OT: Coal & the dollar

From an investment newsletter:

According to Bill Gross, who manages the world's largest pile of fixed-income assets at PIMCO, the Federal Reserve is going to resume large-scale quantitative easing at the rate of $100 billion per month. News of this plan has been leaking out for the last two months following an important speech Bernanke gave in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this summer. He said, essentially, we needed a lot more inflation.

If the Fed does resume quantitative easing at the $100 billion-per-month range, it would be buying the equivalent of all of the new debt the U.S. Treasury is issuing ? all of it. This represents an increase of roughly

30% to the money supply in the first year? an extraordinary amount of new cash.

Trade and capital flows are transferring most of the inflation the Fed is creating to the Chinese economy. U.S. politicians continue to stimulate consumption in the U.S., while most of the production to meet this demand comes from China. We borrow and spend. They produce and profit. Hopefully, you understand printing more money and buying government bonds won't change this dynamic. It simply results in still more money being sent to China.

What will China do with the flood of capital? Lots of things. But one thing it will certainly do is build more coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired plants produce 80% of the electricity in China, and demand for electricity is growing roughly 9% a year. It's hard to comprehend how fast demand for coal is growing in China, but consider these facts?

China is now the world's second-largest consumer of electricity, after the United States. A decade ago, China's installed generation base was only 315 gigawatts. Today, it's 900 gigawatts ? and 78% of its production is still coal-based.

Today, China consumes three times more coal than the U.S. ? more than three billion tons. But China only has about half of the U.S.'s coal reserves. And that means it must import a lot of coal.

At current growth rates, China would exhaust its current reserves in only 16 years. Obviously that's not going to happen ? more mines will be dug. But just as obviously, it will take a long time to build the mines and lay the railroad infrastructure required. In the meantime, China will need a lot of coal.

Current market surveys show China will import 150 million tons of coal this year. That's only 5% of China's total coal demand, but it represents 15% of the total U.S. demand. Right now, almost all of this coal comes from Australia, where China takes up about 60% of the export supply of coal.

And here's the crucial fact: China's coal imports doubled in the last year.

We know total power production in China is scheduled to double over the next eight years. It's building a new coal-fired plant nearly every week. The United States has built only 12 new coal-fired power plants since 1990. Assuming China's coal imports double again (and they will), Chinese demand will exhaust Australia's export capacity. And when China's import demand doubles again after that (to 600 million tons per year), it will exhaust the world's total export supply.

China's not the only problem? Don't forget about India.

India's installed power base exceeds 600 gigawatts, and demand is growing at about the same pace as in China. India also relies on coal for most of its power (70%). It currently burns 500 metric tons of coal a year, mostly from domestic sources. But Vinay Kumar Singh, the CEO of India's Northern Coalfields, says the country will need to import at least 250 million tons of coal a year by 2020. India's imports of coal from South Africa rose 74% last year.

It's no exaggeration to say China and India's demand for electricity is the future of global power. Already China's coal production represents more than twice the amount of energy produced from all of Saudi Arabia's oilfields.

What's fueling all of this demand for coal-fired power plants? Huge urban populations in China and India. Consider these figures. In America, the baby boomers ? the 50 million Americans born in the years after World War II ? produced the demand for vast amounts of new infrastructure in America.

There are 300 million newly urban Chinese people. And 300 million newly urban Indians. That's 600 million people moving out of the Stone Age and into the modern world ? a group 12 times bigger than the baby boomers. While it's true these people will want to buy lots of things ? from Cokes to Buicks ? the thing they need most is electricity.

Americans don't yet realize the Fed's attempts to paper over our debts come with serious consequences. As our money loses its purchasing power, costs will rise ? especially power costs. Undoubtedly, our politicians will blame "speculators" for the soaring price of coal. But the truth is, the paper that will push prices higher came from the Federal Reserve, not from any hedge fund.

Whether we realize it or not, we compete with other nations around the world for resources. Historically, our currency ? as the world's reserve currency ? has given us an enormous advantage. Coal, for example, is priced in dollars. But we stand on the verge of losing that advantage? and the consequences will be drastic. We will face higher prices for coal, among other sources of energy.

Reply to
Robert Baer
Loading thread data ...

Of course. The billions of poor people around the world don't want to stay poor, and it would be immoral, not to mention impossible, to keep them down. To get out of poverty, people need energy. We'll have to learn to share what's available.

But it doesn't matter what currency oil or coal or wheat is priced in. Money is easily exchanged.

Oh, I've been predicting for some time now, here and elsewhere, that the only thing the US government can do about its debt is inflate it down to manageable levels. Now is a great time to buy real estate.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Be sure that the deed includes mineral rights. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

y

=85

be

ar.

ve

I quoted Bernanke--I think--here saying that inflation won't work because the entitlements are inflation-indexed, and that's our biggest expense (and fiscal threat).

OTOH, they've pretty well signalled that QE2 ('quantitative easing' =3D buying Treasuries =3D printing $$) is ready for launch.

Without QE we could have deflation. Maybe now they think they can print and prevent deflation for a time, and dilute the debt too, all without driving up the entitlement costs. Never let a crisis go to waste?

I can't see how that avoids inflation longer term though--that seems inevitable, as soon as demand returns. Oooo...we can always tax everything, to prevent that too!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

ng

.

th

S.

hly

f
t

=85

n

l be

s
t

year.

e
,
r
l
f
s

's

rs

y

nd

s.

r,

ns

erve

=85

Speak of the devil...

formatting link
ue-economy/19675867

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

...around 75% discount in some areas of FL..

Reply to
Robert Baer

ng

.

th

S.

hly

f
t

=85

n

l be

s
t

year.

e
,
r
l
f
s

's

rs

y

nd

s.

r,

ns

erve

=85

Well, I don't care what they do as long as they don't mess with my entitlement SS payment. They socked to me this year for $110 medicare costs thanks to Obama care. I was looking forward to a raise this year, but they said no more raises this year just like last year, and probably next year. The good times are over. Us poor retired folk might have to get a job and earn our keep. I'm still looking for a fast food job. I can still walk 2 miles without sitting down, so I can probably stand on my feet for 2 hours. That will be a big plus on my resume.

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

Economists and morons like Bernanke, Summers, and the rest of the clowns, only think in terms of macroeconomics. And they have only a couple of knobs they can turn. So they think those knobs actually matter. Imagine trying to fix a broken supercomputer system when all you can do is apply a heat gun or freeze apray to the line cord.

The reality is that all economics is microeconomics, and Obama+idiots are doing all they can to damage that.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

ts

wer,

ians

h

he

eserve

is

e=85

p
.

Mr. Obama and his Democrats are spending your Social Security, Medicare, etc., giving it away. We're spending $1.67 per dollar in-- you know something's got to give eventually.

A little part-time work might be a good thing.

-- Best, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

o

ep

n.

=3D

Our leaders the Democrats hate corporations and profits--live to hurt them--so they should be really happy.

Profits have rebounded gosh darn it, since wounded companies trim workers & save money, but another couple waves of punishment should fix that. Maybe some 'stimulus' + bailouts + government hiring (=3D permanent structural deficits)?

Obamacare, the Inside Story Goon 1: "We're out of money." Goon 2: "Hey, let's invent a giant new entitlement we can't pay for, that'll fix it!" Goon 1: "We'll have to exempt unions." Goon 2: "Naturally."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

I live in So. Cal. There are a lot of mexican lawn crew people - one time, I actually saw a white guy operating a leaf blower on one of those crews.

Times is tough all over.

Thans, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Further reducing the buying power of what few dollars the "not-rich" are able to scrounge together.

Inflation is an insidious stealth tax on the poor.

With what? My good looks?

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Actually, it steals savings, which pretty much only the middle class has.

With all that cash that you have so prudently saved over the years.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Hey Rich,

Don't you approve of a flat tax?

The government could actually drop all taxes if they raised inflation to ~20%. Same thing.

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Reply to
Tim Williams

If you don't want the hassles of being a landlord, what kind of REITs would it make sense to get into? Taking into account new tax grabs, of course.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Reply to
Joerg

Well, first, spending has to be cut to sane levels, and we need to stop trying to conquer the world.

If the fat cats weren't ripping us off so bad, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in, but then again, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumped.

As far as tax, stop trying to tax people's income. The fat cats will always find ways to evade that.

Just tax what they spend.

That way, the fat cat bureaucrats who go on million-dollar junkets and what-not will have to pay _THEIR_ "fair share."

Wouldn't that appease the "Tax the Rich" crowd? To make "the rich" pay, say, 3,000,000.00 tax when they buy a 30,000,000.00 yacht and stuff?

_That's_ the closest thing to a "fair" tax that there is.

Of course, the bureaucrats will fight tooth and nail against that, because they'd have to pay instead of just sucking the lifeblood out of the nation.

But, I fear America will have to learn the hard way, as has every empire since people have been paying attention.

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Richard the Dreaded Libertaria

Those with a lot of CASH, a good management and either (1) an "inventory" where valuation by company is realistic OR (2) is a lender to real estate companies and gets (and thus pays) royalties. Check out Realty Income Corp - either of the Preferred stocks "D" (i think) or "E" (which i have).

Reply to
Robert Baer

I think you erred in ASS-u-ME-ing that people (in general) pay attention.

Reply to
Robert Baer

re

o

I wouldn't attact the rich for more taxes since they pay almost all the income tax now. It's something like the top 20% pay 80% of all income taxes collected and the bottom 47% pay nothing. How much more should they pay? But on the other side of the coin, the top 20% probably own 80% of the country's wealth, so they aren't hurting and the tax system seems about fair. What got me awhile back was Warren Buffet complaining he paid a lower tax percentage than his secretary and thought he should pay more. I guess he hasn't seen the link to the US Treasury site that accepts donations to reduce the public debt. All he has to do is fill out the form, type in how many million he wants to donate to clear his conscience, and click the submit button. But he elected not to do that.

formatting link

"Welcome to the United States Treasury's site for making donations to help reduce the public debt. If you would like to make a donation, please fill in the required fields and click the Submit Data button when completed."

-Bill

Reply to
Bill Bowden

e

th.

owing

mer.

month

U.S.

oughly

t of

Fed

meet

ill

ne

nd

nd

cts=85

ter

was

than

l
n

will be

ines

a

oal

his

port

st year.

the

ts

ll),

per

al

coal

O of

t

oal

y is

nts

bia's

years

ewly

e and

mers.

om

bts

ower,

cians

th

the

reserve

is

ge=85

r
o

ep

n.

=3D

I heard an actual economist explain (skeptically) Bernanke's camps' theory: that QE2 will stimulate growth that outpaces the tendency to inflation, short-term. Middle-term, the added growth will produce more goods and services to compete for the new money, thus keeping the prices of those goods and services in check.

Numerically, the QE2 buzz is >$1T in new money. Getting an instant impulse of growth in goods and services big enough to offset that would be, um, mighty impressive.

Re: fiddling the knobs: Today I heard some Democrat senator wailing that they've not gotten enough credit, 40% of the porkuless package was in tax cuts, blah blah blah, "small business", blah blah blah, etc.

Those cuts, though, were split up / distributed according to "need."

They've got the knobs, they just don't know what to do with them. It's like looking in the cockpit and finding a monkey's trying to land your plane.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
dagmargoodboat

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.