Month: February 2014

The potential for a golden age of gas comes along with a big “if” regarding environmental and social impact. The International Energy Agency (IEA)—the “global energy authority”–believes that this age of gas can be golden, and that unconventional gas can be produced in an environmentally acceptable way.

In an exclusive interview with Oilprice.com, IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, discusses:

• The potential for a golden age of gas
• What will the “age” means for renewables
• What it means for humanity
• The challenges of renewable investment and technology
• How the US shale boom is reshaping the global economy
• Nuclear’s contribution to energy security
• What is holding back Europe’s energy markets
• The next big shale venues beyond 2020
• The reality behind “fire ice”
• Condensate and the crude export ban
• The most critical energy issue facing the world today

Interview by. James Stafford of Oilprice.com

Oilprice.com: In 2011, the IEA predicted what it called “the golden age of gas,” with gas production rising 50% over the next 25 years. What does this “golden age” mean for coal, oil and nuclear energy—and for renewables? What does it mean for humanity in terms of carbon emissions? Is the natural gas boom lessening the sense of urgency to work towards renewable energy solutions?

IEA: We didn’t predict a golden age of gas in 2011, we merely asked a pertinent question: namely, are we entering a golden age of gas? And we found that the potential for such a golden age certainly exists, especially given the scale of unconventional gas resources and the advances in technology that allow their extraction. But the potential for a golden age of gas hinges on a big “if,” and we elaborated on this in 2012 in a report called “ Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas”. Exploiting the world’s vast resources of unconventional natural gas holds the key to golden age of gas, we said, but for that to happen, governments, industry and other stakeholders must work together to address legitimate public concerns about the associated environmental and social impacts. Fortunately, we believe that unconventional gas can be produced in an environmentally acceptable way.

Under the central scenario of the World Energy Outlook-2013, natural gas production rises to 4.98 trillion cubic metres (tcm) in 2035, up nearly 50 percent from 3.38 tcm in 2011. But we have always said that a golden age of gas does not necessarily imply a golden age for humanity, or for our climate. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change. While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. As we have seen in the United States, the drastic increase in shale gas production has caused coal’s share of electricity generation to slide. Of course, there is also the possibility that increased use of gas could muscle out low-carbon fuels, such as renewables and nuclear, from the energy mix.

OP: When will we see “the golden age of renewables”?

IEA: Although we have not yet predicted a “golden age” of renewables, the current, rapid growth of renewable power is a bright spot in an otherwise bleak picture of global progress towards a cleaner and more diversified energy mix. Still, the investment case for capital-intensive, low carbon power technologies carries challenges. We need to distinguish between two situations:

• In emerging economies, renewable power often provides a cost-competitive alternative to new fossil based generation and are perceived as part of the solution to questions of energy supply, diversification, and economic development. In China, for example, efforts to reduce local pollution are stimulating major investments in cleaner energy.

• By contrast, in stable systems with sluggish demand, no technology is competitive with marginal electricity prices, due to overcapacity. Governments are nervous about increasing investment in low-carbon options which impact on consumer prices, and this is causing policy uncertainty. But long term energy security and environmental goals need to be kept in mind.

The overall outlook for renewable electricity remains positive, even as the outlook can vary strongly by market and region. However, the electricity sector comprises less than 20% of total final energy consumption. The growth of renewables in other sectors such as transport and heat has been more sluggish. For a golden age of renewables to materialise, greater progress is needed in these areas, for example, with the development of advanced biofuels and more policy frameworks for renewable heat.

OP: How is the shale boom reshaping the global financial and economic system? Who are the winners and losers in this emerging scenario?

IEA: One of the key messages of our World Energy Outlook-2013 is that lower energy prices in the United States mean that it is well-placed to reap an economic advantage, while higher costs for energy-intensive industries in Europe and Japan are set to be a heavy burden.

Natural gas prices have fallen sharply in the United States – mainly as a result of the shale gas boom – and today they are about three times lower than in Europe and five times lower than in Japan. Electricity price differentials are also large, with Japanese and European industrial consumers paying on average more than twice as much for electricity as their counterparts in the United States, and even Chinese industry paying almost double the US level.

Looking to the future, the WEO found that the United States sees its share of global exports of energy-intensive goods slightly increase to 2035, providing the clearest indication of the link between relatively low energy prices and the industrial outlook. By contrast, the European Union and Japan see their share of global exports decline – a combined loss of around one-third of their current share.

OP: The IEA has noted that the US is no longer so dependent on Canadian oil and gas. What could this mean for pending approval of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline? How important is Keystone XL to the US as opposed to its importance for Canada?

