Subject: Private Eye - Bill Gross
From: "Michael Andrews" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>, "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:58:26 -0400

I think this is an interesting piece that you might find interesting  
if you can read past the first three  paragraphs.

Michael

		
Investment Outlook
Bill Gross | August 2010

Privates Eye

		Download PDF		

		E-Mail Alerts

I write this month to condemn the inventor of the electronic “seeing  
eye” toilet. Yes, that’s right, I’m talking toilets here, doo-doo- 
stuff, some of which I hopefully won’t step in myself over the next  
few paragraphs. I know there must be more substantive and less  
objectionable topics to bring before you, but I have a sense that many  
of you join me in spirit if not common experience and so I devote this  
month’s Outlook to another trivial snippet emphasizing our joint  
humanity and sense of loss due to the recent disappearance of the hand  
flusher.

I don’t know where it is located exactly, but there’s an electronic  
eye in the plumbing of public toilets these days that can sense when  
you get up and down (or is it down and up) and are finally finished  
with your “business,” if you get my drift. My doctor says a proctology  
exam is a necessary evil but cameras in toilets? Never having seen  
myself from this particular angle, it is particularly embarrassing to  
turn over the assignment to a camera and in effect say, “Snap away –  
see anything that doesn’t look right?” I figure if there’s an eye  
there, then there could also be a little voice that says, “Have a  
seat,” which of course I do, usually with much haste and a sense that  
I’d better get on with it before I attract a crowd.

It’s after the dirty deed is complete, however, that the real intrigue  
begins. Does it flush or doesn’t it? Only the computer chip knows for  
sure. Sometimes, though, after the paperwork has been filed, pants  
pulled up and an attempted getaway initiated – nothing happens. No  
flush. Well, what is one to do in such circumstances? You can’t just  
leave it there, you know. Sometimes when the toilet’s plugged and  
there’s no plunger like in European bathrooms, you can get out of  
there quick with conscience in tact, but only, of course, after  
checking to see that there’s no one else in the restroom who might be  
able to testify against you in court for being a non-flusher. With  
electronic eye toilets, however, the conscience is never clear and so  
you wave your hand in front of the camera, hoping to convince it by  
the breaking of light waves that someone really has used the toilet  
and that somehow it just forgot, or maybe the deposit was so minuscule  
that it just didn’t merit a flush. Hello in there! Having failed to  
trick it, however, the next step is to look for that little button in  
the back that you supposedly push in an emergency – sort of like a  
“break glass in case of fire” toilet equivalent. But think of all the  
billions of germs! At least with an old handle you could kick it with  
your shoe, hold up your arms like a doctor scrubbing for surgery and  
make an exit looking like you’re auditioning for a part on ER. Finally  
I suppose you head for the door, all the while listening for the  
flush, the flush, that beautiful sound of the flush. I could have done  
it myself, you know, with a lot less hassle. Which is why I support a  
retreat to the old days, (not the backyard outhouse), but the good old- 
fashioned hand flusher. One push, and presto – you’re good to go!

I really do have a serious message this month, an adjunct to the New  
Normal that will likely impact growth and financial markets for years  
to come. Our New Normal, to repeat ad nauseam, is predicated upon  
deleveraging, reregulation and deglobalization, all of which promote  
slower economic growth and lower inflation in developed economies  
while substantially bypassing emerging market countries that have more  
favorable initial conditions. In recent months, Mohamed El-Erian has  
added a developing corollary that emphasizes the lack of an  
appropriate policy response to what is a structural as opposed to a  
cyclical development, and you should read his frequently published op- 
eds for a more thorough analysis as well as those written by Jeffrey  
Sachs and others who are constructively suggesting a way back to the  
old normal.

