page-loading-spinner
Home Peak Insiders

Peak Insiders

by Chris Martenson

Executive Summary

  • Why the insolvency hole the U.S. is in may be much deeper than appreciated.
  • Current 'best case' assumptions show us doubling the size of our economy TWICE over the next 75 years. Why that's just not achievable.
  • Why the above assumptions get even worse when the energy story is taken into account.
  • Why action at the individual level is your best bet now.

If you have not yet read Part I: "Endless Growth" Is the Plan & There's No Plan B available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

A Big Hole

When the Treasury Department estimates that the U.S. has a ~$65 trillion NPV (Net Present Value) shortfall in its main accounts, it's saying that using its assumptions, the U.S. government would need to have $65 trillion today in an account, earning a stated rate of interest, in order to be solvent.

Since the U.S. government don't have that have that kind of scratch, it's insolvent. 

But the real picture is likely worse. The Fed calculates the NPV shortfall to be closer to $100 trillion. And if you believe Lawrence Kotlikoff's math, the figure is closer to $200 trillion. Either way $65 trillion, $100 trillion, or $200 trillion the sum cannot be paid.

So it won't be.

And the real trouble is that all of these numbers make the same implicit assumption: The future will more or less resemble the past. That is, some form of future growth exponential future growth of the economy is at the heart of every single calculation.

But we might question that, because somewhere between here and there, economic growth will have to come to an end. Or at least a pronounced deceleration. Why? Quite simply, because the earth is finite.

Now, we might comfort ourselves with the belief that our future date with hard limits is lifetimes away. But when we do, we shortchange ourselves (if we're wrong) and our progeny (if we're right). After all, the time to make an adjustment is when the resources and energy exist to make that change.

And that's now. Or, really, decades ago…

Why Your Own Plan Better Be Different
PREVIEW by Chris Martenson

Executive Summary

  • Why the insolvency hole the U.S. is in may be much deeper than appreciated.
  • Current 'best case' assumptions show us doubling the size of our economy TWICE over the next 75 years. Why that's just not achievable.
  • Why the above assumptions get even worse when the energy story is taken into account.
  • Why action at the individual level is your best bet now.

If you have not yet read Part I: "Endless Growth" Is the Plan & There's No Plan B available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

A Big Hole

When the Treasury Department estimates that the U.S. has a ~$65 trillion NPV (Net Present Value) shortfall in its main accounts, it's saying that using its assumptions, the U.S. government would need to have $65 trillion today in an account, earning a stated rate of interest, in order to be solvent.

Since the U.S. government don't have that have that kind of scratch, it's insolvent. 

But the real picture is likely worse. The Fed calculates the NPV shortfall to be closer to $100 trillion. And if you believe Lawrence Kotlikoff's math, the figure is closer to $200 trillion. Either way $65 trillion, $100 trillion, or $200 trillion the sum cannot be paid.

So it won't be.

And the real trouble is that all of these numbers make the same implicit assumption: The future will more or less resemble the past. That is, some form of future growth exponential future growth of the economy is at the heart of every single calculation.

But we might question that, because somewhere between here and there, economic growth will have to come to an end. Or at least a pronounced deceleration. Why? Quite simply, because the earth is finite.

Now, we might comfort ourselves with the belief that our future date with hard limits is lifetimes away. But when we do, we shortchange ourselves (if we're wrong) and our progeny (if we're right). After all, the time to make an adjustment is when the resources and energy exist to make that change.

And that's now. Or, really, decades ago…

by charleshughsmith

Executive Summary

  • Will profit-chasing bring corporate capital back to the U.S.?
  • China's dwindling T-bill leverage
  • The decline of dependence on Mid-East oil
  • Autarky may be the best investment for the U.S. (and similar nations)

If you have not yet read Part I: What If Nations Were Less Dependent on Another? available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

In Part I, we sketched out a framework for evaluating the trade-offs implicit in autarky; i.e., national self-sufficiency.  In Part II, we’ll explore a few potential ramifications of America’s declining consumption of energy and increasing ability to replace foreign-supplied capital, resources, energy, and expertise with domestic sources.

The core issue of autarky boils down to: What are the risks and costs of exposing the nation to the vulnerabilities of dependence for the convenience and profitability of remaining dependent on foreign providers?

Of the potential consequences, let’s focus on several high-visibility possibilities:

  1. China’s ownership of U.S. Treasury bonds possibly giving it leverage that amounts to blackmail-type veto power over U.S. policies.
     
  2. The dependence of U.S. corporations on foreign sales and the weak dollar for profits
     
  3. The decline of oil imports changing the calculation of U.S. interests in the Middle East and other oil-exporting regions

Profits as Priority

As I have often noted, the stupendous profitability of U.S.-based corporations is largely the result of non-U.S. sales and the profits reaped from a weak U.S. dollar.  When the euro was at parity to the dollar a decade ago (1 euro = $1), U.S. corporations reaped $1 of profit on every euro of profit gained from sales in the European Union. Now the same one euro in profit generates an additional 35% in dollar-denominated profits due to the exchange rate.

I have also noted that the enormous importation of goods made in China has generated remarkable profit margins for U.S. corporations such as Apple, while the Chinese suppliers are eking out net profits in the 1% to 2% range for the privilege of manufacturing goods that generate gross margins of 50% to 60% for U.S. corporations.

In other words, the Chinese did not impose this trade on U.S. companies the U.S.-based corporations extracted maximum yield on capital invested by moving production to China, not just in terms of lowering manufacturing costs but also in the enhanced proximity to the world’s great consumer-profit opportunities in developing Asian nations.

In other words, while other nations may focus on self-sufficiency, the American priority is profitability and maximizing return on capital invested. If and when profitability is threatened, capital pulls up stakes and relocates to whatever locale makes the best financial sense.

That the locale that makes the best financial sense is the U.S. is a new thought for many…

The Consequences of American Autarky
PREVIEW by charleshughsmith

Executive Summary

  • Will profit-chasing bring corporate capital back to the U.S.?
  • China's dwindling T-bill leverage
  • The decline of dependence on Mid-East oil
  • Autarky may be the best investment for the U.S. (and similar nations)

If you have not yet read Part I: What If Nations Were Less Dependent on Another? available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

In Part I, we sketched out a framework for evaluating the trade-offs implicit in autarky; i.e., national self-sufficiency.  In Part II, we’ll explore a few potential ramifications of America’s declining consumption of energy and increasing ability to replace foreign-supplied capital, resources, energy, and expertise with domestic sources.

The core issue of autarky boils down to: What are the risks and costs of exposing the nation to the vulnerabilities of dependence for the convenience and profitability of remaining dependent on foreign providers?

Of the potential consequences, let’s focus on several high-visibility possibilities:

  1. China’s ownership of U.S. Treasury bonds possibly giving it leverage that amounts to blackmail-type veto power over U.S. policies.
     
  2. The dependence of U.S. corporations on foreign sales and the weak dollar for profits
     
  3. The decline of oil imports changing the calculation of U.S. interests in the Middle East and other oil-exporting regions

Profits as Priority

As I have often noted, the stupendous profitability of U.S.-based corporations is largely the result of non-U.S. sales and the profits reaped from a weak U.S. dollar.  When the euro was at parity to the dollar a decade ago (1 euro = $1), U.S. corporations reaped $1 of profit on every euro of profit gained from sales in the European Union. Now the same one euro in profit generates an additional 35% in dollar-denominated profits due to the exchange rate.

I have also noted that the enormous importation of goods made in China has generated remarkable profit margins for U.S. corporations such as Apple, while the Chinese suppliers are eking out net profits in the 1% to 2% range for the privilege of manufacturing goods that generate gross margins of 50% to 60% for U.S. corporations.

In other words, the Chinese did not impose this trade on U.S. companies the U.S.-based corporations extracted maximum yield on capital invested by moving production to China, not just in terms of lowering manufacturing costs but also in the enhanced proximity to the world’s great consumer-profit opportunities in developing Asian nations.

In other words, while other nations may focus on self-sufficiency, the American priority is profitability and maximizing return on capital invested. If and when profitability is threatened, capital pulls up stakes and relocates to whatever locale makes the best financial sense.

That the locale that makes the best financial sense is the U.S. is a new thought for many…

by JHK

Executive Summary

  • The case for a regional fracturing of the US
  • Why the balance of power will shift from the Federal government to local seats
  • How each US region will likely fare during this transition, given their idiosyncrasies
  • Why chaos will trump order moving forward

If you have not yet read Part I of The Disenchantment of American Politics, available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

The last time the USA faced a comparable political convulsion was the decade leading into the Civil War, but this time it will be more complex and confusing and it will have a different ending.

A Preview of What's to Come?

In the 1850s, the dominant Whig party choked to death on its own internal contradictions — mainly its failure to take a coherent position on slavery — and morphed into the Republican Party. The original Democratic Party broke apart into southern and northern factions. All of the doctrinal and legal debates of the day — states’ rights, property rights, et cet. — could not overcome the growing moral revulsion against human bondage. When Lincoln was elected in 1860, seven southern slave states seceded from the Union before his inauguration. The ferocity of the ensuing Civil War — the world’s first industrial-strength slaughterfest — came as a great shock to many who had expected little more than a few symbolic romantic skirmishes on horseback preceding a negotiated settlement.

I believe we are headed now into a breakup of the nation into smaller units, but this time there will be no reconstituting the original USA as in 1865. I realize this is a severe view, but the circumstances we face are more severe than the public seems to imagine. To some degree the coming political rearrangement would appear to be the unfinished business of the 1860s. The old animosities remain, mainly in cultural rather than economic terms. But the real driving force of schism will be catabolic economic collapse expressing itself in scale reduction of all our support systems: food production, energy production, transportation, finance, commerce, and governance. Everything is going to have to get smaller, get more local, and be run differently. Just as political rhetoric failed to contain the revulsion against slavery, all the debates of the Left and Right in our time will not overcome the geophysical limits of energy resource scarcity and its affect on the other major systems of everyday life. Environmental degradation (including climate change) will amplify the journey downward in the viable scale of human operations…

Get Ready For Strange Days
PREVIEW by JHK

Executive Summary

  • The case for a regional fracturing of the US
  • Why the balance of power will shift from the Federal government to local seats
  • How each US region will likely fare during this transition, given their idiosyncrasies
  • Why chaos will trump order moving forward

If you have not yet read Part I of The Disenchantment of American Politics, available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

The last time the USA faced a comparable political convulsion was the decade leading into the Civil War, but this time it will be more complex and confusing and it will have a different ending.

A Preview of What's to Come?

In the 1850s, the dominant Whig party choked to death on its own internal contradictions — mainly its failure to take a coherent position on slavery — and morphed into the Republican Party. The original Democratic Party broke apart into southern and northern factions. All of the doctrinal and legal debates of the day — states’ rights, property rights, et cet. — could not overcome the growing moral revulsion against human bondage. When Lincoln was elected in 1860, seven southern slave states seceded from the Union before his inauguration. The ferocity of the ensuing Civil War — the world’s first industrial-strength slaughterfest — came as a great shock to many who had expected little more than a few symbolic romantic skirmishes on horseback preceding a negotiated settlement.

I believe we are headed now into a breakup of the nation into smaller units, but this time there will be no reconstituting the original USA as in 1865. I realize this is a severe view, but the circumstances we face are more severe than the public seems to imagine. To some degree the coming political rearrangement would appear to be the unfinished business of the 1860s. The old animosities remain, mainly in cultural rather than economic terms. But the real driving force of schism will be catabolic economic collapse expressing itself in scale reduction of all our support systems: food production, energy production, transportation, finance, commerce, and governance. Everything is going to have to get smaller, get more local, and be run differently. Just as political rhetoric failed to contain the revulsion against slavery, all the debates of the Left and Right in our time will not overcome the geophysical limits of energy resource scarcity and its affect on the other major systems of everyday life. Environmental degradation (including climate change) will amplify the journey downward in the viable scale of human operations…

Total 1761 items