IEA: The decision on the Keystone matter is one that must be taken by the United States Government. I am afraid it is not for the IEA to comment.

OP: With the nuclear issue taking center stage in Japan’s election atmosphere, is Japan ready to pull the plug entirely on nuclear, or is it too soon for that?

IEA: This year’s World Energy Outlook, which we will release in November 2014, will carry a special focus on nuclear energy, so please stay tuned. While I won’t discuss what Japan should do, I will say that every country has a sovereign right to decide on the role of nuclear power in its energy mix. Nevertheless, nuclear is one of the world’s largest sources of low-carbon energy, and as such, it has made and should continue to make an important contribution to energy security and sustainability.

A country’s decision to cut the share of nuclear in its energy mix could open up new opportunities for renewables, particularly as some phase-out plans envision the replacement of nuclear capacity largely with renewable energy sources. However, such a decision would also likely lead to higher demand for gas and coal, higher electricity prices, increased import dependency on fossil fuels and electricity, and a more difficult path towards decarbonisation. Such a scenario would therefore make it much more difficult for the world to meet the 2°C climate stabilisation goal, and have potentially negative impacts on energy security.

OP: What is the key factor holding back European energy markets?

IEA: Europe has quite a few advantages but also many hurdles to overcome. If I had to pick one key factor that is holding back European energy markets, I would say it is the lack of cross-border interconnections. Let me explain what I mean. As we showed in WEO 2013, Europe’s competitiveness is under pressure, as energy price differences grow between Europe and its major trading partners – the US, China and Russia. High oil and gas import prices combined with low gas and electricity demand, following the recession, are impacting European economies.

Europe should accelerate the use of its indigenous potential and reap the social and economic benefits from energy efficiency, renewable energies and unconventional oil and gas. In open economies, there are significant advantages to be gained from free trade and a large energy market. One example: Today, we cannot make use of competitive electricity prices across the EU, as physical trade barriers exist and markets remain national. Europe is failing to achieve its potential. The electricity grid and system integration is very low, which also serves as a barrier to the full and efficient exploitation of renewable energy potentials. This is why addressing the issue of cross-border interconnections is so important.

OP: Where do you foresee the next “shale boom”?

IEA: According to WEO projections, there will be little non-North American shale development before 2020 due to the much earlier stage of exploration and the time needed to build up the oil field service value chain. Beyond 2020, we project large-scale shale gas production in China, Argentina, Australia as well as significant light tight oil production in Russia. The current reform proposals in Mexico have the potential to put Mexico on the top of that list as well, but they need to be properly implemented.

OP: What is the realistic future of methane hydrates, or “fire ice”?

IEA: Methane hydrates may offer a means of further increasing the supply of natural gas. However, producing gas from methane hydrates poses huge technological challenges, and the relevant extraction technology is in its infancy. Both in Canada and Japan the first test drillings have taken place, and the Japanese government is aiming to achieve commercial production in 10 to 15 years.

One thing I always mention when I am asked about methane hydrates is this: It may seem far off and uncertain, but keep in mind that shale gas was in the same position 10 to 15 years ago. So we cannot rule out that new energy revolutions may take place through technological developments and price incentives.

OP: Have we hit the “crude wall” in the US, the point at which oil production growth may end up slowing due to infrastructure and regulatory constraints?

IEA: In January 2013, the IEA’s Oil Market Report examined the possibility that as surging production continues to move the US closer to becoming a net oil exporter, there may come a time when various regulations, particularly the US ban on exports of crude oil to countries other than Canada, could have an adverse impact on continued investment in LTO – and thus continued growth in production. We called this point the “crude wall”.

A year later, in our January 2014 Oil Market Report, we noted that with US crude oil production exceeding even the boldest of expectations in 2013 by a wide margin, the crude wall now seems to be looming larger than ever. Having said that, challenges to US production growth are not imminent. Potential US growth in 2014 seems a given, even against the backdrop of resurgent non-OPEC supply growth outside North America.

OP: How is this shaping the crude export debate and where do you foresee this debate leading by the end of this year?

IEA: You are better off asking my friends and colleagues in Washington! This is obviously a sensitive topic. Different people feel differently about it, often very strongly. Oil policy always is the product of multiple, sometimes-competing considerations.

OP: What would lifting the ban on crude exports mean for US refiners, and for the US economy?

IEA: Many refiners and other major oil consumers have said they support keeping the ban amid worries that allowing exports would result in higher feedstock costs and erode their competitive advantage, or shift value-added industry abroad. On the other hand, oil producers have in general come out in favour of lifting the ban, arguing that the “crude wall” may become so large that it cannot be overcome; they see the possibility of a glut causing prices to slump and thereby choking off production. We have not produced any detailed analysis on the economic impact of lifting the ban, so I cannot comment on that part of your question.

