Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the President's "jobs plan" have become background noise to the faltering US economy. Far more interesting are the political shenanigans in Europe attempting mission impossible -- trying to keep most of Europe from defaulting. This steady drumbeat of irrelevance beats on as the Western economies slide into the mud.
Capitalism is now so hamstrung in the Western economies that we will soon be trumpeting 8 % unemployment as full employment. Europe is pretty much used to that already. European countries haven't seen four percent unemployment since Queen Victoria's days and they are not likely to see it again in the future. The US is a tag along.
All of our troubles in the Western world stem from one simple consideration: many people have an insatiable desire to be appear to be "good" people. Appearance is the key here. Really helping people is not the plan.
Look at Buffett. He is complaining that people like him don't pay enough taxes. That problem is easily solved. He can send in more money with his tax return. Then he can pay what he deems his fair share. You think he would do that? Are you kidding? Buffett is just trying to prove that he is a "good" guy. This is all about appearances. Buffett has no intention of paying more in taxes. If he did, he would do it. Nothing prevents Buffett from paying more in taxes right now, except that he doesn't want to pay them. But, he sure wants to BS about how he wants to pay more. Interesting!
Most good ideas that people want to foist on others, such as minimum wage laws, don't affect anyone but poor people. Minimum wage laws simply outlaw certain contractual arrangements because one is poor. That's it....nothing more. Heaven help you if your skill set doesn't merit some liberal's idea of a living wage. You are just flat out of lack. Let them eat cake, one supposes.
And so it goes. Laws passed to help workers invariably end up creating reasons for employers to not have workers. Anytime government favors a group, it makes them toxic to other people and especially toxic to people who make hiring decisions.
Good ideas designed to help people become anchors that prevent people from the having the opportunity to improve their lot. That's why inequality has grown so dramatically in the past several decades. Liberal help has created a situation where the poorest among us have no real upside anymore.
The rich are comfortable which is why virtually every wealthy suburb in America is now represented by some arrogant white liberal. Nancy Pelosi's district isn't full of poor people and Nancy Pelosi is herself among the 1/100 of 1 percent of the richest people in America. Let them eat cake. Thanks Nancy!
These folks bask in self adulation thinking that they are doing good, but what they are really doing is preserving their dominance over folks less fortunate. The welfare state is like a boot on the neck of poor people. They just don't have a chance in this kind of environment.
What the less fortunate among us need is for the government to get out of the way and give them a chance. Asia is giving their citizens a shot. That's why Asia will supplant the West as the dominant economic power within another two generations.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Wall Street Protestors
You just knew that it couldn't be confined to Greece. The US has more than its share of folks that feel entitled and now they are congregating daily on Wall Street. Students, having spent four years boozing it up and studying sociology, now wonder where are the jobs?
Corporate greed, huh? Who owns corporations? Workers mainly...in their pension funds. So, if you can destroy corporations, you are basically destroying the savings and the economic future of the average worker -- union worker, state and local public employee worker, anyone with an IRA. There isn't some rich guy out there that owns Big Oil. The average worker owns Big Oil in his pension fund.
So, we come full circle. The attack on greed is really an attack on the retirement hopes and dreams of the average American. They have been so greedy as to plan for retirement or to work for an employer that provides a pension fund. By all means, lets destroy it in a war on "corporate greed."
We are no longer debating policies; we are now debating "sharing burdens." "Sharing" means I want what is yours. That is sharing. The idea is that we no longer intend to see the pie grow, so let's start cutting the pie up and sharing it. Forget about the idea that America can be a properous and growing country. That's so....Reagan-like.
This is what happens when the highest levels of government no longer have any policy prescriptions other than demonizing rich people. It catches on. Pretty soon rich people are really the middle class and the working classes. They are all greedy when compared to a bunch of students used to cutting classes (which they are doing now), and wondering why the world isn't beating a path to their door.
There isn't much of a labor market for empty political rhetoric. These protestors are going to be out there for a long time. They represent the new normal in the Obama economy.
Corporate greed, huh? Who owns corporations? Workers mainly...in their pension funds. So, if you can destroy corporations, you are basically destroying the savings and the economic future of the average worker -- union worker, state and local public employee worker, anyone with an IRA. There isn't some rich guy out there that owns Big Oil. The average worker owns Big Oil in his pension fund.
