Tag Archives: Demand

Peter Schiff: Too Much Money; Not Enough Stuff

Too much money, courtesy the Federal Reserve, chasing to little stuff, courtesy the massively overblown Covid reaction, produces rising prices, colloquially known as inflation. From Peter Schiff at schiffgold.com:

For the first time in nine months, the government CPI data came in under expectations. Prices rose by 0.3% last month, just below the 0.4% projection. Year on year, the CPI was up 5.3%. Core inflation, stripping out more volatile food and energy (for those of you who don’t eat or use energy) was up 0.1%. Core inflation is up 4% on the year.

In his podcast, Peter Schiff took a deeper dive into the numbers and explained why this doesn’t prove inflation is “transitory.” He also drilled down to the root cause of rising prices – too much money chasing not enough stuff. Given the current monetary policy, that doesn’t appear set to change anytime soon.

Focusing on the headline number of 0.3%, a lot of people were relieved because we finally got a cooler than expected inflation read. In the minds of many, it also validated the Federal Reserve’s narrative that inflation is “transitory.” But as Peter put it, “One month does not transitory make.”

First of all, 0.3% in one month, in-and-of-itself, is still a lot of pricing pressure. Because if you annualize 0.3, well, that’s almost 4% per year. So, if we got this ‘good number’ 12 months in a row, that’s a 4% gain in consumer prices, which is almost double what the Fed claims it wants, which is a rate slightly above 2%. Well, 4% isn’t slightly above 2%. It’s almost double 2%. So, this is not a great number in-and-of-itself.”

Continue reading→

How Even “Low” Interest Rates Screw Up the Economy, by Wolf Richter

Low interest rates make the problems they purport to cure worse. From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

Interest rates don’t have to be negative to make a mess in the era of low demand.

This is the transcript from my podcast last Sunday, THE WOLF STREET REPORT:

Now the plot thickens: I’ve got a former Secretary of the Treasury backing me up. We’ve already seen, including in my last podcast, how negative interest rates screw up the economy. Negative interest rates are so absurd that just thinking about them gives me a headache.

In the era of negative interest rates, owning financial assets such as government bonds, or savings in the bank, or corporate bonds, and increasingly European junk bonds, no longer produces income but a financial burden – because you have to pay the negative interest in one form or another. And so these quote unquote “assets” are not only a financial burden on you that you would want to get rid of normally, but by extension, they’re burden on the economy as a whole.

Look how economies and stocks have fared in countries with negative interest rates – such as Japan and the countries of the Eurozone: Their stocks have gotten crushed. Their bank stocks have gotten annihilated. Japanese bank stocks are down 92% from the peak 30 years ago, and European bank stocks are down 76% from 12 years ago. European bank stocks are now back where they’d first been in 1993.

The European and Japanese economies have been mired in microscopic growth interspersed with declines. In Japan, this has been going on for over two decades. In Europe it’s been a dozen years.

Continue reading→

 

What The Oil And Gas Industry Is Not Telling Investors, by Nick Cunningham

SLL has predicted that the price of oil will stay at current levels or lower for longer than most people think (“Blood, Oil, Debt, and Government,” 10/26/15). That prediction was based on suppy dynamics. In this article, Nick Cunningham of oilprice.com focuses on demand:

Oil prices crashed because of too much supply, but will rebound as production shrinks and demand rises. But what if long-term demand for oil ends up being sharply lower than what the oil industry believes?

That is the subject of a new report from The Carbon Tracker Initiative, which looks at a range of scenarios that could blow up oil industry projections for long-term oil demand.

Historically, Carbon Tracker says, energy demand has been driven by population, economic growth, and the efficiency (or inefficiency) of energy-using technologies. Carbon Tracker looks at a couple possible future scenarios in which those parameters are altered, resulting in dramatically lower rates of oil consumption.

Carbon Tracker has been a pioneer in the concept of “stranded assets,” the notion that fossil fuel assets will lose their value as the world moves to restrict carbon emissions. If an oil field cannot be produced profitably in a carbon-constrained world – or cannot legally be produced because of certain regulations – then it ceases to have value. That puts investors’ dollars at risk, a risk that financial markets have not fully grappled with.

However, in a new report, Carbon Tracker expands upon the possible scenarios in which oil demand may not live up to industry predictions.

For example, if the world population hits only 8.3 billion by 2050 instead of the 9.7 billion figure typically cited by the UN, fossil fuel consumption could end up being 17 percent lower in 2050 than the oil industry thinks. Coal would be affected the most, with 25 percent reduction in demand compared to the business-as-usual case.

How about GDP growth? The expansion of the global economy is pivotal to energy consumption. The industry typically bakes in a GDP growth rate of 2.8 to 3.6 percent per year into its forecasts. But these figures could be on the high end, especially since so much hinges on the ongoing blistering growth from China. But, using BP’s pessimistic GDP scenario in which China and India only grow at 4 percent per year, global energy demand could be 8.5 percent lower in 2035 than the business-as-usual case.

Perhaps more threatening to future oil demand are global policies to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions, as previously touched upon. Although international negotiations have largely failed to halt the growth of carbon emissions, a significant effort to zero out carbon over the long-term would necessarily cut deeply into demand. Industry projections largely ignore this possibility, as industry estimates for fossil fuel demand in the future would likely lead to average global warming of 4 to 6 degrees Celsius, exceeding the stated goal of capping warming at 2 degrees. More importantly, industry projections for fossil fuel use already exceed the totals that would result if the carbon reduction goals already laid out by countries heading into Paris are implemented. Caps on emissions would upend the entire business model of the oil industry.

To continue reading: What The Oil And Gas Industry Is Not Telling Investors