That major wars occur at such long remove from each other probably isn’t an accident. Really catastrophic wars, from at least the days of Troy on down, have usually been the Great Events that resound through living memory. The Great Event of a century forms the thought and character of everyone alive when it happens, influencing them relative to the stage of life they’re in at the time. Perhaps that’s why a people will collectively do its best to avoid a repeat, at least while there’s anyone still alive who saw the last crisis.

(It’s been said that war is a force that gives life meaning. And I think that’s true, although it’s perverse that the most destructive and idiotic activity that it’s possible to engage in would just have to be the most important. Maybe, after the orgy of self-indulgence and conspicuous consumption that has characterized the past couple decades, Americans collectively feel they need to prove something. There has to be some rationale for the current war hysteria other than pure stupidity…)

In any event, the way the current generations line up relative to historical analogs, an excellent case can be made the U.S. is approaching another time of secular crisis, a Fourth Turning, with an expected due date of 2005 – seven years from now – plus or minus a few years in either direction. The Stamp Acts catalyzed the American Revolution, the election of Lincoln catalyzed the Civil War, the Crash of ‘29 catalyzed the Depression/WW II era. What might precipitate the elements now floating in solution? The answer is, practically any random event that’s sufficiently traumatic. Any of the theses of current disaster/action novels and movies will do nicely. Perhaps the accidental or intentional release of a super plague vector. The crashing of an airliner into the Capitol during a joint session. (Close, but not quite.) An all-out assault on the IRS computers by an armed group – or perhaps the computers just melting down due to the Year 2000 Problem. Perhaps a financial disaster that cascades into the Greater Depression. In any of these, or a hundred other scenarios, the federal government would almost certainly act precipitously and with a heavy hand, which would bring on a whole other set of consequences.

(In the historical context, 9/11 will be viewed as the opening kick-off for the coming Crisis… and the messianic overreaction of Bush and his cronies as the catalyst for turning things from bad to worse. It may be that Hurricane Katrina, for instance, a completely accidental event, may be blamed for providing a pin to burst the financial bubble – which would be a pity, since the neocons could then blame it, not themselves.)

There’s no way of telling where the Crisis will lead, or how it will end. That’s going to depend not only on exactly who’s in control, but what they do, whom they’re up against, and a hundred other variables we can’t even anticipate. One thing that seems certain is that real crisis brings out strong (although not necessarily wise) leadership. Because of its age and size, it will come from the Boomer generation, and it will be in the mold of Roosevelt or Lincoln – both very dangerous precedents. The Boomers in Elderhood will be dogmatic, harsh, puritanical, and quite willing to burn down the barn in order to destroy whatever rats they see. Admix that attitude to a time resembling the Revolution, the Civil War, or WWII, overlain with today’s ethnic strife, urbanization, financial overextension, and powerful, compact new weaponry in the hands of foreign fanatics out to teach the Great Satan a lesson, and it’s a real witch’s brew.

If things evolve over the next decade as they did in past analogs, it will be a very un-mellow time indeed. That’s assuming things end well, and there’s no guarantee they will, as many foreign countries have discovered throughout history. We’ve been uniquely blessed.

What to Do

Strauss and Howe aren’t financial types, and their advice is nebulous along those lines. To sum it up, their suggestion is to learn to swim with the tide by not hoping the current good times last forever; the chances of the good times are coming to an end now. They’d also advise not sticking your head up above the crowd, something that is always very risky when times are in turmoil; remember what happened to Japanese-Americans during the last crisis. They suggest that there will likely be a resurgence of nationalism, much as was the case during past crises. It won’t be a good time to be a maverick in the U.S., a thought that makes places like Argentina and New Zealand look even more appealing.

(I bought property in both places shortly after this was written, and have been rewarded with a quadruple in both instances – considerably better than would have been the case in the U.S.)

Strauss and Howe suggest you look to diversify in all things, so everything won’t go bad at once. Brace for the collapse of public support mechanisms. Set your roots with your family, because people you can rely on will be at a premium. Heed emerging community norms, bond with like-minded people, and return to basic, classic virtues. This is sound advice any time, but critical if you’re rigging for heavy weather.

Assuming you wanted to stay in the U.S., you’d rather be on some land near a small town, and far away from a major city. You’d want to be self-sufficient in as many ways as possible – freeze-dried food. etc. Perhaps Howard Ruff will make a comeback with advice like that, which seems quaint today. But then I’m nothing if not a contrarian.

(In hindsight, the original article could have been a bit more specific – other than the suggestions about Argentina and New Zealand. Personally, I believe that unassailable wealth is the best protection against global crisis. For it to be unassailable, your wealth must be at once substantial, free from threat of confiscation, divorced from the whims of the masses, and located in a country or currency that has a good risk/reward profile. Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn’t make the cut.

In the first instance, the single best way to build wealth now, while there is still time to do so, is in carefully selected gold and other resource stocks. In order for it to be free from the threat of confiscation, at least some part of your wealth needs to reside in a country where you don’t. To state the obvious, I would be very cautious about traditional stocks and bonds until we see how things shake out. Rather, get positioned in gold and silver stocks now, ahead of the curve, then sell out for a big profit to the panicking masses and move an increasing percentage of your wealth into tangibles such as gold, silver, and maybe, as part of a diversified portfolio, real estate in especially attractive areas – but only after the bubble has decisively burst.)

A Parting Parable

In case you have any doubts, I buy the theory outlined above and its many ramifications that there isn’t room to explore here. It really is scary to think that we could again experience a real Crisis with a capital C; I’m not talking about just a bear market in stocks. If it happens, I promise you stocks and mutual funds will be about the farthest things from most people’s minds.

At the same time, there’s no point in feeling terrorized. This stuff has been going on since the dawn of history. So let me leave you with a parable. I could appropriately quote Ecclesiastes (To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die, a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted, etc., etc.). But everyone knows that reference. Let me rather give you John O’Hara. At the beginning of O’Hara’s novel Appointment in Samara, he tells a brief parable, which I’ll summarize:

There was a merchant in Baghdad who went to the market with his servant. There they saw Death, who stared at the servant in what seemed a threatening way. Later the servant said “Master, lend me a horse. I shall ride to Samara, and there Death will not find me.” The merchant did so, then returned to the market, where he again saw Death, whom he approached and asked why he had stared at his servant in such a threatening way. Death responded, “I wasn’t threatening him. I was just very surprised to see him here in Baghdad, since I have an appointment with him in Samara later this afternoon.”

(Strange, the location for the proverb, in that this was well before the current war.)

There is no doubt that we are now in the Crisis stage… which, according to Strauss and Howe’s “Turnings” theory, may last another decade or more. Is there any way to escape this economic tsunami unscathed?

Regards,
Doug Casey

January 21, 2009

Foundations of Crisis, Part III: War (So What’s Next?) was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Just as each person’s life holds four stages of about 20 years each, each generation comprehends a group of people born over about 20 years. Members of a particular generation tend to share values and ways of looking at the world not only because their parents also shared a set of views (which the kids are reacting to), but because every new generation experiences a new set of events in a way unique to them. They hear the same music, see the same events, are exposed to the same books. Members of a generation share a collective persona. There appear to be four distinct archetypal personae that recur throughout American history. And throughout world history as well, although that’s a bit beyond what I hope to explore here.

It also seems, throughout history, that there are periodic crises. About once every century, or about when each of the four generational types has run its course, a cataclysmic event occurs. It generally takes the form of a major war, and it generally catalyzes a whole new epoch for society.

The four mature generations alive today each represent an archetype. Let’s review them from the oldest now living, to the youngest.

Hero Archetype

The “GI” generation, born between 1901 and 1924, includes basically all living people in their mid-70s and older. They grew up and came of age in the midst of the most traumatic years in human history: the 1930s and ‘40s. This was a time of catastrophic financial and economic collapse, world war, political dictatorship, genocide, and virulent ideology, among other unpleasant things; a period of intense turmoil. The times required them to be civic minded, optimistic, regular guys who could be counted on to do the right thing, fit in, and see that everybody got a square deal. As a consequence of what they’ve been through, they tend to be indulgent parents. As kids they’re “good”; as adults they’re selfless, constructive, and communitarian. Hero archetypes encounter a Crisis environment in Young Adulthood; assuming they survive it, the odds are the rest of their lives will be lived in growing economic prosperity, leading to a leisurely retirement.

Artist Archetype

Meanwhile, another generation was being born at the height of the Crisis – something that seems to occur roughly every 80-100 years – from 1925-42. This generation, the “Silent,” watched these titanic events happen but were too young to take part in them. They were relegated to being protected, while trying to be helpful in the limited ways available to them. They’re overprotected as children, when they might be characterized as “placid”; they tend to underprotect their own children as a reaction. As adults they’re sensitive, well-liked, sentimental, and caring.

Prophet Archetype

Next came the group we call the “Boomers,” born from 1943 to 1960. This was the first generation born after the Crisis was over, and they grew up in an environment where their parents (mostly GIs and early cohort Silents) felt obligated to protect them from all the trauma of the preceding years and were desirous of giving them all the things they never had. As kids they’re seen as “spirited.” Later in life, they tend to be narcissistic, presumptuous, self-righteous, and ruthless. Born after a Crisis, their Childhood years coincide with a rebirth of society, and their Elderhood coincides with another Crisis. More on them below.

Nomad Archetype

The fourth generational type is represented by today’s “Generation X,” born 1961-81, during what might be called an Awakening period when the Boomers were in the limelight. As a consequence, they were overlooked and a bit abandoned. Their reputation as kids can be summed up as “bad.” They’re oriented toward survival, which is partially a result of their being underprotected as children. When they become parents, they react and become overprotective. They tend to be savvy, practical, tough, and amoral.

The kids born between 1982 and perhaps 2002 should be another Hero archetype. My own experience with them is that they’re shaping up that way. Represented by clean-cut, straight-arrow Power Rangers. Quite a reaction to the sewer-dwelling Mutant Ninja Turtles that were analogs for the previous generation. They’re “‘can do” kids, programmed to do the right thing in a smoke-free, drug-free, eco-sensitive, politically correct world. Like all Hero types, they respect their elders, do what they’re told without much questioning authority. That’s just the type of person you want to have fighting a war for you, and that’s probably just what they’ll wind up doing. Just like the last Hero types, the GIs. (Iraq was first. Iran next? Or will it be Saudi Arabia?)

It’s risky to characterize everyone born in a certain time frame as sharing a persona; after all, people are individuals, not ants or atoms, each like the other. But it’s really no different than characterizing people by the country they’re from. There’s no question in my mind that people share characteristics by virtue of the milieu in which they live, and that’s true of time as well as geography. Take a look at the people you know by age groups, and see if they don’t roughly fit the brief descriptions.

The interesting thing is that through about 400 years of American history, it’s possible to see these generational types repeating themselves. It’s not an accident. The characteristics of each type shape the next generation, as well as current events. And events leave a further imprint on all of them.

Making an Example of the Boomers

Just as every generation has its own persona, the character of each generation evolves as it moves through life. The Boomers are perhaps the most relevant example of this. First they were Mouseketeers and Beaver Cleaver clones. Who could have guessed they would mutate into Hippies and even Yippies as they reached Young Adulthood, reacting against everything they’d grown up with, everything their parents worked so hard to give them.

They came of age during a period that might be called an Awakening, and it’s recurred on schedule five times so far in American history. Awakenings are times of religious and moral ferment, when the youth tend to challenge prevailing cultural values pretty much across the board. Young adults were into New Age things this time around, in the 1960s and ‘70s. At the time it seemed utterly shocking and completely new, but that was only because nobody then alive had seen the previous Utopian Awakening in the 1830s and ‘40s, the Pietist Awakening of the 1740s and ‘50s, the Puritan Awakening of the 1630s and ‘40s, or the Protestant Reformation of the 1530s and ‘40s.

Like all the generations before them that grew up in similar times, they eventually put away the things of their youth. But who guessed that their next mutation would be into Yuppies, whose motto was not “Peace and Love” or “Revolution for the Hell of It,” but “Shop Till You Drop” and “He Who Dies with the Most Toys Wins” as they moved into midlife.

