Why everything sucks since the Great Recession: Real GDP in the 18 years since 2007 has been growing at a compound annual rate of just 2.004%

 The compound annual growth rate before that, for the 60 years from 1947 to 2007, was 3.469%.

We're doing 42% worse.

It's uncanny.

 

 

If 42% of your wealth comes from the stock market, YOU ARE AN IDIOT and deserve everything that's coming to you

 The is-is-ought fallacy in action.

In today’s environment, the notion that the stock market isn’t the economy doesn’t hold up anymore :

“In the last 20 years, we’ve had a financial economy that has grown significantly,” said Joseph LaVorgna, chief economist for the Americas at Natixis. “You could have argued a few decades ago that the stock market was not the economy, and that was very accurate. That is no longer the case today.” ...

Through the end of 2021, the share of household wealth that comes from directly or indirectly held stocks hit a record 41.9%, more than double where it was 30 years ago, according to data from the Federal Reserve. A host of factors, from the advent of online trading to stock-friendly monetary policy to a lackluster global economy, has made U.S. equities an attractive place to park money and earn nice returns.

Asset allocation is about diversification, and if 42% of your wealth is tied up in stonks, YOU ARE NOT DIVERSIFIED, no matter how diversified is the stock portion of your portfolio.

The Talmud had it right: One third in hand, one third in land, and only one third in business.

Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto. 

-- John Locke, First Treatise of Government

42 is not the answer to everything.

 

Power outage Manhattan: 42 is the answer to everything

BIG ZAPPLE New York power outage grinds Manhattan to a halt stopping subways and Broadway shows EXACTLY 42 years after 1977 blackout:

It comes exactly 42 years to the day - and very nearly to the hour - since a famous blackout plunged New York into darkness on July 13, 1977.

47% would have to borrow the $400 for an emergency, sell something, or not be able to pay it

There's that number again.

And you thought the answer to everything was 42.

Story here.

June Unemployment Unchanged At 7.6%, 47% Of Jobs Added Year Over Year Low-Paying

Hm. There's that 47% again. I thought the answer to everything was 42.

June unemployment is unchanged at 7.6%, and the average addition to payrolls is now up to 182,000 per month year over year, or 2.18 million.

The biggest job gains have been in professional and business services with 579,000 job gains year over year, with low-paying administrative and support jobs comprising a net 316,100 of that year over year.

Leisure and hospitality jobs are up 505,000 year over year, with low-paying waiting tables and bartending jobs up a net 392,600 of that year over year.

Education and health services jobs are up 360,000 yoy, with 343,600 coming from the health care and social assistance category.

Low-paying retail trade jobs are up 307,500 yoy.

Construction jobs are up 183,000 yoy, while manufacturing is essentially flat with gains of just 33,000 yoy.

Finance, insurance and real estate jobs are up 114,000 yoy.

Hourly earnings are up 2.2% in the last year, so you now average $828 a week instead of $808.

So, arguably, at the very minimum in the last year 1.02 million of the 2.18 million jobs added are low-paying jobs, or 47% of them. Way to go, Brownie!

Full pdf here.

ObamaCare Has Its Own Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Moment

ABCNews reports the following here:

The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.

“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”

Forget The "Threat" Of Deflation. Its Crushing REALITY Means Monetarism Is Doomed.

Galactic hitchhikers know this is the answer to everything.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Lars Christensen, here, think deflation is only an omnipresent threat:

The world is still in a contained depression. Sliding commodities tell us global money is if anything too tight. "There is a threat of deflation almost everywhere. A lot of central banks will have to follow the Bank of Japan, whatever they say now," said Lars Christensen from Danske Bank.

The era of money printing is young yet. Gold will have its day again.

I couldn't agree less. The threat isn't everywhere. The reality is everywhere.

Total credit market debt outstanding (TCMDO) for the five years ended on July 1, 2012 was up a paltry $5.83 trillion. Yes, I said paltry. For monetarism to continue working as it has in the past, TCMDO needs to double on average every 8.25 years. That's the historical experience of America going back to the beginning of the post-war. At the current rate since 2007, however, it's going to take until the year 2049 for TCMDO to double from July 1, 2007.

We've had periods of doubling as short as six years for TCMDO, and periods as long as 11.5 years, but at the current rate over the last five years continued into the indefinite future it's going to take 42 years to double. 42 years. Not 11.5 years. And not 6 years. 42 YEARS. America has hit a brick wall.

People who talk about an L-shaped recovery and decades of economic shrinkage ahead may not appreciate quite adequately enough just how right they are.

Not Even Fox News Catches Romney's Debate Gaffe

The answer to EVERYTHING is 42.

How many days has it been since the debate? Five? And still no one has caught Romney's gaffe equating Spain and the US, except little ole me?

Romney still hasn't corrected himself. Why would he when he's soaring in the aftermath of the debate of a lifetime?

Obama didn't catch the mistake, of course. He's too stupid about economics, with or without his teleprompter.

Jim Lehrer didn't catch it either (no surprise there--I don't think he's ever caught anything, not even a fish. Well, maybe a cold.).

And no commentary I am aware of has caught the mistake made by Romney.

And it is a big one.

Fox here spends a whole column on it, focusing on Spain's perceived insult, and of course the Spaniards aren't going to point out the mistake, even if they knew what it was. Would you, especially if it destroyed your sudden new-found equality with the most powerful nation on earth?

This is really depressing. The failure to catch the mistake indicates how deep the ignorance of economics is in the world today.

Here's the mistake, once more, as quoted, but unnoted, by Fox:

"Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government,” Romney said during the debate. “I don't want to go down the path to Spain."

The mistake? Romney meant to say 24 percent, not 42. If he really meant 42, what relevance does warning about going "down the path to Spain" contain if we're already there?

Historically America has spent around 18 percent of GDP on average on government. Obama has ramped that WAY UP . . . by 33 percent in just four short years. That is fundamentally alarming because the expenditure is abnormal . . . and all borrowed.

But if America were already spending 42 percent of its GDP on government, we'd already be Europe with all its sclerotic problems. Life here would be much different than it is, more like what Obama wants it to be. Maybe that's why Obama hasn't said anything about it. The reason we are still so strong as an economic force in the world is that we are relatively much more free of such a burden as Spain endures, and the rest of Europe endures for that matter.

It's something of the utmost importance which we should all be discussing right now, but that the guy who holds the most promise for keeping us from such a fate as Spain's has flubbed the opportunity to discuss it in such spectacular fashion makes me pretty pessimistic about the future.

If you don't understand the problem, you won't understand the solution.

h/t Nita 

Sorry Gov. Romney, We're Not Spain

Romney, last night, in another odd coincidence with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"Spain -- Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42 percent of our economy on government. I don't want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go down the path of growth that puts Americans to work with more money coming in because they're working."

A little dyslexia is going on here, I think. Whatever Spain's expense is as a percentage of GDP, America's is not 42, it's 24.

Here's US News and World Report, in June:

Federal spending was close to 20 percent under the Carter administration, dropped to 18 percent under Clinton, and is currently at an incredible 24 percent of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending may hover around 22 percent for the next decade.

It's a little disturbing Obama didn't catch this mistake. It's a little disturbing Jim Lehrer didn't catch this mistake. In fact, I've heard the soundbite repeated on the radio this morning without anyone referring to the mistake, and that's pretty disturbing, too.

Does anyone really know what time it is?

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.