That return journey will be all the more difficult to accomplish,  
however, because of demographics, an influence that much like gravity  
is hard to see but whose effect is all too powerful. Demographics – or  
in this case population growth – is so long term in its influence that  
economists and observers are inclined to explain the functioning of  
economic society without ever factoring in the essential part that it  
plays in growth. Production depends upon people, not only in the  
actual process, but because of the final demand that justifies its  
existence. The more and more consumers, the more and more need for  
things to be produced. I will go so far as to say that not only growth  
but capitalism itself may be in part dependent on a growing  
population.Our modern era of capitalism over the past several  
centuries has never known a period of time in which population  
declined or grew less than 1% a year. Currently, the globe is adding  
over 77 million people a year at a pace of 1.15% annually, but  
slowing. Still, that’s 77 million more mouths to feed, 77 million more  
pairs of shoes to make, 77 million more little economic units of  
demand – houses, furniture, cars, roads, oil – more, more, more.  
Capitalism, I would assert, thrives on more, more, and more, but not  
so well when there is less or an expectation of less. This is not the  
Malthusian thesis, which maintained that at some point the world would  
run out of food to satisfy a growing population; it is an assertion  
that capitalism depends upon final demand and that if there ever comes  
a time when population growth slows, then the world’s most efficient  
economic system will be tested. If anything, my thesis is anti- 
Malthusian in its assertion that there will always be enough  
production to satisfy a growing population, but perhaps not enough new  
people to sustain growing production.

Observers will point out, as shown in the following chart, that global  
population growth rates have been declining since 1970 with no  
apparent ill effects. True, until 2008, I suppose. The fact is that  
since the 1970s we have never really experienced a secular period  
during which the private market could effectively run on its own  
engine without artificial asset price stimulation. The lack of  
population growth was likely a significant factor in the leveraging of  
the developed world’s financial systems and the ballooning of total  
government and private debt as a percentage of GDP from 150% to over  
300% in the United States, for example. Lacking an accelerating  
population base, all developed countries promoted the financing of  
more and more consumption per capita in order to maintain existing GDP  
growth rates. Finally, in the U.S., with consumption at 70% of GDP and  
a household sector deeply in debt, there was nowhere to go but down.  
Similar conditions exist in most developed economies.

The danger today, as opposed to prior deleveraging cycles, is that the  
deleveraging is being attempted into the headwinds of a structural  
demographic downwave as opposed to a decade of substantial population  
growth. Japan is the modern-day example of what deleveraging in the  
face of a slowing and now negatively growing population can do. Prior  
deleveraging periods such as what the U.S. and European economies  
experienced in the 1930s exhibited a similar demographic with the  
lowest levels of fertility in the 20th century and extremely low  
population growth. Things did not go well then. Today’s developed  
economies almost assuredly offer substantially less population growth  
than the 1.5% rate experienced over the prior 50 years. Even when  
viewed from a total global economy perspective, population growth over  
the next 10–20 years will barely exceed 1%.

The preceding analysis does not even begin to discuss the aging of  
this slower-growing population base itself. Japan, Germany, Italy and  
of course the United States, with its boomers moving toward their 60s,  
are getting older year after year. Even China with their previous one  
baby policy faces a similar demographic. And while older people spend  
a larger percentage of their income – that is, they save less and  
eventually dissave – the fact is that they spend far fewer dollars per  
capita than their younger counterparts. No new homes, fewer vacations,  
less emphasis on conspicuous consumption and no new cars every few  
years. Healthcare is their primary concern. These aging trends present  
a one-two negative punch to our New Normal thesis over the next 5–10  
years: fewer new consumers in terms of total population, and a growing  
number of older ones who don’t spend as much money. The combined  
effect will slow economic growth more than otherwise.

PIMCO’s continuing New Normal thesis of deleveraging, reregulation and  
deglobalization produces structural headwinds that lead to lower  
economic growth as well as half-sized asset returns when compared to  
historical averages. The New Normal will not be aided nor abetted by a  
slower-growing population nor by cyclical policy errors that thrust  
Keynesian consumption remedies on a declining consumer base. Current  
deficit spending that seeks to maintain an artificially high  
percentage of consumer spending can be compared to flushing money down  
an economic toilet. Far better to create and mimic other government  
industrial policies aimed at infrastructure, clean energy, more  
relevant education and less costly healthcare services. Until we do,  
policymakers will continue to wave their hands in front of the  
electronic eye – waiting for the flush, waiting for the flush, waiting  
for the flush, with very little success. Try another way, Washington.  
El-Erian, Sachs and other 21st century policy thinkers have a better  
way to push the handle.

William H. Gross
Managing Director