But even now the acquisitive mania that characterized the ‘80s is ebbing, now that the first cohorts of Boomers are crossing over 50. You can already see the signs of their next stage of evolution, in the judgmental behavior of people like William Bennett (George Bush) and Dan Quayle (Ann Coulter) on the “right,” and Al Gore and Hillary Clinton on the “left.” They did sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll in the ‘60s. They believe they’ve fought the war of good against evil in both Vietnam and the segregated lunch counters of the South. They know they were the first generation to have traveled widely thanks to the jet, to have been brought up by television, and had the telephone as a given. They’ve been there, done that, and now that they’re getting older, they’re going to make sure that everyone else benefits from their wisdom – like it or not.

The Boomers are an archetypal Prophet generation, a type born after a secular crisis, just in time to create another one. Get the image of a grim elder, with a well-defined vision of what’s right and wrong, calling down wrath, and laying down the law for a troubled nation in chaotic times. That’s the type of person who tends to lead countries into wars, as well as through them. Interestingly, the Boomers in America have their counterparts abroad today, especially in China, where they grew up during the Cultural Revolution. Two ideologically driven, righteous groups running two such powerful and alien cultures is almost a guaranteed formula for a millennial-sized crisis. Which should appear, coincidentally, sometime shortly after the millennium. (We’re right on schedule.)

Regards,
Doug Casey

January 20, 2009

Foundations of Crisis, Part II: Generations was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

As you will read, the methodology I relied upon for anticipating the events that are now unfolding – 11 years later – were actually quite accurate, confirming, in my mind at least, that now is a time to be very cautious in your personal and financial affairs.

The article is unaltered in its text from the original, though I have added some current commentary in bold italics.

Foundations of Crisis

“Don’t know much about the Middle Ages, look at the pictures an’ I turn the pages. Don’t know much about no rise and fall, don’t know much ‘bout nothin’ at all.“

– “Wonderful World,” Sam Cooke

The lyrics quoted above probably describe the average American’s knowledge of history about as well as any academic study. Not only don’t they know anything about it, and think it’s irrelevant, but what they do know is inaccurate and slanted. And they must not think very much about the future either if the amount of consumer debt out there, mostly accumulating at 18% interest, is any indication.

One point of studying history is that it gives you an indication of what’s likely to happen now, if you can find an appropriate analog in the past. This is a tricky business because as you look at factors contributing to a trend, it’s not easy to determine which ones are really important. Making that determination is a judgment call, and everyone’s judgment is colored by his worldview, or Weltanschauung as the Germans would have it.

Let me briefly spell out my Weltanschauung so you can more accurately determine how it compares with your own, and how it may be influencing my interpretation of the future.

I’m intensely optimistic about the long-term future. It seems to me a lock cinch that the advance of technology alone – and nanotechnology in particular – will result in a future of incredible abundance and prosperity, and that alone will solve most of the problems that plague us. Space migration, intelligence increase, and life extension will be commonplace realities. These things, plus the growth of both knowledge and its accessibility and the concomitant rise of the individual from the group, will constantly diminish politics as an element of life. The future will be much better than anything visualized on Star Trek, and will arrive much sooner. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that within the longest trend in history, the ascent of man, there is plenty of room for setbacks, and much of history is a case of two steps forward and one back. My gloomy short-term outlook, and my reasons for maintaining it, is recounted here monthly. Whether it’s right or wrong, from an investor’s point of view, the short term is more relevant than the long term. Notwithstanding Warren Buffett’s great success in going for the long term, Keynes was right when he said that in the long run we’re all dead. History shows that goes for civilizations as well as people. The problem is that our civilization is probably just now on the cusp of the long term.

Hari Seldon: Where Are You When We Need You?

Isaac Asimov’s classic Foundation trilogy centers around a scientist, Hari Seldon, who invents a science called psychohistory, which allows the fairly accurate prediction of broad trends in society going for centuries into the future. Seldon lives on Trantor, the planetary capital of a galactic empire; the entire planet is covered with a high-tech version of Washington, D.C., devoted to nothing but taxing and regulating the rest of the galaxy. Seldon forecasts that the empire will collapse and Trantor turn into a gigantic ghost town. And of course that’s what happens, because it’s a novel, and that makes for a good story. It’s a good story because it’s credible, and it’s credible because people know nothing lasts forever, and there is a cyclicality to everything; birth, youth, maturity, senescence, and death. These stages are shared by everything in the material world, whether it’s a person, a city, a civilization, or a galaxy. It’s just a question of time and scale.

From that point of view everyone knows the future, i.e., we all know that everything eventually dies. But we’d like a bit more precision on the timing of their lifecycles. Some gurus believe, or appear to believe, they can actually predict the details of the future; I consider them knaves. People who actually do believe them should be considered fools. That said – Nostradamus, astrology, channeling, tea leaf reading, and the like aside – I do think the best indicator of what will likely happen in the future is what has happened in the past. That may seem like an obvious statement, but it’s not. There have traditionally been three ways of looking at the problem; call them theories of history.

Oldest is what might be termed a chaotic view, which presumes mankind doesn’t have any ultimate destination but is wafted on the wings of Fortune or hangs by the thread of Fate. Subject to the arbitrary will of the gods, whether it’s the Old Testament’s Yahweh, or Homer’s Zeus, the future is unpredictable, and prophecy or an oracle gives you as good a read as anything else. I discount this theory heavily.

A second ancient view is that everything is cyclical, and therefore somewhat predictable. History may be viewed like a giant sine wave that’s possibly headed somewhere, but the direction is unknown. Or history is really a circle, constantly repeating itself, much like the four seasons of the year. There’s a lot of wisdom to the cyclical view.

The third view sees history as a linear sequence, one that’s actually headed somewhere. That view holds a special appeal for followers of evangelically oriented religions, particularly Christians (many of whose beliefs have an apocalyptic tinge) and Marxists (who were, until lately, given heart by the “scientific” inevitability their views would prevail). The linear view ties in with the idea of Progress, that (more or less) every day and in every way, things are getting better and better – although there’s also a subculture populated mostly by deep ecology, animal rights, and anti-technology types who believe things are headed to hell in a hand-basket. But they all believe we’re headed somewhere in a more-or-less straight line. There can be a lot of truth to the linear view, certainly if you look at the technological progress of mankind over the past 10,000 years, and this view prevails today.

My own view is a synthesis of the cyclical and linear theories. I see history evolving towards an incredibly bright future, but cyclically suffering setbacks, cyclically repeating the same patterns along the way. To me history looks like a spiral, heading off in a specific direction, but always covering the same ground in a different way with each revolution.

That’s one reason The Fourth Turning (Broadway Books, NY, 1997) by William Strauss and Neil Howe got my attention; we’re all drawn to those who see at least part of reality the way we do. The book is an extrapolation of their last work, Generations, and notwithstanding its literary faults, is simply brilliant. I’ve never met Howe, but did have lunch with Strauss once about five years ago. The way I see it, although they’re both conservatives, neither of them has any particular economic, political, or social philosophy, and they’re not trying to grind an ax. Their books are a value-free look at U.S. history, and their conclusions are more credible as a result.

Their basic hypothesis is one I suspect Hari Seldon would recognize, and my thoughts are built on the research Strauss and Howe have done over the years. I suggest you get a copy of The Fourth Turning while it’s still in the stores. That’s also true for my own Crisis Investing for the Rest of the ‘90s, which has several chapters on related subject matter, and Arthur Herman’s just-released The Idea of Decline in the West, which also bears on the subject. With 50,000 new books published every year, very few stay available for more than a few months. If something has appeal, you should buy it now, because it may be hard to come by when you have the chance to get into it. (Of course, I was wrong on that point — websites such as Amazon and Alibris.com now make it easy to pick up many older books.)

Regards,
Doug Casey

January 19, 2009

P.S.: I’ll be back tomorrow with more. See you then.

Foundations of Crisis was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

When, inevitably, the errors start to be corrected, the result is an economic downturn. It will be called a “recession” if the government succeeds in preventing widespread bankruptcies and unemployment through one more dose of inflation.

Or it will be called a “depression” if today’s economic tempest slips out of the government’s control. From a financial point of view, a depression is a period when the distortions of an inflationary boom are liquidated — a mass die-off of the economically misbegotten. From an economic point of view, it’s a period when the general standard of living decreases significantly.

The point is that the more highly taxed, regulated, and inflated an economy is, the more likely that it’s eventually going to experience a real depression.

Perversely, the more control a government has, the longer it can put off the day of reckoning. But the longer the artificial structure is propped up, the bigger the mess will be when it eventually collapses. From my point of view, what will happen next is almost written in stone. The only real question is: When?

In 1980-82 things almost did go over the edge. But the recession was serious enough, and some subsequent extraneous positive events (the collapse of the USSR, the coming of age of China and now India) were significant enough to pull things out.

But now, more than a generation after the last serious crisis — and four full generations after the Great Depression — I think there are lots of reasons to be afraid. Very afraid.

Am I predicting the Greater Depression may be upon us? Let me preface my response with a disclaimer. I’m not a fortuneteller. But my gut feel is: Yes. I’m not going to mount all manner of statistics to buttress the assertion. My point here is to draw your attention to the fact that there’s a lot that’s likely to go wrong besides the central problem of the business cycle, a problem that is now evidenced in the collapsing housing sector and all the pain associated with that collapse.

The “other” problems now include the Forever War against Islam, Peak Oil, increasing political control over virtually all aspects of life, the potential for social unrest (within the U.S. Mexican community, for instance), the historically high level of foreign holdings of U.S. dollars, a rise in nationalism and protectionism, etc. While not always obvious, all of these things are related, so it’s likely that when one of them starts running out of control, so will the others.

What will, in fact, happen? Nobody knows, including me. But I’m quite afraid we’re in for truly stormy weather in the next few years. Most people aren’t adequately, or even at all, aware of this prospect.

I suggest you stay with the approach we advise that has a foundation in gold and carefully selected gold stocks.

As I am in for the long haul at this point, selling only reluctantly and when absolutely necessary to keep Caesar mollified or for portfolio rebalancing, I still view any weakness positively.

Making mid-stream adjustments to your portfolio based on these buying opportunities is important. Being bold when others are timid can make a big difference.

In my opinion, gold isn’t just going through the roof in the next few years. It’s going to the moon. And gold stocks are a leveraged way to capitalize on it.

Regards,
Doug Casey
Chairman, Casey Research, LLC
February 4, 2008

From Recession to Depression was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

For pretty much all my adult life, I’ve been a speculator. That is to say, someone with an appreciation for the relationship between risk and reward, an appreciation far too many people clearly don’t share.

Take for example, ostensibly conservative investments such as money market funds and T-bills. To my worldview, these are just bad jokes being played on the masses. Piling all your assets into increasingly worthless paper paying next to no interest is the financial equivalent of a death of a thousand cuts, guaranteeing that a large swath of the nation’s senior citizens will spend their golden years sporting paper caps while tossing fries. My view is that, certainly in today’s world, it’s much more prudent to risk 10% of your capital with a prospect of getting a 1,000% return than risk 100% of your capital for the prospect of a 10% (or less) return.

This brings me to the current market in natural resource stocks, a sector in which I have been an active investor for almost 30 years. That’s enough time to have witnessed all manner of cycles and market action. As is to be expected, especially in the early years, I made mistakes, most of them attributable to the hubris of youth. On one memorable occasion, the error was serious enough that I felt the need to spend a day in bed pondering the magnitude of my losses.

But most humans (politicians and most economists being the exceptions) learn from their mistakes, and I learned from mine. As a direct consequence, I have made considerable money in the resource sector. Certainly enough to retire and hang out in upscale locales for the rest of my life, if that were my want. (It’s not…as you read this, I’ve just returned from a rock-kicking expedition to a developing gold play in the boondocks of Panama).

