michael,
Electronic weapon locks have been discussed but are not currently in use. I don’t believe I have ever seen one on an actual weapon.
sand_puppy

This was a comprehensive article; an excellent summary of Peak Prosperity’s philosophy, and all in one place. It’s also clearly written. One weakness? The arguments don’t give the counterarguments, nor the more moderate position of the alternate view. Examples:

  1. Fundamental Don’t Matter: Why point to the most expensive, speculative stocks? There are reasonable stocks to buy even at the peak of a crazy bull market with a DOW div yield down to 2.1%. For example, KO (PE 26, BK 5), IBM (PE 14, BK 19), XOM (PE 28, BK 40) all are making fair money, paying dividend yields ~3%, ROIC >10%, FCFY ~10%. This is real money (dividends) and real wealth creation (BK), not fictitious earnings of FANG stocks. And it’s a reasonable way to participate in the FED money pumping to the 1% (which looks like it may go one for a very long time).
  2. Print to Prosperity: I generally agree. But when the FED is in control, and real wealth is being created, it makes sense to participate in the real wealth creation. The FED has been playing it’s debt games since WWII, and that’s a lot of time to be abstaining from taking one’s share of our wealth creation.
  3. Currency Stocks Bonds Not Real Wealth: One of the problems here is that ideas and technology have real value and make us all wealthier. Look at the cost of lighting falling. Look at the cost of communication falling. Look at the ability to read books digitally and share information (even on this website). This is real wealth creation, I’m living better today because off it, and it’s not easy to place these ideas/technology in the “primary” or even “secondary” category. And using stocks allows one to participate in the real wealth of these ideas. Currency is just a ledger of real wealth (I prefer to look at oz of gold, but it’s just all just measurement of real wealth).
  4. The World Is Infinite: I agree the debt is crazy since 1980. But it’s been 40 years now and are you really going to “sit out” of the real wealth creation going on for my entire life? Look at China; they have exploded over this time in terms of real wealth, going from starving to having a living decent.
  5. History Doesn’t Matter: History shows precisely the opposite regarding wealth creation during times of monetary foolishness (yes, like today). This isn’t a “this time it’s different” claim; as we look at over 300 years of data we see the most incredible wealth creation in human history, much during some pretty ugly monetary and political times. We’ve went to the moon, built trains and atomic bombs, created the radio, phone, internet, lighting, engines, you name it. There is real wealth being created today: genetic engineering, renewables, you name it.
  6. They Know What They Are Doing: OK, here I agree with you 100%. But “they” have never known what they are doing. Ever. So what? All one does is be aware, keep their powder dry, stay alert, and continue to participate in wealth creation through technological advances. We’ve come a long way since the industrial revolution circa 1750, and it’s unlikely to stop anytime soon no matter how stupid the FED is.
    But overall this was a good article and well presented. There was much I agreed with, but tried to focus on disagreement because that’s more interesting and educational. Thanks!

Hi MK1,
many people here gave you a very clear and concise series of answers to your points without any conclusive reply on a recent thread called Gail Tverberg: The Coming Energy Depression. I happen to be one of them.
At the time I asked if you’d watched through the Crash Course Series that is the glue to the site. To save your search, here’s the first five below, with a link to the sixth to help you on your way : -

The Crash Course - Chapter 6 - What Is Money?

Finn
This isn't a "this time it's different" claim; as we look at over 300 years of data we see the most incredible wealth creation in human history, much during some pretty ugly monetary and political times. We've went to the moon, built trains and atomic bombs, created the radio, phone, internet, lighting, engines, you name it.
I appreciate your faith in human progress, MKI, but I expect it smacks somewhat of human hubris. And, as usual, it comes on the backs of some creature"s capture of sunlight over the eons. Yes, I share your belief that humans have the capacity to achieve some remarkable things. I also believe in TANSTAAFL. So I'd sit back and have another beer; "lunch will be served, shortly".

Finn, I don’t waste time on fruitless disagreements. I’ve said my piece there, am unimpressed with the responses, and so politely withdrew. Regarding the vids: is it so inconceivable to you that I’ve watched them yet believe what I do? Well, if it makes you feel better, I have and do. Cheers, & enjoy this fine day!