So, we come full circle. The attack on greed is really an attack on the retirement hopes and dreams of the average American. They have been so greedy as to plan for retirement or to work for an employer that provides a pension fund. By all means, lets destroy it in a war on "corporate greed."
We are no longer debating policies; we are now debating "sharing burdens." "Sharing" means I want what is yours. That is sharing. The idea is that we no longer intend to see the pie grow, so let's start cutting the pie up and sharing it. Forget about the idea that America can be a properous and growing country. That's so....Reagan-like.
This is what happens when the highest levels of government no longer have any policy prescriptions other than demonizing rich people. It catches on. Pretty soon rich people are really the middle class and the working classes. They are all greedy when compared to a bunch of students used to cutting classes (which they are doing now), and wondering why the world isn't beating a path to their door.
There isn't much of a labor market for empty political rhetoric. These protestors are going to be out there for a long time. They represent the new normal in the Obama economy.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Growing Slowly
The US economy is not going to get much worse. It will improve. But, it won't be like the economy in past years. Why?
Unemployment is here to stay and especially for those in the bottom half of the skill pool. The future will have a permanent unemployed part of the American population. The unemployed will survive by various "safety nets" funded by government. It is hard to see how they will ever be legally employable again in any great numbers.
The absence of work opportunities for the unemployed suggests that their children will be disadvantaged as well, since useful employment will not be a day-to-day feature of these households. The US will have a perpetual underclass, basically created by government fiat.
For the upper middle income and the rich, the "new economy" will seem much as before. Using "outsourcing" and technology, the wealthiest part of America will find a way to get by without the unskilled labor force that once had a home in this economy.
The rags to riches stories will be things of the past. Just as in modern day Europe, economic and social classes will be frozen, economic growth will move along at a snail's pace, and social and economic mobility will come to an end.
This unfortunate future is the result of pricing the low income part of the labor force out of the market. Business just cannot afford them anymore thanks to the blithering array of taxes, mandates, litigation fears. All of these things that government has decided to do to "help" workers, simply makes them toxic to employers. We've gone past the tipping point.
These obstacles that shackle poor folks are not that formidable for high income, highly skilled folks. Their incomes are high enough and their skill sets are high enough that they can still be employed -- at least for now.
One way to see what has happened is to imagine that the minimum wage has been raised to $ 50 per hour. Who then will get a job? Those with the skills that are worth more than $ 50 per hour to the employer. Everybody else is flat out of luck.
This doesn't mean that the economy can't grow. It can and will. Europe has grown and gotten used to the idea of double digit unemployment and a permanent underclass with no social and economic mobility. (Europe arrived at this situation by the simple expedient of passing laws that forbid companies to fire anyone). It has taken the US a bit longer to get to the "creeping stagnation" economy, but we're there now.
As the West slowly trudges along, Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and perhaps even the Arab world have a real chance to take over center stage in the world economy. The West has abdicated. It remains to be seen who will supplant the West -- most likely China and the countries on China's periphery.
All of this is why stocks are probably a pretty good bet. Some companies, indeed many oompanies, will do fine in the world that is coming. There will be growing demand from China, Brazil, India, and the rest of the world for products that the West has long taken for granted. This doesn't mean that stocks won't stumble a bit when the inevitable European sovereign defaults begin. But, the defaults are inevitable and everybody but Tim Geithner knows it. The real stock market bottom has probably already passed, but if hasn't, then wait until Greece, Spain, and Italy default and the German and French banks are nationalized and then buy stocks with a reckless abandon.
Unemployment is here to stay and especially for those in the bottom half of the skill pool. The future will have a permanent unemployed part of the American population. The unemployed will survive by various "safety nets" funded by government. It is hard to see how they will ever be legally employable again in any great numbers.
The absence of work opportunities for the unemployed suggests that their children will be disadvantaged as well, since useful employment will not be a day-to-day feature of these households. The US will have a perpetual underclass, basically created by government fiat.
For the upper middle income and the rich, the "new economy" will seem much as before. Using "outsourcing" and technology, the wealthiest part of America will find a way to get by without the unskilled labor force that once had a home in this economy.
The rags to riches stories will be things of the past. Just as in modern day Europe, economic and social classes will be frozen, economic growth will move along at a snail's pace, and social and economic mobility will come to an end.
