PDA

View Full Version : The "Bushes" and the "Smartos"



Yggdrasil
01-11-07, 10:07
The linked piece by Marc Faber says it all:

http://news.goldseek.com/LewRockwell/1168531560.php

The identity of the "Smartos" is so thinly disguised as to be completely transparent, and as usual, Faber is right on target.

This is easily one of the most important articles on 21st Century finance that I have seen, and the only one that deals with wealth accumulation as a tool of ethnic/racial group conflict - and clearly setting forth the means by which the majority "bushes" have been subordinated.

Below is a partial quote from the article:

"There is one more point to consider. Liquidity isn't evenly distributed. Let's say that on an island there are two tribes. Ninety-nine percent of the population are the "Bushes" and 1% are the "Smartos." The two tribes arrived on the island at about the same time and had little capital at the time. So, initially, both tribes worked very hard in industry and in commerce to acquire wealth. But because of the Smartos' superior education and skills, their frugality, and also partly because of their greed and immorality, they soon acquired significantly more wealth than the Bushes, who, for the most part, were likeable but quite inept. After 50 years, most of the island's businesses were therefore in the hands of the Smartos, who make up just 1% of the population. Being clever, the Smartos generously gave some of their wealth to the tribal leaders of the Bushes, who controlled the entire government apparatus, the military establishment, and much of the land.

"For a while this system functioned perfectly well. Among the Bushes there were also some smart people, and they were encouraged to accumulate wealth as well. However, they had to pay an increasingly high price to acquire assets, since most of the island's assets were owned by the Smartos and by the elite of the Bushes who, because of their wealth, never really had to sell any assets. Cracks in the system began to appear because more and more of the wealth began to be increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. (According to the Financial Times, the concentration of wealth is extremely high in the United States, with 10% of the population currently holding 70% of the country's wealth, compared to 61% in France, 56% in the UK, 44% in Germany, and 39% in Japan.)

"However, the Smartos then stumbled upon another avenue to wealth: globalization. The island was opened to foreign trade and investments, which allowed the business owners to shift their production to low-cost foreign countries and, at the same time, to keep the masses among the Bush tribe happy through the imports of price-deflating consumer goods. In the same way that, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the European settlers of America had exchanged with the Indians worthless beads and booze for land, now the Smartos and the elite of the Bushes exchanged cheap imported goods, whose supply they controlled and from which they earned handsome margins, for assets. As a result, the majority of the population of the Bushes experienced a relative wealth decline compared to the wealth of the Smartos.

"Again, this worked perfectly well for a while: the populace was happy to buy deflating consumer goods (like Mr. Faber's wife who, whenever a favorite shoe store holds a sale, immediately buys three pairs instead of one), but it overlooked the fact that its wages and salaries were decreasing in real terms because manufacturing jobs and tradable services were increasingly shifting overseas. For some time this wasn't a problem, because the Smartos had bought the island's central bank. They made sure that sufficient money was made available to the system to sustain the consumption binge, which was largely driven by inflating asset prices. Plenty of liquidity and rising asset prices created among the Bushes the "illusion of wealth." Naturally, the island's trade and current account deficit began to worsen as it consumed significantly more than it produced, but initially that wasn't a problem, for the Smartos had encouraged the Bushes to engage – in the name of all kinds of good, just, and well-meant causes, and without any self-interest whatsoever – in overseas military expeditions, which led foreign creditors to believe in the island's economic and military might, and social stability.

"For a time, they were, therefore, perfectly happy to finance the island's growing current account deficits. At the same time, the increase in defense spending shifted wealth from the masses to the elite of the Bushes, who largely controlled the military hardware and procurement industries. As a result, wealth and income inequity widened further as the masses became largely illiquid and had difficulty in maintaining their elevated consumption, while the Smartos and the elite of the Bushes accumulated an ever-increasing share of the national wealth. But never at a loss when it came to creating additional wealth, the Smartos devised another scheme to enrich themselves even further: lending to illiquid households (read sub-prime lending). Not that the Smartos would have lent their own money to these uncreditworthy individuals (they were far too clever for that); for a fat fee, they arranged and encouraged this novel type of financing. Credit card, consumer, and mortgage debts were all securitized and sold to pension funds and asset management companies whose beneficiaries were the majority of Bushes, who accounted, as indicated above, for 99% of the population.