OP: Are there any other ways around the “crude wall” aside from lifting the export ban?

IEA: As we wrote in our January 2014 Oil Market Report, much of the LTO is produced in the form of lease condensate, which is most optimally processed in a condensate splitter. There is currently only one such facility in the United States, although at least five others are in various stages of planning and construction.

I mention this issue because one could imagine a scenario under which lease condensate is excluded from the crude export restriction. The US Department of Commerce, which enforces the export ban, includes lease condensates in the definition of crude oil. However, this definition could be changed, or the Commerce Department could simply issue lease condensate export licenses at the behest of the President.

OP: How will the six-month agreement to ease sanctions on Iran affect Iranian oil production? And if international sanctions are indeed lifted after this “trial period”, how long will it take Iran to affect a real increase in production?

IEA: The deal between P5+1 and Iran doesn’t change the oil sanctions themselves. The oil sanctions remain fully in place though the P5+1 agreed not to tighten them further. Relaxing insurance sanctions doesn’t mean more oil in the market.

As for the second part of your question, I am afraid I can’t answer hypotheticals and what-ifs.

OP: What is the single most critical energy issue in the US this year?

IEA: I think that if you take the view that the energy-policy decisions you make now have ramifications for many decades to come, and if you believe what scientists tell us about the climate consequences of our energy consumption, then the single most critical energy issue in the US is the same issue for every country: what are you going to do with your energy policy to mitigate the risk of climate change? Energy is responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse-gas emissions, and right now these emissions are on track to cause global temperatures to rise between 3.6 degrees C and 5.3 degrees C. If we stay on our present emissions pathway, we are not going to come close to achieving the globally agreed target of limiting the rise in temperatures to 2 degrees C; we are instead going to have a catastrophe. So energy clearly has to be part of the climate solution – both in the short- and long-term.

OP: What is the IEA’s role in shaping critical energy issues globally and how can its influence be described, politically and intellectually?

IEA: Founded in response to the 1973/4 oil crisis, the IEA was initially meant to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in oil supply through the release of emergency oil stocks to the markets.

While this continues to be a key aspect of our work, the IEA has evolved and expanded over the last 40 years. I like to think of the IEA today as the global energy authority. We are at the heart of global dialogue on energy, providing authoritative statistics, analysis and recommendations. This applies both to our member countries as well as to the key emerging economies that are driving most of the growth in energy demand – and with whom we cooperate on an increasingly active basis.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-Golden-Age-of-Gas-Possibly-Interview-with-the-IEA.html

Interview by James Stafford of Oilprice.com

By Jeff Clark, Senior Precious Metals Analyst, Casey Research

As a gold investor in North America, it sometimes feels like I’m living in some far-off land where everyone believes in fairy tales and unicorns.

Most people around me don’t seem to see anything wrong with the Fed creating $65 billion a month out of thin air—hey, it’s not $85 billion anymore, what a relief! It’s business as usual for the US government to spend billions more than it takes in, and a public debt hovering at $17.2 trillion—up from $7 trillion just 10 years ago—seems no more alarming than a rainbow.

No surprise then that these people don’t feel any need to own assets that might help them in times of crisis. Hard assets like… gold.

I’m reminded of a visit I made to China several years ago. One night, I awoke in the middle of the night—something was crawling under the bed sheet. I shot up like a cannonball, trampolined out of bed, and hit the light switch. I searched and searched for whatever bug had made its way under the sheet, but never did find the little vermin. Still, I was so creeped out, I spent the rest of the night on the couch.

I told the staff the next morning what happened—and they did nothing. They just stared at me. They spoke English, so it wasn’t that they didn’t understand me. It was just that none of them seemed to think it was a big deal. One of them even chuckled. They obviously didn’t appreciate the potential health hazard and had no sense of customer service. I left bemused, wondering how people could accept bedbugs as normal—or even if they did, how they could not care about a customer’s experience. It was like being on another planet.

I have some of those same feelings when I think about mainstream investors today. How can they not appreciate the potential financial hazard inherent in something as obviously dangerous as today’s unprecedented levels of money printing? How can they not care that they have nothing solid, like gold, at the core of their investment portfolios? It’s like these people think they live on Planet Sesame Street.

Most people seem to really believe that today’s heavy-handed government interventions are not only the right course of action, but will have no negative fallout. Massive currency dilution, unstoppable tides of rising debt, and never-ending fiscal imbalances are hardly a way to cure decades of money mismanagement, and certainly aren’t consequence-free. How is it that this is not obvious to all?

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps people are aware at some level, but the truth is just too awful to face, and so people don’t.