This unfortunate future is the result of pricing the low income part of the labor force out of the market. Business just cannot afford them anymore thanks to the blithering array of taxes, mandates, litigation fears. All of these things that government has decided to do to "help" workers, simply makes them toxic to employers. We've gone past the tipping point.
These obstacles that shackle poor folks are not that formidable for high income, highly skilled folks. Their incomes are high enough and their skill sets are high enough that they can still be employed -- at least for now.
One way to see what has happened is to imagine that the minimum wage has been raised to $ 50 per hour. Who then will get a job? Those with the skills that are worth more than $ 50 per hour to the employer. Everybody else is flat out of luck.
This doesn't mean that the economy can't grow. It can and will. Europe has grown and gotten used to the idea of double digit unemployment and a permanent underclass with no social and economic mobility. (Europe arrived at this situation by the simple expedient of passing laws that forbid companies to fire anyone). It has taken the US a bit longer to get to the "creeping stagnation" economy, but we're there now.
As the West slowly trudges along, Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and perhaps even the Arab world have a real chance to take over center stage in the world economy. The West has abdicated. It remains to be seen who will supplant the West -- most likely China and the countries on China's periphery.
All of this is why stocks are probably a pretty good bet. Some companies, indeed many oompanies, will do fine in the world that is coming. There will be growing demand from China, Brazil, India, and the rest of the world for products that the West has long taken for granted. This doesn't mean that stocks won't stumble a bit when the inevitable European sovereign defaults begin. But, the defaults are inevitable and everybody but Tim Geithner knows it. The real stock market bottom has probably already passed, but if hasn't, then wait until Greece, Spain, and Italy default and the German and French banks are nationalized and then buy stocks with a reckless abandon.
Monday, September 26, 2011
A New Wrinkle
The latest scheme out of the European political class is the idea of creating an SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) that will "leverage up" the $ 400 billion fund that had been previously put in place to "stabilize" the sovereign debt crisis. How will this work?
The idea is that you create this SPV (think Fund) and put $ 400 billion into it in the form of equity capital. The SPV then borrows $ 1.2 Trillion from willing bond buyers. That gives you $ 1.6 Trillion to buy up Greek, Spanish, and Italian debt and stave off disaster. So, the theory goes.
So who provides the $ 1.2 trillion in debt capital? That is, who are the willing bond buyers who think investing in a vehicle that buys trash will be a winner? If you thought Wall Street cooked up outrageous schemes, try this one on for size.
This idea will not work. It is not the magic elixir. No one in his right mind would provide the debt financing for this vehicle. The US, no doubt, will volunteer to put money into this. (We love throwing money away). But, the rest of the world will balk at this silly idea. The Chinese will not fall for this.
What this scheme shows is that the politicians still haven't figured out that defaults are inevitable. Only defaults have any real shot of turning the situation around in Europe. Politicians can only make things worse by these kinds of dreams and schemes.
The idea is that you create this SPV (think Fund) and put $ 400 billion into it in the form of equity capital. The SPV then borrows $ 1.2 Trillion from willing bond buyers. That gives you $ 1.6 Trillion to buy up Greek, Spanish, and Italian debt and stave off disaster. So, the theory goes.
So who provides the $ 1.2 trillion in debt capital? That is, who are the willing bond buyers who think investing in a vehicle that buys trash will be a winner? If you thought Wall Street cooked up outrageous schemes, try this one on for size.
This idea will not work. It is not the magic elixir. No one in his right mind would provide the debt financing for this vehicle. The US, no doubt, will volunteer to put money into this. (We love throwing money away). But, the rest of the world will balk at this silly idea. The Chinese will not fall for this.
What this scheme shows is that the politicians still haven't figured out that defaults are inevitable. Only defaults have any real shot of turning the situation around in Europe. Politicians can only make things worse by these kinds of dreams and schemes.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Mind The Gap
The so-called income gap between rich and poor is growing we are told. The rich are "sharing disproportionately" in the economic gains we are told. What does this mean? Should we do something about it? If so, what should we do?
Imagine, that adopting "Policy A" would double the income of the poorest sixty percent of the population, but, at the same time, quadruple the income of the richest forty percent of the population? Suppose that there was simply no other feasible way to double the income of the poorest sixty percent? Would you favor implementing "Policy A?" After all, "Policy A" increases inequality. The dreaded "income gap" widens under "Policy A."