Hi All,
The joke is on us. This MKI person has been a member of this site since Jan. 12, 2009, 9 years. In order to join this site a person must identify themselves to some degree before posting comments. So, CM knows who this person is. If I am not mistaken, MKI’s first post EVER was on the Gail Tverberg’s thread on Jan 7, 2018. I counted 21 comments by MKI on that thread. That person is now up to 25 comments (at the time of this writting), including 1 on this thread. So MKI has posted 3 other comments on some other threads since first commenting on Jan 7th (I don’t know which one(s) on which the comments were made and I don’t care). The question you all must ask is, “Why now?”. What has triggered MKI to start commenting?
MKI told us he/she is recently retired from the oil industry and that he/she was an engineer. So, don’t you all get it? She/he is a shill and playing devil’s advocate with time on her/his hands. MKI’s mindset is exctly that, SET. I know many persons that their minds have been made up for so many years on certain topics that nothing new can penetrate anymore. Those persons have too much invested in the way they think (Communist professor/educator types come to mind). They don’t want the “proverbial rug” to be pulled from underneath their feet. It is called cognitive dissonance. Nobody will be able to help this person understand what the rest of us do. MKI even said more than once that he/she is not that smart. I must agree based on the evidence MKI has presented to us through the comments she/he has made that it is clear to me that he/she isn’t that smart or else the comments being made wouldn’t be as deaf and dumb, which is my objective observation of reality. Ha ha.
MKI has been effective in getting under your skins. To all of you that have engaged with her/him, your efforts are commendable but a waste of time. It was worth the original effort because of your sincere desire to help someone understand our predicament. But it soon became clear that MKI doesn’t want our help and thinks he/she is helping us. What a laugh (a devil’s advocate joke). You will not get any charts, graphs or sourced data from this person outside of a linked to weak article on electricty consumption and claims to have done so of course. I didn’t see them. Did anyone else? What you will get is more and more contridictions and weak ASSUMPTIONS and very wrong conclusions (anyone here think of the blind persons trying to describe an elephant while touching entirely different parts of the elephant?). MKI IS BLIND! And like most persons taking a similiar position, for their own purpose, they poke a hot stick into their own eyes for the sake of not seeing because that is too scary to them. They must talk themselves into being right because that is all persons like this have left.
All MKI cares about is making money, TERTIARY wealth, and said it many times in the other thread. MKI isn’t smart enough to even understand those wealth concepts because the response above confuses those concepts. Or was that just sloppyness or again devil’s advocacy? MKI doesn’t care about anyone else but her/himself and maybe, just maybe her/his family (if she/he has one), and probably then just a little bit. All of his/her fake twetiary wealth (fiat money) will evaporate like everyone’s else’s when the time comes. We all saw it happen more than once in the past 30 years, most recently 2007/2008.
MKI certainly won’t understand (or will pretend not to understand) how the “game” being played is actually a way to redistribute the real wealth and the momentarily tertiary wealth to the 1%. The rich have become richer and richer in this same tertiary wealth fiat money scheme. Maybe MKI is one of the 1% defending his/her anti-human values. It is exteamely difficult for persons like MKI to ever admit they are wrong. He/She is one of the Extractors (if only by the nature of their profession) mentioned in this article.
https://medium.com/training-the-mind-to-see-new-horizons/the-progressive…
Check out this one too:
http://notesfromthetrailblog.com/the-great-upwising/
Peace for Real, May Peace be With You, but it begins with me,
Broadspectrum

Wow, you have been a member since 2009? Well done, I look forward to more of your posts!
AKG

I appreciate that MKI is providing counter balance to Chris’s arguments. If we are to find the truth here, we need to look at all angles and respect those who thoughtfully disagree.

