TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Fundamental Change

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 04:02 AM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default JEREMY GRANTHAM: We're Headed For A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions

JEREMY GRANTHAM: We're Headed For A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions

Henry Blodget | Jun. 13, 2011, 10:47 AM | 125,434 | 166




Jeremy Grantham.






Legendary investor Jeremy Grantham of GMO has published a treatise on the root cause of exploding commodity prices. He has also offered a startlingly depressing outlook for the future of humanity.
Grantham concludes that the world has undergone a permanent "paradigm shift" in which the number of people on planet Earth has finally and permanently outstripped the planet's ability to support us.
Specifically, Grantham says, the phenomenon of ever-more humans using a finite supply of natural resources cannot continue forever--and the prices of metals, hydrocarbons (oil), and food are now beginning to reflect that.
In other words, Grantham says, it is different this time.
Grantham believes that the trend of the last 100 years, in which the prices of almost all major commodities have steadily declined, is permanently over. And from here on in, humans will be competing more--and paying more--for ever-scarcer resources.
From an investment standpoint, this paradigm shift need not mean disaster: Grantham says the obvious play is to own "the stuff in the ground" (and the ground itself, as the huge boom in farmland prices illustrates). The less obvious but equally compelling play is to own companies and technologies that facilitate resource conservation.
From a societal standpoint, the news is far worse. Grantham believes that the planet can only sustainably support about 1.5 billion humans, versus the 7 billion on Earth right now (heading to 10-12 billion). For all of history except the last 200 years, the human population has been controlled via the limits of the food supply. Grantham thinks that, eventually, the same force will come into play again.
The hope of the optimists, of course, is that "science" will find a solution to this problem, the way it has for the past 150 years. But unless the world immediately wakes up to the severity of the problem--and makes fixing it a global priority--Grantham doesn't see that happening.
Here's a snapshot of Grantham's argument, along with his key points at the end.


In the past 200 years, the world population has exploded--just as Malthus predicted. What Malthus did not foresee was the discovery of oil and other natural resources, which have (temporarily) supported this population explosion. Those resources are now getting used up...


Image: GMO



For the past 100 years, the prices of commodities have trended downward, as technology has made them cheaper to extract and produce. Grantham thinks that trend has now permanently ended.


Image: GMO



Looking at oil, for example... Oil traded at about $16 a barrel for 100 years. Then, as demand outstripped supply, the paradigm shifted--to ~$35 a barrel. Now, Grantham thinks, the paradigm has shifted again, to a central value of about ~$75 a barrel


Image: GMO



Why is the paradigm shifting? Because demand is now growing far faster than supply. The world's oil production has barely increased since the 1970s, while oil usage has exploded.


Image: GMO



And don't buy that crap about how future discoveries will save us. In the 1980s, we began consuming more oil each year than was discovered. That disparity is only going to increase.


Image: GMO



Nor is oil the only commodity undergoing a price paradigm shift. Metal prices are also exploding. Here, for example, is a hundred-year look at the prices of Iron ore.


Image: GMO



The story for metals, by the way, is the same as for oil: The low-hanging fruit has been picked. Despite the use of new technologies, the yield per ton of metal ores continues to drop. Here's the yield on a ton of copper ore, for example.


Image: GMO



And the same story is playing out in food. 40 years ago, the average growth rate of crop yields per acre was an impressive 3.5% per year. This was comfortably ahead of the growth rate of global population, which was about 2%. In recent years, however, the growth in crop yields per acre has dropped to about 1.5%. That's dangerously close to the growth of population, and at some point soon, the lines will cross.


Image: GMO



The ever-increasing-yield per acre, by the way, is the result of heavy fertilizer use. And most fertilizers are commodities, too (potassium, for example). So there's no infinite supply of fertilizers, either.


Image: GMO



Not surprisingly, the prices of foods are skyrocketing.


Image: GMO



So, why is all this happening now, when the global population has been exploding for two centuries? The answer, in part, is the spectacular growth of China, India, and other massive countries. The resource-usage of these countries is mind-boggling. Here, for example, are GMO's estimates of the percentage of world consumption of various resources that are consumed by China alone. (China accounts for 9% of the world's GDP. And it's using 53% of the world's cement!)


I







Here's the bottom line...