Further, I’m convinced that if I were wiped out tomorrow, I could start with a small grubstake and recoup most of my losses in a few years’ time. In fact, I believe I could do it even if I was airdropped into the Congo, with no money at all. And so could anyone with an entrepreneurial spirit, who knows the difference between something’s price and its value, and understands how to balance risk and reward.

But there’s no need to do anything exotic, like starting with nothing. A relatively small amount of money, skillfully deployed in the right market at the right time, can compound quickly.

With that in mind, perhaps the most critical thing for people now in resource stocks is to examine the nature of bull markets. Many believe that, since resource stocks have had such a big move since their absolute bottoms in the 2000-2002 period, the bull market is, if not over, at least long in the tooth.

I don’t think so. And the reason goes back to an understanding of the way bull markets work — at least major, secular bull markets. They generally have three stages: 1) Stealth, 2) Wall of Worry, and 3) Mania.

The Stealth Phase

The best time to buy in any market is when shares can be purchased on the basis of value alone. Of course, that’s generally only possible when nobody wants to own them because they’ve been so beaten up in the previous bear market. It’s then, when people are most bearish, that new bull markets are born — quietly, unbeknownst to almost anyone. That’s why I term the first stage the Stealth phase: It’s there, but nobody can see it.

In the case of mining stocks, the bottom came between early 2000 and mid-2002, when few investors were even aware that a market in resource stocks existed any longer. It was so beat up that many companies were selling for less than their cash in the bank. Every week, several would change their names, roll back their stock, and make themselves over as dot-coms, or China telecom parts distributors, or some other then fashionable fad business.

In March 2002, for instance, when the risk-averse investing masses wanted nothing to do with precious metals stocks, I wrote this in the International Speculator (Vol. XXIII, No. 3), complete with the uncharacteristically hyperbolic punctuation:

“Junior gold stocks are the most volatile securities on the planet, with the possible exception of lately minted Internet stocks, and the market is still off about 95% from its previous peak. THIS CONTINUES TO BE THE TIME TO BACK UP THE TRUCK. If I could call your broker for you, I would.

“What we’re looking at is a rare opportunity, perhaps twice a decade in the resource stocks, to make a real killing. The last time it was this good was January 1993. In fact, now is actually the best time to buy gold stocks (and they’re usually terrible things to hold) since 1971, when the dollar was devalued. Gold is now, in real terms, almost as cheap as it was at $35 back then; silver is considerably cheaper than it was at $1.29.”

Attentive subscribers joined me in making a lot of money by buying solid resource stocks while they were almost being given away. Another term I use for the Stealth phase is the “Easy Money” phase, because almost anything you buy in this stage will make you a lot of money, with little actual risk  — although perceived risk is very high.

Then, as is the nature of things, word got around and investors began rediscovering the resource stocks. Two things happened, as they always do.

One, a new wave of investors started pouring into the sector, eager to join in the fun and willing to throw money at any good story (and most are good stories…whether those stories are fact or fiction is another matter).

Two, a new wave of resource companies was launched to meet the demand. Conference halls previously suitable for yodel practice filled up with clamoring hordes of cash-waving investors, who were met in force by resource company executives happy to relieve them of that cash.

Predictably, the tsunami of money — which started hitting the market in the second half of 2003 — floated all boats, pretty much regardless of merit. The new money, however, put an end to the Stealth market. Early investors looked like financial geniuses and began to believe trees grow to the moon. Actually, they will — but not until the third stage of the bull market.

The flood of money also did one more thing: It provided the juice needed by the well-run companies to lock up new properties and fund the exploration required to come up with a mineral discovery.

Wall of Worry

The approximate C$12.8 billion of IPO and private placement money that materialized over the last two years acted like a rainstorm in the desert, causing stock prices to blossom. There were quite a few that went up 1,000% and more. But stocks — especially mining exploration stocks — aren’t heirlooms, they’re highly volatile trading vehicles. Seeing momentum diminish, speculators with (sometimes) huge profits started selling to realize them. This led to the second stage of a bull market, commonly called the Wall of Worry stage. That’s where we’ve been for a little more than two years.

Periodically in 2004, and intensively in 2005 and 2006, prices of most resource companies have been driven down, casting a dark cloud over the psychology of most investors and market observers.

People are worried for a number of reasons. Technicians fret about the huge run-ups and subsequent losses of momentum; they wonder if the mining stocks aren’t about to go right back where they came from. Fundamentalists are concerned that (inevitably) higher interest rates will cause people to buy fewer new houses, cars, and other consumer goods; as demand falls, so would commodity prices. They worry that the boom in China will soon come off the rails. They worry that all the money that’s been raised will result in gigantic new supplies of metal, depressing prices. They worry that environmentalists will make it impossible to develop new properties at any price. They worry that feckless and bankrupt governments might nationalize good-looking discoveries, or tax them into unprofitability. They worry that new technologies will radically reduce the use of some metals, collapsing their prices. They worry that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. And they’re right — but their timing is wrong.

As a consequence, even good news out of a resource company is often met with selling as investors decide to use any volume to liquidate positions in order to “watch from the sidelines.”

But in this stage, despite all the fear and sharp sell-offs, the market slowly climbs the Wall of Worry. It eventually digests selling from the profit-takers and the timid, as new buyers overwhelm them.

As a speculator, this phase of the market is almost as good as the Stealth phase, because while the easy money has been made, the big money is still ahead. It will come once the market enters the next phase, the Mania stage. That’s when the broad base of individual and institutional investors becomes convinced the market is going to the moon, pile in, and drive it halfway to that destination. By positioning yourself in the right companies before the mania phase begins — and then having the intestinal fortitude to stay invested, and even buy more, through any periods of weakness — your investments can make you rich.

But you may be asking: Casey, what makes you so sure that this actually is a major secular bull market for the resource stocks?

There are lots of reasons. Enough that even a cursory discussion of them will take another article. But in brief, to refute some of the current worries: We’re coming off the longest and deepest secular commodity bear market since the Depression of the ’30s. Commodity prices are still far below their historic highs, at least in “constant” dollars, which is what counts. The world economy is evolving away from the debt-burdened U.S. and toward China, India, and numerous smaller countries; their growth will be volatile, but it’s for real, and they’ll consume unbelievable amounts of raw materials in the coming years. There’s been very little mineral exploration for a full generation, the industry has come nowhere near replacing reserves, and a historic supply crunch in many commodities is in the making. Governments will always act stupidly, but the long-term trend is inevitably toward freer markets, higher standards of living — and higher resource consumption.

If I’m right about these things, and I’m confident that I am, then the current Wall of Worry will be followed by a mania.

Mania

The fundamentals — although of a much different sort than we saw in the Stealth stage — will drive these stocks much, much higher when the third, the Mania, stage hits. And thanks to the 1980-2000 bull market in the general stock market, everybody (probably even including most homeless people) now has a stock account. They know little about stocks except to get on board anything that seems to be headed up; they’re trend followers. The commodity story tells well, and a whole generation of investors are going to hear it for the first time. Remember, even during the secular resource bear market of 1980-2000, there were three spectacular cyclical bull markets in exploration stocks that took them up an average of 1,000% each time. The power behind the coming Mania phase will drive the resource stocks we are currently covering up like the contents of Hoover Dam trying to fit through a garden hose.

I expect the Mania stage to resemble what we saw with the Internet stocks in the late ‘90s.

What to Do Now

If you are going to be successful as an investor in this phase of the market, you are going to have to suppress your fight-or-flight response and take the time to identify those companies with the goods: adequate financing, great management, realistic market capitalization, and solid properties in the right locations.

How long will you have to wait for your payoff? Not long. The typical exploration cycle lasts about two-three years, and we’ve already started seeing some important discoveries in 2006 and early 2007. That stream of news should pick up momentum as a result of all that money raised in 2003-2006 — and it is already delivering the goods. Consider the table below, of recommendations made in June 2006 and their results as of June 2007 (note that we would not necessarily recommend the same set of companies today, so please don’t rush out and buy these stocks):

*We sold XRC because of a political setback with its then-flagship project in Mendoza, not because anything is wrong with the rocks or with management performance.

As far as the Mania stage, that will make mere 80% gains in a year look like chump change. It will begin once people get over the Wall of Worry, likely triggered by a resumption of the downward trajectory of the U.S. dollar. I’d be surprised if it didn’t start materializing within the next year.

In the final analysis, it is the worrisome aspects of the current market — when you and everyone else are feeling on edge about the risk — that make this such a good time to invest. People do dumb things when they are scared. Like sell great companies. Or sit on the sidelines, keeping their powder dry for a brighter day. And when the brighter day comes, they will do even dumber things, like spend twice, or 10 times, the current ask for the same shares. They’ll be buying those shares from me. The key, if you agree with me that the long bear market of 1980-2000 is over and the new bull market has only gone through its first stage, is to buy when everyone is afraid (like now, while the market climbs the Wall of Worry) and sell when everyone is confident (in the coming Mania).

Finally, for the record, let me emphasize that if you don’t have a tolerance for risk, or a willingness to do enough homework to reduce the risk of falling for a good story without substance, you really shouldn’t be investing in this sector — any more than you should invest with money you can’t afford to lose. By definition, any investment that can turn dimes into dollars can also turn dollars into dimes if you aren’t attentive. This isn’t an arena for amateurs. Although I expect millions of complete amateurs will be in it over the next few years.

But if you can handle the risk, there is a very serious opportunity — and maybe the last in this cycle — for you to get well positioned in this “Wall of Worry” stage. Don’t miss it.

Regards,
Doug Casey

August 9, 2007

Profiting From the Wall of Worry was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Inertia weighs on an investor, trapping him in a state of paralysis and freezing his portfolio, almost forcing him to hold on to whatever he already owns – for no better reason than that he already owns it. He hopes that every one of his old shoes will go up, even if the reason for the purchase is long forgotten or the environment in which the investment might have prospered has vanished. People who substitute hope for cold-blooded analysis almost inevitably wind up losing money.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s look at where you might best put your money for the rest of the year 2007. To keep things simple, let’s assume you start by liquidating all the cats and dogs populating your portfolio, so that you have just a pile of cash. No, let’s not phrase it that way… because then you’re going to start wondering which of the securities you own really are cats and dogs. You might get bogged down. And then inertia will creep back in, and you’ll throw your hands up and do nothing. So let’s assume you sell everything, in true going-out-of-business style.

Now, what’s the smartest place to put that money? Let’s look at the alternatives.

Bonds? A disastrous sucker bet. Bonds, at the moment, are a triple threat to your capital. First, you have a huge risk with interest rates, which are still near historic lows; as they go up, the market value of your bonds drops proportionately. Second, no matter which of the fiat currencies you choose, you have a big currency risk; while the US dollar is on the fast train to zero, virtually every other currency in the world is being inflated along with it and is heading toward eventual oblivion. Third, you have credit risk; General Motors isn’t the only large company whose bonds may go into default.

Stocks? The general market is yielding less than 2% in dividends, less than 1/3 of what you typically see at major market bottoms. And selling for more than 18 times earnings—more than 25% higher than its norm. Worse, for those who might be buyers, the bull market of the century started in 1982 and, in inflation-adjusted terms, ended in 2000. You might not want to hear it, but stocks are almost certainly early into a bear market that could last another 5 or 10 years. By all traditional measures, chances are much better that stocks will drop 50% from here than gain 50%.

Cash? You could always just stay in T-bills. But they currently yield only 5%, before taxes. And inflation (notwithstanding the highly imaginary official figures) is probably running around 6% and likely to head higher.

Real Estate? At the present, at least in the U.S., this is probably the worst choice of all. The speculative boom crested last year, and the market, burdened by an immense amount of debt and overleveraged speculation, is likely to head down for years to come. Of course, there are places in the world, two of our favorites being Argentina and Uruguay, where there isn’t much of a mortgage market, so the properties aren’t overleveraged and values are still available. But unless you are looking to pick up cheap land in undeveloped, exotic countries that have avoided the credit-driven bubble, real estate should be last on your list of investments.