Very few of my friends and neighbors own any gold. Rarely am I asked about it anymore, even by those who know what I do for a living. The doctor I saw last month gave me the distinct impression I could be doing better things with my money. Most of the mainstream media ignore gold, while many of the big banks loudly proclaim their latest short position as if they had some sort of divine insight.

I’m starting to feel like the proverbial lone voice in the woods…

But We’re Not Alone!

As deluded as most Americans seem to be, that is definitely not the case for everyone in the world—the Japanese, for example, are much more prudent and levelheaded.

I wonder if my fellow citizens would feel differently if they lived in any of these countries where people have witnessed economic insanity firsthand, and are acting accordingly:

Japan was a net importer of gold in December, the first time in almost four years. Net purchases totaled 1,885 kilograms (60,604 ounces). It was only the tenth time Japan was a net monthly buyer since the end of 2005. There are reports that Japan’s pension funds, which hold the world’s second-largest pool of retirement assets, are buying gold.

Dubai gold jewelers just reported the strongest gold sales in seven years. Pure Gold Jewelers, one of the largest dealers in the country, reported a 25% increase in gold jewelry sales during the Dubai Shopping Festival this year.

The state of Gujarat in India reported that silver bullion imports hit a five-year record from April 2013 to January 2014. Imports were more than 450% higher than the same period a year ago. The Indian government has since hiked the import duty on silver to 15%, the same rate as gold, and official imports in January subsequently fell. Smugglers will surely add silver to all those secret luggage compartments they’ve been using for gold.

Australia’s Perth Mint said gold sales jumped 41% and silver 33% in 2013. In January, gold demand was up 10% and silver 8%.

Mexico’s pension funds are now investing in gold after strict investment regulations were recently lifted. The World Gold Council says it spoke to 10 of the country’s most influential pension fund managers (with over $160 billion in assets) and was told that they began investing in gold and commodities in 2013.

Central banks were once again big buyers last year. Of those that have reported so far…

• Turkey purchased 150.4 tonnes (4.83 million ounces)
• Vietnam 110 tonnes (3.53 million ounces)
• Russia 57.3 tonnes (1.84 million ounces)
• Kazakhstan 24.16 tonnes (776,762 ounces)
• Azerbaijan 16.02 tonnes (515,054 ounces)
• Sri Lanka 6.51 tonnes (209,301 ounces)
• Nepal 6.22 tonnes (199,977 ounces)
• Ukraine 6.22 tonnes (199,977 ounces)
• Indonesia 4.04 tonnes (129,889 ounces)
• Venezuela 1.87 tonnes (60,121 ounces)

And of Course, There’s China…

Last year’s record import number is impressive enough, but it’s the pace that’s mind-blowing. 1,139 tonnes is…

• More than 2011 and 2012 imports combined.

• Over 42% of global mine production last year.

• Roughly twice as much as the amount GLD sold in all of 2013.

Meanwhile, Back in the Good Ol’ US of A…

Gold coin demand for 2013 jumped 24%. Some headlines have pointed out that January 2014 gold and silver coin sales were down compared to a year ago—but January 2013 was the all-time record for single-month sales. Further, Eagle and Buffalo gold coin sales were more than double December’s sales, and were the highest since last April. Silver coin sales in January were almost four times more than in December.

There, now I feel better.

Even if you sometimes feel like a lone wolf investing in this market, understand that worldwide demand for gold and silver bullion continues unabated. If you live in the US, realize that people in many other countries are seeing more positive headlines about gold, have more friends who own gold, and heck, could even walk into a bank to buy gold.

I don’t think the people in these other countries are stupid. Whatever consequences result from the historic levels of currency dilution across the globe, they seem as sure as I do that they’ll be good for gold.

What should you buy? I first recommend buying gold and silver bullion to establish a financial safety net. And then, to maximize gains on the more speculative end of your portfolio, you should look at Louis James’ just-released “10-bagger List for 2014” in the February issue of International Speculator. A 10-Bagger is a stock with the potential to gain 1,000% or more—that’s not a typo, we really did make 10 times our money on junior gold stocks the last time the sector rebounded, and Louis thinks that’s about to happen again.

For example, one of those prospective 10-Baggers is a junior with a multimillion-ounce gold project that’s run by one of our Explorers League honorees. This company is on the verge of securing the funds needed to build its exceptionally high-margin gold mine, but it’s on sale. Speaking of the potential, Louis said: “If the company delivers, it’d be easy to see these 40-cent shares trading for $4” by 2015.