"In addition, these securitized products were sold to some credulous foreign investors. By doing so, the Smartos achieved three objectives. They earned large fees, and unloaded the risks indirectly onto the very people who borrowed the money, and onto foreigners. But most importantly, they provided the Bush tribe with a powerful incentive to support their expansionary monetary policies, which ensured continuous asset inflation. After all, any breakdown in the value of assets would have hurt the Bushes the most, since they carried most of the risks by having purchased all the securitized lower-quality financial instruments. But not only that! The Smartos knew that as asset prices increased, their prospective returns would diminish."
* * *

"Obviously, this all changed when asset prices began to decline and the island's central bank had to take extraordinary measures by aggressively cutting short-term interest rates and supporting asset markets through bond and stock purchases. The interest rate cuts immediately narrowed the spread between the interest rate on the island and foreign currencies and led to a run on the island's currency, not only by foreigners but also by the Smartos, who had known all along that the asset inflation game would one day come to a bitter end. The deleveraging of this carry trade led to "relative illiquidity," which the island's central bank had to offset with even more liquidity injections, which while stabilizing asset prices led to even greater loss of confidence in the soundness of the island's currency, and in its bond market, which by then was mostly owned by foreign creditors.

"As Mao Tse Tung had observed much earlier, there was by then "great disorder," but the situation was "excellent" for the Smartos. On the short end, interest rates had been cut so much that they were in no position to compensate for the continuous depreciation of the island's currency. So, the Smartos and the Bush tribe's elite began increasingly to borrow in the island's currency and to invest in foreign assets and precious metals. In fact, the island's central bank, by its market-supporting interventions, encouraged this process. Stocks and bonds were dumped on to the central bank and the Treasury's plunge protection team at still high prices, and the proceeds were immediately transferred to foreign assets and precious metals, which appreciated at an increasing speed compared to the island's assets, which suffered from the continuous depreciation of the currency.

"And in order to facilitate this trade, the Smartos, who controlled both the Fed and the Treasury, continued to make positive comments about "a strong currency being in the best interest of the island." Sure, it would have been in the best interest of the island to have a strong currency, but it was certainly not in the best interest of the Smartos, who had devised their last grand plan: shift assets overseas and into precious metals, let the currency of the island collapse, and then repatriate the funds and buy up the remaining assets of the Bush tribe's middle and lower classes at bargain prices since they had never understood that their currency had collapsed against foreign currencies and against gold."

Walter Yannis
01-11-07, 11:21
Wow. I'm shocked that such an article appeared anywhere, even on Lew Rockwell.

I took my youngest daughter to Disneyland this Christmas break. While in Southern California I looked at a few real estate properties.

Prices are still wildly inflated, using rental value as a benchmark. For example, I looked at an upscale condo on the market for $620,000 that I could rent for $2,000/month. If I bought I'd have to pay about $36,000/year in mortgage payments (30 year fixed at something over 6%), $8,000/year in condo fees and a similar amount in various taxes (in CA they have frontloaded taxes for the first ten years or so on new developments). On the other hand I'd save a few thousand bucks in taxes with the mortgage interest deduction. Back-of-the-envelope calculation yields about $45,000/year for the next several years out to buy.

I could rent that same condo at $25,000/year and instead put the remaining $20,000 per year in a long term CD at 5%. I would get the value of the use of the condo plus build savings on the difference, albeit giving up the mortgage interest deduction, a 1% spread on the interest rate, and some amortization on the loan. And I'D TAKE NO RISK ON MARKET SWINGS. Such a deal.

So, if I buy and rent it out for the first several years:

$25,000/year - rental income
$8,000/year - tax savings on mortgage interest deduction
($8,000/year) - condo fees
(8,000/year) - property taxes and special assessments
(30,000/year) - interest

Total: ($13,000)


I leave out here puny amortization for the first years out, but even if you add in a few thousand bucks (and assuming that prices remain stable), you're still at a big loss compared to renting and banking the difference.

Under those conditions it's obviously stupid to buy, again generously assuming the market remains stable for the next few years out. But it's completely insane when you factor in the risk of a significant market decline, which is a very real risk indeed.

And that's what this is all about. The only way buying could possible make sense under these conditions is if the price of the condo continues to rise significantly. But with that sort of puny return on capital investment, it's so obviously overpriced that at some point it will have to correct. If the Fed cuts rates then I suppose it could go up again, but that game can't go on forever, unless one also believes in perpetual motion machines.