GRANTHAM: Summary of the Summary
The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value. We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.
Summary
 Until about 1800, our species had no safety margin and lived, like other animals, up to the limit of the food supply, ebbing and flowing in population.
 From about 1800 on the use of hydrocarbons allowed for an explosion in energy use, in food supply, and, through the creation of surpluses, a dramatic increase in wealth and scientific progress.
 Since 1800, the population has surged from 800 million to 7 billion, on its way to an estimated 8 billion, at minimum.
 The rise in population, the ten-fold increase in wealth in developed countries, and the current explosive growth in developing countries have eaten rapidly into our finite resources of hydrocarbons and metals, fertilizer, available land, and water.
 Now, despite a massive increase in fertilizer use, the growth in crop yields per acre has declined from 3.5% in the 1960s to 1.2% today. There is little productive new land to bring on and, as people get richer, they eat more grain-intensive meat. Because the population continues to grow at over 1%, there is little safety margin.
 The problems of compounding growth in the face of finite resources are not easily understood by optimistic, short-term-oriented, and relatively innumerate humans (especially the political variety).
 The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash. We must substitute qualitative growth for quantitative growth.
 But Mrs. Market is helping, and right now she is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now, this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.
 Statistically, most commodities are now so far away from their former downward trend that it makes it very probable that the old trend has changed – that there is in fact a Paradigm Shift – perhaps the most important economic event since the Industrial Revolution.
 Climate change is associated with weather instability, but the last year was exceptionally bad. Near term it will surely get less bad.
 Excellent long-term investment opportunities in resources and resource efficiency are compromised by the high chance of an improvement in weather next year and by the possibility that China may stumble.
 From now on, price pressure and shortages of resources will be a permanent feature of our lives. This will increasingly slow down the growth rate of the developed and developing world and put a severe burden on poor countries.
 We all need to develop serious resource plans, particularly energy policies. There is little time to waste.





Read more: JEREMY GRANTHAM: We're Headed For A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36

Last edited by FredFredson; 16-06-11 at 04:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 10:46 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I really like Gratham and GMO (James Montier is a really good read - Quite the bear but good!) and, while I tend to agree with the thesis on average, there are serious caveats.

First, technology is good at removing bottlenecks. "This time is different" has been a catastrophic investment thesis every time for a good reason... See "Natural Gas prices" for an example. Furthermore, photovoltaic cells seem to follow Moore's law. If, in 5 years time, we get cheap energy via solar energy, this thesis will look definitely shifty.

I am more with him on the food and land issue - We don't create more land, do we? And, if sciences run out of ways to boost yields, we might have an issue. OTOH, we might start adapting our diets - Less meat, more algaes... The sea could be used to grow food, couldn't it?

Finally, a bit of nitpicking

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
Until about 1800, our species had no safety margin and lived, like other animals, up to the limit of the food supply, ebbing and flowing in population. From about 1800 on the use of hydrocarbons allowed for an explosion in energy use, in food supply, and, through the creation of surpluses, a dramatic increase in wealth and scientific progress.
False. Two words: Roman Empire. Things can go up and down for reasons that have nothing, not a thing, to do with hydrocarbure usage and food supply.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 01:56 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

Quote:
False. Two words: Roman Empire. Things can go up and down for reasons that have nothing, not a thing, to do with hydrocarbure usage and food supply.
Except that the Roman Empire at it's peak was only barely feeding itself and was rapidly running out of easily obtainable metal. The Empire was seriously stressed economically by the time it fell, much of the political turmoil at the periphery was partly based on the resource shortages brought on by over consumption at the core.

Actually the rise and fall of the Roman Empire is a good object lesson on this issue as while the Empire did not fall because of these shortages, it was weakened by them.

http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline...ine_roman.html

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 01:59 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

I would imagine that having a slave economy and a constant need to expand its frontiers beyond what was manageable with the given level of comm. tech is a more relevant constraint...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 02:09 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

The expansion was because of the need for additional resources though, so it was a treadmill that led to over expansion and ultimately collapse.

The Empire ultimately failed because of a "jackpot" of many issues coming to a head. Over consumption of critical resources was a major part of that jackpot, as was political instability due to corruption at the core and over expansion of the boundaries. Climate change and the mass migration of peoples outside the Empire caused by the resulting disruption in their food supplies, was also an issue.

Like I said their situation is analogous to ours. What the Romans did with their slave based economy, we are doing with our hydrocarbon based one only on a bigger scale. Throw in a similar jackpot of conditions and I don't really think we will fare much better ultimately.