Mutual funds? Any mutual fund you’re likely to pick is just a way of buying one of the investments we’ve already dismissed. And paying all those fees and expenses that come with a mutual fund just makes the bet that much worse.

So What Should You Do?

Since 2001, we’ve been in a natural resources bull market. If you were one of the few who positioned yourself in gold, silver or pretty much any of the metals or energy commodities – either directly or through the shares in smaller resource companies, which is the preferred vehicle we have been recommending to subscribers of our International Speculator — you’ve already made the easy money.

At least to us, before the bull market kicked off, the opportunity in the sector seemed obvious, with many resource companies selling for less than the cash they had in the bank. Few people even knew the sector existed, and most of them thought it was a dead duck after the 20-year-long bear market it had suffered since 1980.

The easy-money stage of the resource bull ended in 2003, at which time we entered the second stage, where the market climbs a “wall of worry.” In even the most formidable of bull markets, this phase comes with inevitable corrections and scary downdrafts. Per its moniker, with each short-term setback in price, investors who were shrewd enough to get positioned early on into the long bull market fret that they might be wrong. Some are shaken out, but the smart ones buy even more on the dips.

But now, in my opinion, we are about to enter the third, and most important, stage of the classic bull market: the mania stage. This will resemble the tail-end of the Internet stock bull market. It’s hard to predict exactly what catalyst will set it off, but it will very likely be rising expectations for inflation. Fear will drive the foreigners who hold about $6 trillion to sell the greenback, and they’ll be joined by savvy Americans. Some will buy other paper currencies, like the euro or the yen. But those units are just backed by U.S. dollars themselves, so they really aren’t much in the way of an escape pod. Inevitably, much of the money now sloshing through the world will try to get into gold. While no one can say with certainty, I expect the metal to hit $1,000 within the next 12 months and go much, much higher by the end of the decade.

Is this an unreasonable prediction? No.

Most casual investors mistakenly look at gold and think it’s been a leader in this bull market when, in actual fact, it’s a laggard compared to the industrial metals that have been bidden up to extraordinary highs by soaring demand from China, India and other emerging markets.

To give you just a few examples, in the last five years, copper has been up 330%, nickel 560%, uranium 1,150%, zinc up 460%, molybdenum up 450%, and even lowly lead, the most basic of base metals, is up 425%. By comparison, gold is up only 100%.

That will change, however, because although gold has many and growing industrial uses, it’s main use is as money. It will dawn on the herd that the world is drowning in a flood of increasingly worthless paper currency, and they’re going to stampede toward the high ground of gold.

The metal isn’t just going through the roof. It’s going to the moon.

Gold Good, Gold Shares Better

When gold really starts to move, the mining exploration stocks are going to howl. That’s because gold exploration stocks are not just highly leveraged plays on the price of gold. They are capable of providing you with triple-digit gains based on exploration success alone.

Case in point, the last mining share boom from 1993-96, which occurred at the tail-end of gold’s 20-year bear market and carried hundreds of stocks with it, was driven entirely by a handful of discoveries. Since gold prices turned up, starting in 2001, a lot of money has been spent on exploration, and that work will inevitably lead to major discoveries and market excitement. Several of the companies we follow in our International Speculator are already drilling into what look to be monster deposits. Confirmation of a major discovery could well ignite a mania in the market.

While most other investments, such as bonds, industrial stocks, real estate and broad mutual funds are likely to be serious losers over the coming years, the bull market in gold and gold exploration stocks has still barely entered the public’s consciousness. Although the easy money has been made, the big money is waiting to be picked up.

Nothing in the investing world is ever a sure thing, but today the exploration stocks look to be as close as it gets. As for the inevitable corrections during this “wall of worry” phase, remember that the time to be timid is when everyone else is bold, and the time to be bold is when everyone else is timid. Sell-offs in the gold and gold mining sector are, to our way of thinking, gift-wrapped opportunities to buy.

Regards,
Doug Casey
June 15, 2007

Your Cash is Trash, and So Are Most of Your Investments was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

A.: I’m desperately looking for the time to visit Iran while that’s still possible. But my take, from reading and talking to overseas Iranians, of whom there are more than a million in North America alone, is that attacking it would be insane. One reason is that there’s plenty of restiveness among young people; they’ll likely, sooner or later, kick the mullahs out. Unless the U.S. attacks, in which case they’ll unite the way Americans would and try to find a way to counterattack.

Another reason is that Iran is a very large, sophisticated and well-educated place, with plenty of cash-although it’s cash that’s being badly managed, as is always the case with socialist economies. Since WW2, we’ve only invaded really small, poor, primitive places. Iran is big game.

Israel has threatened to act on its own if the Iranians build a nuke. I think that’s most foolish; nobody can hold back technology. But I’d let it be the Israelis’ problem, not ours. They’ve simply got to learn to get along with their neighbors. It’s too bad they live in such a bad neighborhood, but the location was their choice.

Q.: But isn’t Israel fighting for its survival?

A.: As hard as this may be to imagine, Jews, Christians and Muslims got on quite well in the Palestine before the aliyahs, the waves of Jewish immigration, began in earnest early in the 20th century. Then trouble started, as it does whenever there’s massive immigration from a different culture-especially if the newcomers are much better educated, cohesive and motivated than the locals. Things got out of hand when the Jews decided to transform Palestine into Israel in 1949. Israel’s formation is understandable, I suppose, in light of what the Jews had just been through during WW2. And what they’ve done is certainly nothing new in history, which, in addition to being little more than a compilation of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind, as Gibbon observed, is basically just a register of involuntary real estate transactions. Actually, if the Bible is to be believed, it’s the second time the Jews have done the same thing to the same people in the same place. The Promised Land and all that.

One thing seems baked in the cake: the Israelis aren’t going away voluntarily, and the Muslims, particularly the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians, are very unhappy about it. And the Muslims don’t need to fight to win; simple demographics would seem to guarantee their eventual victory at the ballot box. Democracy in action; that should make the U.S. Government happy. Meanwhile, as the recent Israeli/Hezbollah dust-up in Lebanon has demonstrated, even the military situation is turning against Israel. Their hi-tech, American-style weapons are great for fighting a conventional army. But they’re nearly worthless in asymmetrical, guerrilla-type warfare, where they’re not even fighting another state.

Q.: Isn’t that an overstatement?

A.: I think not. Another thing Osama has said is that he plans to beat the Americans by letting them bankrupt themselves-but Washington seems to have disregarded this statement as well. The math is quite simple. Their cost of fielding a fighter, typically a highly motivated teenager who feels he’s defending his family from alien invaders, is next to nothing. Our cost of fielding a U.S. soldier, typically a teenager looking for a college loan, or an adventure to help him grow up, is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our cost for an M1 tank, or a Bradley fighting vehicle, is several million dollars. Their cost for an IED to blow up is next to nothing. Our cost for an F-16 to launch an air strike is maybe $40 million. Their cost for a SAM to bring it down is maybe $5,000.

Actually, it’s worse than that. The new Joint Strike Fighter will cost something like $300 million a copy. I can’t imagine who that’s supposed to be used against, besides the U.S. taxpayer. At best it’s an open provocation to the Russians and Chinese. And with the Persian Gulf, basically a shallow and narrow lake, full of U.S. warships at anywhere from $500 million to $5 billion per, it’s going to be a real shooting gallery for anyone who has a good supply of $1 million anti-ship missiles that can travel 2,000 mph. I’m sure the Iranians are planning on swarming the things. If the U.S. Navy isn’t careful, they’re going to wind up looking like the Japanese at Truk Lagoon.

It’s said that the generals always fight the last war. And that’s precisely what the U.S. military is prepared to do.

It’s perverse that the U.S. Government spends more than $400 billion per year on “defense,” almost as much as the rest of the world combined, and America basically has no defense at all. People are in a lather about North Korea launching missiles. This is a complete non-event. If the Koreans, or anyone else, want to attack a U.S. city, the last thing they’ll do is use a missile. Not only are they unreliable and inaccurate, but the victim can tell precisely where it came from, which is equivalent to the attacker signing its own death warrant. I have little doubt there will be one or more nuclear events in the U.S. over the next generation, but the delivery systems will be container ships or private yachts. Cargo plane or private jet. Or maybe FedEx. And nobody will know for sure who sent it. In today’s world, there is no military defense against attack.

Q.: So what should we do? Just roll over to the bad guys?

A.: Of course not. But it pays to think these things out beforehand, not jump around, hooting and panting like a chimpanzee the way Bush is doing. Start by noticing that the “bad guys” all sincerely see themselves as good guys. Even Hitler had the self-image of a man fighting for right against the forces of evil.

It’s insane to go out of your way to provoke people who can do you serious harm, especially if it serves absolutely no purpose. Remember “Bring it on!”? This is just one of several signs that Bush may be psychologically unstable, in addition to being demonstrably unintelligent, ignorant and thoughtless. The accelerating War on Islam has no upside. If it gets out of control, scores of millions of people could die. We’ll defeat them, of course, but it will be a totally Pyrrhic victory. The real winners will be the Chinese and the Indians.

So the wise course is to defuse the bomb before it goes off. Here’s what I suggest:

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign soil. As hard as it is for the average American to understand, foreigners like American soldiers running around in their country about as much as Americans would like an Islamic army here. Even if they were supposedly invited by Washington. Prognosis? This will eventually happen, but unfortunately, for pretty much the same reasons the Romans came home.
2. Cease meddling in other countries’ affairs. Despite our politicians’ certainty that they know what’s best for the natives, economic and military aid should stop. Not just because we have to borrow money from the Chinese to dispense it, but because it always makes steadfast enemies and gains only a fickle friend who has to stay bought. Prognosis? This will happen too, but only when the USG is forced to acknowledge bankruptcy.
3. Make a sincere and well-publicized apology to the Muslim world for having caused so much grief and promise it won’t happen again. Yes, I recognize the chances of this happening are about the same as those of Bush appointing me SecDef.
4. Return to the principles that made America unique and the world’s best-loved and most respected country. This is, of course, a complete pipedream.

In light of what needs to be done but won’t be done, I think it’s prudent to prepare for some really rough times ahead.

Q.: So you expect more terrorism?

A.: First, let’s discuss that word. Bush calls what he’s doing now a War on Terror. Which is completely idiotic. Terrorism isn’t an ideology, it’s a method, a tactic. Having a war on terror is as ridiculous as having a war on cavalry charges or frontal assaults or commando raids. Terrorism may be defined as an attack on a society’s non-combatants, with the intention of weakening their support for the status quo. It’s a tactic that melds the political with the military, much as guerrilla warfare does. But what’s new or strange about that? Clausewitz pointed out that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other methods. Anybody can use terror, and most combatants do. We used terror extensively in WW2 with the fire bombings of places like Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, when there was no military reason for it. Terrorism was what the Phoenix Program in Vietnam was all about. Everybody accuses his enemy of terrorism. It only seems illegitimate when the terrorist isn’t a recognized state.

One advantage of terrorism is its low cost. You don’t have to invest billions for cruise missiles to blow something up if you can get a guy to drive a truck full of explosives to the same place. It’s strictly PR to style only the latter as terrorism. Remember the old line “I’m a freedom fighter, you’re a rebel, he’s a terrorist”? You don’t hear it much anymore, I suspect, because it strikes too close to home. It sounds somehow seditious now that the war is underway. But this is to be expected. Truth is always the first casualty in war.

Q.: The current U.S. foreign policy would seem to be the containment of Iran and Syria. But containment turned out to be a failure in Vietnam. Why do you think we are trying it again in the Middle East?

A.: You know, you put people in a position of power, and they’ll predictably find some way to justify their existence by using that power as promiscuously, and therefore stupidly, as possible. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about the lowliest bedbug working for TSA or the Secretary of State.

Containment was a moronic concept not only when it came to Vietnam, but the whole Soviet empire. These places couldn’t even feed themselves. Their factories were museums of industrial archaeology. Their citizens joked “They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work.” The USSR would have self-destructed decades before it did, were it not for the U.S. acting as a bogeyman, which united its numerous nationalities, all of whom hated one another, against a common enemy. Worse, the U.S. propped the place up with technology transfers and loans. The only thing the Soviets had going was a military, which bankrupted them. And even the military was a paper tiger, as the Afghans proved.