One way to eliminate income inequality -- eliminate the income gap -- is to force the entire citizenry to live at the edge of starvation. This is, more or less, the experiment that the Soviet Union embarked upon in 1917. How did that turn out? The Soviet Union successfully eliminated the "income gap."
Suppose "taxing millionaires and billionaires" meant that unemployment for the rest of us would rise to double digits and stay there for the next thirty years. Is it still worth it, so that we can make "the rich pay their fair share," even if such a policy would guarantee that large numbers of people cannot find jobs?
Why does anyone care about the income gap? The issue is not how to divide a fixed pie after all. The issue is how to grow the pie. Suppose our only concern is with people whose income and wealth puts them in the bottom 50 percent of the pile. It might be necessary to enrich a few folks in order improve the lot of the bottom 50 percent. Who cares if the rich get richer?
Isn't it the right policy to try to improve the lot of the poorest 50 percent of our population regardless of how rich the rest of the folks get? It just might turn out that income inequality is a by-product of improving the lot of the poorest folks in society and that deliberate policies to reduce inequality damage the economic prospects of the poorest half of the population. So, why the interest in the income gap?
What we should be concerned about are policies that improve the economic prospects of the half of the population with the lowest income and least amount of wealth. If improving the prospects of the less fortunate increases income and wealth inequality, so be it.
Imagine, that adopting "Policy A" would double the income of the poorest sixty percent of the population, but, at the same time, quadruple the income of the richest forty percent of the population? Suppose that there was simply no other feasible way to double the income of the poorest sixty percent? Would you favor implementing "Policy A?" After all, "Policy A" increases inequality. The dreaded "income gap" widens under "Policy A."
One way to eliminate income inequality -- eliminate the income gap -- is to force the entire citizenry to live at the edge of starvation. This is, more or less, the experiment that the Soviet Union embarked upon in 1917. How did that turn out? The Soviet Union successfully eliminated the "income gap."
Suppose "taxing millionaires and billionaires" meant that unemployment for the rest of us would rise to double digits and stay there for the next thirty years. Is it still worth it, so that we can make "the rich pay their fair share," even if such a policy would guarantee that large numbers of people cannot find jobs?
Why does anyone care about the income gap? The issue is not how to divide a fixed pie after all. The issue is how to grow the pie. Suppose our only concern is with people whose income and wealth puts them in the bottom 50 percent of the pile. It might be necessary to enrich a few folks in order improve the lot of the bottom 50 percent. Who cares if the rich get richer?
Isn't it the right policy to try to improve the lot of the poorest 50 percent of our population regardless of how rich the rest of the folks get? It just might turn out that income inequality is a by-product of improving the lot of the poorest folks in society and that deliberate policies to reduce inequality damage the economic prospects of the poorest half of the population. So, why the interest in the income gap?
What we should be concerned about are policies that improve the economic prospects of the half of the population with the lowest income and least amount of wealth. If improving the prospects of the less fortunate increases income and wealth inequality, so be it.
Friday, September 23, 2011
If You Want Jobs, The Micro Environment Must Change
The regulatory and litigation environment virtually guarantees that job growth in the US will be anemic for years to come. No macro activities (or short term tax gimmicks) will change the employment picture.
The truth is: employers are scared to expand payrolls. They don't want to get sued; they don't want to take on future health care and retirement liabilities that are limitless; they don't want to deal with all of the extra costs that government has imposed on employers. The motives for all of this employee protection were no doubt noble.
The latest wrinkle is that Obama's "Job's Plan" permits the unemployed to sue a business that has the temerity to hire someone who already has a job elsewhere instead of hiring an unemployed person. Laws like that make employers leave the playing field. Who wants to hire anyone when the very act of taking on a new hire can trigger litigation that can put you out of business? Why can't the Obama folks get this?
Until the micro conditions of the labor market change (and no one is really discussing making these changes), the poor, the minorities, the less-educated have no real future in this economy other than collecting welfare checks and entitlement payments. Working for a living is increasingly not a likely possibility.
Obama and the liberal elite don't get this because they know nothing about hiring and why businesses hire people. None of the Obama people have any experience at all with business or with unemployment.
The Obama folks think that the solution is to have government build roads and patch up airports and transfer money to public employees. That is not the answer. The only people that benefit from stuff like that are highly paid union employees with rich retirement plans and generous health plans. They really don't need the government's help. They are riding high in this economy. Obama and his gang are riding high as well.