F
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 02:35 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

You're obviously right that the expansion was to do with acquiring further resources but that's pretty normal - In a world of no productivity gain, everybody did the same - To grow, you have to grab your neighbours' stuff.

I am willing to accept that changing conditions made things more difficult and stuff but I still don't think it changes my comment - Rome did not fall (and the European population did not collapse) for particularly food related issues.

IIRC, they also needed to expand their Empire because they needed evermore slaves and to keep the citizens occupied.

Furthermore, a slave has no incentive to improve things so one critical factor is the overall lack of productivity gains. Technological stagnation was a real issue and, had they had technological progress, they would probably have overcomed their issues.

So I am not saying we're out of the wood and all will be well - Your pessimistic views might come to pass but I am just saying there are things in the pipeline (like the photovoltaic cells stuff) that might change our circumstances pretty drastically.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 16-06-11, 04:22 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
I am willing to accept that changing conditions made things more difficult and stuff but I still don't think it changes my comment - Rome did not fall (and the European population did not collapse) for particularly food related issues.
The Goths invaded because they were starving, they seized Rome and tried to ransom it for food, but the Romans didn't have any to give, so they had to move on to Spain. The Vandals were explicitly heading for Africa, which was the bread-basket of the Empire, for the same reason, and the death penalty was instituted for anyone who taught them how to build boats with which to make the crossing.

Plus, the Roman nobility decamped from the cities to their estates, which were running as big grain plantations. One of the prime reasons for this was that the cities were suffering resource shortages, including food. Then the cities essentially became dependent on these manorial landlords for food, and it is this dynamic which drives the transition from coherent state to local warlordism and eventually feudalism.

So food issues were a significant factor both in the disintegration of the empire and in framing the state of affairs that arose afterward.

Quote:
IIRC, they also needed to expand their Empire because they needed evermore slaves and to keep the citizens occupied.
Although his arguments aren not universally accepted, Edward Luttwark's study of the empire suggests that it had no grand strategy, and that expansion was spasmodic and more or less random rather than driven by any kind of policy. Usually they expanded to suppress a threat, real or perceived, which brought their borders into contact with yet more threats, which caused them to expand, ad infinitum.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 23-06-11, 08:02 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default

I say just default and get it over with!
This death by a thousand payments to billionares is getting old
F


Derivatives Cloud the Possible Fallout From a Greek Default
nytimes

Derivatives Cloud the Possible Fallout From a Greek Default - Yahoo! Finance

LOUISE STORY, On Thursday June 23, 2011, 7:10 am EDT

It’s the $616 billion question: Does the euro crisis have a hidden A.I.G.?

No one seems to be sure, in large part because the world of derivatives is so murky. But the possibility that some company out there may have insured billions of dollars of European debt has added a new tension to the sovereign default debate.

In years past, when financial crises in Argentina and Russia left those countries unable to make good on their government debts, they simply defaulted. But this time around, swaps and other sorts of contracts have become so common and so intertwined in the financial markets that there are fears among regulators and financial players about how a Greek default would play out among derivatives holders.

The looming uncertainties are whether these contracts — which insure against possibilities like a Greek default — are concentrated in the hands of a few companies, and if these companies will be able to pay out billions of dollars to cover losses during a default. If there were a single company standing behind many of these contracts, that company would be akin to the American International Group of the euro crisis. The American insurer needed a $182 billion federal bailout during the financial crisis because it had insured the performance of mortgage bonds through derivatives and could not pay on all of them.

Even regulators seem unsure of whether a Greek default would reveal such concentrated risk in the hands of just a few companies. Spokeswomen for the central banks of both Europe and the United States would not say whether their researchers had studied holdings of such contracts among nonbank entities like insurance companies and hedge funds.

Asked about derivatives tied to Europe at a Wednesday press conference, Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that the direct exposure is small but that “a disorderly default in one of those countries would no doubt roil financial markets globally. It would have a big impact on credit spreads, on stock prices and so on. And so in that respect I think the effects in the United States would be quite significant.”

Derivatives traders and analysts are debating just how much money is involved in these contracts and what sort of threat they pose to markets in Europe and the United States. On the one hand, just over $5 billion is tied up in credit-default swap contracts that will pay out if Greece defaults, according to Markit, a financial data firm based in London. That is less than 1 percent the size of Greece’s economy, but that is a conservative calculation that counts protections banks have in place offsetting their positions, and is called the net exposure.