Vietnam had absolutely nothing, only what the Soviets gave them. Except for one thing: spirit, because they were fighting invaders from an alien culture. People will always fight for their homes against foreigners, even if the homes are hovels, and even if they have nothing but sticks and stones for weapons.

To me it just showed how little confidence the average American had, and has, in his civilization that he could actually feel threatened by a small, desperately poor bunch of peasants, who barely even knew that America existed. It’s proof of what Spengler said, that a civilization can’t be conquered from without until it’s already rotted from within.

We should let these people work things out for themselves. By sticking our nose in their business, we make fickle friends but really serious enemies. In fact, we should have let the Soviets and the Nazis sort things out after Hitler attacked in June of 1941. The chances are excellent both empires would have collapsed in exhaustion, and the Cold War, which barely escaped turning into a worldwide thermonuclear war, would have been avoided. No Korea. No Vietnam.

Q.: The ultimate price tag of the war in Iraq alone is estimated to top one trillion dollars. That’s real money. How does the country afford that, and what are the consequences to you and me as taxpayers?

A.: In pre-industrial times, wars could actually make economic sense, at least for the short run. You sent your army somewhere to steal valuable goods-gold, cattle, fabrics, artwork, women, slaves-and bring them back home. The folks back home liked the improvement in their standard of living. Better, after you killed the natives, you could distribute the land to your soldiers. And the natives who were left would be a source of continuing tax revenue. In those days, the most practical version of the Golden Rule was “Do unto others-and do it first.” There was a lot to be said for devastating your neighbors before they became large and powerful enough to devastate you. War, assuming it was successful, had some real advantages.

In today’s technological world, however, war is a totally different animal. Wealth is no longer something you can steal wholesale. This is why I never felt the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe-you can’t effectively steal businesses and technology, which are the main forms of wealth today. As economically illiterate as Marxists are, the Russians intuitively understood that.

The argument is made that we’re in Iraq to steal the oil, which is absolutely the only thing of value in the region. After all, Boobus americanus might self-righteously say to himself, “What’s our oil doing under their sand?” Of course it’s true that the Arabs wouldn’t even know what oil was, much less how to extract and use it, were it not for Western companies-which discovered and developed the deposits, only to have them stolen by the local governments. But in my view, that’s a problem for those companies’ managements and shareholders. It’s perverse to make it the problem of the U.S. taxpayer.

The direct cost of this war has been estimated at between one and two trillion. But who knows? The tab depends on how long the war lasts and how it mutates before the Americans have to abandon everything they’ve done in a panicked exit. Put it this way. Even if we were to ship out every drop of Iraqi oil, at zero production cost, that oil would still cost about $12 per barrel due to the war alone. It’s a ridiculous proposition from an economic point of view.

But the real costs are indirect. I’m not talking about the tens of thousands of permanently maimed and disfigured U.S. soldiers who will have to be compensated. Or the hundreds of thousands of dead and disabled Iraqis who will never be compensated. Or the wholesale destruction of the country itself. After all, we did pretty much the same thing in Vietnam, and life went on. The problem here is that Bush may have started what amounts to WW3. Vietnam was a small, isolated, pitifully poor and backward place; so we could get away with destroying it… although we almost destroyed ourselves in the process.

The difficulty is that the Muslim world sees itself as a whole. The worldwide Muslim community, notwithstanding the Shia/Sunni conflict, very much sees itself as the ummah, which is somewhat their equivalent of our term “Christendom,” a term that no longer has much meaning. Fortunately, for most Americans and Europeans, religion is largely a cultural artifact, a relatively insignificant accident of birth. I say fortunately because it liberates their minds to pursue things like science, technology and business; it allows them to think for themselves and not automatically see those who believe in other religions as infidels. Muslims, as a rule, take their religion much more seriously. It’s one reason the Muslim world is so backward.

We forget that the conflict between Islam and the West has been going on for over 1,300 years. Up to the Battle of Vienna in 1683 where the Turks were turned back, the Muslims actually had the upper hand, except for the interlude of the Crusades, when the Europeans invaded the Levant. But since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve had the upper hand. And since the 19th century, most of the states of the Muslim world have been either European colonies or puppet governments. And we drew the boundaries.

It’s a history they resent. So would we.

Q.: Turning to other topics, do you think it is realistic that the U.S. dollar could lose its status as the world’s reserve currency anytime soon? What are the implications and how soon do you think it could happen?

A.: The U.S. dollar will eventually reach its intrinsic value; it’s simply a question of time. The Forever War is greatly accelerating the process. The whole idea of a reserve currency is meaningless if the currency is backed by nothing but the good will of the issuing government. That’s why gold has always been used as money; you don’t have to rely on anyone’s full faith and credit, good will, competence, trade surpluses, self-restraint or anything else. And it’s why gold will again be used, in everyday transactions, as money.

The dollar is a hot potato. there are trillions-nobody knows exactly how many-floating outside the U.S. But only Americans have to accept them, and only the U.S. Government can create them (although the North Koreans do their best). The Chinese have good reason to worry about all those dollars. When they tried to buy the Unocal oil company, they were turned away by the U.S. Government. So, obviously, their dollars weren’t good for that. When Dubai wanted to buy companies that manage six U.S. seaports, they found their dollars had no value.

At some point there’s going to be a panic out of the dollar. When it happens, it’s likely to be the biggest financial upset since the 1930s. Part of the question is what they’ll panic into. The euro? As I have said many times, if the dollar is an “I owe you nothing,” the euro is a “Who owes you nothing?” I think the big beneficiary will be gold. The problem for the world’s economy is that just a trillion dollars-which is only about 1/6 of the dollars outside the U.S. alone-can buy a billion ounces of gold, even at $1,000 an ounce. But only about four billion ounces have ever been mined.

It’s an explosive situation. The one thing you can count on when there’s a crisis is that the government will “do something,” which means controlling its subjects-not, God forbid, itself. And that something is likely to be foreign exchange controls. A small straw in the wind is the new regulation making it illegal to export more than $5 worth of pennies and nickels, because their metal is worth more than their face value-even though there’s no longer much copper in the pennies or nickel in the nickels.

If an American doesn’t get significant assets outside the U.S. now, it may be impossible in the future. The best thing to do is buy real estate abroad, since it’s currently not reportable, like bank and brokerage accounts, and they can’t very well make you repatriate it. I expect, however, very few people will take my advice, even though they may agree with it. But everybody gets what he deserves, so it’s not a problem..

Q.: Looking at the broad picture, it seems like the U.S. government is facing nearly insurmountable odds. The cost of government has soared to something over 50% of GDP, weighing heavily on the private sector, yet there is no end in sight to the wide river of can’t-stop spending… on the military, on Social Security and Medicare-especially in the face of the baby boomers beginning to retire. How does the country manage to maintain that?

A.: Nothing lasts forever. I’ll be surprised if the U.S. is able to maintain its present geographic boundaries for this century. The Mexicans talk of the Reconquista; the gringos stole the Southwest from them in the 1800s, and they’re likely to take it back. What do you think the odds are that a young Latino male in California, 20 years from now, is going to pay 20% of his wages in Social Security and Medicare to support some old white broad in Massachusetts? Especially since he knows he’s never going to get an aluminum nickel back? Even today, polls show that more kids believe in aliens than believe they’ll see any Social Security money.

We’ve had really good times for a whole generation. People become fat and sassy, or in the case of Americans, obese and arrogant, during good times. They don’t think of hanging their leaders from lamp posts until things get seriously bad.

I don’t know how bad things will get. But when I’m asked, I’m prone to quip “Worse than even I think they’ll get.”

Q.: You and the team at Casey Research have been vocal about expecting a major inflation. Yet, other than occasional surprises-such as the 2% jump in the PPI for November-inflation doesn’t seem to be much of a problem. What gives?

A.: Things that you expect to happen usually take longer than you’d think. But once the process gets underway, they usually happen much more quickly. It’s like a boulder balanced on the edge of a cliff; nothing seems to happen until it happens all at once. Just adjust that analogy to the scale of a human lifespan.

The word “inflation” covers two different concepts, and it’s important to keep them separate. One concept is monetary inflation, which is an increase in the supply of money that outruns growth in the supply of goods and services. The other concept is price inflation, which is an increase in the overall level of prices for goods and services.

The relationship between the two is the relationship of cause and effect. Monetary inflation causes price inflation. But while almost everyone sees price inflation when it happens, few people notice the monetary inflation that is causing it. And so they tend to blame the producers of goods and services for higher prices-rather than the money-creating government that is the true culprit.

We’re now experiencing a lot of monetary inflation, which eventually will be reflected in price inflation. What’s really going to tip this over the edge, however, is the rest of the world deciding to get out of dollars. A lot of those $6 trillion abroad are going to come back to the U.S., and real goods are going to be packed up and shipped abroad. Inflation will explode.

It’s just a matter of time. But I think it’s going to happen this cycle.

Q.: Last year you went on record early calling for gold to top $700, which it did. But you expected it to end the year at about $750. Currently, it trades at around $640. Why do you think it didn’t hold up? And, just for entertainment purposes, how high do you think it will trade in 2007?

A.: I’m sure the government, directly and indirectly, did everything it could to keep the price down. The last thing they want to see is a gold panic. So the short run is hard to predict. But we’re still relatively early, certainly in terms of price, in what will be a bull market for the record books. It’s as if you can see the perfect storm brewing. Since I’ve been involved in the markets, there have been a number of times when things could have come unglued-’70-’71, with the stock market crash and the devaluation of the dollar, ‘73-’74, with another market meltdown and financial crisis, ‘80-’82, when commodities and interest rates both went through the roof, ‘87, ‘92, ‘98, the tech meltdown… Throughout that time, I’ve always tended to be a bear. In other words, I’ve tended to make my money during the crises; it’s relatively easy to make money during good times. As the tech boom proved, any idiot who knows nothing about the markets or the economy, can do it.

My guess is that the next crisis is going to be breathtaking. And it’s not going to be just financial, but economic, social, military and political. Of course, I hope I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, I’m not likely to get hurt, for a number of reasons. But I don’t want to be inconvenienced if I’m right.

So where is gold going? I hate making predictions. I’m not a fortune teller. But I think this is the year gold goes over $1,000. And then the mania starts for the mining stocks…

Regards,
Doug Casey

January 25, 2007

Make War Your Friend, Part II was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The topic of war-with all its sorry implications-is, of course, emotionally and politically charged. Some believe to the depths of their soul that we need to “stay the course” in Iraq and Afghanistan, “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Others judge, correctly in our view, that any military effort in the Middle East is akin to entering a knife fight without a knife. You might survive, but not without losing a lot of blood. Individuals in the latter camp are accused of wanting to “cut and run,” as the talk show morons like to say. But few seem to remember the origins of that phrase. When weather demands it, sailors would cut the anchor line and run before the wind to avoid an approaching catastrophe. It was a sign of intelligence in the face of danger.

Missing from the debate is a candid discussion of the true implications of our current war, not just for the U.S. soldiers killed or wounded, and not just for the local citizens wounded or killed by soldiers sent to deliver “democracy” to people who don’t know what the word means. To an Iraqi caught in the crossfire between an occupying army and its tormentors, the word “democracy” now translates as “duck!”

Into this morass, we push forward Doug Casey, Chairman of Casey Research and the editor of the International Speculator, a monthly newsletter focusing on investments with the potential for a 100% or better profit over the next 12 months. Never one for moral equivocation or political correctness, Doug, who wrote the best-selling Crisis Investing (Harper Collins 1980), is an avid student of crisis in its many varieties. He foresaw the coming of what many are now calling a world war in his July, 2001, International Speculator article, “Waiting for World War III”. A pertinent excerpt…

Waiting for WWIII

What are the greatest problems facing us today? Domestically, I’d say the continual and accelerating loss of freedom, compounded by the prospect of what I suspect could be the biggest financial/economic crisis of modern times. What might that crisis be like? That’s unpredictable, although the odds are it will be unlike any others that are still fresh in people’s memories, simply because people tend to be most prepared for the things that have most recently scared them. The big problems usually come from an unexpected quarter, and/or at an unexpected time. Like the monetary crisis of 1998 that materialized in Thailand.