MKI wrote:
This was a comprehensive article; an excellent summary of Peak Prosperity's philosophy, and all in one place. It's also clearly written. One weakness? The arguments don't give the counterarguments, nor the more moderate position of the alternate view. Examples: 1. Fundamental Don't Matter: Why point to the most expensive, speculative stocks? There are reasonable stocks to buy even at the peak of a crazy bull market with a DOW div yield down to 2.1%. For example, KO (PE 26, BK 5), IBM (PE 14, BK 19), XOM (PE 28, BK 40) all are making fair money, paying dividend yields ~3%, ROIC >10%, FCFY ~10%. This is real money (dividends) and real wealth creation (BK), not fictitious earnings of FANG stocks. And it's a reasonable way to participate in the FED money pumping to the 1% (which looks like it may go one for a very long time). 2. Print to Prosperity: I generally agree. But when the FED is in control, and real wealth is being created, it makes sense to participate in the real wealth creation. The FED has been playing it's debt games since WWII, and that's a lot of time to be abstaining from taking one's share of our wealth creation. 3. Currency Stocks Bonds Not Real Wealth: One of the problems here is that ideas and technology have real value and make us all wealthier. Look at the cost of lighting falling. Look at the cost of communication falling. Look at the ability to read books digitally and share information (even on this website). This is real wealth creation, I'm living better today because off it, and it's not easy to place these ideas/technology in the "primary" or even "secondary" category. And using stocks allows one to participate in the real wealth of these ideas. Currency is just a ledger of real wealth (I prefer to look at oz of gold, but it's just all just measurement of real wealth). 4. The World Is Infinite: I agree the debt is crazy since 1980. But it's been 40 years now and are you really going to "sit out" of the real wealth creation going on for my entire life? Look at China; they have exploded over this time in terms of real wealth, going from starving to having a living decent. 5. History Doesn't Matter: History shows precisely the opposite regarding wealth creation during times of monetary foolishness (yes, like today). This isn't a "this time it's different" claim; as we look at over 300 years of data we see the most incredible wealth creation in human history, much during some pretty ugly monetary and political times. We've went to the moon, built trains and atomic bombs, created the radio, phone, internet, lighting, engines, you name it. There is real wealth being created today: genetic engineering, renewables, you name it. 6. They Know What They Are Doing: OK, here I agree with you 100%. But "they" have never known what they are doing. Ever. So what? All one does is be aware, keep their powder dry, stay alert, and continue to participate in wealth creation through technological advances. We've come a long way since the industrial revolution circa 1750, and it's unlikely to stop anytime soon no matter how stupid the FED is. But overall this was a good article and well presented. There was much I agreed with, but tried to focus on disagreement because that's more interesting and educational. Thanks!
Comments: 1). You keep referring to "wealth creation". Wealth is not created; it is harvested from the natural world and then transformed. Something like 97% of our energy comes from burning dead things that used to be alive, which were all actually created by ecosystems (converting sunlight), not by us. You speak of wealth coming from high technology. This is a special kind of wealth, I place it between Chris' secondary and tertiary wealth. We need primary and secondary wealth to live: water, forests, agriculture, fossil fuels, mines, factories, etc. But you can't live off digital technology. It is merely a means of information manipulation and transfer which can definitely improve our lives and make our secondary wealth (traditional industries) more efficient, but it does not provide anything tangible. The easiest way to put it is this: you could live with out digital technology if you have primary wealth but you cannot live without primary wealth no matter how much CPU power you have (and with 7 billion people overpopulating the world, we also couldn't live without secondary wealth nowadays). The problem of course is that the traditional sources of primary wealth; fossil fuels and water, agriculture, etc, are waning. Of course I know that you disagree with that statement but the data shows otherwise. I think this is one of the fundamental misconceptions out there, that all this fancy distracting computer technology has somehow separated us from the natural resources that support us, which is totally incorrect. 2) "We" did not go to the moon (at least, no people did; unmanned expeditions most likely have). This is blatantly obvious from any basic competent technical analysis of the evidence.