The less conservative figure, the gross exposure, is $78.7 billion for Greece, according to Markit. And there are many other types of contracts, like about $44 billion in other guarantees tied to Greece, according to the Bank of International Settlements. The gross exposure of the five most financially pressed European Union countries — Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain — is about $616 billion. And the broader figure on all derivatives from those countries is unknown.

The pervasiveness of these opaque contracts has complicated negotiations for European officials, and it underscores calls for more transparency in the derivatives market.

The uncertainty, financial analysts say, has led European officials to push for a “voluntary” Greek bond financing solution that may sidestep a default, rather than the forced deals of other eras. “There’s not any clarity here because people don’t know,” said Christopher Whalen, editor of The Institutional Risk Analyst. “This is why the Europeans came up with this ridiculous deal, because they don’t know what’s out there. They are afraid of a default. The industry is still refusing to provide the disclosure needed to understand this. They’re holding us hostage. The Street doesn’t want you to see what they’ve written.”

Regulators are aware of this problem. Financial reform packages on both sides of the Atlantic mandated many changes to the derivatives market, and regulators around the globe are drafting new rules for these contracts that are meant to add transparency as well as security. But they are far from finished and could take years to put into effect.

Darrell Duffie, a professor who has studied derivatives at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University, said that he was concerned that regulators may not have adequately studied what contagion might occur among swaps holders, in the case of a Greek default.

Regulators, he said, “have access to everything they need to have. Whether they’ve collected all the information and analyzed it is different question. I worry because many of those leaders have said there’s no way we’re going to let Greece default. Does that mean they haven’t had conversations about what happens if Greece defaults? Is their commitment so severe that they haven’t had real discussions about it in the backrooms?”

Regulators aren’t saying much. When asked what data the Federal Reserve had collected on American financial companies and their swaps tied to European debt, Barbara Hagenbaugh, a spokeswoman, referred to a speech made by Mr. Bernanke in May in which he did not mention derivatives tied to Greece. At the Wednesday press conference, Mr. Bernanke said that commonly cited data on derivatives do not take into account the offsetting positions banks have on their Greek exposures. And with those positions, he said, even if there is a Greek default, “the effects are very small.”

At the European Central Bank, Eszter Miltenyi, a spokeswoman, said: “This is much too sensitive I think for us to have a conversation on this.”

On Wall Street, traders are debating whether the industry’s process for unwinding credit-default swaps would run smoothly if Greece defaulted. The process is tightly controlled by a small group of bankers who meet in an industry group called the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

The process is fairly well developed, but it has been little tested on the debt of countries. For the most part, Wall Street has cashed in on credit-default swaps tied to corporations’ debt.

For most purposes, determining whether a default occurred in a country’s debt falls to ratings agencies like Fitch and Moody’s. But for the derivatives market, a committee of I.S.D.A. makes the call.

If the committee decides there was a default, it passes the baton to Markit, which is partly owned by the banks. Markit holds an auction to determine how much value has been lost on the debt, and that determines how much money is paid out to the parties that purchased the insurance.

Marc Barrachin, who runs the auctions, said there was no reason to worry about the process.

“The process is very smooth, very well understood by market participants,” said Mr. Barrachin, the director of credit products at Markit. “I mean if you go back to 2008 right in the fall, in five days we had auctions for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman Brothers, and two weeks after that you had Washington Mutual. I go back to that period of stress and the orderly settlements of large amounts of credit derivatives, for names that were widely followed, were testament of the efficiency of the auction system.”

In the case of A.I.G., there was not an unwind process run by I.S.D.A. because A.I.G.’s contracts were tied to mortgage bonds. Those sorts of derivatives pay out money over time, whereas derivatives tied to a country’s debt pay out on one occasion: if a default occurs. That makes sovereign derivatives more similar to derivatives on corporate bonds and different in some ways from the situation at A.I.G.

But the smoothness of the process would be irrelevant if the risk were concentrated in just a few weak institutions.

The uncertainty around how a sovereign default would course through the derivatives market had greatly increased the price premiums banks were charging to put on new derivatives trades related to European countries. As of last week, the price to insure against default on $10 million of Greek debt was $1.9 million per year, up from $775,000 a year ago, according to Markit.

“There is lack of transparency and visibility in these products, and that increases the risk,” said Marc Chandler, global head of currency strategy at Brown Brothers Harriman, a boutique banking firm in New York.
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
contracycle, Francois Cellier, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, roadkill
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0