Main Menu

I used to subscribe to a number of investment newsletters, but I found that I was confused by the different messages that I was getting from some of them.  What also did not help, as I note elsewhere on this website, was that I had studied some economics in college in an effort to get a better handle on what was going on in the world - only to discover that not all of what I had learned made sense to me when I tried to apply it in the real world. 

But I also started getting advertisements for newsletters that espoused alternative ideas and methods - and I decided to subscribe to some of those, as well.  Eventually, over the course of years, I came to realize that only the alternative methods seemed to have any merit at least in the long run, that is to say, were in a position to consistently make money over the course of decades (which explained, in my opinion, some of the confusing messages from some of the other letters over the course of time) - but even with regard to that, I was confused for a while because even the alternative methods did not (fully) explain why the stock market was soaring in the late 1990's. 

I did realize that the Fed was pumping more and more money into the economy at that time - but I was trying to figure out why there was no major inflation in the economy.  I had to completely let go of what I learned in college and fully embrace the alternative methods before I finally figured it out.  After thinking about it and thinking about it and thinking about it, I finally realized that something that Mr. Kondratieff could not have anticipated was happening, and his wave was being extended as a result!  During the stagnation phase - the 1970's in our case - new money goes into consumer prices.  But two key characteristics of the plateau phase, which started in the early 1980's in our case, are that economic growth is lower than during the growth phase (which ended at the end of the 1960's in our case), but the stock market goes higher.  Then it hit me - the key is that during the stagnation phase, new money goes into consumer prices, but during the plateau phase, at least most new money goes into the stock market!  We were having record pumping of new money into the system in the late 1990's, and that is why the stock market was soaring, the record money-pumping was going into the stock market, causing it to soar, ultimately even into an exponential by the end of the 1990's. 

There was one mystery left to solve as a result of the stock market exponential - why did Greenspan do that, even helping it along in the fall of 1998 despite his "irrational exuberance" comment a couple of years earlier at the end of 1996?  I knew that Greenspan was a smart man and had studied math extensively, he was not stupid enough (in the context of having studied math extensively) to think that an exponential was a good thing, so why did he do it? 

I got my answer in the summer of 2001 - when Greenspan had again been supporting the stock market heavily, this time even in the wake of the stock market exponential!  I was thoroughly confused by then - so I decided to try to find out why what was happening was happening.  The internet had been available for a while by then, so I decided to see if the Fed had a website.  It did - but that did not tell me much, so I signed up for notification e-mails.  Not long after, I got a notification for the "Semi-annual report to Congress, formerly known as the Humphrey-Hawkins testimony."  I wanted to know why it was "formerly" known as the Humphrey-Hawkins testimony, so I tried an internet search on that.  Bingo!  I had my answer almost immediately - Congress passed a law in 1978, called Humphrey-Hawkins, effectively banning recessions and tasking the Federal Reserve with making that happen!  That is why Greenspan had been doing what he had been doing over the past few years before then.  But the information also said that the law expired in 2000 - which explained why the testimony was "formerly" called Humphrey-Hawkins.  But that did not explain why the Fed was still enforcing the law.  Other information I got that day told me that in 2000, when the law expired, the authorities in the system at that time decided that they liked the results of the enforcement of the law up to that time so much that they decided to continue to enforce it as if it had never expired - and that is what they have been doing. 

But I had come to realize some years before that the Kondratieff wave is a natural cycle in capitalistic societies that cannot be overcome - and so I realized that if the authorities did, indeed, manage to save the economy in the early 2000's, which they did, then it was nearly completely guaranteed that when the next big down cycle was due in 2007-2010, the imbalances in the economy would have become so great by then that whatever was going on then would overwhelm the Fed and there would be a huge financial AND economic downturn.  That is what happened. 

And it goes beyond that.  I knew that if this happened, the imbalances would be so great (and they are) that there would be no way the Fed was going to fully get control back - which meant that the stock market would return to trading the way it normally does during a downturn, namely, down-up-down.  The up part would be a technically-classic large bear market bounce - which it has been, which includes the fact that is was misinterpreted as a new bull market by most people (because of its large size).  The next major move to come, in terms of sheer number of points in the stock indexes, is the next big economic downturn, which unfortunately is destined to be much worse in terms of its impact than the first one (2008-2009), and that is why I put up this website, in the hope that I might be able to save some people from the fate of being nailed by the consequences of that. 

By the way, the law against recessions is also the explanation for why Greenspan blasted the market back up in the fall of 1998 even in the wake of an "irrational exuberance" comment a couple of years earlier.  It turns out - I found this out from the internet after I found out about the law against recessions - that he was trying to talk the market back down at the end of 1996.  But when he did not act on that right away, the traders concluded after a day or two or three that he was not serious and continued to bid the stock market up.  Greenspan realized at that point - and I think he was right about that - that the only way he was actually going to be able to cut out the irrational exuberance was to raise interest rates enough to cause a recession (thereby putting a damper on the traders) - but that was not allowed (the law against recessions), so he decided to just let the situation run and deal with the consequences later, trying to ensure that there would be no recession in the wake of the stock market exponential. 

That is why we are in the position that we are in these days.  It is, unfortunately, mathematically impossible to have fully positive circumstances coming out of an exponential (due to the inherent nature of an exponential - what it does to the system that it happens in; I know this because of my background in the field that my degree is in, electronics engineering), so it is not possible to have a new bull market coming out of an exponential (or even for quite a long time after that), and in fact, the "bull market" in the mid-2000's was a large bear market bounce, probably the biggest one ever because of the continued enforcement of the law against recessions and how high the stock market had gotten in the meantime, before already, during the bull market, and the "bull market" since March 2009 is also a bear market bounce, destined to be smaller in both price and time than the one in the mid-2000's (we have been in a bear market since early 2000), and we are destined to head into a big new downturn after that.