As long as credit growth keeps increasing the bubble will continue:
Total Consumer Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALNS

Motor Vehicle Loans Owned and Securitized, Outstanding
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MVLOAS

Total Nonrevolving Credit Owned and Securitized, Outstanding
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NONREVSL

Bank Credit of All Commercial Banks
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTBKCR

I disagree about wealth not being created by tech.
Information creates utility - and for the most part, utility = wealth. If you are faced with 1000 buttons you can push, one of which will give you a 1000:1 return, if you can obtain the information about which button is the correct one - that’s wealth creation, because it saves you a whole lot of button-push attempts. If you were forced to push all those buttons every day, the information about which one to push (saving you all that time & effort) would seem extremely valuable to you. You would definitely feel “wealthier”.
In WW2, allied bombers dropped bombs in the rough vicinity of the target, just hoping by luck and sheer volume to hit something important. That was death-by-lots-of-molecules. Now, we have laser guided bombs which we can position extremely accurately - at least by comparison. That’s a force multiplier. If you want to destroy just one building, tech & information lets you do this with one bomb and one plane, rather than thousands of tons of bombs and hundreds of planes. Tech is a force multiplier, and - I claim - force multipliers create wealth.
While AI won’t create energy, it will allow us to use the energy we have more efficiently. Self-driving cars allow sharing of vehicles (instead of 1 vehicle per person), as well as energy maximization (hypermiling). Is that wealth creation? Yes. While AI doesn’t result in more cars being produced (no increased “molecule wealth”), it will be used as a force multiplier, where 1 AI-driven car can provide the same utility to society as 2 or 3 person-driven cars (increased “utility wealth”). If we are focusing on maximizing utility rather than maximizing molecules, then tech does indeed create wealth.
Likewise, if tech allows us to research and construct better batteries - that’s not energy, but it allows us to substitute one form of energy (electricity) for another (liquid fuels). It takes windmill electricity and turns it into gasoline - more or less. The better we can do this, the wealthier we will be.
Lastly, fabricating solar panels also doesn’t create energy, but it does provide us with a tool to convert the energy from a less useful form (sunlight) to a more useful form (electricity). That’s wealth creation once more.
Information is all about being wrong less often. You know which company to invest in, which button to push, which store has the product you want, which route you should take, which drill site is likely to result in a successful well, and so on. Having the right information is an energy/force/molecule multiplier.
And that’s wealth. Sure, you still have to have the molecules, but you don’t need nearly as many if you have the right information to start with.