The realtor I spoke with says she thinks that the real estate market hasn't hit bottom yet due to the big increase in foreclosures of late, most of which remain uncleared and laying on some besieged bank bureaucrat's desk. She said things will start to improve next summer, but I think she's dreaming.

It looks so far out of balance to me that I can only assume it has to correct sharply. If we get a price shock in oil caused, say, by an Imperial attack on Iran or full-blown civil war in Iraq (both very plausible scenariors) it will have to pop.

And keep in mind also that prices have declined in the past year. But it's not nearly enough. They're just not dealing yet with the harsh economic reality underlying those figures, IMHO. There's a lot of denial going on out there.

In real estate the reality check on any property is rental value compared to its purchase price. If it doesn't yield a normal return taking into account all the factors, then understand that if the price continues to rise that you've entered bubble territory and that while you can make some money on it that you're engaging in speculation on the emotions of the herd, not on economic fundamentals.

I'm way too conservative to take those sorts of risks.

My best guess: prices will take a big tumble in sourthern California in 2007, with big buying opportunities presenting themselves beginning 2008.

Yggdrasil
01-11-07, 13:22
Prices are still wildly inflated, using rental value as a benchmark. For example, I looked at an upscale condo on the market for $620,000 that I could rent for $2,000/month. If I bought I'd have to pay about $36,000/year in mortgage payments (30 year fixed at something over 6%), $8,000/year in condo fees and a similar amount in various taxes (in CA they have frontloaded taxes for the first ten years or so on new developments). On the other hand I'd save a few thousand bucks in taxes with the mortgage interest deduction. Back-of-the-envelope calculation yields about $45,000/year for the next several years out to buy.Aha!!:eek:

Walter, you have uncovered the magic of "owners equivalent rent" which is used to hold down the CPI. Housing is 40% of the CPI, and owners equivalent rent is the lion's share.

The gummint figured out years ago that homeowners would speculate by keeping their old houses when they move and renting them out at absurdly low rents, figuring that price appreciation would make up the difference.

And, of course, the gummint put these absurdly low rents into the CPI so as to cut back on Social Security by understating CPI indexed benefit increases, and to raise taxes on the middle class by understating the CPI indexing of tax brackets as their pay increases.

The "fraud" part of the regime of force and fraud.:cool:

Walter Yannis
01-11-07, 14:18
The gummint figured out years ago that homeowners would speculate by keeping their old houses when they move and renting them out at absurdly low rents, figuring that price appreciation would make up the difference.cool:

Well, you're absolutely right, but I say hats off to the homeowners because they were right, at least until about a year ago. If they sold before, say, EOY 2005, they made out like bandits, especially in a hyper-inflated market like Southern California.

But that's true for any bubble - you can make lots of money if you get in and more importantly GET OUT in time. If you don't get out in time, you lose.

Dad Gubmint will take his profits on the suckers left holding the bag.

There's still time to get out, IMHO. There are still buyers out there at even these wildly inflated (but even then somewhat diminished) prices. But it's definitely time to sell, take the profits, stash it in a bank at interest, and wait for the inevitable blood letting.

It's definitely a renter's market now.

How much air do you think is in the real estate market?

Yggdrasil
01-11-07, 14:57
It's definitely a renter's market now.

How much air do you think is in the real estate market?Walter, Southern California is a unique case. The smart money knows that they have only two years until Arnold is out and then they will have a La Raza legislature and a La Raza governor. At that point Prop. 13 (which holds real estate taxes to 1% of market value) will come under attack from a state government which wants more revenue and wants to screw whitey by driving down prices so that the mexcrement can afford to buy them out.

If real estate taxes are raised to Texas levels (2.8% of market value) you will get horrendous blood letting - a decline of 60% below the 2005 levels, as White flight from LaRazafornia accellerates.

In contrast, Tennessee taxes homes at one quarter of 2.6% of market value and has no income tax.

Scipio Americanus
01-11-07, 15:11
The CPI...the "fraud" part of the regime of force and fraud.

