BNET Insight

BNET Intercom

News and observations from the BNET staff

Predicting the Next Bubble

September 10th, 2009 @ 9:04 am

20 Comments

Categories: BNET, Green Business, International Business, Strategy, economy

Tags: Alan Greenspan, Bubble, Business Insider, Investment, Insurance, Finance, Business Operations, Corporate Insurance, Stefan Deeran

We will never really know how much the Federal Reserve’s policies alter markets, considering that news organizations like Fox have met legal resistance as they try to check the bank’s books on the public’s behalf.  Right now it’s an academic question as to whether the recent bailouts will cause the next bubble.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, for his part, won’t accept any responsibility for the financial crisis.  That’s because he thinks human beings have an “unquenchable capability” to think the good times will last and always “take speculative excesses” during times of prosperity.

“Unless somebody can find a way to change human nature, we will have more crises and none of them will look like this because no two crises have anything in common, except human nature,” Greenspan argued in a recent interview with the BBC.

So what are the leading candidates for the next bubble? Business Insider has offered its top ten. Here are a handful for them, listed below and edited down for length:

  • The China Bubble: Many believe the [Chinese stock market's] rally has been driven purely by government-supplied liquidity, rather than fundamentals.
  • The Green Bubble: As the economic recovery takes shape, alternative energy could see excess investment on hopes of big future returns.
  • The Gold Bubble: With some predicting a doubling of prices to $2,000 an ounce, too many people could jump in and spike the real value of the precious metal.
  • The Trash Stock Bubble: Shares of junk financials — companies like Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Citi and Bank of America — are being pushed up by a short squeeze.
  • The Education Bubble: Last year, the amount borrowed by students and received by schools grew some 25% over the previous year, to $75.1 billion. [Yet] as many as one-third of all private colleges surveyed said they expected enrollment to drop in the next academic year.
  • The Life Insurance Securitization Bubble: Wall Street is planning on securitizing “life settlements” — policies that the sick and elderly can sell for cash while they’re alive — much like it did subprime mortgages.

Where do you think the next economic bubble will arise?  Share your predictions in the comments section below.

Stefan Deeran consults environmental advocacy groups and businesses on their sustainability strategies and communications plans. He also publishes the online newsmagazine the Exception.
 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    jenneelewis

    09/10/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    I think insurance will be hit soon enough - and it must.

    Actually, I just came here to ask - are people really still listening to Greenspan? The man who didn't see this coming? Who was surprised?

  •  
    2

    t_in_canberra

    09/10/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Everyone would agree that centrally planned economies such as the former USSR and North Korea are a DISASTER.

    In America we have the Fed CENTRALLY PLANNING the price of credit (interest rate).

    The free market should be determining interest rates. What SHOULD happen is that savers loan out their capital (provide credit) at rates SAVERS believe are reasonable.

    Instead the Fed is pumping out freshly printed toilet paper at zero percent, which is clearly NOT a free market transaction (anyone who disagrees, please give me a loan of $10,000 at 0%).

    The cause of America's financial problems is the Fed interfering with the free market.

  •  
    3

    dbmallia

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    I certainly do not share Alan Greenspan's view that human nature gives rise to crises. It is rather the monetary system now in place and how it is regulated that does so. In fact, today's monetary regulation in most countries is based on postulates that are preposterous. These are then shrouded in parametric math so as to disguise their infirmity and meted out to the common people as unchallengeable dogma.

    t_in_canberra is right in saying that centrally-planned economies were disastrous (although there is no way of knowing whether central planning itself or something else gave rise to the disaster). However, liberalisation does not always work. Money is a special case because of its innate requirement for it to be a medium of exchange. If a medium of exchange is not universal (and if deregulation and liberalisation had to be introduced in monetary affairs, this is where we would end) then initially we would be back to barter. After some time, a spontaneous order might emerge where someone who is strong enough to gain the trust of the masses would be able to produce and 'impose' his money. This would give that someone the power to debase the currency (or to print more money, which is to the same effect) in order for him/her to command more resources. This is exactly what governments are doing now because they are basing their actions on theories that have been disproved in both the theoretical and the empirical worlds.