Investing in these stocks—and there are nine of them on Louis’ list—could quite literally make you a fortune, but the opportunity to get in on the ground floor is fading fast. Click here to learn more about Louis’ 10-Bagger List for 2014—or watch the recording of our just-aired one-hour video event “Upturn Millionaires” to learn why the time to act is now.

Original Article: International Buying & Your Shot at 1,000% Gains

By John Mauldin – Thoughts from the Frontline: A Most Dangerous Era

 

“In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

“Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”

– From an essay by Frédéric Bastiat in 1850, “That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen”

The devil is in the details, we are told, and the details are often buried in an appendix or footnote. This week we were confronted with a rather troubling appendix in the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Affordable Care Act, which suggests that the act will have a rather profound impact on employment patterns. You could tell a person’s political leaning by how they responded. Republicans jumped all over this. The conservative Washington Times, for instance, featured this headline: “Obamacare will push 2 million workers out of labor market: CBO.” Which is not what the analysis says at all. Liberals immediately downplayed the import by suggesting that all it really said was that people will have more choice about how they work, giving them more free time to play with their kids and pets and pursue other activities. Who could be against spending more time with your children?

Paul Krugman noted that the data means that potential GDP will be reduced by as much as 0.5% per year, which he dismissed as a small number. And he states that people voluntarily reducing their work hours does not have the same economic effect as people being laid off or fired. Which is true, but not the point nor the import of that pesky little appendix.

Where Will the Jobs Come From?

To me the economic and employment effects of Obamacare are another piece of the larger puzzle called Where Will the Jobs Come From? This may be the most important economic question of the next 30 years. Because this topic has been the focus of my thinking for the past few years, I could be reading more into the CBO’s report than I should, but indulge me as I make a few points and then see if I can tie them together in the end.

First let’s look at what the report actually said. The CBO stated that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will result in a “substantially larger” and “considerably higher” reduction in the labor force than the “mere” 800,000 the budget office estimated in 2010. The overall level of labor will fall by 1.5% to 2% over the decade, the CBO figures. The revision was evidently driven by economic work done by a professor at the University of Chicago by the name of Casey Mulligan. (When you do a little research on Professor Mulligan and look past the multitude of honors and awards, you find people calling him the antithesis of Paul Krugman. I must therefore state for the record that I already like him.) For you economics wonks, there is a very interesting interview with Professor Mulligan in the weekend Wall Street Journal. For those who don’t go there, I will summarize and quote a few salient points.

Let’s be clear. This report and Mulligan’s research do not say Obamacare destroys jobs. What they suggest is that Obamacare raises the marginal tax rates on income, and to such an extent that it reduces the rewards for working more hours for marginally higher pay at certain income levels. The chart below does not pertain to upper-income individuals but rather to those at the median income level.

What Mulligan’s work does demonstrate is that the loss of government benefits has the same effect on an individual as a tax increase. If you lose a government subsidy because you work more hours, then for all intents and purposes it is the same as if you were taxed at a higher rate. Quoting now from the WSJ piece:

Instead, liberals have turned to claiming that ObamaCare’s missing workers will be a gift to society. Since employers aren’t cutting jobs per se through layoffs or hourly take-backs, people are merely choosing rationally to supply less labor. Thanks to ObamaCare, we’re told, Americans can finally quit the salt mines and blacking factories and retire early, or spend more time with the children, or become artists.

Mr. Mulligan reserves particular scorn for the economists making this “eliminated from the drudgery of labor market” argument, which he views as a form of trahison des clercs [loosely translated, “the betrayal of academic economists” – JM]. “I don’t know what their intentions are,” he says, choosing his words carefully, “but it looks like they’re trying to leverage the lack of economic education in their audience by making these sorts of points.”

A job, Mr. Mulligan explains, “is a transaction between buyers and sellers. When a transaction doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. We know that it doesn’t matter on which side of the market you put the disincentives, the results are the same…. In this case you’re putting an implicit tax on work for households, and employers aren’t willing to compensate the households enough so they’ll still work.” Jobs can be destroyed by sellers (workers) as much as buyers (businesses).

He adds: “I can understand something like cigarettes and people believe that there’s too much smoking, so we put a tax on cigarettes, so people smoke less, and we say that’s a good thing. OK. But are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We’ve been complaining for six years now that there’s not enough work being done…. Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we’re glad that people are working less? We’re pursuing our dreams?” The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market.

Paul Krugman interprets the CBO estimates to mean a loss of the number of hours that would be equivalent to the loss of 2 million jobs. The Wall Street Journal sees that same number as equivalent to 2.5 million jobs. Professor Mulligan’s research suggests that they are still off by a factor of two and that it could be closer to 5 million job equivalents.