davefairtex wrote:
I disagree about wealth not being created by tech. Information creates utility - and for the most part, utility = wealth. If you are faced with 1000 buttons you can push, one of which will give you a 1000:1 return, if you can obtain the information about which button is the correct one - that's wealth creation, because it saves you a whole lot of button-push attempts. If you were forced to push all those buttons every day, the information about which one to push (saving you all that time & effort) would seem extremely valuable to you. You would definitely feel "wealthier". In WW2, allied bombers dropped bombs in the rough vicinity of the target, just hoping by luck and sheer volume to hit something important. That was death-by-lots-of-molecules. Now, we have laser guided bombs which we can position extremely accurately - at least by comparison. That's a force multiplier. If you want to destroy just one building, tech & information lets you do this with one bomb and one plane, rather than thousands of tons of bombs and hundreds of planes. Tech is a force multiplier, and - I claim - force multipliers create wealth. While AI won't create energy, it will allow us to use the energy we have more efficiently. Self-driving cars allow sharing of vehicles (instead of 1 vehicle per person), as well as energy maximization (hypermiling). Is that wealth creation? Yes. While AI doesn't result in more cars being produced (no increased "molecule wealth"), it will be used as a force multiplier, where 1 AI-driven car can provide the same utility to society as 2 or 3 person-driven cars (increased "utility wealth"). If we are focusing on maximizing utility rather than maximizing molecules, then tech does indeed create wealth. Likewise, if tech allows us to research and construct better batteries - that's not energy, but it allows us to substitute one form of energy (electricity) for another (liquid fuels). It takes windmill electricity and turns it into gasoline - more or less. The better we can do this, the wealthier we will be. Lastly, fabricating solar panels also doesn't create energy, but it does provide us with a tool to convert the energy from a less useful form (sunlight) to a more useful form (electricity). That's wealth creation once more.
I don't disagree with your rationale; likely our disagreement is in the definition of "wealth". As I said, "digital technology... is merely a means of information manipulation and transfer which can definitely improve our lives and make our secondary wealth (traditional industries) more efficient," which I think exactly agrees with your arguments above. Is that wealth? I suppose so but I don't think there is a direct link between efficiencies brought on by AI necessarily improving the lives of the masses (which is why I slotted it between secondary and tertiary wealth -- "AI wealth". It isn't tangible but it isn't as vacuous as the financial system). If the human population was 1 billion and stayed there, and if we had a fair wealth distribution / allocation system, then all this recent AI development would definitely mean we could waste less resources to do a task and at the same time spend more time in the pool drinking cocktails while robots do half the work we used to. I would call that wealth generation. But instead we have an ever-expanding population (which may or may not stop on its own accord), which demands ever more natural resources with dropping EROEI's, which means that the improving efficiencies could merely be offsetting declines in total primary wealth available. Which of those two opposing forces wins out -- dropping EROEI's of our remaining energy sources and increasing population demanding more natural resources, versus increasing efficiencies in how we find and use resources... I don't know. I would say that on a global basis, the efficiency side has been winning since the developing world has seen a substantial increase in living standards, even though the western world has mostly stood still or regressed. As to my "fair wealth distribution system" statement, I do not see that happening at all. The efficiencies and "wealth" brought on by AI have by in large NOT been enjoyed by the middle class. Instead, what we have seen is AI displacing workers which is throwing western economies into shambles and will only worsen. The unemployed as a whole have no way of benefiting from this "AI wealth effect" beyond basic welfare checks / cheques from the government to keep them alive. Even China faces this same problem, which they are fully aware of, and why they are scared of a financial meltdown which would destroy the consumptive power of the rest of the world and throw half of their factory workforce out of work. Even people that retain their job have not seen any improvement in their real inflation-adjusted wage since the invention of AI. Who does benefit immensely from AI in the workforce, though, is those at the top who see dropping production costs. I can say that that isn't me... What the average person does enjoy because of AI is relatively inexpensive smartphones and access to the internet. I think this is a fantastic development, one of the greatest achievements of humanity. As to whether this makes the average person better off, I guess it depends on the person... it seems many people these days are losing touch with the real world due to addiction to their phones. The information provided to us by the internet is a plus, but overall I think it would probably be balanced by all the other negatives. All in all, because of the above, I argue that the rise of AI has NOT improved our wealth, which would be consistent with comparisons of the purchasing power of the average westerner between 1950 and 2018 for stuff that really counts -- food, energy and shelter. Our lives aren't that much more awesome than they were 50 years ago. As to solar panels creating wealth, I would definitely agree, if they ever reached any sizable proportion of the energy mix, and were not being outpaced by growth of traditional fossil fuel consumption.

Information creates utility - and for the most part, utility = wealth. If you are faced with 1000 buttons you can push, one of which will give you a 1000:1 return, if you can obtain the information about which button is the correct one - that’s wealth creation, because it saves you a whole lot of button-push attempts. If you were forced to push all those buttons every day, the information about which one to push (saving you all that time & effort) would seem extremely valuable to you. You would definitely feel “wealthier”.
You mean like data collection of the masses so marketing can be specific and targeted thus knowing what buttons to push becomes extremely valuable to corporate and government interests thus making THEM wealthier.
In WW2, allied bombers dropped bombs in the rough vicinity of the target, just hoping by luck and sheer volume to hit something important. That was death-by-lots-of-molecules. Now, we have laser guided bombs which we can position extremely accurately - at least by comparison. That’s a force multiplier. If you want to destroy just one building, tech & information lets you do this with one bomb and one plane, rather than thousands of tons of bombs and hundreds of planes. Tech is a force multiplier, and - I claim - force multipliers create wealth.
What, WHAT, are you crazy? Laser guided bombs that are extremely accurate. You mean like gigantic, mega, kill-em lots bombs that can take out 25 million people. The problem with force multipliers is that they get out of hand and in the wrong hands. Force multipliers create wealth, of course, it’s called coercion.
“Coercion = the practice of persuading someone to do something by using FORCE or threats” Yep, it’s been VERY effective in creating wealth!! Sadly.
While AI won’t create energy, it will allow us to use the energy we have more efficiently. Self-driving cars allow sharing of vehicles (instead of 1 vehicle per person), as well as energy maximization (hypermiling). Is that wealth creation? Yes. While AI doesn’t result in more cars being produced (no increased “molecule wealth”), it will be used as a force multiplier, where 1 AI-driven car can provide the same utility to society as 2 or 3 person-driven cars (increased “utility wealth”). If we are focusing on maximizing utility rather than maximizing molecules, then tech does indeed create
Again, weath creation for WHOM. As soon as we don’t have free choice of 1 car, 1 driver but are forced into 2 or 3 person driven cars that’s not wealth creation, that’s slavery.
Dave your argument is indeed logical, yes let’s maximize utility, but an extremely likelihood it will be at the expense of freedom and choice. That’s not wealth that’s a nightmare. A nightmare our children will live in.
As always, it’s a matter of perspective.
AKGranny

