John Rubino: Taking Control Of The Time In Which We Live

In what is quite possibly my favorite podcast so far this year, Chris speaks with John Rubino -- founder of DollarCollapse.com and recent author of The Money Bubble -- about the times in which we live.

The discussion waxes across the defining trends of our time, including market manipulation by central planners, monetary hijinks of the highest order, crony corporatism, clueless and complicit politicians, and the explosion of State control.

John sees us hurdling towards an increasingly certain future of banana-republic wealth disparity, currency failures, and civil strife. That is, unless we rise up to assume ownership of our own destiny. Doing so will not be easy, or pain-free.

In many ways, the most important important question concerning our collective destiny is: Will we have the courage to take control of it?

Well the way it works in reality is that the middle class gets soaked for all this stuff because high end capital is very mobile, it is really hard to keep track of and it is hard to tax.

Look at Apple’s finances: they have billions of dollars overseas that for them is very tax advantageous. Google does the same thing; they lower their taxes by spreading their money out around the world and governments are not able to keep track of it. To go after the 1% and say: Okay, we're going to impose a wealth tax on everybody that has more than $10 million, you would see a huge decrease in the number of people with $10 million in your jurisdiction. They'll just move and send their capital to some place that you cannot track. That's always been going on, but in times of aggressive redistribution it happens on a bigger scale.

The ideal world is where you don't have these huge income and wealth disparities and where there is a lot of upward mobility. The question is: How do you get back to that? Because we were once that way in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s in the US. Wealth inequality was nothing like it is today. But once we went to a Pure Fiat Currency -- where the government can create as much of it as it wants to and give it to the big banks -- the big banks gave it to their preferred customers and you saw inequality start to grow. One thing you can do is go back to sound money, which makes it harder for governments to redistribute from the middle class to the rich. Then beyond that it gets tough, because you cannot do overt redistributive policies that affect the 1% because you cannot catch them. Even if you could, you end up with a system that makes the government even more powerful, which leads to more inequality. It's not easy to see how this works, and that's why Latin American countries have been such a mess for such a long time. They began basically with a few families ruling everything. And ever since, they've been trying to become egalitarian societies and they cannot do it. And that's why you have these recurring crises in Latin America.

Now, we've created a situation where we are in that boat, where our income and wealth inequality is comparable to Argentina. It is not clear that we can do a better job than Argentina or Brazil have done in the past because it's not easy to get huge amounts of money away from people who have acquired it and who can move it around the world. I don't know what the solution is; but I know sound money is part of it, and maybe the biggest piece of it. Once you go back to a sound money system that does not allow you to play all the games that the big banks and the worlds governments have been playing, you re-impose morality to an extent on a society, because sound money is really a moral issue as much as it is a financial issue. It means you have to keep your promises. And that governments have to maintain the value of their promises -- a piece of currency is basically a promise that if you hold on to it today, you will be able to exchange it for something of equal real value sometime in the future. Governments have been breaking that promise consistently since 1971 and that moral corruption has bled over into every other aspect of life. If we go back to imposing financial morality on governments, that is a start. Beyond that, I wouldn't even pretend to have a solution...

Again, I'm not sure what the solution is. I mean, we'll all have to take less, obviously. We've made promises or been promised things that we are never going to get. How we get from today to a general acceptance of that? It's hard to see how we do that without it being incredibly messy and full of strife. That's why governments around the world are preparing for civil unrest and they recognize that their financial policies for the last thirty years have led us to this point and that any fix is going to involve a lot of trouble. They are preparing for riots in the streets, domestic terrorism, and electoral turmoil in which every election is a 'throw the bums out' event. You always have the new people in charge and they are always failing to live up to their promises. That's what we are looking at on some scale. It doesn't seem like we can avoid it and I think governments recognize that. We were told in 2008 that we were a day away from Martial Law. Well if that is the way it was then, with all the increases in financial leverage and fragility, there is no reason why we cannot see that again. We could see something politically out of 1984 if we do not watch ourselves, and we are creating the conditions for it.
 
On the political side we should be educating ourselves so we can make the case when the time comes for sound money, limited government, individual freedom -- a return, basically, to Constitutional principles. So there need to be enough people speaking out for those things that maybe we can offset the people who are saying This is a failure of capitalism and therefore we need a dictatorship. That is going to be a hard argument to win when this all blows up, because it's going to look like it was capitalism's fault.
 
You inherit your times just as you inherit your family. You can't really do anything about it, you have to be part of your time. That argument, I think at some point, is going to be the defining trait of our time. And we need to participate in it. 