That means a drop in potential GDP growth of somewhere between 0.5% and 1% per year. A small price to pay for universal healthcare, suggests Krugman. I would personally see it as a large price to pay for structuring healthcare reform the wrong way. That we need healthcare reform and that we as a country want it to be universal is clear. But the CBO report makes it evident that there is a hidden economic cost to the country in the way healthcare reform is currently structured. Dismissing potential GDP growth loss of 0.5% per year as “not all that much” is simply not intellectually sufficient.

(And that is taking Krugman’s estimate of 0.5% to be the actual negative effect. There are other economists who can produce credible estimates that are much higher, but for the purposes of this letter Krugman’s lower estimate will do.)

Doug Henwood over at The Liscio Report produced some fascinating research this week on what it has meant for our economy to be growing at a lower rate since 2007. In another report, the CBO offered its own estimate of future growth, which the normally sanguine Henwood thinks has the potential to make us complacent. Let’s jump right to his impact paragraphs (emphasis mine):

Another way to measure where GDP is relative to where it “should” be is by comparing the actual level to its long-term trend. [That’s what’s graphed below.] This technique shows the economy in a much deeper hole than the CBO does.

By this method, actual GDP at the end of 2013 was 86.7% of its trend value. That’s actually 3 points below where it was when the recession ended. Consumption was 87.4% of its trend value; investment, 75.1%; and government, 84.5%. (Note that government, despite perceptions to the contrary, has been falling, not rising, relative to its trend.)

These are huge gaps. In nominal dollar terms, per capita GDP is $8,278 below its 1970–2007 trend. Using the CBO’s less dramatic gap estimate works out to an actual per capita GDP $2,141 below its potential. Either way, that’s a lot of money. One way of reconciling the $6,137 disparity between the figures derived from CBO’s method and the trend method is by pointing to the long-term economic damage done by the financial crisis and recession.

The hit to investment, productivity, and labor force participation is enormous and long-lived. To put that $6,137 number in perspective, it’s very close to the per capita GDP of China. That is not small, and if the CBO is even half right, it’s not going away any time soon.

By the way, Casey Mulligan argues in his 2012 book, The Redistribution Recession, that the expansion of the welfare state through the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability, Medicaid, and other safety-net programs was responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more.

The CBO is de facto admitting that the increase in the entitlement spending due to Obamacare is going to reduce GDP. If Mulligan’s larger projection is right, we could lose roughly 10% of GDP potential over the next decade. That means the pie in the future will be smaller by 10%. That is a huge difference, not an inconsequential one. It means tax revenues needed to pay for government benefits will be 10% smaller. I am not arguing for or against whether such benefits are a proper expenditure of money; I’m simply saying that we cannot ignore the economic consequences simply because they may be politically inconvenient.

Think about this for a moment. We have lost the equivalent of Chinese per-person GDP in the space of seven years as a result of policy choices made by both Republican and Democratic administrations and due to the financial repression visited upon us by the Federal Reserve – which, by the way, has created multiple bubbles. The way we structure our policy decisions has consequences beyond the obvious.

More Unintended Consequences

Rather than immediately jumping to some kind of conclusion on employment that simply offers a number and doesn’t offer insight, I want us to look at the larger picture of work and what we get paid for it. We are rightly concerned in the developed world about the concentration of income and wealth in the top fraction of the population. When 85 people own 46% of the world’s wealth, as we’ve repeatedly heard the past few weeks, what does this portend for the future?

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.
Thoughts from the Frontline is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.MauldinEconomics.com.

Please write to [email protected] to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote brief portions only, please reference www.MauldinEconomics.com.

To subscribe to John Mauldin’s e-letter, please click here: www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe
To change your email address, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/change-address

Thoughts From the Frontline and MauldinEconomics.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin’s other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin Economics, LLC. He also is the President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) member FINRA and SIPC, through which securities may be offered. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing relationship with products and services mentioned in this letter for a fee.

Note: Joining The Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at http://www.MauldinCircle.com (formerly AccreditedInvestor.ws) or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Capital Management Group; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor’s interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments.

All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs may or may not have investments in any funds cited above as well as economic interest. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.

 

 

 

 

 

The EURUSD Trading With a Positive Sentiment

Yesterday’s trading day was boring, dull and uninteresting. The EURUSD was trading sluggishly above the support at 1.3618, while it was not risen above 1.3652. The pair increased by 1.3678 in the Asian trading session, then it rebounded to 1.3656. Apparently, this increase was associated with an increase in the Australian dollar against the U.S. currency, but not with suddenly appeared interest in buying euro from Asian players. Nevertheless, the euro bears were certainly disappointed by dynamics of the pair, which could grow up to the 37th figure, where they could once again begin to sell the pair. In the short term, the dips to 1.3618 should attract buying interest, a loss of the 36th figure will delight the bears.

