When cycles meet part 3, External conflict

An external conflict is brewing. Most people think it means a war with conventional weapons, but that is just one way of waging war. The United States and China are waging a trade war, a technology war, a geopolitical war, and a capital war. The military conflict is being waged between Russia and Ukraine. In reality, both the United States and China are involved. Other parties include Europe, Canada, North Korea, and Iran. All of the above are indirectly involved. Neither side can let its ally lose the war.

The rise of China threatens the leadership of the United States. According to Graham Allison, in the last 500 years, there have been 16 similar situations, and 12 of them have led to military conflict. A military conflict between the United States and China is likely in my opinion. I would put the probability at 60%. One reason for this is that the United States sees China as the greatest threat. Military conflict before war is fought on other fronts.

A trade war is underway. It is being waged mainly through tariffs, corporate subsidies and market regulation. Industrial espionage is also widespread. It works both ways, although the United States suffers more from it. According to the United States, the decline caused by China is more than $150 billion per year. The United States and China have both imposed import tariffs on each other. China is preventing US companies from entering its country. This is also true on a smaller scale in the other direction. Export subsidies for Chinese companies are common.

Both could engage in a full-scale trade war. China's biggest weapon is banning the export of rare earth metals to the United States. It owns the majority of them. The United States has banned the export of the most advanced semiconductors to China. It could also affect oil exports to China from the Persian Gulf states. The same applies to the export of metals from Australia to China. The United States has the greatest weapon of economic mass destruction at its disposal: excluding China from the SWIFT system. This would quickly destroy the Chinese economy. At the same time, all the capital of US companies in China would be lost. This weapon would probably only be activated if a direct military conflict between the countries begins. This conflict would take place either near China's east coast or in Europe with other countries participating in the war. Both countries are too challenging to conquer, so any possible war would be fought outside their borders.

The US and China are ahead of other countries in technological development. In semiconductors, they are second only to Taiwan. The most advanced semiconductors cannot be manufactured without certain raw materials that can only be obtained from the US and Europe, so Taiwan is dependent on them. On the other hand, China cannot prevent their manufacture. The US and China have strengths and weaknesses. The US is clearly number one in military technology. In addition, it is number one in the exploitation of artificial intelligence, at least commercially. It is also less dependent on technologies developed by other countries. The situation may be changing in China's favor. China is ahead in radio networks, mobile payments, and it knows more about its citizens than the US. The majority of the largest technology companies are in the United States.

Although the United States is now ahead, China has a numerical advantage, as it has about 8 times the number of technology students. China could overtake the United States early next decade. The United States has responded to the Chinese threat by banning the use of Chinese companies such as Huawei's technologies and is pressuring others to do the same. China has forced foreign companies to hand over their technologies if they have wanted to enter the country. The country also engages in large-scale cyber espionage. It would be naive to think that the United States would not do the same. China's drive to become self-sufficient in high technology is progressing well, except in the case of semiconductors. The United States is in a hurry to accelerate its technological development.

Geopolitical warfare is taking place around the world, but it is fiercer near China's east coast. A war is being waged in the East and South China Seas, where the fate of Taiwan will be decided. China has acted in violation of international law by building artificial islands, for example, in the South China Sea. It claims this area as its own, extending all the way to the coast of Malaysia. The major parties in the region are China, North Korea, possibly Russia, and their counterparts, including Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United States. China believes that Taiwan is part of it. This is the most sensitive point of contention and could lead to a military conflict on the eastern side of China. China wants to avoid this until it is certain of its victory.

China's influence around the world is growing. It is leveraging its economy by gaining access to natural resources on other continents. Its position in Africa in particular has strengthened. It is not only exploiting the continent but also building roads and other infrastructure on it. It is a better partner for many African countries than the West. Elsewhere in Asia, its partners include at least Iran and Pakistan. Its opponents include at least Australia and other US allies.

The capital war is being waged, among other things, over currencies. China controls the Yuan's exchange rate against the dollar. China's biggest risk is capital controls. It mostly uses the dollar in its trade. It is trying to reduce its dependence on the dollar and is increasingly using the euro. This is evident, for example, in trade between China and Russia. The United States could stop using the Chinese dollar. The result would be economic chaos in China. This could destroy confidence in the United States in other countries if they consider the actions to be excessive.

The US dollar is the largest reserve currency. It has more influence over other countries. It gets cheap loans and its economy cannot be destroyed by other countries for a long time. It can itself destroy confidence in the dollar by printing too much money. China could destabilize the United States by seizing the assets of US companies there and selling the US bonds it owns. Their share is only a few percent, so the latter action would not have a major impact. The loss of a reserve currency is not a current concern for the United States. Later, the situation may be different. Changing the reserve currency requires decades of changes to the global financial system, so China is not able to create one for itself. Changing the reserve currency to some other smaller reserve currency that functions in the current system, such as the euro, is a likely option in the short to medium term. The likely moment for this change is only after a military conflict.

The form of a military conflict is an interesting question. I myself do not have enough expertise to say anything significant. Likely causes include Taiwan or a brief and accidental clash near China's east coast. A land war between NATO and a Chinese-led coalition is also possible. This would be used in Europe. Both the United States and China are far from a possible landing. Naval and air warfare in addition to a land war in Europe is possible.

A Chinese landing on Taiwan is not an impossible idea, but this will only happen if the United States does not protect Taiwan. The Chinese believe that the latter belongs to them, so they are in favor of a landing. The Chinese people could therefore accept this, even if there is no certainty of victory. I cannot assess the probability of a landing or its success. I also do not know anything about the timing. I do not know whether the United States will defend Taiwan during an attack. The sea area between China and Taiwan is important to the global economy. If China were to take control of it, it would significantly weaken the world economy and the economic interests of the United States. Therefore, the United States has a high threshold for leaving Taiwan undefended if China attacks it.