Yeh, and don't forget to mention that the Consumer Price Index conveniently excludes food and energy prices too. That's great for all those who don't eat, heat/air condition their homes or drive a car. Has anyone been to a gas station or McDonald's lately? But the gummint says inflation is less than 3% and the economy is hunky-dory. Sure. For those who believe this, I'm happy to reveal that I have obtained the skinny on a great investment opportunity: Pacific Ocean front property in Montana. Folks, we're talking about a prime beach front spread for pennies on the dollar. Anyone interested can PM me for details. - Scipio Americanus

Walter Yannis
01-11-07, 15:14
Walter, Southern California is a unique case. The smart money knows that they have only two years until Arnold is out and then they will have a La Raza legislature and a La Raza governor. At that point Prop. 13 (which holds real estate taxes to 1% of market value) will come under attack from a state government which wants more revenue and wants to screw whitey by driving down prices so that the mexcrement can afford to buy them out.

If real estate taxes are raised to Texas levels (2.8% of market value) you will get horrendous blood letting - a decline of 60% below the 2005 levels, as White flight from LaRazafornia accellerates.

In contrast, Tennessee taxes homes at one quarter of 2.6% of market value and has no income tax.

My rough guess is that they'll drop about 50% by next year or two off EOY 2005 levels, but you might be right, it might be more like 60%.

I'd say that condo is worth about $250k and no more. They're asking $620k. They're out of their flippin' minds, but folks are still paying it.

I agree that the political calculus is about to change in Mexifornia. But there will still be white enclaves like that nice condo, it has lots of private securit, and the weather is really great. I'll wait a while and put in a bid.

As an aside, my wife and I were looking at this place and we really liked it (light from two sides, open spaces), but it was all a little too IKEA-cool for my taste. Exposed ventilation pipes and concrete ceilings, and the furniture was just tres she-she (the owner was renting, looking to sell, and the lessees still had their furniture and stuff in the place). The bed was this modish (I forget what they're called) affair that sort of looks like a ship, with this very expensive linen and frilly bedspreads with tastefully matching drapes. Mrs. Yannis was cooing over all of this when she suddenly looked at the picture of the couple on the nightstand - a couple of very nice looking young professional white guys mugging for the camera at some haut restaurante.

How sweet!!!:D

Yggdrasil
01-11-07, 15:23
Yeh, and don't forget to mention that the Consumer Price Index conveniently excludes food and energy prices too. That's great for all those who don't eat, heat/air condition their homes or drive a car. Has anyone been to a gas station or McDonald's lately? But the gummint says inflation is less than 3% and the economy is hunky-dory. Sure. For those who believe this, I'm happy to reveal that I have obtained the skinny on a great investment opportunity: Pacific Ocean front property in Montana. Folks, we're talking about a prime beach front spread for pennies on the dollar. Anyone interested can PM me for details. - Scipio AmericanusActually the CPI fraud I admire most for its sheer audacity is the hedonic adjustment mechanism by which quality improvements are used to adjust downward the price of everything from computers to cars in the CPI.

Problem is, if you need a car, computer, or other appliance you cannot buy one for anywhere near its absurdly low carrying cost in the CPI.

My pet peeve is chicken.

When I was a kid in the 1950's chickens were wonderful tasting birds - generally lean and flavorful. Now, chickens are fatty, flavorless force-fed things that have never seen the light of day for 50 generations. Yet the gummint refuses to adjust the price of chicken upward to reflect this gross decline in quality.

The CPI is now a hypothetical number. It no longer represents the increase in dollar flows required to buy the things we need.

Lokuum
01-11-07, 16:37
When I was a kid in the 1950's chickens were wonderful tasting birds - generally lean and flavorful. Now, chickens are fatty, flavorless force-fed things that have never seen the light of day for 50 generations. Yet the gummint refuses to adjust the price of chicken upward to reflect this gross decline in quality.


Yeah, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, it's almost everything. People are getting used to buying the same thing over and over, tools and little tinkers and such. "Wow, what a great price!"
Yeah, but we used to build them here and the lasted a life time, you only needed one.
Design obsolete-ism has become the label.

Walter Yannis
01-11-07, 19:17
Yeah, I can't think of anything off the top of my head, it's almost everything. People are getting used to buying the same thing over and over, tools and little tinkers and such. "Wow, what a great price!"
Yeah, but we used to build them here and the lasted a life time, you only needed one.
Design obsolete-ism has become the label.

Driving down I-5 in California after being out of the country for a long time really reminded me of how few choices we American consumers actually have. It's McDonalds or IHOP or Carrows in fast food, Starbucks for a cuppa, VONS and Ralphs for groceries, and of course the ubiquitous Wal-Mart for everything else.

There's basically zero local flavor anywhere now.