The GBPUSD Stick in a Tight Range

The GBPUSD was drifting in a tight range, hesitating in sense of the pair existence. The pound is still under pressure as well as in cross rate with the euro. Nevertheless, so far the British pound manages not to fall below the support around the 1.6382 level, thereby keeping the bulls` hope to continue growing of the pair. If this support is lost, it will extinguish the smoldering flame of hope and lead to a drop in the pair to the 63rd figure. In turn, rising above 1.6433-1.6454 will inflate the flame of hope and lead to testing the 65th figure.

The USDCHF Is Aimed At 0.8900

The U.S. dollar is losing its confidence in itself in pair with the Swiss franc. Yesterday, its rate dropped to 0.8959, then the dollar retreated and was sluggishly trading above this markup. In the Asian session, it dropped to 0.8938. It seems that the bears are aimed at the support at 0.8900, its breakout would open the way to the 88th figure. The bulls still need to return the pair above 0.9118 to make its prospects constructive.

The USDJPY Holding Above 102.00

Yesterday, the USDJPY was under pressure and decreased to the support around the level of 101.99. Here the pair is being bought, though it is hardly possible to mention any fluctuations. The ability to consolidate above the 102th figure is a positive factor for the dollar and it can rise to 103.00 in the short term. A loss of 102.00-101.80 will testify to resume a downward correction.

provided by IAFT

By CentralBankNews.info
    The U.S. Federal Reserve does not believe that the recent volatility in global financial markets pose a substantial risk to the U.S. economy, Janet Yellen, the new chair of the Federal Reserve said in her prepared testimony to a congressional committee.
   

By HY Markets Forex Blog

Crude Prices were seen trading higher on Tuesday, with the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) trading towards a six-week high. While market participants focus on the Fed’s chairwoman Janet Yellen’s first testimony on the monetary policy before the Congress later today.

Analysts are also expecting the US stockpiles data from the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday, with forecasts of a decline in distillate inventories, including heating oil and diesel by 2.13 million barrels in previous week.

According to the US National Weather Service, a cold winter storm is expected to spread snow across the southern region of the country.

The WTI crude oil for March delivery added 0.29% to $100.36 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange at the time of writing, while the Brent crude for March settlement climbed 0.33% to $108.99 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange.

The European benchmark Brent crude was at a premium of $8.62 to WTI.

WTI – Janet Yellen Speech In Spotlight

The Federal Reserve’s (Fed) new Governor Janet Yellen is expected to give her speech and deliver her first semi-annual monetary policy testimony before the House Financial Services Committee later in the day and the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. Market analysts are expecting a dovish testimony from Janet Yellen which could benefit the oil market.

“We see no reasons why Chairman Yellen will front-run the FOMC in March, especially while waiting for the outcome of one more jobs report for additional clarity on the underlying trend in labour markets,” JP Morgan analysts wrote in a note.

WTI – US Stockpiles Data

Oil traders also keeping an eye on the American Petroleum (API) report which is due later in the day and the additional government report s on Wednesday which is forecasted to show a rise in crude inventories by 2.6 million in the week ended February 7.

However distillate stockpiles are predicted to have dropped for a fifth week by 2.3 million barrels. Gasoline supplies are expected to have declined by 250,000 barrels.

The continuous four-week gain in the North American crude was primarily driven by the extreme cold weather in the US, increasing the demand for energy.

Visit www.hymarkets.com   to find out more about our products and start trading today with only $50 using the latest trading technology today.

The post WTI Trades Near Six-Week High Ahead Yellen’s Testimony appeared first on | HY Markets Official blog.

Article provided by HY Markets Forex Blog

By HY Markets Forex Blog

The Australian dollar climbed above the $0.90 threshold on Tuesday, it’s highest in four weeks; driven by the optimistic business confidence and house prices which advanced at the fastest pace since 2010. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) new Governor Janet Yellen is expected to give her speech and deliver her first semi-annual monetary policy testimony later in the day.

The aussie climbed to $0.9014, its highest since January 14, the Australian dollar is currently trading 0.67% higher at $0.9008.

Australian Dollar – Upbeat Business Confidence & House Prices

The National Australia Bank (NAB) Monthly Business posted an index reading of 8 last month, compared to the previous reading of 6 seen in December.

Meanwhile houses prices in Australia climbed 3.4% higher in the final quarter of 2013, rising from the previous reading of 1.9% seen in the previous quarter.

“Conditions look to have turned around a little faster than we had expected just a few months ago,” NAB said on Tuesday, “with low interest rates and depreciating AUD gaining surprisingly good traction in some non-mining sectors of the economy.”