The likelihood of the aforementioned conflict is reduced by the fact that China needs to wait for an internal conflict in the United States before attacking Taiwan. The country is deeply divided. China's problem is the economy. It is suffering from a bursting real estate bubble and the economy is certainly not on as strong a footing as the rest of the world believes. In addition, Xi is forced to focus on internal power struggles, which reduces his ability to attack Taiwan. It is possible that this potential attack is one of the reasons for Xi's problems at home. China is turning inward and closing itself off from international actors.

When cycles meet part 2. US Internal conflict

The United States is divided in many ways: left and right, rich and poor, urban and suburban, generational divides, etc. The divisions are visible in the everyday lives of citizens. Everyone considers the opinions and actions of the opposing parties to be pathetic at best. The country will become increasingly divided the further this decade progresses without external conflict. Decision-making capacity will be paralyzed if neither party controls Congress, the Senate, and the presidency.

The situation will be resolved one way or the other. In internal conflict, elections, the preparations for them, and the aftermath play a major role. Voter turnout is high. Politics rarely matters as much. Internal conflicts do not only mean civil wars, but also attempts to change the social system.

There are many participants. Let's first divide the main factors into groups: the people, the president and his government, the parties, the Senate, Congress, the Supreme Court, the media, the techno-oligarchs and the Fed. The latter of these tries to hold the strings of the economy in its hands and has not played a direct role in the conflict. It has played a major indirect role in the confrontation. The benefits of its quantitative easing have mostly gone to the wealthy, which has increased the sense of injustice among the people. The poor are not angry for nothing. The Fed's role is to make sure that the administration has money for its projects. Their costs go to the taxpayers. Some of it eventually returns to them.

Today, the biggest confrontation is between the parties. Despite appearances, not all key figures in the parties are divided into left and right. The traditional media is divided into a left-leaning majority. Some techno-oligarchs sympathize with the current administration and do not actually have a political point of view. The Supreme Court is leaning to the right. Its job is to enforce the Constitution. It is not a rubber stamp of the left or the right at this point. You saw that in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

The people are divided into Democrats, Republicans, and neutrals. The people are divided mostly by their ancestry, wealth, and where they live. African Americans are mostly Democrats. Latinos used to be mostly Democrats, but more and more of them are Republicans. Asians are a small minority for now. So they matter little. The white vote is more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. In big cities, Democrats are in the majority, but elsewhere it is different.

As it stands, Republicans control the presidency, Congress, and Senate. Democrats are in the minority, and Trump’s followers are in the majority. This may take another year, but at the beginning of 2027 the situation will probably be different, meaning that the Democrats will take control of either Congress or the Senate. After this, the changes made by Trump will end for a couple of years. In this case, nothing will happen unless some external threat appears.

The media is trying to shape the opinions of citizens to their liking. An amazing amount of time is spent following them, when you include social media, up to 10 hours a day are spent on them. Of the five largest daily newspapers, the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune are on the right and the Washington Post is following Trump. The New York Times and USA Today are on the left. Of the largest television channels, ABC, NBC, and CBS are on the left, while Fox and Fox News are on the right. Television is consumed for about 4 hours a day. Most of the most popular news sites on the Internet are on the left.

Younger generations get most of their media exposure through social media owned by techno-oligarchs. Most of them were previously on the left. Now they have moved more to the right and I don't have any exact information about which direction they are going now. They have the potential to brainwash their users better than regular media. They also constantly monitor their users. These entities determine which parties get their voices heard and control the majority of Internet traffic. They decide the outcome of any internal non-military conflict. They are not the primary parties to the conflict.

Ultimately, the internal conflict is about the struggle between freedom and totalitarianism. It is about whether to allow different opinions and ways of life. Both the left and the right seem to favor totalitarianism more or less at the moment. The majority of important actors are now, under the Trump presidency, punks without ideological attachments.

The younger generations are leaning more to the left, so over the decades the country is moving to the left. In the medium term, the situation is different, and the right now seems to be in the majority. The most significant sign of a shift to the left would be an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices. Right now, the situation is 6-3 in favor of the right. The positions are for life, so it will take decades for the balance to change. Without increasing the number of justices, the Supreme Court will operate according to Republican thinking.

The worst possible change to the current situation is a country moving strongly to the left. The states are already clearly leaning to the other ideology. New York practically elected a socialist mayor. California is strongly left-wing, Texas and Florida are right-wing, etc. Companies are increasingly moving their headquarters out of left-wing dominated states. Right-wingers, and especially the rich, are also moving out of left-wing dominated states. Ultimately, the US economy will determine the course of development in the coming years. I am pessimistic about it, so after this election period, the US may be strongly left-wing. In my view, this will depend on whether Trump really takes control of the Fed by appointing one of his henchmen as the new Fed chairman.

When cycles meet, part 1: Introduction and US debt threat

There will be few texts about the triple threat for the USA that has formed. After these texts, there will be no new texts for a while.

Introduction

Cycles overlap, but they do not always proceed at the same pace. The end of the cycle of a leading economy often follows a long debt cycle. Of the phases of the psychological cycle, the Crisis often strikes when the leading economy changes. The end of the bursting of an Unraveling can coincide with the moment when the bubble of the long debt cycle bursts. In addition, the High of the psychological cycle begins at the same time as the emergence of a new world order. Short debt cycles develop at their own pace during longer cycles and are of little importance.

We are living in a moment when the most important phases of long cycles related to the national economy and order meet. The United States is in the phase of a long debt cycle, in which the country is either heading towards insolvency, a rapid decline in the value of its currency because faith in paying off debts by printing new money is running out, or a slow and long withering away. The Crisis phase of the socio-psychological cycle is moving towards a solution that will be over in 10 years. The country is full of internal conflicts that will be resolved before a new social order emerges.

The country will drift into a civil war-like state if the divided people do not find a common external enemy. The most likely external enemy is China, as it strives for the position of a leading economic country. That will probably pass in the next decades. The United States can try to change this development with a military conflict with China. A large-scale war on either country's soil is unlikely to occur. Fighting in eastern China would not be a surprise. In this and the following articles, I will discuss the United States' debt problem and possible internal and external conflicts in the country. There are three threats to the US social order: The debt problem, the internal conflict and the external one.

The first part of the triple threat, the debt problem.

A significant reason for both internal and external conflict can be found in how the collapse that marks the end of a long debt cycle is handled. It will not happen in an instant. It may take a couple of decades. The debt crisis in the United States has not been completely resolved. The worst problems have been dealt with in the banking sector since the collapse. The handling of the Great Recession has increased the level of conflict because it treated different social classes differently. The richest tenth of the population has benefited more from the solution and the additional government debt than others. The debt problems have moved from banks to other financial parties.

Government deficits have grown, and so has the debt mountain. Before the Great Recession, the US government debt was just under 70% of GDP. Now it is over 120%. The debt was financed by growing the Fed’s balance sheet. There is no end in sight to the growth, as the annual deficit is just under $2 trillion, of which interest accounts for about half. This deficit does not include growing pension liabilities or the deficits of municipalities and states. There are signs that the government will participate in at least part of the deficits of the above-mentioned entities. Debt management is made easier by the fact that the vast majority of the debt has been incurred by domestic actors.

Companies are also in debt. Excluding the financial sector, their combined debt and that of households is over 100% of GDP. At the same time, their balance sheets have weakened. Fortunately for companies, current interest rates on debt are low. The same is partly true for households. It is not worth taking out new mortgages unless you have to, because average interest rates are much lower than those on new loans.

In practice, all the undesirable side effects of money printing mentioned in the section on the long debt cycle have materialized, and the fundamentals of the US economy are weakening. It has not collapsed because interest rates on debt are not yet too high in the short term and the benefits of being a reserve currency have not worn off. One reason for this is that all major economies suffer from similar problems. The ECB's balance sheet is also full of government debt. China has also switched to printing money. The buyers of government bonds have long been central banks.

Bond purchases were mainly seen after the Great Recession as an increase in asset class prices in the United States and elsewhere. Significant consumer price inflation was not seen before the pandemic was dealt with. Permanently higher inflation is a threat to the US private sector. It could be beneficial for the government if it remained in the single-digit percentage points. The probability that the US federal government would withstand the current debt rate for decades is small. Debt inflation could also increase internal tensions in the country too much. Although the richest tenth is doing better economically than ever, the rest are potentially in the worst situation in decades.

The situation changed partly after the pandemic for a short time, because due to its economic effects, money was distributed directly to consumers. First, increased unemployment benefits were distributed. After this, direct income transfers began to be made in the budget. Tax increases for high-income earners were proposed for financing, but they did not pass. This also significantly increased inflation. In the end, low-income earners became poorer because they misused the money they received.

One of the main questions is whether the current debt mountain will remain a permanent phenomenon. I do not know whether the current administration can find a sensible solution to halve the deficit to about a trillion dollars a year. I think it is unlikely that the current measures, i.e. tariffs and government savings, would achieve this end of the deficit through economic growth. Productivity growth has not been sufficient so far since the Great Recession. It would be a surprise to me if it improved in the near future. It is, however, the best option for solving the debt problem. The current deportation of immigrants does not help. It increases the need for productivity growth.

I do not see the insolvency of the government as a problem in the medium term, i.e. 5-7 years. Solving it earlier requires less drastic measures, but I do not see their probability as high. After the middle of the next decade, the situation may be different. There may be temporary threats of insolvency related to the debt ceiling. I don't believe in a meltdown of government bonds anytime soon, because other countries would suffer more. There is no alternative to the dollar as a reserve currency now. That would require a complete overhaul of the global financial system. Its importance would decrease as the euro and other less used reserve currencies grow. Debt accumulation could be seen as an intensification of internal conflict.

Sources:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/z1/nonfinancial_debt/chart/

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/annual-reports-financial-statements/annual/balance/html/index.en.html

Money printing and its lessons.

Over the past decade or so, I have learned many things about the effects of printing money. They tell me that the economy is divided into the real economy and the virtual economy. The first means real money use and the latter mostly price changes in the financial market. The first is based on moving money so that something tangible changes hands. The latter is based more on expectations and images. These economies operate in parallel and interconnected, but their share of the total economy varies. Sometimes they support each other and sometimes the share of one grows too large, separating from the other. It begins to destroy the benefit of the other to citizens in the longer term, even if the short-term benefits seem to be the opposite. All figures in the article are from the United States, unless otherwise noted.

The differences have appeared as a result of the distribution of the "money printing". After the financial crisis, three different ways and targets for distributing the money have been tried: (The processes themselves are actually more complicated than I present, but don't let that distract you.

1. Increasing central bank reserves, i.e. distributing money through banks.

2. Increasing the national debt and distributing money through the administration.

3. Increasing the national debt by distributing money directly to citizens.

In the first way, the central bank buys bonds and at the same time its reserves grow. In this case, certain commercial banks can put more money into circulation in a certain proportion to the increasing reserves. (simplified explanation) This does not mean that it will happen. Over the past 15 years, this primarily benefited the virtual economy while preventing the collapse of the real economy during the financial crisis. Although this was mandatory during the financial crisis in order to end the deflationary spiral, it went too far and caused e.g. the following harmful side effects:

• Massive overvaluations of bonds and other asset classes

• Dysfunctional price formations in various assets

• 1st type of dependency relationship between printing and financial markets

• A decrease in long-term productivity growth as money flows into less useful items, such as the purchase of own shares. In the 2010s, productivity increased by approx. 1.2%, while the annual growth from the beginning of the 1950s until the end of that decade was approx. 2%.

• The growth of zombie companies and the favoring of large companies at the expense of small ones

• Loss of morale and other negative side effects of saving fools

• The increase in wealth differences, which leads to internal conflicts.

In practice, the method follows a decrease in the central bank's policy rate to close to or below zero. Longer-term zero interest rates and money printing provide a significant boost to the virtual economy. This excessive growth is out of the real economy. Contrary to many people's beliefs to the contrary, this does not lead to too much inflation in the real economy unless there are significant excesses in the increase of reserves. For example, in the 2010s, the amount of money grew by 80%, or about 6% per year. At the same time, inflation increased by about 20%, or about 1.8% per year. This way of distributing money is a gold mine for investors. Inflation does not disturb too much and returns cannot be prevented if there are investments and/or can afford to make them. This method is practically an indirect money transfer from taxpayers to investors.

Another way of distributing money does not need zero interest rates to be acceptable to citizens. This is how all deficit nations operate in normal economies. The majority of them do not indulge in excesses. Governments create new debt by selling government bonds, but they do so to a limited extent. At the same time, the amount of debt in the economy increases the most through commercial banks. A healthy market economy does not need large government borrowing or the "printing machines" of central banks in order to create sufficient money supply growth.

How the state spends the additional money matters to citizens. Spending money on debt doesn't increase inflation much, but it can keep it higher than normal. Productive investments can be inflationary in the short term, but in the longer term they reduce the growth rate of inflation or are deflationary. This method favors the real economy when it is done sensibly. Clear over-indebtedness with low productive investments can support the virtual economy in the medium term. This can now be seen in the United States, where the federal government's annual deficit per GDP is even higher than in Finland. The US economy is not on a sustainable footing now. It can be roughly stated that during the last 15 years this custom has been in full force for only a couple of years. At the same time, the federal budget deficit has been on the wrong side of 5% and real GDP has grown by approx. 3% annual rate. A large part of the economic growth has been brought about by government indebtedness. 

The third method was introduced in the United States during the short economic crisis caused by the corona virus. Back then, the state took on debt and primarily sent it either directly to bank accounts or in the form of bank cards to its poorest citizens. Almost 800 billion of money was distributed directly to them. The distribution started in March 2020. This was not the only target for printing money. The amount of money increased by approx. 6000 crores in two years. Not all was distributed by the administration, but also the amount of money lent to consumers by commercial banks clearly increased. This meant a 40% increase in the amount of money, i.e. approx. 18% annual rate. The result was the rapid rise of the virtual economy. In the real economy, this did not show up as inflation until a year later. At the same time, inflation produced a decline in real incomes for a couple of years. As inflation subsided, real incomes also increased. This last method increased the budget deficit to double-digit percentages and is even less sustainable than the aforementioned methods. This experiment has shown that the so-called MMT worked because inflation destroys its benefits and magnifies its disadvantages.

Sources for financial figures:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

https://fi.investing.com/economic-calendar/real-earnings-890

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2

https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/data-interactive-tools/data-stories/update-three-rounds-stimulus-checks-see-how-many-went-out-and

https://stacker.com/business-economy/how-us-labor-productivity-has-changed-1950

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual

Elections and printing money

Normally, elections do not have much importance for the economy, but now the situation is different. The US elections will be the most significant economic event in the world in the next couple of years, if the third world war does not start. Many people in Finland believe that the US presidential election will decide everything, but this is a result of not knowing the US political system. The president cannot make major changes without the Senate and the House of Representatives. In other words, the president is more or less like a lame duck without the support of the aforementioned. In the current situation, this means that the same party needs to gain control of all three in order to make bigger changes. It should also be mentioned that the House of Representatives has a two-year term and the Senators have a six-year term. This matters because representatives have a better chance of being re-elected by handing out money to the people than senators.

The best way to look at what can happen to a possible printing money is to look at the past. I don't think that we will hardly return to meeting three if the interest rates have not been reduced to zero before then. I believe that this is the most likely option of these methods if it is deemed necessary and the election result allows it. Recent history shows that the stimulus money was distributed in three rounds as follows per month: (control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President in parentheses)

March 2020 $1,200/taxpayer + $500 per child (Dem, Rep, Rep)

December 2020 $600 + $600 per child (Dem, Rep, Rep)

March 2020 $1400 + $1400 per child (Dem, Dem, Dem)

It should also be mentioned that Trump would have liked to pay a couple of tons a month in December 2020. The Republican-led Senate did not agree to this, so the sum was six hundred. I believe that both parties will accept this way of distributing money when a difficult economic situation hits, if they get control of all three for themselves. The control of the Senate is clearly more likely to be taken by the Republicans (the last reading I've seen was over 70%, but it's been a while) The presidential election is about 60/40 for the Republicans according to the betting offices, and the probability of the House of Representatives is approximately 50%.

The most likely option is a stalemate. The over-indebtedness of the United States will continue at roughly the same pace as it is now if there is no recession. If one party controls all three, then inflation on "steroids" is a likely option. The Democrats would probably achieve a bigger overshoot, but the Republicans won't be far behind. In this case, it is pointless to wait for a recession before the political situation changes. I personally hope for a stalemate, because then both parties will have to cooperate and the excesses will decrease. A longer deadlock will cause a situation in the medium-term (5-10 years) at the latest, where a recession makes the current or worse rate of indebtedness impossible, because the funding gap is too large to be managed without large reductions in income transfers or a surprising jump in productivity. This can happen quickly. In this case, both parties need to make unpleasant decisions if the Fed does not intervene by first introducing zero interest rates and the first way if the politicians do not jump directly to the three way. MMT on steroids for the next two years will result in bad decisions being pushed forward at least four years.

Finally, one more list of betting office odds for the presidential election:

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

-TT

Debt Cycles part 2. Long term debt cycle

A warning: This text is long and takes a while to read.

The majority of the long-term debt cycle is largely based on changes in interest rates regulated by the central bank, which make the above-mentioned processes work. Most of it is the sum of changes in short debt cycles. They are mainly based on changes in interest rates regulated by central banks, which reflect the willingness of people and businesses to borrow or borrow money. The short debt cycle will be discussed later. At the end of the cycle, the role of interest rate changes diminishes and the focus is on printing money with the central bank's key interest rates close to zero.

At the beginning of a long debt cycle, the parts of the above equation are much smaller than when the debt bubble bursts in the end. The money supply is often tied to fixed assets held by the central bank. In practice, the amount of debt cannot grow significantly faster than the amount of real assets. This affects the right side of the equation, reducing the amounts on that side. The growth rate of money in circulation and debt remain limiting factors as the money supply is linked to the central bank's fixed assets.

At some point, policymakers will be pressured to increase money supply to improve economic development. This is done by breaking the link between the money supply and the fixed assets. In other words, the amount of money is growing faster than before. The central bank can tighten or loosen monetary policy by regulating interest rates and money supply. The latter is rarely a significant factor. This mostly happens at the end of the cycle.

The long-term debt cycle lasts 60-100 years. In the initial phase, debt and consumption are roughly in balance with money and income. The increase in the money supply allows for an increase in debt, which enables increases in consumption and an increase in wealth. The former allows additional liabilities. Creditors provide additional debt as borrowers ’income, cash flows, and collateral values increase. These increase the willingness of creditors to borrow. Development strengthens itself and the economy grows.

The growth phase lasts most of the cycle. It progresses variably according to short debt cycles. Through the key interest rate, central banks regulate the willingness of creditors and debtors to lend or pay the debt. Total debt is slowly increasing. The peak of the cycle is manifested by high debt levels and / or the failure of monetary policy to generate economic growth. One of the signs of the peak is found in the granting of debt, which focuses more on collateral values than on debtors’ income. Interest rates are close to zero or at zero. Debt service costs are higher than the borrowers' ability to borrow. This reduces consumption. Debt ratios are declining. Too many businesses, households and financial institutions are becoming insolvent. They need to reduce consumption which increases unemployment, reduces people's incomes and increases other problems.

Debt problems are often the sum of many stages. First, the expectations of the general public about large cash flows in the distant future arise. Secondly, expectations arise about the increases in value in the near future and the gains they will bring. Thirdly, the wildest paintings of a glorious future emerge, exploiting the general public and eventually generating the outrageous scams that make money for their developers.

The above development is compounded by the fact that the investments are made by over-indebtedness and future cash flows are not sufficient for debt management costs. The differences between expectations and reality are the greatest when the debt bubble bursts. Prior to this, the positive effects of rising asset prices have been visible and not enough people have understood their unsustainability. Before the bubble bursts, there is usually low inflation and a debt-driven boom. The latter seems more of a boom created by high productivity growth and prudent investment than the absurd euphoria which will be revealed later to the general public. Debt payment begins. Economies can do it in four ways:

1. Austerity
2. Debt reduction
3. Increasing the money supply by lowering interest rates to zero, continuing it with the central bank purchases of bonds as interest rates fall to zero
4. Income transfers

The first two reduce income and consumption. All are necessary, although few are desirable. They also produce less unwanted effects and, when going into excesses, more harm than good. Financial discipline is necessary because there is no extra money. Savings need to be made where they have the least impact on long-term economic growth and quality of life. Excessive savings increase problems. Some economic actors must save. They can be either public or private actors. Without saving, there can be no needed investments in the long run. Some of them can be financed with the central bank´s bond purchases, but not all of them. The reason is that the government usually has too much debt.

Debt write-downs take place through insolvency, debt restructuring and forced asset sales. The latter have the greatest negative effects. Debt restructuring reduces creditors' income because at the same time the prices of assets also decrease, which also means the decreased debt collateral. The ratio of debt to asset values and income is increasing as a result. This leads to forced sales of debts as they are diminishing assets of creditors.

Forced sales lead to the sale of other assets and the payment of bank loans, which reduces the rate of money circulation, which accelerates forced sales, which leads to deflation, i.e. an increase in the value of money if the printing of money does not prevent it. At the same time, paying off debts adds to the problem of paying off debts as they increase as the value of money increases. The value of the business decreases, reducing corporate returns, which in turn reduces production and employment and increases bankruptcies. They lead to pessimism and a lack of confidence which lead to hoarding which reduces the speed of money circulation. The negative spiral feeds itself, shrinking the economy if nothing is done about it. During it, it is difficult to produce sensible indebtedness.

The worst thing that can follow from forced sales is a lack of trust between creditors and debtors. This means that no companies or governments can borrow money. Payment transactions cease to operate and society is paralyzed for hours, days or weeks. Nothing can be bought in stores and people depend on others. At the same time, financial markets are likely to close for longer than regular payments. The former do not happen suddenly but e.g. the stock market is likely to have fallen for weeks or months. The situation has been close before. The lack of confidence was caught up in the days or hours of the previous financial crisis. The situation is recognized by the fact that the prices of all asset classes are falling at the same time. It may not last more than hours and offers the opportunity to buy cheaply when the risks are high.

For this situation, I recommend buying quick-to-eat foods first and taking tap water where it is possible for several days or buy large amounts of water from somewhere. You can then follow which direction the investment prices are going. At the same time, it is worth following the news about the decisions of central banks to put money on the market. If it works, the prices of asset classes will start to rise. The length of the situation depends on how faith returns to the markets.

Printing money is a necessary evil so that the financial system does not collapse and there is no depression. It is needed to break the deflationary cycle, but too much printing can produce bad problems. It is not automatically a good or bad thing. As overshoot, it can cause additional amounts of money to be transferred to other currencies, which will increase the prices of imported products. In addition, it can transfer too much money to inflation-hedged investments. It can produce hyperinflation when the value of money falls sharply. Its risk is greatest when the debts are in other currencies and owned by foreigners, but the income of people and businesses are not. Large economies with their own currencies have the lowest risks, but they can also experience hyperinflation.

The end user and uses of printed money mean a lot. Saving the economic system and increasing the growth of economic activity are the main reasons for the pressure on money printing. The end user can be the state, other public actors, companies and citizens. There are many possible uses: investing in tangible and intangible capital such as infrastructure and know-how, maintaining bankrupt companies by buying their loans, buying other assets, direct consumption, savings, etc. The first use is usually to buy loans, without which the economic system becomes too likely to collapse. Economic activity will increase as asset prices rise and the potential for growth-generating investments will increase as the availability of money improves. The rationality of the state and public actors determines the usefulness of the investment.

Ultimately, the question is whether the benefits of printing money outweigh its less desirable effects. In the beginning, it produces the greatest benefits. The more the operation is utilized, the lower the relative benefit. The result is ever-increasing bond purchases. In the end, the situation may be that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. The relationship between the disadvantages and the benefits of printing money is impossible to determine no matter what central banks or other financial experts say. One common denominator for central bankers deciding on printing is that they have no idea of the undesirable effects of their actions. They are missing from the models they use. The following list tells about possible side effects:

• New massive revaluations of bonds and other asset classes

• Non-functioning price formation in various assets

• The emergence of an interdependence between priting and the financial markets

• Decreased long-term productivity growth

• The growth of zombie-companies and the favoring of large companies at the expense of small ones

• Moral hazard

• Negative side-effect of rewarding fools

• Increased wealth disparities leading to internal conflicts

Money going into government and corporate bonds naturally raises their prices. They can become insane. Market participants buy bonds so that they can sell them to central banks at a higher price. This will raise prices even further. If central banks buy too many bonds, there will be absurd self-sustaining price increases. In the end, prices are so absurd that bonds are mostly bought only by central banks. This means increasing negative real yields on bonds. At the same time, the prices of other asset classes are rising as some of the printed money flows into their prices. Although the intention is to put money into the real economy, the biggest benefits flow elsewhere, to the wealthy.

Excessive monetary pressure means that the prices of bonds are not determined by the market, but the real price makers are in the central banks. It leads to the markets´ dependence on them. They start making their biggest moves depending on how central banks signal the amounts of printed money or bond sales. The latter is a rarer phenomenon, but it happens when central banks believe they have gone too far. The market may crash if this dependency exists. In that case, the catastrophe is ready to happen if the central banks do not stop selling. It might happen anyway.

When most of the money goes to rising asset class prices, the real economy suffers in the long run. There will be no productivity growth because no sensible investment is made and the money goes to other uses. In the worst case, they go into the survival of companies that should go bankrupt. These companies are unable to make investments but keep themselves alive. Maintaining them is the same as peeing on the leg in the winter frost.

Bond purchases favor large companies because small ones are unable to obtain financing by selling bonds. They finance their growth either with the owner’s assets or with bank loans. Smaller companies are better able to adapt to change, but the benefits to the overall economy diminish when purchases favor the large companies. Few of them are as productive as more efficient small businesses paying more for their loans.

Printing money rewards the wrong kind of risk-taking because fools who buy too expensive assets don’t suffer so easily from their mistakes. They get the reward even if they make mistakes paid for by others. In this case, the others are taxpayers who receive the invoice e.g. as rising costs of living. At the same time, executives who have used the cash flows of their companies either for excessive dividends or to buy their own shares are rewarded. When companies are bankrupt because of these acts, the purchase of bonds in cash will save them. At the same time, company executives will be able to increase their share-based bonuses.

Wealth disparities will increase if money is not distributed to citizens. The printed money is then mostly transferred to the prices of the assets, which can cause internal conflicts. The feeling of injustice is growing, although the majority of the population does not understand why wealth disparities are growing. Printing enriches the already rich more than the ordinary people. The latter relieve their pain through violence or hatred towards the former. If the situation persists, politicians may begin to feel tempted to distribute money directly to citizens. This is one sign that indebtedness is escaping central bank control. As an isolated case, the situation is not bad, but the transition to a continuous distribution of money will destroy the currency.

When citizens receive free money, they can put it for consumption, investment, debt repayment or savings. The desired destination for money is private consumption. In this case, some of the money is forced to be saved because it is the result of a bad economic situation. There is little to reserve for extra consumption. Where the money mostly goes depends on the needs and wants of a large section of the population. Different nations can consume, save, and invest in different ways. In the United States, money is more likely to go to investment than, for example, in Europe. This, too, produces undesirable effects, as unemployment can be a prerequisite for access to money. Not everyone wants to go to work because they can get almost the same money for free. Again, an excessive distribution of money does not make sense.

Over-indebtedness generates deficits in the economies and smaller public actors, regardless of whether money is printed. It can also produce currency escape. Capital can look for better returns abroad. The state can create mechanisms to reduce it. One way may be to restrict or prohibit the transfer of currency by imposing high taxes on currency transfers. Smart money always finds a way to circumvent these restrictions. On the other hand, ordinary citizens cannot do it. This increases wealth disparities and tensions between the rich and the poor.

Tax increases are one way to raise more money for the administration to distribute. They are less popular with the public than printing money because they are better understood. The lower amount transferred from salary to personal account is a signal of higher taxes. The same applies to the taxation of consumption. It is easy to read the tax rate on trade receipts. The same is true when higher taxes are passed on to product prices. If the withdrawals are large, they will lead to tax planning for large capital. Ordinary citizens cannot do it as effectively. People can move out of the country or move to places with lower tax rates. The latter applies to countries that do not have common national taxes. There are numerous tools for tax planning, but the former are perhaps the most important.

Debt Cycles part 1. Introduction and Short term cycle

 Debt is, at its simplest, a promise to repay a sum of money borrowed later. It may involve interest and other debt service charges. Payment of interest usually means an extra portion of the amount borrowed that is payable over a period of time. The creditor wants the interest rate to be higher than the cost of borrowing and the rate of inflation. It wants the value of the money to be depreciated in excess of the total amount of money repaid and interest over the loan period. In other words, real returns must be positive. A sensible debtor wants a used debt to bring a positive real return. Sometimes it makes sense to take on debt with a negative real return to avoid complete economic collapse. In other words, the debtor buys time to get his finances in order.

The debtor becomes insolvent if he is unable to pay the debt. To do this, he has to provide collateral. The creditor must make a probability assessment of how well the debtor can pay his money back, either directly from the debtor or by redeeming the collateral. The more uncertain the repayment and the lower the security, the higher the interest the debtor will have to pay. This happens when the creditor understands the situation of the debtor. At the peak of debt cycles, creditors’ lack of understanding of debtors’ ability to repay is at its greatest.

The best understanding of the role of debt in the economy is obtained by looking at remittances in the big picture of the economy. In the following equation, the sources of money are on the left and the uses are on the right:

Money + Liabilities + Income = Consumption + Assets + Savings

The equation is bidirectional. For example, consumption is the income of the counterparty. Some of the increased money supply from the left side can be consumed, some can be used to buy assets or put into savings. When the central bank tightens its monetary policy and interest rates rise, debt is often reduced. This reduces consumption and / or the purchase of assets which reduces revenue. The opposite phenomenon occurs when the interest rate decreases. It will increase the amount of debt which is likely to increase consumption which will increase revenue. Both are self-reinforcing series of events. By looking at the varying amounts of the parts of the equation, you can see how the debt cycles are progressing.

Short debt cycle

Short debt cycles normally last 3-8 years. The length depends on the previous cycle and some other factors like changes in central banks´ interest rate policies. The further it progresses and / or or the deeper the economy goes down the longer the next one will last. What I mean is how much excesses people, companies and central banks have made. The worse the over-indebtedness, the longer the damage will be repaired. The short debt cycle is also called the general economic cycle. As I mentioned earlier, central banks regulate short debt cycles mostly by either tightening or loosening monetary policy. This is mostly done by raising or lowering interest rates. Exceptions arise mainly from the bursting of a debt bubble at the end of the long debt cycle.

Short debt cycles can be divided into four parts: growth, peak, decline and recession. Growth starts at the beginning. Interest rates are low and borrowing is easier. Demand for interest-sensitive products such as housing and cars is growing first. Growth is initially rapid. Unemployment is falling and the average working week is lengthening through rising demand and output growth. Inflation remains low despite debt increases and economic growth. The best investment targets can be found in equities. The situation for commodities and inflation-hedges is deteriorating. Later, economic growth will slow temporarily. Inflation will remain low, interest rates will fall and stock prices will calm down. The decline in the prices of commodities and inflation-protecting assets is slowing down.

At the end of the growth, the pace accelerates. Wages are rising faster and production capacity is coming back. Inflation is accelerating, consumption is peaking and interest rates are rising. Equities make their last rise in the cycle before falling, and inflation-hedged investments perform best. The peak is coming because the economy has overheated. The latter will lead to tightening of the central bank's monetary policy. Liquidity is declining and interest rates are rising. Economic growth is starting to decline. The amount of money is shrinking and the growth rate of debt is declining. The stock market will start to decline before economic growth goes into the red. Eventually the recession will hit.

Economies are in recession on average 10-12% of the time. During them, economic growth will average -3%. At the beginning of the recession, the economy is shrinking. At the same time, the prices of shares and inflation-hedged investments are falling. The central bank is not loosening its monetary policy and inflation is falling. In the end, the central bank fears recession and deflation, so it loosens its monetary policy. Interest rates fall and stocks rise. Commodity prices are low, as are inflation-hedged investments. With low interest rates and rising stock prices, we are moving from a recession to the beginning of a new cycle.

The operation of short cycles depends much more on external factors such as major natural disasters like pandemics and wars. The latter are wars between great powers and neighboring states. Less often, export bans like OPEC`s regulation of oil production have effects on cycles. Utilizing short debt cycles in investing requires skill which most of us do not have. I cannot recommend anyone to take advantage of them. It is easier to understand longer cycles.

One of the best signs of a recession is the shift of the yield curve to negative. It refers to a situation where the interest rates on longer government bonds are lower than those on their short-term bonds. This usually occurs about 12 to 18 months before the recession. The exact timing of interest rates does not tell the future recession. This indicator is not easy for an investor to take advantage of. It may be used as a signal to increase cash position for future investments. It can be seen as an indication that the leverage should not be increased. Stock prices can also predict a future recession 6-12 months before that, but they are a more uncertain indicator. They can be used more to invest in other asset classes.

Recessions are poorly predicted. This is true for both amateurs and professionals. The latter manages to predict a recession when it is underway. According to an IMF research paper, between 1992 and 2014, economists out of 153 recessions in 63 different countries managed to predict only 5 in April of the previous year. Instead, in October of the recession, economists correctly predicted 118 times out of 153 recessions. It can be said that economists ’predictions of a recession are not worth reading or listening to.

World leading economy cycle part 3 Dropping from the top and brief overview of the whole cycle

 Reaching the peak probably includes a double-digit number of short debt cycles and usually at least one long debt cycle. I will discuss the peak and fall in more detail later, in a long debt cycle. The road to the top leads to the sowing of the seeds of the fall. Prosperous times increase people’s incomes which makes the cost of labor more expensive. The competitiveness of labor is declining. The smartest, disadvantaged nations know how to select the ways that work best for them from the ways produced by the top nation, which further reduces its competitiveness. Copying is easier and faster than developing anything new which improves their competitiveness at a lower cost.

Newer generations will replace those who have raised the nation to the top of the world. They are accustomed to wealth without as much effort as previous generations. They have not experienced time without wealth. They demand more of their free time which reduces work ethic. More money and less work will lower the nation’s productivity compared to its competitors. If it lasts long enough, the country's relative situation will deteriorate too much.

The reserve currency position of a leading economic country allows for a high debt burden. Consumption and borrowing capacities are growing first, leading management and citizens to believe in a strong economy. The country is growing its army and fighting to maintain its leading position in the world more than is necessary. In the end, the former consumes more government resources than brings benefits. At the same time, citizens are spending more on borrowed money. The former will improve the chances of the country and its citizens to borrow abroad as the reserve currency strengthens. They increase wealth disparities. Citizens' ability to cooperate deteriorates as the wealthy safeguards its interests at the expense of others.

The decline begins as the peak surpluses turn into declines and the interests of the rival nation strengthen. The central bank’s ability to increase debt and economic growth will be lost and at the same time the nation is hit by a recession or depression. This leads to the printing of money which leads to an excessive depreciation of the reserve currency. The relative position of the poor is deteriorating more than the prosperous, increasing the popularity of political extremism. The former require the latter to take action to reduce wealth disparities, i.e. they want income transfers by raising taxes. The wealthiest transfer their wealth to safety with a lower tax rate, which further weakens the position of the poor.

These factors reduce productivity and the wealth distribution is reduced. In the worst case, the result is totalitarianism like Hitler's Germany. At the same time, a rival nation can challenge a leading economic country, which increases the potential for military conflict, which in turn increases the number one country’s spending that it cannot afford. It has to choose between either military conflict or avoiding it. The decline is further in the long debt cycle.

Brief description of the progress of the cycle

The cycle of a leading economic country follows the same formula. It begins with a new world order and ends with the birth of a new one. In the beginning, the leading economic country will determine the creation of new rules. It has the most power. Now such actors are e.g. The IMF and the World Bank. In the end, power is gone. The next leader contributes to the renewal of the rules or orders the creation of new ones. If a new world order emerges through military conflict, then the most likely new leader is its winner.

The economic situation of the leading country is the best at the beginning of the new world order. The country probably doesn’t have much debt. The debts of others to it are much greater. In the coming decades, the country will prosper. It develops as short-term debt cycles fluctuate, so does the economic growth. During fluctuations, economic agents become slightly more indebted on average until a large-scale debt bubble is created, for which the country's main economic operator, usually the central bank, will have to lower interest rates to zero. At the same time, it will have to grow its money supply, otherwise it would result in massive bankruptcies and / or long-term deflation. Excessive monetary pressure leads to hyperinflation and / or other economic catastrophe. A suitable amount of printing is difficult to accomplish in the long run.

Debt bubble management tends to weaken the financial position of taxpayers in relative terms the most because they have been used by the smart money. The latter usually has so much power that it does not have to pay as high a price as it should. Taxpayers become bitter towards the rich which adds to internal contradictions. The bitterness is also compounded by the fact that money supply is increased until its benefits to the national economy go to zero. The purchasing power of the people is declining as the prices of various asset classes rise despite non-existent economic growth. At the same time, income disparities are widening.

Too much bitterness can lead to the division of the people which can lead to a civil war. Another option is for the people to find a common enemy and fight against it. Whatever the conflict, it will eventually lead to debt restructuring and a renewal of the political system. After these, a new world order is born. Although the above-mentioned course of events present themselves mainly as separate events, many take place at the same time as possible wars and political reorganizations.