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with John Rubino (1h:1m:28s):

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/john-rubino-taking-control-of-the-time-in-which-we-live/

If the companies are buying back their stock (Decreasing the dilution ), that means the value of each stock must increase because the owners of the remaining stock own a greater percentage of the company.
Therefore the rich get richer and the devil take the hindmost.

Just how much debt do you want to take on board to stay in the game? There can only be one Numero Uno and he has the fancy software.

 

So many interesting things in the interview, but I'm focusing on the buybacks.
What brings buybacks to an end?  Well, the whole game is driven by the spread between dividends and the rate to borrow money.  And dividends, ultimately, rely on profits.  So once profits get hit, we should see the dividends eventually get put in jeopardy, and the buybacks will stop.

And, just like what happened during the housing bubble, once the last marginal buyer vanishes, things tip over and sink.  Only - in the stock market, things don't tip over and sink slowly the way they do in housing.

Regardless, either rising rates or falling corporate profits must result in an end to the buyback game.

John Hussman is fond of pointing out that corporate profits as a percentage of GDP is extremely high, and it tends to mean-revert in the fulness of time.  So there are two end point possibilities: 1) when the low rates end or 2) once the corporate profits mean-revert (due to, say, a recession and the inability of buyers to continue buying the products made by these companies), everything reverses.  And usually in the stock market, things move downhill a bit faster than they go up.  "An escalator on the way up, and an elevator on the way down."

Very cool.  Gives me something to watch.  And it makes sense.  And it ties in with credit market data I've been seeing as well - where corporations are the only real significant private sector borrower showing growth these days (about 10% per year).

We still have the international capital to consider - SWFs, central banks, and money running to hide somewhere.  But I think I understand the corporate buyback thing now.  Very useful.

So Rubino (and Turk's) model is one of using gold (or another hard "currency peg") to simultaneously devalue all world currencies overnight, similar to Roosevelt's one-shot devaluation (default) vs gold in 1933 in order to make the debt instantly more affordable.  The mechanics work out great, I can see how it would all play out just like he says.  Its a one-shot reset; its not hyperinflation, but rather a massive devaluation.  And - interestingly - it wouldn't trigger any CDS.  Nothing was defaulted on.
Winners and losers?  Debtholders are losers, debtors are winners.  Who are the debtholders?  That would be the elites, bankers, and foreign central banks and SWFs.  Debtors?  Middle class debt slaves, states, municipalities, and the US Government.  It would be interesting indeed if a policy was executed that resulted in elites losing value, and middle class debt slaves actually gaining value.  It would act as Steve Keen's debt jubilee, and would end up dramatically decreasing the profitability and influence of the finance sector.

Going further, the evidence he cites of this sort of thing building momentum is the movement of money into collectables, London real estate, and other "real things" by the wealthy "who know what's up."

This could be the explanation.  Or, the wealthy could simply be fleeing out of bank deposits and sovereign bonds ahead of bail-ins, wealth taxes, reprofiling, and other confiscation policies.  And it could be corrupt Arab money fleeing the Arab Spring (or its remnants).  And it could be Chinese money fleeing China ahead of corruption crackdowns.

Another problem with his scenario is that it isn't supported by the "test market" scenarios played out in Greece, Cyprus and now Spain.  There it is all about bail-ins, taxes, defaults, and bond debt extension.  Exactly what you might expect if the debtholders are the ones in control of policy.

The last problem is that it all too neatly aligns with Rubino's philosophy on gold and sound money being the savior for us all, and I'm always wary of scenarios that play out with "the home team winning the pennant."

From what I can tell from history, its never the money that is the problem.  Take Nixon for example.  He inherited a sound money system.  It was inconvenient, and so he ditched it.  What prevents our future politicians from ditching this new sound money from Rubino if they happen to find it inconvenient?

We need sound policy and sound thinking first.  Sound money is just an expression of policy makers making sound policy, and it only sticks around as long as our policy makers decide it works for them.

Paradoxically, I'm pretty well prepared for his scenario if it comes to pass.  I just don't interpret the current evidence the way he does.  And to be fair, he did mention confiscations, capital controls, and the like that I see as the near term threat.

Perhaps the gang in charge will try these confiscation-based solutions first - the ones I'm seeing play out in Europe - and once they don't work out, as a last resort they end up gold-backing the currency in a mutual devaluation.  But the winners and losers in this devaluation scheme suggests to me, this happens over the cold, dead, bodies of the elite debtholders and the bankers.

I enjoy hearing about scenarios like this.  Its on my list.

debtors are winners.  Who are the debtholders?  That would be the elites, bankers, and foreign central banks and SWFs.  Debtors?  Middle class debt slaves, states, municipalities, and the US Government.  It would be interesting indeed if a policy was executed that resulted in elites losing value, and middle class debt slaves actually gaining value.  It would act as Steve Keen's debt jubilee, and would end up dramatically decreasing the profitability and influence of the finance sector.
You have just capped my night off with gladness, Dave. (Although I am not a debtor.)