    The 'free-market is better' notion is also flawed. The reason lies in the history of economic thought. Very briefly, economics started off as an exercise to apply classical physics methods to society. Accordingly, the neo-classical economists got fixated with the prevailing idea of the time that revolved around Lyapunov-style stable equilibria. This notion subsequently got rejected in physics, but it stuck in economics.

    If you assume that the market naturally tends to efficient equilibria, then any intervention by government or anyone else just serves to derail or prolong the market from reaching the efficient equilibrium. This is, in the real world, unwarranted and exists in economics only by way of assumption. So I guess that arguing for a free market in finance or monetary affairs might be a recipe for an even bigger disaster.

  •  
    4

    dbmallia

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    I certainly do not share Alan Greenspan's view that human nature gives rise to crises. It is rather the monetary system now in place and how it is regulated that does so. In fact, today's monetary regulation in most countries is based on postulates that are preposterous. These are then shrouded in parametric math so as to disguise their infirmity and meted out to the common people as unchallengeable dogma.

    t_in_canberra is right in saying that centrally-planned economies were disastrous (although there is no way of knowing whether central planning itself or something else gave rise to the disaster). However, liberalisation does not always work. Money is a special case because of its innate requirement for it to be a medium of exchange. If a medium of exchange is not universal (and if deregulation and liberalisation had to be introduced in monetary affairs, this is where we would end) then initially we would be back to barter. After some time, a spontaneous order might emerge where someone who is strong enough to gain the trust of the masses would be able to produce and 'impose' his money. This would give that someone the power to debase the currency (or to print more money, which is to the same effect) in order for him/her to command more resources. This is exactly what governments are doing now because they are basing their actions on theories that have been disproved in both the theoretical and the empirical worlds.

    The 'free-market is better' notion is also flawed. The reason lies in the history of economic thought. Very briefly, economics started off as an exercise to apply classical physics methods to society. Accordingly, the neo-classical economists got fixated with the prevailing idea of the time that revolved around Lyapunov-style stable equilibria. This notion subsequently got rejected in physics, but it stuck in economics.

    If you assume that the market naturally tends to efficient equilibria, then any intervention by government or anyone else just serves to derail or prolong the market from reaching the efficient equilibrium. This is, in the real world, unwarranted and exists in economics only by way of assumption. So I guess that arguing for a free market in finance or monetary affairs might be a recipe for an even bigger disaster.

  •  
    5

    dmrdano

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Greenspan may be wrong about many things, but he is absolutely right that human nature is the most important factor in the whole matter. Only economic systems that admit to man's innate selfishness work, albeit unevenly and often unfairly.

    Communism (and it's little brother socialism) does not work because it thinks most people will still make a heroic contribution to society, even if there is no direct connection between what they do and what they get. Altruism really only works on those who have their basic needs met and still have some margin left over, i.e. the "rich." Society has a mechanism to keep selfishness from totally destroying the world; it encourages the wealthy to donate generously to the needs of others and socially punishes those who do not. Thus, most really rich people have "foundations" for philanthropy. But if you start to confiscate the margin from the wealthy, then that is all they will contribute, and that begrudgingly.

    Liberalism fails because it assumes everyone is good; capitalism works because it acknowledges the innate self-centeredness of man and rewards behaviors that benefit the individual and then the wider society.

    By the way, I challenge liberals often to tell me 5 ways in which a rich person takes advantage of his or her wealth without also enriching a poorer person in the process. I do not get many answers. Someone has to build that mansion.

  •  
    6

    Brett11

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    5 Ways The Rich Often DO NOT Help Others - But Hurt Society

    This is in response to dmrdano's comments condemning liberalism and praising capitalism as the solution to humanity's woes:

    There have been thousands of books written about the negative impact of greed and materialism and the dangers of excessive surpluses (capital), but I'll list the top 6 that come to mind:

    1. Excessive wealth leads to excessive consumption of natural resources. The focus on profits results in a distorted view of the environment, resource extraction, and a blissful ignorance of the effects of their wealth production: pollution, waste, and hazardous materials.