That said, the question remains of where to look. My guess (although it sounds so unprofessional to use a word like “guess”; a government briefing would substitute a phrase like “our research shows” or “expert opinion indicates”) is that it will come from outside American borders, in the form of war. War is perhaps the worst thing that can happen, not only for the destruction it will cause in itself, but because it will immensely exacerbate America’s domestic problems. As Stirner famously said, “War is the health of the State.”

But neither a declared war, nor a war in the conventional sense, is likely in the cards. U.S. troops have been in combat in a dozen countries since our last “official” war ended in 1945; the U.S. troops stationed in over 100 countries are an accident waiting to happen. Besides the Balkans and Iraq, Colombia is probably highest on the dance card, but almost any place could erupt unpredictably. Who, after all, could have predicted that the U.S. would invade Somalia in 1991, a country few people other than stamp collectors even knew existed. No place is safe from being attacked in The National Interest of the world’s self-appointed policeman.

Anything is possible within this context, but I discount the possibility of another Vietnam, again because of the “recent collective memory” phenomenon. Vietnam is possibly the major reason why the Iraq attack ended so quickly; quick withdrawal obviated any danger that ground troops might get stuck in a major tar baby. But when you’re sticking your nose absolutely everywhere it doesn’t belong, there are lots of ways to get it bloodied. My guess is that something resembling a Crusade is developing against those who live in the Koran Belt. It won’t be overtly religious like the Crusades of the Middle Ages, but it will have major cultural undertones. And there’s every prospect it will be highly unconventional in nature.

And in August of 2002, he (correctly, it turns out) extrapolated where the attack on Iraq would lead, even before the bombs started to fall. (For the full article, see August 2002 “The Forever War, Chapter Next” in the Archives.)

At risk of being unpopular (admittedly a risk I’ve run my whole life), let me state my brief: the impending war is not only unnecessary, it’s unethical, will turn out to be totally counterproductive, will serve to further erode Americans’ freedoms, and move them further towards national bankruptcy, to boot. Are there any positives to it? I’m not sure there are any at all.

Quite frankly, the current drive toward war with a small (13 million people), backward country pretty much on the other side of the globe puzzles me. I have no question that its leader is a sociopath. But that’s true of many, if not most of the world’s leaders, and we aren’t about to start wars with them for that reason; many have been, or are, “allies.”

And here we are, four years later-with Doug’s dire predictions borne out. Where does Doug see things going over the next four years, and what are the Forever War’s more immediate implications for the global economy? We caught up with him in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Q.: It’s sort of hard to know where to start. One day, the country was ticking along, the next, September 12, 2001, we were up to our neck in a global war. In the beginning, there was an international outpouring of support for the U.S. Now we are increasingly isolated. What was the name of the truck that hit us? Or, put another way, what do you think were the controlling mindset and principles of the Bush administration that led us to this point?

A.: First let’s look at who’s been pulling the strings in Washington. The Bush Administration is overwhelmingly composed of Neocons.

They’re highly ideological academics and intellectuals who started off as hard-line socialists but converted to “conservatism” because they were bright enough to see socialism is a one-way street to universal poverty. But they don’t believe in free markets for any reason other than they generate more wealth for the people in charge to allocate-pretty much the same pragmatic approach taken by the Chinese Communist Party. And they never believed in personal freedom. Political hacks are pretty similar, no matter where you find them.

The Republicans in the U.S. have always pretended to believe in free markets while they nurtured the warfare state, but they were quite sincere in their disavowal of social freedoms. The Democrats, on the other hand, have always pretended to believe in social freedoms, and sometimes mounted weak rhetorical attacks on the warfare state, but they were quite sincere in their dislike of free markets. It was logical that, as Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, and the rest of them saw the writing on the economic wall, they’d become Republicans. The Neocons, in other words, take most of the worst in both theory and practice from both parties. They’re fans of both the Welfare State and the Warfare State. They’re dangerous people.

In addition, almost all high-level Bush types are either Zionist Jews or Fundamentalist Christians, in either case reflexive and zealous supporters of the state of Israel. For myself, I have no problem with Israel going about its business; but I think the U.S. should treat it like any other of the world’s 200-odd countries.

Of course the U.S., as evidenced by the approximately $4 billion of aid it gives Israel every year, plus another $1.3 billion to bribe Egypt to be cordial toward Israel, has long treated the country as something approaching the 51st state. Bush has taken this to a new level.

Q.: How do Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda fit into this?

A.: It’s funny, people talk about Osama bin Laden all the time. But nobody ever listens to him. This is very unwise, in that the single most important thing in a conflict is to understand your opponent’s mindset. Osama has said several times that he’s conducting his jihad for three rather simple and clear reasons. First, he wants foreign troops out of Islamic countries. Second, he wants foreign powers to stop propping up dictators in Islamic countries. Third, he wants foreign powers to cease their support of Israel, which he views as the usurper of Palestinian lands. These impress me as reasonable goals. He’s never said he’s fighting the U.S. because, as Bush seems to think, he “hates our freedom.”

Of course he loathes the U.S. and what it stands for, but that’s really got nothing to do with the actual reasons for his attacks.

The attacks were vastly more successful than Osama could have imagined-but only because of the Administration’s idiotic response. Bush immediately puts the world on notice they’re either “for us or against us,” then invades two small, primitive countries, neither of which had anything to do with the attack. This is followed up with all kinds of draconian measures at home and abroad-Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, snatching people on suspicion, the PATRIOT act, disregard for habeas corpus. Then, at least initially, the American people jumped on the jingoist bandwagon with their self-proclaimed war president and make a big deal of things like Freedom Fries. A hundred heavy-handed and pointless measures added up to convince people around the world that the U.S. had whooped itself into an out-of-control bully, undeserving of sympathy.

The U.S. likes to blame all terrorism on Osama and al-Qaeda. That’s because it makes the problem seem containable; it makes it seem as though there’s just one little group of bad guys the U.S. can track down and eliminate. That was once close to the truth. But now it’s just posturing. Today there are scores of Islamic groups all over the world, with similar worldviews and agendas. Of course they are all mutually sympathetic and try to support one another, but they’re completely independent. The way the U.S. has handled the problem is directly responsible for the metastasis.

Q.: You seem to think that Afghanistan wasn’t complicit in the 9/11 attacks. But there is a strong connection between Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and even bin Laden himself said he was behind 9/11. So wasn’t some sort of punitive action called for?

A.: The first thing is to decide whether the events of 9/11 were an act of war by another state, or simply an act of criminality by independent actors. Clearly it was the latter. There’s no evidence whatsoever that the government of Afghanistan, run at the time by the Taliban, had anything at all to do with it. Is there a connection between the Taliban and Osama? Yes, of course. Osama was something of a national icon for helping to drive out the Soviet invaders in the ’80s, which is why he was living there. But people forget that none of the 20 conspirators was an Afghan, and 15 of them, not to mention Osama himself, were Saudis. There was as much reason to attack Saudi Arabia as Afghanistan.

So we have an independent act of criminality with only an incidental tie to Afghans. And these are, incidentally, the same Afghans we armed and supported in their fight to evict the Soviets in 1980. At least the Soviets were invited in by the ruling government, as we were in Vietnam. Somehow we seem to think Afghans like our soldiers running around killing people and destroying property more than they liked the Russians doing the same thing. They don’t. The difference in political goals and the ideological distinctions between the U.S. and Russia are completely lost on these backward, religious, tribal people. So you can plan on the Afghan War growing ever larger and nastier.

Q.: Getting back to what should have been done…

A.: What should have been done if 20 IRA soldiers, or 20 Quebecois separatists, or 20 Colombian Mafiosi had done the same thing? It’s a crime, albeit a very large, spectacular and unusual one, but you treat it like a crime. The U.S. military is not suited for police work.

Few Americans realize that the Constitution provides for the issuance of “letters of marque,” that authorize private bounty hunters to bring pirates to justice. Outfits modeled on Pinkerton’s of the 19th century or Executive Outcomes of the 20th would be far more effective in dealing with al-Qaeda and vastly cheaper than a regular army. That, and less likely to invite retaliation against the U.S. itself. But who reads the Constitution anymore?

One interesting thing about al-Qaeda and its clones is that I think they’re indicative of the way the world is going to evolve. The nation-state, which is only an historical aberration in the big scheme of things, and a terrible idea, is on its way out. It’s going to be replaced by transnational groups of people who coalesce based on what’s important to them-religion, race, hobbies, philosophy, any of a million things that draw people together. Loyalties won’t be to a bunch of people who happen to share some government ID document, but to self-selected, and much stronger, groups. There’s a lot more I could say about this.

Q.: I think I know your answer this to one already, but why do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq? You’ve said that attacking Iraq for 9/11 would have been like bombing China for Pearl Harbor. So, why did we do it?

A.: Einstein said that, after hydrogen, stupidity was the most common thing in the universe. And I think that really is the best explanation. But Bush gave two reasons for the invasion. One, that Iraq was “linked” to al-Qaeda. Two, that Saddam was developing so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction. At the time I said that both excuses were pitifully transparent, even ridiculous, lies.

As to the first point, Saddam’s Baath regime was highly secular; the Baathists and the Islamic fundamentalists viewed each other as mortal enemies. True, they both had reason to distrust and dislike America in general, and the Bush regime in particular. But Saddam was precisely the type of Arab leader Osama wants to get rid off. The assertion they were “linked” is laughable.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction issue is more interesting. Anybody at all with some money, technical skill and motivation can develop biological and chemical weapons. Atomic weapons are more complex and expensive, but hardly rocket science in today’s world; the methods for making them are well known. My God, even North Korea, one of the most backward countries in the world, has done it. These things used to be lumped together as ABC (atomic, biological, chemical) weapons because they were unconventional. But only atomic weapons are actually capable of mass destruction. The WMD moniker was coined recently by the U.S. as a propaganda gimmick, to create an atmosphere of hysteria conducive to the war. It’s a stupid designation, but the press seems to like it. A classical artillery barrage, or a B-52 strike, is really much more of a WMD than chemical or biological weapons.

By the way, last November, there was a video released showing Saddam and his generals before the Iraq war, discussing the possible use of slingshots, Molotov cocktails and crossbows to fight back against the U.S. In the video, Saddam got quite excited about the idea of providing every Iraqi with a slingshot. So much for the scary WMDs.

In any event, was the fear of Saddam getting ABC weapons a reason to invade Iraq? Well, it wasn’t enough of a reason to invade Israel, India or Pakistan when they got them. The fact is that there are a couple dozen countries that could have a nuclear arsenal within a year if they wanted it. The nuclear weapons genie has long been out of the bottle.

And you don’t have to build them to own them. I’ll be quite surprised if some Russian general doesn’t sell some to a party with the right amount of cash. Or maybe some Russian sergeants, since they’re the ones who actually handle them. But the big danger here is Pakistan. The Islamic world views Musharraf as a stooge of the Americans. After he’s assassinated, the odds of which are very high, there’s no telling what will happen to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

Bush’s rationale for invading Iraq has morphed from the Osama links and WMD’s to an altruistic desire to bring “democracy” to the Middle East. Like almost everything else the man says, it makes no sense. In the first place, democracy is just a means of installing rulers; it doesn’t in any way guarantee protection for free minds or free markets. In fact, in today’s idiom, it’s nothing but mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie. What I personally want is individual liberty, which is possible only with an extremely limited government, whose sole purpose is to protect one’s life and property from aggression. I recognize I’m in a small minority, even among Americans, who today view government as a cornucopia of all they desire and see democracy and majority rule as their opportunity to scoop out as much as they want.