The NAB survey also revealed employment conditions were still weak and expects the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to cut its benchmark rate further later in the year.

Janet Yellen Upcoming Speech

The Federal Reserve’s (Fed) new Governor Janet Yellen is expected to give her speech and deliver her first semi-annual monetary policy testimony later in the day. Market analysts are expecting a dovish testimony from Janet Yellen which could weaken the US dollar.

“We see no reasons why Chairman Yellen will front-run the FOMC in March, especially while waiting for the outcome of one more jobs report for additional clarity on the underlying trend in labour markets,” JP Morgan analysts wrote in a note.

Visit www.hymarkets.com   to find out more about our products and start trading today with only $50 using the latest trading technology today.

The post Australian Dollar Climbs to Four-Week High on Home Prices appeared first on | HY Markets Official blog.

Article provided by HY Markets Forex Blog

Article By RoboForex.com

Analysis for February 11^th, 2014

EUR USD, “Euro vs US Dollar”

Euro is still forming ascending structure with target at level of 1.3700. We think, today price may reach this target and then start falling down towards level of 1.3640, at least. Later, in our opinion, instrument may continue moving upwards to break level of 1.3700. Next target of the growth is at 1.3900.

GBP USD, “Great Britain Pound vs US Dollar”

Pound is also still moving inside ascending structure. We think, today price may reach level of 1.6500, fall down towards 1.6420, and then and then form another ascending structure to reach level of 1.6530.

USD CHF, “US Dollar vs Swiss Franc”

Franc is moving downwards; market is forming continuation structure near level of 0.8975. We think, today pair fall down to reach level of 0.8880. Later, in our opinion, instrument may return to level of 0.8940 and then move downwards to reach level of 0.8878.

USD JPY, “US Dollar vs Japanese Yen”

Yen is still growing up and forming continuation pattern. We think, today price may form ascending structure to break descending channel and start reach level of 102.90. Later, in our opinion, instrument may fall down to break level of 102.40 and start new ascending movement towards level of 104.00.

AUD USD, “Australian Dollar vs US Dollar”

Australian Dollar is forming divergent triangle pattern at the top of another ascending wave. We think, today price may fall down towards lower border of this trading range. This pattern may be considered as reversal pattern. Later, in our opinion, instrument may continue moving inside descending trend to reach level of 0.8800.

XAU USD, “Gold vs US Dollar”

Gold reached another target of its ascending movement. We think, today price may start correction towards level of 1230. This correction is expected to be five-wave structure in the form of bullish flag pattern. First target is at level of 1265.

RoboForex Analytical Department

Article By RoboForex.com

Attention!
Forecasts presented in this section only reflect the author’s private opinion and should not be considered as guidance for trading. RoboForex LP bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations described in these analytical reviews.

Article By RoboForex.com

Analysis for February 11^th, 2014

EUR USD, “Euro vs US Dollar”

After rebounding from level of 61.8%, Euro started growing up. At H4 chart we can see, that bulls have several intermediate fibo-levels in front of them, where price may start local corrections. Main target is near several upper fibo-levels at 1.3970.

Market moved very close to level of 78.6%. Possibly, price may break this level during the day and then continue growing up. Closest target for bulls is near several fibo-levels at 1.3740.

USD CHF, “US Dollar vs Swiss Franc”

Franc continues moving downwards, so I’ve decided to move stop on my sell orders into the black. Right now, market got very close to level of 61.8%. If bears break it, pair will continue falling down towards level of 78.6%.

At H1 chart, closest target is at level of 0.8910, which may later become a starting point of new short-term correction. According to analysis of temporary fibo-zones, price may reach its target levels during Tuesday.

RoboForex Analytical Department

Article By RoboForex.com

Attention!
Forecasts presented in this section only reflect the author’s private opinion and should not be considered as guidance for trading. RoboForex LP bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations described in these analytical reviews.

EURUSD: With the pair extending its past week gains on Monday and today, further strength is likely. This development now leaves the pair aiming at the 1.3700 level where a breach will target further upside towards the 1.3739 level followed by the 1.3800 level, its psycho level. This view is consistent with its long term uptrend which is on hold due to corrective price action. Conversely to annul its past week gains it will have to return to the 1.3476 level. Further down, support comes in at the 1.3400 level, representing its psycho level where a breach will aim at its weekly 200 ema at the 1.3346 level. Additionally, support stands at the 1.3300 level where a break will target the 1.3250 level and possibly lower towards the 1.3200 level. All in all, EUR remains biased to the downside below its broken trendline.

Article by www.fxtechstrategy.com