JohnH123 wrote:
I appreciate that MKI is providing counter balance to Chris's arguments. If we are to find the truth here, we need to look at all angles and respect those who thoughtfully disagree.
I think most of us appreciate well thought out counter arguments and challenges to what is presented here. Someone Like Dave F will challenge Chris and others all the time. The difference is that he uses logic, intellectual depth and data and he responds on point to refute or challenge something. The resulting dialectic is educational and illuminating and regardless of whether I am persuaded by one side or the other, It typically will expand the context of an issue or add nuance for me. I consider well thought out debate and counter arguments to one of the primary benefits that I get from this site and community. MKI on the other hand:
  • Uses primarily inductive reasoning coupled with anecdotal observations to refute well thought out positions and analysis that are grounded in data and deductive logic
  • Claims to use data but never seems to present any data or quantify anything to buttress his points
  • Makes gross misstatements of facts
  • Draws simplistic self referential conclusions from broad generalizations.
  • Does not respond to well thought out and cogent counter arguments that refute his mistakes and assumptions.
  • Smugly dismisses said counter points with "I was not impressed" offering no substantive refutation of any counter points.
  • This form of "debate or counter argument" is basically useless for "finding truth" and bordering on troll like behavior I have to agree with Broadspectrum, that it is a waste of time to engage with MKI
Mememonkey

Ok, lots of good points. :slight_smile:
I agree that the benefits of AI-wealth will - almost certainly - be unevenly spread across the landscape. Owners of capital will almost certainly benefit more from AI than labor.
But “means of production” is definitely still wealth, so my point is valid - even if it is unsatisfying. You can’t say “hey, that’s not wealth because the rich get richer.”
For me, since I’m not a taxi driver, and I think a car is a PITA, I will feel my wealth increase when I can get the benefits of transport on an ad-hoc basis without having to plunk down the 30k on a new car. Energy overall will be saved on both ends. For sure, winners & losers will change, but overall more “transportation utility” society-wide will be created through the self driving car, using fewer molecules and (presumably) less energy to do it.
As for human reproduction not slowing down - look at the demographics of Germany, Japan, Italy, Greece, among others. A stat I quoted in my weekly report: female fertility in Italy was 1.34. This shocked me. Half of the Italian population will vanish in the next 60 years from that effect. For sure that’s not Africa, but its a datapoint. The conspiracy-lover in me wonders how that came to pass.
As for laser guided bombs - the first thing you do after obtaining “redistributable wealth” is figuring out how to keep it from the hands of those who want to practice some redistribution. Military effectiveness is most definitely wealth, and it is a required adjunct to owning any molecule-wealth. Of course military effectiveness can be used for bad things as well - but that’s still wealth. Capability = wealth, and tech makes the same number of bomb-molecules a lot more effective than they were before. Doesn’t matter how many gold bars you have, if you can’t protect them, you might as well not own them.
And even if you don’t like the implications, the thing could still be wealth. Information about “what people like” - that’s wealth. Its how Facebook makes money. Is that primary wealth? There are no molecules involved, but boy, as long as money exists, advertisers will want to connect with potential customers through this channel, enabling Facebook to receive an income stream.
Information is definitely wealth - and if you are the only one with the information…it can make you rich, or get you killed, or first one than the other…