But, Americans that are least able to defend themselves -- lower middle income, minorities, the lower-skilled work force -- have no real chance in the economy that Obama and his crowd have created. Businesses are not going to hire employees that are "lawyered up" and ready to sue them. Why should they? The alternative is to outsource and to substitute capital for labor. That will continue.
We need micro changes. Even if the economy grows, the beneficiaries will not be the unemployed. Obama has seen to it that these folks have no real shot.
The truth is: employers are scared to expand payrolls. They don't want to get sued; they don't want to take on future health care and retirement liabilities that are limitless; they don't want to deal with all of the extra costs that government has imposed on employers. The motives for all of this employee protection were no doubt noble.
The latest wrinkle is that Obama's "Job's Plan" permits the unemployed to sue a business that has the temerity to hire someone who already has a job elsewhere instead of hiring an unemployed person. Laws like that make employers leave the playing field. Who wants to hire anyone when the very act of taking on a new hire can trigger litigation that can put you out of business? Why can't the Obama folks get this?
Until the micro conditions of the labor market change (and no one is really discussing making these changes), the poor, the minorities, the less-educated have no real future in this economy other than collecting welfare checks and entitlement payments. Working for a living is increasingly not a likely possibility.
Obama and the liberal elite don't get this because they know nothing about hiring and why businesses hire people. None of the Obama people have any experience at all with business or with unemployment.
The Obama folks think that the solution is to have government build roads and patch up airports and transfer money to public employees. That is not the answer. The only people that benefit from stuff like that are highly paid union employees with rich retirement plans and generous health plans. They really don't need the government's help. They are riding high in this economy. Obama and his gang are riding high as well.
But, Americans that are least able to defend themselves -- lower middle income, minorities, the lower-skilled work force -- have no real chance in the economy that Obama and his crowd have created. Businesses are not going to hire employees that are "lawyered up" and ready to sue them. Why should they? The alternative is to outsource and to substitute capital for labor. That will continue.
We need micro changes. Even if the economy grows, the beneficiaries will not be the unemployed. Obama has seen to it that these folks have no real shot.
So, Why the Selloff?
Other than Obama's new(?) tax plan to tax "millionaires and billionaires," there wasn't much news to point to for an explanation of the nearly 8 percent drop in world equity markets from Tuesday at 2 PM until Thursday afternoon's market close.
Greece is old news and so is the weakness in the American economy. Nothing new on this front was announced prior to the selloff.
The equity markets seem to be stuck in a very wide trading range since early August. If so, the market probably rallies from here. My own guess continues to be that this is buying time for long term investors. This is not a time to be exiting equity markets, but a time to be planting a large foot into these markets.
It is scary. Government policies in western countries have been so absurd for so long that one despairs that things can ever be turned around. But, they can be and, I think, will be. Most Eurozone countries are going to default on their debt and a number of high-profile European banks have no hope of survival. Once these things happen, then we have a real chance for an economic revival.
As long as western politicians think there is some magic and painless solution to the debt crisis that avoids defaults, then economic stagnation will continue. But, the clock is ticking. Defaults will come whether politicians like it or not. The sooner the better.
So, it still makes sense to own equities -- perhaps more now than ever. Markets can see into the future and past unpleasant events. We will get there and get past all of this.
Greece is old news and so is the weakness in the American economy. Nothing new on this front was announced prior to the selloff.
The equity markets seem to be stuck in a very wide trading range since early August. If so, the market probably rallies from here. My own guess continues to be that this is buying time for long term investors. This is not a time to be exiting equity markets, but a time to be planting a large foot into these markets.
It is scary. Government policies in western countries have been so absurd for so long that one despairs that things can ever be turned around. But, they can be and, I think, will be. Most Eurozone countries are going to default on their debt and a number of high-profile European banks have no hope of survival. Once these things happen, then we have a real chance for an economic revival.
As long as western politicians think there is some magic and painless solution to the debt crisis that avoids defaults, then economic stagnation will continue. But, the clock is ticking. Defaults will come whether politicians like it or not. The sooner the better.
So, it still makes sense to own equities -- perhaps more now than ever. Markets can see into the future and past unpleasant events. We will get there and get past all of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)