    2. The super-rich, like the corporations which serve as the vehicle for their wealth, insulate themselves from risk and liability, through insurance and corporate shields. This occurred through false interpretations of law, primarily the 14th amendment which was inappropriately applied to corporations and giving them all the rights of a person, without any liability. They are able to heavily insure themselves and their property, with their assets actually protected by the masses of middle class people paying premiums.

    3. The super-rich contribute heavily to political campaigns, and then get unfair and unequal access to legislators. Bills are passsed which directly benefit the super-rich at the expense of middle-class taxpayers. Do I really need to spell this out in detail? Wall Street bailouts that results in $33 BILLION in bonuses to financial institutions that the FREE MARKET would have let implode. The rich are AGAINST the FREE MARKET! Its a complete ruse, perpetuated by the super rich, that they want transparency and a level playing field. That's the last thing they want ... the super-rich want less competition, the ability to monopolize supplies and pricing, they want no regulation so they can use false and misleading advertising claims, they want collusion to keep prices artificially inflated, etc.

    4. The super-rich shelter their income and do not pay their fair share of taxes. They use their wealth to hire lawyers and take their assets overseas into unreported accounts and tax havens. Their enormous wealth gives them the clout to ignore the IRS through layers of shell companies and foreign corporations and bizarre accounting maneuvers.

    5. The rich, like most corporations, EXTERNALIZE THE COSTS of doing business, and externalize the costs of their own private and personal lives. Corporations do not truly factor in the pollution they produce, the lives they disrupt when downsizing, the impact of their resource extraction, the need for a taxpayer-funded infrastructure to allow the business to produce and distribute its goods. Taxpayers, mainly lower and middle class people, subsidize these costs, allowing RICH SHAREHOLDERS to simply pocket the extra profit. The super rich do the same thing with their personal lives .... they are able to WRITE-OFF TAX DEDUCTIONS for 2nd homes, boats (using legislation they hand wrote themselves), travel, meals and entertainment, etc which again actually STEALS MONEY from taxpayers and lines the pockets of the wealthy.

    6. The rich often focus on ostentatious displays of wealth, promoting conspicuous consumption, and promote a society based on consumerism, environmental degradation, societal inequity, and corrupt moral values. Greed is good, as Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street famously uttered. What's good for GM is good for the country ... more famous quotes. The list of these belief statements goes on forever. The super-rich often pretend to be religious in order to gain some false morality and to be viewed as righteous and ethical ... so they go to church on Sunday, but on Monday order their Midwestern factory to close and to produce all their parts in China in a sweatshop paying people $1/day. Slavery was (and still is) a result of the super-rich justifying whatever it takes to produce a profit.

    Jesus was a liberal, and so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR. So was Martin Luther King, and numerous other people who see that people unrestrained by law or society, will typically run amok with greed and lies and outside the boundaries of the law in order to amass more wealth and power. Government is NEEDED to assure that there is some balance of power between the super-rich, and the people who actually work the farms, build the products, cut people's hair, serve them food in restaurants, etc.

    That's also why intelligent, thoughtful people have INHERITANCE TAXES in place. Our forefathers recognized that in Europe, dynasties of wealthy families pass down accumulated wealth over generations, and it will build to the point where they have nearly unlimited power and influence in all areas of society, and the people who wield this power DID NOT EARN IT nor WORK FOR IT ... they simply got it because of their DNA and the womb that they came out of. Many of the people who come from inherited weatlh are dangerous narcissists who can cause havoc for other people and for the planet as a whole. The super-rich create FALSE LANGUAGE CONCEPTS in order to brainwash the masses into adopting their self-serving policies: thus they changed the concept of inheritance taxes to the term "death taxes" in order to frighten and startle the middle class into thinking that their children will not receive any money from all their hard work.

    The super-rich can do good in the world, they can help bring about more prosperity, and there are morally upright, ethical super-rich people in the world ... its just that they're in the minority. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Its takes an extraordinary person to withstand the human frailities of greed and excessive ambition once they have tasted the addictive drug of ultra-wealth.

  •  
    7

    hutchiej

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    In fact, all bubbles start with an invention of some sort. So I thought to myself what discovery catapulted the 2000s. Working in technology myself, it didn't take long to source one single player among the culprits. The Mosaic graphical web browser in 1993. At the time it created links to web pages over the Internet. (linking TCP, IP,FTP, HTML, URL). So how did that create the wealth of the roaring 2000s? Because without that discovery websites wouldn't exist. And that my friend is where all the new economy business was generated. So what has all of this taught us about bubbles? Two things. 1.) A discovery. 2.) Supported by firms financing in the trillions. And what I prose is this. I already see the signs of a new sector gearing up and growing as we recover from the fallout of the early 2000s. As I read through the paper's, I ask myself, what is the most popular sector on the minds of not only people but politicians? Even the election is gearing up toward an all out war on it's policy. Like the technology industry of the 2000s legislation is creating favorable tax treatment and certain protections for investors alike. And just like the 2000s it's creating a stir on wall street. And that industry is alternative energy. If you look closely around you more energy-efficient products are being developed, new resources from solar to geothermal power. And you better believe Venture Capitalists have the eye on the prize. One firm I know is dipping deep, Kleiner Perkins are to oversee the "climate change solutions group" lending credibility when it's alternative energy investments go public. Yes, this is the same venture firm that that gave birth to Amazon and the juggernaut Google. In the ERP/CRM software arena we have "energy management" management software already being created. This will give birth to new companies and new jobs. So with that the cycle starts itself over. The bubble cycle has replaced the business cycle. Believe me, as big government contractors flee the market in Iraq opportunity may abound in infrastructure upgrades domestically. That is, the infrastructure to the new new bubble in transportation, communication, water, and power. Here we go again.

  •  
    8

    dmrdano

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Brett11,

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. To be clear, I actually agree with most of what you say, and I do not write in praise of greed. I only say that people will not generally contribute much to society without a certain amount of self-interest. I do not like it, but it is a fact of life. I spend a lot of my time working to convince people to be more other-centered, but an approach to solving the world's problems that is based on humanism/idealism is destined for failure. Again, thanks for the response. People who disagree with you are helpful.

  •  
    9

    hutchiej

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    And one more thought.....greed was brought up on this forum...

    When you think about it the constitution was formed on philosophical assumption that human nature is intrinsically evil; therefore, the checks and balances between the executive, congressional and judicial branches of government. When the moral structure collapses this is when abuses occur. "Let freedom ring" is not a moral system. Freedom without a transcendental moral system will eventually give way to tyranny, because society cannot tolerate chaos. Look at Rome one of the most brilliant society's of all time, however, Rome didn't fall because a lack of military strength, rather, moral compromise. This is a human condition. I?m talking about principle morality not the kind most people think. If corporate heads don?t recognize the importance of this then man will always gravitate toward evil. History proves this: The savings and loans scandals, insider trading, Dot.com collapse, accounting scandals, and the subprime crisis. Greed is rooted in the human heart.

  •  
    10

    dmrdano

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Hutchiej,

    True. Whether you believe man is basically good or basically bad, you would have to agree that greed that goes unchecked results in the terrible conditions described by our friend Brett11. I believe left to his own devices, human nature is such that most people will go well beyond the (necessary and reasonable) self-interest to the kinds of obscene greed I am sure all three of us deplore.

  •  
    11

    Brett11

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Thank you, dmrdano, for your kind words. I agree with what you and hutchiej have added to the dialogue. A civil discussion .... what a concept!

    We are faulty creatures by nature, partly due to the fact that we have to eat other living beings to stay alive puts us front and center in the fight to stay alive amidst scarce natural resources. Ugh - Econ 101 raises its ugly head! Hey, is there an Evolutionary Biologist out there? How about a Social Darwinist? Lots of multidisciplinary fields that are studying human nature in different contexts: biological, evolutionary, economic ... and of course moral/ethical/spiritual.