[quote=davefairtex]Perhaps the gang in charge will try these confiscation-based solutions first - the ones I'm seeing play out in Europe - and once they don't work out, as a last resort they end up gold-backing the currency in a mutual devaluation.  But the winners and losers in this devaluation scheme suggests to me, this happens over the cold, dead, bodies of the elite debtholders and the bankers.
[/quote]
This sort of analysis (both the podcast and DaveFT et alia) is why I'm still here, like…5 years on?  (woah…five years!)
The way I see it, there is no one monolithic gang in charge.  Certainly there is a class of moneyed, connected uber-rich, and there is also the class of those at the top of the central banking cartel[s], and the corporatist elite, and so forth.  There are connections between the various groups, and in many ways their interests overlap.  
But I believe that among all the groups at the top who run the show, there are factions with different beliefs about how to play the game.  It seems likely to me that the various buy-ins and other manipulations we have seen (Greece, Cyprus) are test runs – experiments, if you will.  We are so far out on the limb, so deeply into terra incognita, that I'd bet the folks at the top have a certain sense of "Well, what the !#$%& do we try now?"  I expect we'll see more experiments as time goes on, one of which might be something along the lines Rubino posits (the quasi-"jubilee" you mention).  
The folks at the top have to countenance civil unrest if their efforts result in catastrophic outcomes (food/gas lines, etc.), and I may be whistling past the graveyard but I reckon that's their last, least-wanted scenario.  So they'll try everything else before running the ship up on the rocks (at which point only the folks at the top will have access to the financial lifeboats).
In the meantime, I'm trying to stay flexible with my meager savings and preps (although in the latter department, I'm ahead of 99.9% of the US population, I believe).  I will, over the next six months, be attempting a stupefying feat of prestidigitation in terms of my living and working situation – so any major upheaval during that time will be heinously annoying inasmuch as it'd likely scotch my grand plan.  But I do have a Plan E waiting in the wings if Plan D comes a cropper (I have already run through Plans A, B & C in the last three years [wry grin]).
 
Hele on, and VIVA! – Sager

Excellent interview and commentary. I have a quick comment on the contradictory investment strategy of Elites: in buying real-world assets (London flats, timberland, etc.), they transfer their insecure paper wealth into secure ownership of real-world assets, but in doing so they immobilize their capital which then becomes accessible to taxation.  It's not hard to see "special taxes" being levied on properties worth $1M and up, for example.
So the only way to avoid the taxes that are rising on fixed capital is to keep capital mobile, which means it's always at risk of a bail-in or banking crisis if it remains in the banking system, or it sits around earning next to nothing in "safe" havens.  This may preserve capital but capital either grows or declines. Capital doesn't lend itself over the long term to steady-states.  

So the super-wealthy want their bonds and other paper assets to be protected by bail-ins and higher taxes on debt-serfs and small property owners, but there's an endgame to that as the stagnating incomes of the non-wealthy cannot support higher taxes, and bail-ins risk triggering social blowback.

My point is that the super-wealthy with political influence face limits in protecting and growing their wealth. If they buy real-world assets, their capital becomes accessible to taxation.  If they squeeze the lower classes too much to pay the costs of their paper assets, they risk triggering social unrest that destabilizes the system they rely on.

In the extreme case, the super-wealthy exit all paper assets and take the risk of immobilizing their capital by owning real assets. Then they OK a devaluation of paper currencies because they no longer own enough to worry about.  The chateau, wine and PMs are still there after the devaluation.  In this scenario, the super-wealthy accept higher taxes on real-world assets as the price of wealth preservation and avoiding social unrest that could upset the whole apple cart.

This flight to real-world assets is of course a primary argument for buying PMs and real estate, and it certainly explains the flight of foreign hot money to US real estate.  Which would you rather endure–a massive devaluation of your wealth or higher property taxes? (assuming you can't buy subsidies or waivers from politicos, which of course you can)  Somewhat higher taxes look like the better choice.

As I recall, there is something like $160 trillion in financial assets sloshing around the global economy. A lot of that is phantom financial "wealth" seeking a return or a safe haven.

This certainly seems plausible to me.   It looks like we're getting a potential setup for a return to lords, vassals, and fiefdoms at some point.   Maybe we're almost there except the so called  "landed gentry" are not called "barons" or "earls" yet (or at least until we have a "Mad Max" moment).  Can you picture the industrial revolution in reverse: from oil, back to coal, then charcoal and wood, then dried cow patties?  Throw in a some hydro, solar, and (maybe) a few electronics for the lucky few.  Welcome to Schloss Sebastopol or Château <your favorite homestead here>!
I think this is how worked at one time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Troisordres.jpg

Mr. Rubino has presented a nice slice of hopefulness in his interview and outlined an option for personal responsibility. Unfortunately, that's what the top 1% of the elites do everyday and the rest of the schmucks complain about it. I have acquire land, raise a good bit of my own food and enjoy a energy reduced lifestyle that many of my friends envy. The old 401K or RRSP is just sitting there subject to the whims of politicians who have only their vested interests at heart (I, being a holder of such a monetary vehicle). David Stockman's idea of Crony Capitalism, as presented in his Bill Moyer interview sums that reality up very well.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=youtube%20bill%20moyers%20david%20stockman

What to do, What to do?

We should all continue to focus on what we each can do individually, but the larger discussion of dwindling resources needs to be met at a societal level. The Crash Course is a great start, but only highlights the "pickle" we find ourselves in. A more interesting discussion might be to review the De-growth forums and some of the ideas presented in "giving up assets" as an option (I think of the Montreal conference a year or so back - another one in Leipzig in September). When we, as a "developed" society begin to really give up some of the luxuries we take for granted, then maybe we can avoid some of the social unrest scenarios in current thought. We can only hope. Great contributions from all of you - love the forum.

That's assuming the debtor can keep the inflating income stream going.  If not, the house is taken, the car is taken, etc.  Also, it is not a clean inflate as first in line benefit more from inflation, i.e. the US Government, Big Corps.  SME will be demolished.

Kugs-


That's assuming the debtor can keep the inflating income stream going.  If not, the house is taken, the car is taken, etc.  Also, it is not a clean inflate as first in line benefit more from inflation, i.e. the US Government, Big Corps.  SME will be demolished.

Initially, it is less about inflating income streams than about asset valuations.  Assume for a moment the gold revaluation is an 8x, which results in money supply tripling.  Likely prices of all real assets follow right along with that.  That Home/Gold ratio always stays within a band - so if gold rises, so will home prices.  So will all real assets. Example: before the revaluation, a (secured) debtor has a house worth $500k, with a $400k loan.  After the (say) 3x revaluation, the loan stays at $400k, while the house is now worth 1.5M. Who wins?  Clearly the debtor.  His loan is almost wiped out.  He can sell the property and rather than clearing $100k, he gets $1.1 Million. The creditor used to have an asset worth 4/5ths of a home.  Now the asset (that loan) is only worth 1/3 of a home.  Claim on underlying real wealth destroyed. Most likely wage inflation does happen, but as a catch-up phenomenon.  Otherwise, nobody can afford all these revalued assets. And as property values increase, and real items sales go up, sales taxes rise, wages rise, income taxes rise, and yet the US debt remains more or less what it was. If you are holder of paper assets when this happens, its a bad thing.  Given that our wealthy elites hold a huge percentage of the world's paper assets (all those "claims on underlying real wealth") - do we really imagine this revaluation will be the first thing on their list to try?  I don't think there is a central evil group of elites who meet and plot every quarter, but there is a group of people who all share a common interest: "Don't touch my *freaking* money." And they vote - with their dollars.  And euros.  And pounds.  Etc.  And boy do those politicians listen.  

Regarding your second parragraph. (Winners and losers?  Debtholders are losers, debtors are winners.  Who are the debtholders?  That would be the elites, bankers, and foreign central banks and SWFs.  Debtors?  Middle class debt slaves, states, municipalities, and the US Government.  It would be interesting indeed if a policy was executed that resulted in elites losing value, and middle class debt slaves actually gaining value.  It would act as Steve Keen's debt jubilee, and would end up dramatically decreasing the profitability and influence of the finance sector. )
In theory sounds correct, but not in reality…for example in Argentina's default on 2001, those ones that had the debt in dollars (which skyrocket) were screw severely…while those ones that had the debt in pesos Argentinos (which loses all the buying power) were beneficiated. So, the main point is … which type of debt do you have???, Can someone come and take your stuff??, can you pay your debt (once the dollar loses its buying power???..
I think nobody will get benefits from this type of situation (unless you have your wealth in something that can't be screw it)…in 2001 in Argentina's default the dollar was the best option… since then capital control is the overall rule. 
Who knows which is the best option today and which is going to be the rule that will take place to take control?!?! 

Great podcast. I write about emotional resiliency, encouraging folks to understand just how crucial financial literacy is a big part of that. It's such a pleasure to listen to people who pursue financial sobriety at this time. Thanks again for the inspiration Chris & John. - Phil
www.thebookofgardens.com