But Americans, even though they’re pretty far from being libertarians, come a lot closer than the average devout Muslim, for whom the Koran is the direct and incontrovertible word of Allah. It’s not just the prohibition on drinking, gambling and earning interest and the other puritanical features that make the faith unacceptable to me. Not just the obligatory zakat, which, feeling as I do about charity (see IS 6/2006), doesn’t fit. Not just the ritualistic prayer five times a day or the pilgrimage to Mecca. It’s that Islam is more than a religion; it’s a way of life that submerges politics, philosophy, economics, everything. It’s not a religion that allows for much individual liberty; the word itself means “submission.”

Q.: So here we are, three years later, and the situation is a real mess, as you and others accurately warned would happen even before the first shots were fired. Humor us by describing how you think the current mess in the Iraq and then in the Middle East will unfold from here.

A.: One thing is now clear to all but the dimmest observers: the U.S. has lost this war, and the longer it goes on, the worse it will get. The outcome was obvious from the start, because it’s not possible for an army from the other side of the planet to win a guerrilla war. At least not in a politically correct way. You could engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing, the way the Romans, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane did, but, at least in today’s world, that would be counterproductive in any number of ways, entirely apart from moral considerations. Simply killing guerrillas serves no purpose; to the contrary, the more you kill, the more you get. And, as the statistics show, for every fighter you kill, you kill several non-combatants. And there you’re really sowing dragon’s teeth, especially in a society that has high chronic unemployment among young, unmarried males-which are extraordinarily dangerous and volatile creatures.

My guess is that the next U.S. president will try to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But it’s going to be harder then, because the U.S. will be in full retreat, taking many more casualties than today. The Brits and other members of the phony “coalition of the willing” have already bailed. From a strictly tactical point of view, it’s going to be much tougher than leaving Vietnam. The only portion of the Iraqi army that won’t have stripped off their uniforms and turned into the biggest jogging team in Asia will be the ones who are working with the insurgents. But, unfortunately, that’s the best-case scenario.

The worst case, and a not unlikely one, is there is another incident like 9/11, possibly much more serious, especially while Bush is in office. At that point, mass hysteria may take over, and the government will lock the country down like one of its many new federal prisons. If the Iranians are implicated, it may be the excuse Bush is looking for to launch an air strike against them. Now you’re looking at WW3.

A surprising number of Neocon types are saying that WW3 has already started. They’re not just saying that to make an astute observation; they’re saying that because they want the U.S. to actually broaden the war. The enemy is Islam.

To be continued…
Doug Casey

January 24, 2007

Make War Your Friend, Part I was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Charitable giving and the concept of charity itself are among the stupidest and most destructive humbugs stalking Americans of good will today. Warren Buffett’s bequest of $31 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides an excellent opportunity to discuss the harm done in the name of charity and the confusion that surrounds the topic. Better yet, it falls within the purview of this letter, in that if you have the money to invest, you’ll almost certainly die with some assets; maybe a lot. But how should you dispose of them? This is definitely a “hot button” subject, combining aberrations from the very topics that are most susceptible to irrational thought: money, family, politics, and religion.

I wasn’t surprised to hear of Buffett’s bequest. He’s said for years that he would only leave a comparatively token sum to his family. But, in my view, this cements him in the “Idiot Savant” roll call of rich guys (see IS of 1/06), although not as solidly as the intellectually brain dead, ethically vacant and unintentionally comical Ted Turner, he of the billion dollar bequest to the UN. And although I didn’t discuss Bill Gates in the Idiot Savant article, he definitely belongs there for his huge bequest to his own foundation. I’d also like to give him an honorable mention for the spineless way he responded to the U.S. Government’s anti-trust suit against Microsoft back in 1998. If it had been my company, I promise I would have transplanted it to a friendlier clime-and paid for the move with just a couple of years tax savings.

My guess is that despite his intelligence, expertise, and generally affable, self-deprecating manner, Buffett is profoundly misanthropic. Like Gates, Buffett has a classic anti-capitalistic, limousine-liberal mentality towards money, saying imbecilic things like “The market system has not worked in terms of poor people” on a recent Charlie Rose show. That matches Bill’s incredibly hackneyed and politically correct press conference statement: “We really owe it to society to give back.” No, you idiot savant, society-which is largely composed of nonentities who produce no more than they need to survive personally (if that)-owes you a huge debt for your work with computers. I’m just sorry you’re not actually worthy.

Many people of great wealth seem uncomfortable with money, which perhaps underlies their pathological urge to hand it over to the undeserving. Andrew Carnegie was another sufferer, with his statement “A man who dies wealthy, dies disgraced.” Discomfort with wealth is among the many reasons the Orient will overwhelm the West in the next few generations. Buffett’s and Gates’ grandchildren may be working as maids and houseboys for the Chinese. A rich Chinese wouldn’t dream of leaving his money to a charity, to be dissipated by the do-gooders, world-improvers, socialites and socialists who almost invariably infest their boards. A Chinese billionaire in Hong Kong will leave his entire fortune, tax free, to his kids. Unless he plans early and well, an American billionaire will leave his children only half, after taxes. Or much less after our sick giving ethos draws off a large portion to politically correct charity. So the next generation of Chinese will start out with perhaps three or four times the capital of their American counterparts whose parents had the same assets. And, unburdened by either income taxes or idiotic American attitudes towards money, they will make it grow much, much faster.

But it goes far beyond that. Accumulation itself is benefaction. The accumulation of capital, no matter who owns it, adds to the demand for everyone’s labor, and so enriches everyone who can get out of bed. Giving, on the other hand, is a tricky business. It can easily result in waste or in actual harm. From mankind’s point of view, if not from Tiny Tim’s, Scrooge was a more efficient benefactor before the ghostly visits than after.

Buffett says he doesn’t want to reinforce the power of those who are simply “members of the lucky sperm club.” But the solution is not to exclude people from the lucky sperm club by perversely disinheriting them, but to help enrich society by making ever more people members of it.

I deplore Buffett’s intellectual dishonesty. While tax avoidance is one reason he likes to hold investments “forever,” he’s philosophically a great believer in taxes. It’s hard to respect his hypocrisy. But I do respect his ability to recognize his own mortality, that he’s obviously not attached to his wealth, and that he’s actively chosen its recipient. He sees that Bill and Melinda will likely outlive him by 20 years or more, and knows that, at least while they’re alive, his money probably won’t be frittered on the embarrassing and dishonest hornswoggles initiated mainly for the aggrandizement of foundation trustees, the fate of almost all left-to-charity fortunes great and small. Instead, his money will be blown on nonproductive band-aids applied to people who will just get used to having band-aids provided for them.

That’s partly because the Gates Foundation seems to have a concentration in health programs for the Third World-although it really doesn’t matter what they write checks for. On the face of it, who can argue with alleviating disability and disease? But building clinics, training doctors and passing out antibiotics won’t alleviate disability and disease. Spending money that way treats the symptom and neglects the cause. That may relieve the pain of some people, but, laudable as that might be, it does nothing towards solving the problem. The reason these people and millions of others live in chronic misery is solely and exclusively government/politics. In fact, the band-aid money-just like the trillions squandered in “aid” by the West over the last 60 years-serves mostly to sustain the criminal governments ruling the places where most people are poor. And, despite whatever measures Gates may take, his band-aid gifts will hugely fatten the rulers’ offshore bank accounts and add to the army of impoverished mouths to feed. If he showed even a little imagination and economic sense, he’d invest the money as venture capital in the shares of biotech companies. Or, perhaps, follow the excellent example set by Grameen Bank, which provides micro loans to poor people. They give borrowers the capital to earn a decent living with and then get the capital back, with interest, to repeat the process.

It may come as a surprise to these misanthropic philanthropists, but people actually don’t like being the object of someone else’s charity; it’s degrading, and they resent it. It’s much like the comments made by an Iraqi on seeing a GI (who undoubtedly thought he was being a good guy and making friends) passing out candy to the kids in the neighborhood: “These Americans treat our children, and us, like animals in a zoo, throwing sweets to us, to make themselves feel good.”

Confused Phonies Love Charity

Aspen, a town where I spend some time in the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, offers an excellent microcosm of what 98.44% of charity is really about: rich people feeling self-righteous and showing off their wealth with large donations. Almost all the “must go to and be seen at” parties in this town (as with those in New York, LA, and every other center of wealth) are charity fundraisers. Does anybody care a wit about where their money is going? Not really. That’s got nothing to do with why they’re making the donation. Charity is done for the psychological and social benefit of the giver far more than the welfare of the recipient. Will I pony up a few grand for one of these things, feeling as I do? Sure. I view it as a ticket to a spectacle. But there’s a big difference between paying for a party and giving billions to create a bureaucracy that can corrupt society for generations.

I really don’t care if it’s for an efficiently run good cause, either.

Why not? First, most charity injures both the donor and the recipient. The donor, who presumably had the ability to earn the capital, is poorer, and the recipient is degraded by the receipt of an unearned, and likely undeserved, good.

If you really want to make a kind gesture to someone, for some category of people or for mankind in general, charity, even under the best of circumstances, is the least effective approach. Under the worst circumstances, like government welfare programs, it destroys both the giver (through taxation) and especially the recipient (by habituating him to receive stolen goods and lodging him psychologically and economically at the bottom of society). It’s perverse and shameful.

But what’s wrong with, say, giving a community a hospital? Plenty. If you want to see a hospital go up, then by all means build one-with the intention of making a profit. A hospital (or anything else) that is “non-profit” is inevitably a boondoggle that soaks up capital. The project usually depends on further donations to stay above water, partly because the staff who run it have no direct interest in controlling costs, and partly because they have no honest way beyond their salaries to benefit from delivering a good product. Indeed, management usually welcome ballooning expenses because the process builds satrapies that provide good cover for inflated salaries.

A for-profit hospital, on the other hand, breeds more capital-for expansion, improvement, and even dividends-because shareholders will get rid of any management that fails to do so. It’s self-sustaining and gives consumers what they want.

A hospital run like a charity should be closed and sold to the highest bidder. The same is true of non-profit libraries, universities, and research centers: it would make as much sense to have home builders, auto dealers, and department stores run as charities. But if they were, there’d be no capital to give to charities in the first place.

Ethics?

The whole idea of helping the poor-supposedly a major focus of philanthropy-is a slippery slope, usually bottoming in a dismal ethical swamp.

In a rich country, why are poor people poor? Sometimes, it’s true, bad luck can strike, and a person may need help. But that’s what friends and neighbors are for. And if a person doesn’t have any friends, and his neighbors won’t help him, then the chances are he’s not worthy of help. Over a lifetime, most people get what they deserve. The fact is that most people who experience perennial bad luck simply have bad habits. They drink too much, they don’t care for themselves, they’re ignorant, they’re lazy, or they have other vices. In a free society, someone who’s poor almost certainly deserves his fate. To hell with him. And to hell with charities that encourage him to stay that way.

Sometimes, of course, a person may sincerely wish to improve the world because of a generous if unfocused impulse, rather than because it improves his standing with witless people who care about such things. My first suggestion for him would be to make sure he’s not just a busybody. Do the people of Iraq really need democracy? Do the folks in Afghanistan really need to learn about Jesus? Do the natives in the Brazilian jungle really need Western medicine? I don’t know. Do Americans need an Iraqi to tell them why they need an authoritarian ruler to give U.S. citizens direction, purpose, and discipline-things many feel Americans lack? Do the folks in America really need to learn about Mohammed? Should Brazilian natives expel America’s pharmaceutical companies and substitute their herbal remedies, which many believe are sometimes safer and more efficacious? Frankly, sticking your nose into somebody else’s business, even if you think it’s for his own good-something charities and governments specialize in-is generally a very bad idea. And, I’d say, usually unethical.

What should you do with your money if you really want to improve the world? Earn more of it. Money (unless it’s gained through force or fraud) is evidence that its owner has created wealth-and that’s only done by providing other people with things they want. Making money and getting wealthy is therefore the greatest act of benevolence you can provide the world.

And there’s no altruism required. Altruism, viewed as a virtue by Boobus americanus, is actually a debilitating vice. The modern zeitgeist is perverted on the topic of altruism. It sees gifts to the natural objects of affection-family, friends, purposes that excite the giver-as hardly gifts at all. True gifts, in the modern view, are gifts to strangers. Make a gift to a family member and you are subject to gift tax. Make a gift to a 401(c)3 organization that plans to feed Martians if any hungry ones show up and you get a tax deduction. It’s possible that someday Buffett’s or Gates’ children will face a life-or-death problem that could be managed-if they had a billion dollars. If that happens, will Dad look like a charity pervert?

In any event, altruism means sacrificing your own values and welfare for those of someone else, which is always a bad idea. First of all, a sacrifice means giving up a greater for a lesser good-otherwise it wouldn’t be a sacrifice but a price paid for a greater value. So making a sacrifice should be morally repugnant to any self-respecting individual. Don’t confuse concepts like economy, or trading the pleasure of the moment for something better later, with a sacrifice.

One person with a sound view on this was the late Ayn Rand. I remember being in an audience in November 1981, when she gave what I believe was her last speech. A question came up from an unsympathetic audience member. “Miss Rand, what would you do about the poor?” Her answer was, in my view, about the best one liner conceivable: “Make sure you’re not one of them.” What, you might ask, happened to Rand’s not inconsiderable estate when she shed this mortal coil? It appears she left it to one of her acolytes in the obvious hope that he’d continue her work. Regrettably, however, he seems to have been a better sycophant than philosopher, someone you might have thought Rand herself would have seen as a second-hander who’d only sink into deserved obscurity as the figurehead of a minor secular cult. Which proves that there’s risk no matter whom or what you leave your estate to.

What to Do?

This brings us to the problem of whom, exactly, you should leave your money to. And it should be a specific person, not a foundation, committee, or charity of any type. Most people think of their children as the first candidates, which is reasonable and proper. After all, since you brought them up and you’ve known them all their lives, you’d think they’d be ideal recipients. Certainly we’re all genetically predisposed to see our children in the best possible light. Not leaving your money to your children is tantamount to admitting you either brought them up badly, or else that they were just bad raw material. Marcus Aurelius, the most philosophically inclined of Roman emperors, left the empire to his son Commodus-a man who should make Americans see a distant mirror when they watch Baby Bush. Both Marcus and the elder Bush could have done much better had they adopted someone with character and intelligence.

The Romans had a big advantage, in that they typically didn’t put the kind of store we do in genetically related children. Caesar, for instance, adopted Augustus. Adoption for the purpose of inheritance was quite common, and it makes a lot of sense. Why not choose the best person to benefit from your wealth and power, to make them grow, instead of leaving your estate to someone who might have no merit except, as Buffett observed, membership in the lucky sperm club? Leaving a million (or ten, or a hundred) to the right young person or persons might give them a huge head start on turning it into a billion. Which would benefit all mankind, because that billion represents real wealth that, unless it’s frittered away by a charity, a government, or a wastrel-the three enemies of prosperity-will continue to exist even after the heir dies.

That being the case, let me re-emphasize that what the good Buffett and Gates have done for humanity lies in creating the capital in question, not in giving it away. Of course, they have a perfect right to convert their assets to $100 bills, throw them in a huge pile, and put a match to their fortune. But that would be stupid, in that since the currency is a liability of the U.S. Government, the government would be the only beneficiary.

I’m sure you’re thinking of lots of objections to what I’ve been saying; philanthropy is accepted as automatically as…shudder…democracy in today’s world for being an unalloyed good thing. The usual straw men beg to be set up: “What about the blind baby that’s thrown into a trash can?” and such. My answer is that most people would want to see the baby rescued. And the richer the world is, the more likely it is that people will try to do so. In poor countries babies in trashcans are hardly noted; they make headlines here simply because they’re so exceptional. Are we more moral than poor Third Worlders? No. We’re just richer.

What would I do with Buffett’s billions? With that kind of money one could literally buy a country. The place could be made devoid of taxes, regulations, and legislatures. It could make the progress of places like Hong Kong and Dubai seem retarded by comparison. And it would actually, and sustainably, accomplish what the lame-brained Gates Foundation says it hopes to do.

Do I give to charity now? Sure, but strictly on a person-to-person basis. Not withstanding my reservations, it would seem humans are almost programmed to do it. But I’m extremely discriminating, even if somewhat mercurial and eclectic.

What will I do with my money at some point in the future? I think I’ve spelled out the theory and the alternatives. One thing I can promise is that a charity won’t see any of it. Nor, hopefully, any wastrels. Nor, absolutely, any government.

Regards,
Doug Casey
July 28, 2006

Charity? No, Humbug was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

Hopefully, I’ll be wrong about what’s coming. But the way I see it, being aware and prepared follows the same basic logic as personal gun ownership: better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it. You get the idea. — Doug

It’s been said that if you spend 15 minutes a year thinking about the economy, you’re wasting 13 minutes. That’s generally true. But as an amateur historian, I can’t help myself. And I’m forced to believe that this is a time when the subject is worth some real thought.

My view is that the longest, and certainly most important, trend in history is the ascent of man. I have little doubt that it will not only continue, but accelerate. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be nasty setbacks along the way. As I have said before, possibly the best definition of a depression is a period when most people’s standard of living drops significantly. You can also define it as a period when distortions in the economy and misallocations of capital are liquidated. The distortions are almost always the result of government intervention in the economy, through things like taxes, regulation, and currency inflation. Those are the factors that caused the unpleasantness that began in 1929. Since the government is exponentially more powerful and invasive today than it was in either the 1920s or the 1970s, I expect the consequences will be much worse this time around. Things could have come unglued, and almost did, back in the 1970s. I don’t see how we’ll dodge the bullet this time. Although that’s not really a good analogy in that, for reasons we don’t have time to explore in depth, a depression is probably inevitable this time.

The only serious question in my mind is whether it will be essentially deflationary in nature, as it was the case in the U.S. in the 1930s, or inflationary, like in Germany in the 1920s. My guess is the latter, because the government is so much more powerful today. Or it could actually be both at once, in different sectors of the economy.

How?

Inflation could drive interest rates to 20%. This would collapse the bond and real estate markets, wiping out trillions of dollars of purchasing power — which is deflationary. Meanwhile, that same inflation doubles the cost of food and fuel. In other words, the opposite of what we’ve mostly had for the last generation, when we had “good” inflation in stocks, bonds, and property, but stable or dropping prices in “cost of living” items. This time, the pattern could reverse, which would be a nightmare for most people.

And as people become more focused on speculation in a generally futile attempt to stay ahead of financial chaos, they inevitably divert effort from economic production. Which will decrease the general standard of living even more.

The situation isn’t made easier by the possibility that we’re facing Peak Oil — the start of a secular decline in world oil production. Or the fact that Americans, both individually and collectively, are deeply in debt and living on the kindness of strangers. The problem with debt is that it artificially increases our standard of living. But when we pay it off, especially with interest, it reduces our standard of living in a very real way.

Wrap this economic environment around the so-called “war on terror,” which is rapidly morphing into the war on Islam, which could easily turn into World War III, and you’re looking at the perfect storm. The odds of a major conflagration are very high, and it’s not being adequately discounted. If Bush starts a war against Iran, or if another incident like that of Sept. 11 occurs, or even if the trend of the last five years accelerates, the U.S. is going to be locked down like one of its numerous new federal penitentiaries. And that will be accompanied, and compounded, by mass hysteria among Boobus americanus.

At that point, your investment portfolio will be among your lesser concerns. People forget that in every country and time, there’s a standard distribution of sociopaths and misdirected losers. In normal times, they seem like normal people. But when the time is right, they show their colors, and they love to get jobs with the government, where they can lord it over their betters.

Is the Greater Depression really inevitable? How bad will it be? Is there another side to the argument? Can it be avoided?

I suppose it’s not absolutely inevitable. Perhaps friendly aliens will land on the roof of the White House and present the government with a magic technology that can undo all the damage it’s done. But we live in a world of cause and effect where actions have consequences. That being the case, I expect truly serious financial and economic trouble. And the government will make it vastly worse by trying to “do something,” instead of recognizing itself as the cause and backing off. I don’t see any way out.

How bad will it be? In historical terms, the last depression was relatively short and mild. The longest depression on record was the Dark Ages. Residents of the old USSR and Mao’s China suffered through a depression that lasted decades. I’m not predicting it will be that bad, if only because the U.S. has basically much sounder traditions and institutions and vastly more accumulated capital. But it’s hard to overestimate how serious this could be. I sometimes joke that it will likely be worse than even I think it will be.

Getting back to whether it’s truly inevitable, it’s a question of degree. The recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s involved a terrible stock market; 15% inflation, with interest rates to match; 10% unemployment; and a near war with the USSR. But the country not only hung together, it went on to a tremendous rebound. My guess is, however, that the last 20 years of good times will later be viewed as an economic Indian summer before a harsh winter.

The good news, of course, is that no matter what the economic conditions, technology — which is the mainspring of human progress — will keep advancing. And many individuals will continue innovating, saving, and improving conditions for themselves and their associates. Also, it’s entirely possible to go through even the worst of times and not get hurt. Indeed, to profit from them. If the price of a house you want now but can’t afford falls 75% (as outrageous as that may sound at the moment) while your own investments in the high-quality gold stocks we follow in our International Speculator quadruple, you’re much better off. That house now really only costs you one-sixteenth of what it did before. Of course, it’s a problem for the guy who has to sell his house…but I always prefer to look at the bright side of the equation. There’s time now to structure your affairs so that you’re on the right side of the trade.

What indicators should we watch for that might tell us it’s about to get ugly?

Well, one obvious indicator is how the price of gold is running. Gold is the only financial asset left in the world that’s either safe or cheap. It’s also underowned and largely unrecognized, which is why the smart money has been moving into it.

Then there’s the CPI itself — although I don’t think it’s very accurate, in that all the adjustments, exclusions, weightings, and whatnots the government has insinuated into it over the years makes the CPI as much of a floating abstraction as the dollar itself. It’s funny how the government plays with figures for fear of hurting confidence. They believe the economy rests mainly on confidence — which, ironically, in today’s world, is true. Unfortunately, confidence can blow away like a pile of feathers in a windstorm — and we have a class-5 hurricane coming. If the economy were sound and people for some reason lost confidence, the currency and the banks would be unhurt, and the next day things would go back to normal. But that’s not the world we live in. So higher CPI numbers are another thing that could destroy confidence and supercharge the gold price. They’re coming.

Higher interest rates, which we’re already seeing, will inevitably burst the real estate bubble, which is floating on a sea of mostly adjustable-rate debt, a lot of it interest only, or even with negative amortization. Higher rates will also crush bonds, and probably stocks. And they’ll devastate the economy since everybody is deeply in debt. However, I feel the Fed will keep short-term rates — which are really the only ones it controls — as low as possible for as long as possible. For one thing, the Fed doesn’t want a recession, which this time could snowball into the Greater Depression. For another, my guess is that the Fed wants to gradually depreciate the dollar against other currencies, in part to decrease the chronic, massive trade deficit. And because increasing the number of dollars makes people think they’re richer than they really are, it can stimulate some additional spending…but these days that spending is mostly done on credit, so it is only illusionary.

The biggest single problem, however, is that there are trillions of U.S. dollars outside of the U.S. Unlike Americans, foreigners have no reason to hold them. And at some point very soon, perhaps when the Fed finally hits the wall on its ability to raise rates, these overseas dollars are going to start flooding back home, while the products of and titles to real wealth flow out of America.

Therefore, when the trade deficit starts turning around — which most people will think is a good thing — that will be the real tip-off the game is over. Trillions coming back to the U.S. will skyrocket long-term interest rates and inflation. The dollar will go into free fall.

But although I think these are the things to watch, to my way of thinking, it makes no sense to wait until the stampede starts to try to get out the door. If you haven’t done so already, take advantage of the current correction in gold to begin repositioning your portfolio for what’s next.

Doug Casey
June 8, 2006

The Greater Depression — An Update was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder