The Economist

More millionaires live in Tokyo than in any other city, according to a new report from WealthInsight, beating out New York and London. The Economist notes that the city, which boasts 460,700 individuals with net assets of $1m or more (excluding their primary residences), is home to over a fifth of Japan's millionaires. However, when it comes to real money (since who can get by on a mere million dollars worth of wealth these days), London tops the list with 4,224 multi-millionaires. But when it comes to the real BSDs, New York City and Moscow rule the world with 70 and 64 billionaires respectively wondering the streets. As The Economist also notes, should you wish to rub shoulders with the rich, heading to Tokyo, London, New York, or Moscow would be a mistake - it is Frankfurt that has the highest millionaires per capita (with 75 out of every 1000 people having at least a seven figure net worth).

We recently discussed the 'dead-weight' problem of youth unemployment in developed economies. The Economist estimates that the world's population of NEETs (not in employment, education, or training) is a stunning 290 million - or around one-quarter of the world's youth. Sadly, many of the 'employed' young have only informal and intermittent jobs. In rich countries more than a third, on average, are on temporary contracts which make it hard to gain skills. Young people have long had a raw deal in the labour market. Why is this so important? A number of studies have found that people who begin their careers without work are likely to have lower wages and greater odds of future joblessness than those who don’t. A wage penalty of up to 20%, lasting for around 20 years, is common. The scarring seems to worsen fast with the length of joblessness and is handed down to the next generation, too - leading to a vicious cycle that weighs on growth dramatically. With a stunning 71% now expecting to work in their 'retirement' in the US, it would seem the opportunity for the jobs and wealth transfer to the younger generation is being blocked by a generation hamstrung by an increasingly repressive Federal Reserve.

With the Fed and Bank of Japan buying nearly every government and agency security on the planet, even a completely rancid pile of bollocks might look and smell like a lovely red rose... 

It may seem uncharitable to note that only 0.4% - that's 4/10th of 1% - of mutual fund managers outperform a plain-vanilla S&P 500 index fund over 10 years, but that is being generous: by other measures, it's an infinitesimal 1/10th of 1%. So what do we get for investing our capital in mutual funds and hedge funds? The warm and fuzzy feeling that we've contributed the liquidity needed to grease a monumental skimming operation. Ten out of 10,000 is simply signal noise; in effect, nobody beats an index fund. The entire financial management industry is a rentier arrangement: they skim immense profits and return no productive yield at all.

In a slight digression from the usual pure market-based discussions of Jeremy Grantham's perspectives, the fund manager addresses what is potentially and even more critical factor for the markets. As he writes, we are in a race for our lives, as our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilizations before ours. By sheer luck, though, ours has two features that might just save our bacon: declining fertility rates and progress in alternative energy. Our survival might well depend on doing everything we can to encourage their progress. Vested interests, though, defend the status quo effectively and the majority much prefers optimistic propaganda to uncomfortable truth and wishful thinking rather than tough action. It is likely to be a close race.

The crypto-currency Bitcoin is still merely a speck on the global monetary landscape. It is young, experimental, and for all we know, it may ultimately fail to break into the monetary mainstream. However, on a conceptual level some are willing to call it a work of genius and arguably the most exciting development in the field of money for more than 130 years. The outcome is probably binary: Either Bitcoin ultimately fails and the individual Bitcoins end up worthless. Or Bitcoin takes off and Bitcoins are worth hundreds of thousands of paper dollars, paper yen, paper euros, or paper pounds. Maybe more. Those who buy Bitcoin as a speculative investment should consider it an option on the future success of the crypto-currency. We still consider gold to be the essential self-defense asset in the ongoing paper money crisis. The brand-new crypto-currency Bitcoin has to first earn its stripes as a monetary asset by proving itself as a ‘common’ medium of exchange. That is why we view Bitcoin very differently from gold, although the attraction of both has its origin in the demise of entirely elastic, politicized state fiat money. In the meantime, the debasement of paper money continues.

Many investors are now buying yield with little regard to the price that they're paying. It's a dangerous game that's not going to end well.

First CNN, then AP, now Reuters: the entire media is increasingly starting to look like amateur hour. Unless, of course, Soros is like Osama, and had several "reincarnated" body doubles, with the original specimen long gone. Here is our suggestion for another prepared article: "Today after XX centuries of monetizing debt, the Emperor of the Galactic Central Bank, Gaius Maximus Printius Bernankius the DCLXVI^th, ended QE in the year of the alien invasion, XXXXX. Bread costs XXXXXXXXXXX."

I asked the question: is Bitcoin money? (It's price sure is rising parabolically like silver in 2011) In brief, I said no it’s an irredeemable currency.  This generated some controversy in the Bitcoin community.  I took it for granted that everyone would agree that money had to be a tangible good, but it turns out that requirement is not obvious.  This prompted me to write further about these concepts.

The 'relative' innocence of the depositors in Cyprus who saw their savings crushed by the hammer-blow of Germany's reality last week is, it seems, not the only hardship that the European people are suffering. In Spain, thanks to their FROB restructuring, shareholders and bondholders (including hundreds of thousands of unsophisticated 'retail' investors who were sold 'fail-safe' and 'high-return' investments) face losses (haircuts) from 96% (equity) to 36% (subordinated debt) and 61% (preference shares) following the 'bailout' of Spain's dodgiest cajas (or savings banks). As The Economist notes, clients infamously included Alzheimer’s sufferers and at least one customer who signed by dipping a finger in ink; shareholders should know the risks but the vast number of Spaniards who bought preference shares and complex subordinated debt from their cajas often did not. While these investor losses pave the way for bank recapitalizations; they confirm the old adage that there is no such thing as a free 'yield' lunch (especially in the new normal ZIRP world in which we live).

The smart money is selling Hong Kong and Singapore property. This implies real estate prices may be topping out, with far-reaching consequences.

In news that is hardly welcome to Chancellor Merkel and her September reelection hopes, German Focus magazine revealed that a substantial 26% of all Germans would back a party that wants to quit the euro. Even more disturbing is that a whopping 40% of all Germans in the prime 40-49 age group are tired of supporting a failed monetary regime and will just say "nein" to the European globalist experiment at preserving the status quo if just given the opportunity. The Italian virus is spreading: the question is which "clown" will show up on the cover of the Economist in six short months, when at least one person will appear on the political scene to take advantage of the populist protest at endless German-backed bail outs, and what as Dylan Grice so eloquently explained earlier, is merely a reaction to central banker central planning manifesting itself in ongoing social breakdown.

The gravy train that poses as the Electoral College in the States is rigged to make it near impossible for anyone other than the Democrat or GOP nominee to get into the White House.... In Europe it is very different. We can vote for the Monster Raving Looney Party – yes there truly is such a thing – the Beer party and one day soon the Blessed Nigel of Farage. To get on the list of candidates over here you have to stump up £500, be a UK, Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland (how did that happen?) citizen, be seconded by 10 voters in the constituency and not be a police officer, in the military or a member of the House of Lords or bankrupt or bonkers. UKIP may well have won the Eastleigh by-election had Farage stood as a candidate – along with 13 others - but as it was Diane James took votes off the Tories and Liberal Democrats in equal measure. This may have been spun as an inconsequential protest vote the happenings in Italy earlier in the week is beginning to cause the establishment some angst.

A few days ago Bloomberg mag did all it could to aliante virtually all racial minorities residing in the US (which in three decades will be the majority) by insinuating that Bernanke's second housing bubble is the sole source of riches for those not of the Caucasian persuasion. Now it is The Economist's turn to provoke well over half of Italy, by alleging that in not voting for technocratic, Goldman-appointed oligarchs who promote solely the banker backer interests, Italy has made a horrible mistake and has ushered in the circus...