    I think I need a beer right now! (Produced by a local microbrewery, of course! Ha ha)

  •  
    12

    hutchiej

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Here's to the evolutionary spirt! Good discussion Brett11 and dmrdano.

    p.s. That beer sounds about right!ha!

  •  
    13

    hutchiej

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Ouch! Spelling! sorry that is "spirit "....:)

  •  
    14

    chaseair

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Brett11
    That is a fine bit of communist, liberal babble.

  •  
    15

    chaseair

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Shall we trade corporate greed for government power monger greed?

    Who are these angels that are to rule over the masses that are unqualified to rule themselves?

  •  
    16

    aeschylus

    09/11/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predictin the Next Bubble

    I concur! If by regulation you liberals mean governement agencies like the SEC, we are all in trouble. I don't agree with the way Wall Street has behaved recently. However, Unions have much more sway and who do they represent? Tax me all you want but you better use my money as a voucher for a private organization to regulate.

  •  
    17

    1261943

    09/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    To brett1 above: Thank you Thank you Thank you! You've got it off my chest and I breath easy knowing there are real people who see what I see and been seeing. You ahve nailed the problem down perfectlya nd didn't even touch deep enough, like CEO's salaries and compensation, quality of products, 2-week vacations for 52 weeks of labor...etc. Decent hard working people Unite! You don't have to rise, but UNITE!

  •  
    18

    dbmallia

    09/13/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Guys,

    You have hit the nail on the head and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through your posts.

    However, I would like to add that the monetary system in place today in most 'advanced' countries intrinsically metes out such incentives.

    It is a system that promotes, rewards and reinforces some of man's most basic traits. These were eloquently delineated by Jiddu Krishnamurti, and they apply now as they did then.

    Krishnamurti spoke thus:
    "The crisis is a crisis in consciousness, a crisis that cannot anymore accept the old norms, the old patterns, the ancient traditions.

    And considering what the world is now with all their misery conflict, destructive brutality, aggression, and so on, man is still as he was: is still brutal, violent, aggressive, acquisitive, competitive, and he has built a society along these lines".

  •  
    19

    Ian P

    09/14/09 | Report as spam

    Can we get back to the exam question please?

    Undoubtedly the next bubble has already started to expand and is picking up speed with frightening intensity.
    Rare Earth metals such as Neodymium, Ytrium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Cerium, Thulium, Europium, Lutetium, Lanthanum and Samarium have all moved from fully available to critically short in a matter on months with astonishing rises in price to compensate.
    My business depends on these to varying degrees.
    This shortage is caused by the principal supplier, China, unofficially restricting exports prior to an official ban it is debating at the moment.
    The west has come to depend on Chinese exports and has virtually eliminated all its domestic production. Closing mines and refineries on a large scale.
    Restarting these facilities will be expensive and take upwards of three years.
    In the meantime, watch prices hit the moon. These metals are fundamental to many of the technology leaps we have seen in recent years and a shortage of them will lead to a shortage of say, electrical motors for washing machines, high power batteries and even some medecines whose production depends the availability of the rare earths.

    Possibly the only way to counter this bubble, which is a real threat to western economies is to start to hurt the Chinese by restricting or denying imports of anything made in China.

    Their move is a gambit to hurt the big western economies hard at a time when they are fragile. However China is itself now very dependent on US and European wealth. Asia and Africa are relatively poor markets and internal growth in China is not enough to create the wealth that China needs.

    However if you prefer to ride the next bubble rather than fight it, invest in rare earth metals - if you can find someone with something real to sell

  •  
    20

    dmrdano

    09/14/09 | Report as spam

    RE: Predicting the Next Bubble

    Also returning to the question, I agree with Ian P that some of the rare earth metals will be an issue, but so will some of the more well-known ones. Gold and silver are being run up on the basis of fear, but they also have many industrial purposes for which they are the best choice. Even after the dust has settled from the speculators, they will still be high and could have room for further decline. Also, plain old iron still has a big market. China is buying up mines outside of their borders for use in their products, and they do not share well. It will be interesting to see if they cut some of the exports of rare earth metals and more common metals in the face of the tire tarriff decision.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement