Surprise, surprise, right on schedule progressive Robert Kuttner attacks the 2 percent inflation target in favor of 4 percent

 It all sounds very persuasive, as long as you forget how inflation impoverishes the lower classes and keeps them down so that the elites can continue to milk them like slaves year after year. 4% just does it twice as fast as 2%.

The little people are an afterthought to the left.

This is the "inflation is actually good" talk you hear from lefties from time to time.

Story here.

Good a day as any to remember that Alan Greenspan in 2007 explicitly advocated for immigration to suppress the wages of skilled laborers

Greenspan: Let more skilled immigrants in :

"Our skilled wages are higher than anywhere in the world," he said. "If we open up a significant window for skilled workers, that would suppress the skilled-wage level and end the concentration of income."

Yeah, the problem isn't millionaires and billionaires concentrating wealth in their hands, it's the goddamn skilled laborers who must be stopped, the engineers, scientists, doctors and teachers, the crane operators, CDL truck drivers, machinists, drafters, plumbers, craftsmen, cooks and accountants.

 

Alan Greenspan's tight labor market is fake news: Unemployment is really 8.4%

In September 2018, the civilian labor force was just 62.7% of the civilian noninstitutional population (161.958 million X 100 / 258.290 million = 62.7).

Not seasonally adjusted, this yielded an unemployment rate of 3.6% (5.766 million unemployed X 100 / 161.958 million = 3.56, before rounding up).

Unfortunately that's only because the labor force shrank by 8.5 million since 2008. The labor force then averaged 66% of the civilian noninstitutional population, not today's 62.7%.

Taking 66% of September 2018's civilian noninstitutional population means a labor force of 170.5 million instead of the not quite 162 million we've actually got. Where'd all those 8.5 million go? New Zealand?

Add 'em back in on both sides of the equation, both to the size of the labor force and to the unemployed, because they are obviously not working, and unemployment soars to . . . 8.4% (14.266 million unemployed X 100 / 170.458 million = 8.36).

All this labor slack is the reason wages fail to go up at rates of 3-4% as in previous recoveries.

It's not a tight labor market.

Alan Greenspan is expecting mediocre GDP in 4Q, says housing and investment must recover to fix it

Quoted here at Bloomberg:

Greenspan said the economy won’t fully recover until American companies invest more in productive assets and the housing market bounces back.

“Almost all of the weakness in the last four, five, six years has been in long-lived investments” in capital goods and real estate, Greenspan said. “Until these pick up, we’re not going to get the kind of vibrant growth that everyone is hoping for.”

Greenspan, who retired from the Fed’s helm in January 2006, said he expects growth to dip below a 3 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter of this year. His forecast is in line with the estimate of 2.5 percent in a Bloomberg survey of economists.

Libertarian free-trade presidents named BUSH get the most blame for lost manufacturing jobs

Since Jimmy Carter took office in January 1977, during whose term manufacturing jobs reached their zenith of 19.5 million, 5.6 million net manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and with them the middle class lives to which they gave birth and from which other good-paying, middle class service jobs had been spawned.

Manufacturing jobs had risen steadily from their post-war low in February 1946 at 11.9 million to their 1979 height, just before Ronald Reagan brought us the Libertarian Revolution in the guise of conservative Republicanism. He gave us both Alan Greenspan in 1987, Fed Chairman and disciple of Ayn Rand, who steered the country right up to the rocks before jumping ship in 2006, and a quixotic message of freedom and free-trade which has made the investor class rich while middle class families have seen their lives wrecked under Reagan's libertarian successors who presided over the export of their good jobs to foreign countries. 

The two Bush presidents in particular, George Herbert Walker and his son George W., get the blame for most manufacturing jobs lost since the 1970s peaks. And George W. far and away gets more blame than anyone else, exporting fully 80% of the net jobs lost:

Carter +0.8 million

Reagan -0.6 million

Bush I -1.3 million

Clinton +0.3 million

Bush II -4.5 million

Obama -0.3 million.

The last thing this country needs in 2016 is a BUSH named Jeb, or a PAUL named Rand.

Stupid things heard on the Steve Gruber Show radio program last week

Both the AM drive-time host, Steve Gruber, a libertarian for whom every opponent is taken as a challenge to his manhood, and his weekly punching bag guest, Liberal Lee, last Tuesday agreed that the middle class in America is basically . . .  intact!

Which just proves that ideologues are impervious to the destruction which has been all around them and that libertarians and liberals drink from the same cup. Both camps are too heavily invested in the political gangs they support to say otherwise, for if the one did it would mean George Bush and Alan Greenspan would have to be blamed, and if the other, Barack Obama, Larry Summers and the rest of the Clinton re-treads which steered the economy through the latest depression to give you . . . nearly $90 billion in costs for over 500 failed banks, over 5 million homes lost to foreclosure, full-time jobs still 4 million below the 2007 peak seven years ago, ObamaCare's lies, higher costs, poorer coverage and limited networks, the deaths of Americans at Benghazi, IRS targeting of conservatives, the most imperial presidency in our history, 30 million prime working age people not working, a lawless executive, and 1.8% GDP, the worst in the post-war.

For his part, Gruber basically gave over a segment on his show every week this fall to the reelection campaign of Congressman Tim Walberg, a conventional Republican who normally votes with the majority of his caucus, but who did vote against making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the vast majority of Americans. Walberg notably just rewarded his radio benefactor who opposed Cromnibus with a vote for it, in keeping with his past voting record for sweeping spending bills which avoid the traditional appropriations process in order to take the politics out of spending the people's money. Hey, thanks Gruber.

The Steve Gruber Show is unfortunately heard on many small market radio stations during morning drive throughout Michigan, which through August 2014 was the top state for completed foreclosures among non-judicial states for the prior twelve month period. But the show's best rank is only #3 in the Lansing market according to dar.fm, and #31 in the mornings overall, here. The best thing that can be said for it is that the stations it is on are typically low-power, like its commentary. 

The Ayn Rand worshipper wearing the glasses went on to ruin the country in 2008, nobody else

And Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, once represented by Gerald Ford and now by Justin Amash, still reeks with the putrid smell of libertarianism's incoherent ideology.

Gold miners dive: VGPMX plunged to 8.91 yesterday, hasn't been that cheap since January 2002

The historical low for VGPMX was 5.05 on 8/31/98. The historical high was 40.02 on 5/19/08. The maximum NAV gain was 692.47%.

Alan Greenspan gave gold the kiss of death on Wednesday, suggesting it was a good investment idea going forward. Gold promptly fell out of bed, dropping $21.50 on Thursday and today is down about another $35 so far. Miners say they cannot remain profitable if gold departs much from the $1,200 range. Meanwhile the dollar is soaring toward 87 as the Fed has ended QE.

The maximum NAV gain for VTSMX, by the way, has been 414.31%.

Average Effective Federal Funds Rate by chairman of the Fed in the post-war

William McChesney Martin (15 years)  3.62%
Arthur F. Burns (8)        6.49%
G. William Miller (2)    9.56%
Paul Volcker (9)           10.45%
Alan Greenspan (19)     4.86%
Ben Bernanke (8)          1.58%
Janet Yellin (less than 1) .09%

Don't blame QE for the decline of the dollar, blame Bush or Greenspan or global warming or war

The decline of the dollar under QE has been nothing when compared with its decline from 2002 to 2008.

Between high water marks in early 2002 and a low beneath 70 in March 2008 the trade weighted dollar sank a whopping 36% in just six short years, 6 times more than the 6% it fell since TARP passed on October 3, 2008 and QE began in late November 2008 until now.

Say what you will about QE, but it's just dumb to blame it for a decline of the dollar.

The dollar was already dead! The dollar declined 36% during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Overall the dollar is down 6% since the emergency measures of 2008, but is recovering somewhat.

Godless Libertarian Triumph In MI-3: Justin Amash Is Pro-Gay All The Way, Just Like Brian Ellis His Challenger

There really is no choice for social conservatives between the two Republicans in the MI-3 primary in 2014.

Neither candidate can bring himself to support Republican Committeeman Dave Agema's lonely stand against moral and spiritual decadence in our society. In fact, both candidates attack Dave Agema. The only reason to vote for Ellis in the primary is to spoil the reelection of Amash who is a complete traitor to conservatism and never was a conservative to begin with. Of course this means a Democrat has a winning chance in MI-3. But arguably Republicans should vote for the Democrat in the general that the full measure of God's wrath may be felt here.

Michigan's 3rd Congressional District is hopelessly lost from the Judeo-Christian point of view in any case, for reasons which prevailed long before Brian Ellis and Justin Amash existed. Whatever power traditional Calvinism may have possessed in the area in the past is long since transmuted. At least Vern Ehlers gave the appearance of a Christian. This place is cursed, and deserves everything that's come to it, and is coming.

Justin Amash, Antiochian Orthodox, quoted here in January:

“Defending civil liberties is at the heart of the Republican Party and our Constitution. As I've demonstrated with my words and record, I am trying to grow a new generation of Republicans that includes more gays and lesbians, racial-ethnic minorities, women and young people," Amash said.

And Brian Ellis, an Episcopalian, in the same story:

"Dave Agema’s discriminatory rhetoric gets in the way of sharing our Republican solutions," Ellis said in his statement.

Well, look at it this way. If you are looking for a church to join, you now have two more to cross off your list.

How A Good Central Banker Is Supposed To Behave

not like this under Greenspan and Bernanke

David Merkel, here:

A good central bank fights the politics of the nation of which it is a part and tries to preserve purchasing power, ignoring labor unemployment. It tries to be a paper "gold standard." That has not been the Fed for 25+ years.

Bernanke Contradicts Himself

So says Jeffrey Snider, here:

Chairman Bernanke stole the show yesterday, certainly by his accommodative and now contradictory stand. I suppose that is the danger in trying to talk “markets” toward “targets”, much like Greenspan in the late 1990’s. Toward that end, he made at least one prediction that will likely come true (in sharp contrast to the Fed’s history), namely that the unemployment rate understates the weakness in the jobs market. ... As to the potential for tapering, that has always been about the rock and the hard place; the rock being asset bubbles in housing, credit and, yes, stocks vs. the hard place of lackluster, at best, economic performance. Given the problems of real time economic tracking and the dubious record of ferbus and other econometric models in use it would make sense that the FOMC appears to subscribe to each and every possible outcome concurrently. The committee both backs the accommodative approach (employment might be weaker than indicated) and the taper approach (things are getting much better) all at the same time.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Still, it's an odd way to behave if you are being shown the door in a few months.

Another Gold Bear Recognizes Fair Value Is Below $500 The Ounce

Noted by Bob Pisani, here:

Gold bears like MKM note that if gold had simply moved with the CPI basket since 1913, it would stand at $490 an ounce. Wow. That is more than 60 percent below it's [sic] already low price. I doubt it will go anywhere near there.

Pisani and just about everyone else is focusing on the run-up in gold since 2008 to its extraordinarily high levels of recent years, finding it nearly inconceivable that gold could lose all of those gains since 2008, while ignoring at the same time the run-up to 2008 which established gold's floor for the last five years' move to the stratospheric level.

It would be easy to blame the financial crisis and/or QE for the last five years of gold price rises to $1900, but QE had nothing to do with the five to seven years before 2008 when gold rose to $800 from $300. Perhaps easy money could be credited with that in the 2000s, but we've had easy money before 2003, too. Alan Greenspan's easy money from 1995 did nothing for gold, which continued down to $263 by late 2000. So what made gold skyrocket beginning after 2003? Everyone is ignoring who were the buyers then who helped drive up the price of gold.

The answer is buyers of GLD, the gold ETF launched in 2004. If puny little Cyprus can set off a wave of gold selling today with 14 lousy metric tonnes in question at the maximum, think about what GLD has done to gold buying, and thus to the gold price, over the years building up a wave of 1300 tonnes from 2004. GLD easily qualifies as the major player in the buying action in an annual production environment of about double that figure. It's just that now the limit has been reached under current conditions, and people are starting to realize that confiscation is becoming thinkable again. The gold price has slowly eroded from the September 2011 peak, and is now being shoved over the edge by confiscation fears.

You build a market and they will come, until actual ownership becomes more important than a paper proxy. That is a problem GLD cannot solve, nor any other gold "investment" which does not involve transfering physical possession to the buyer. Germany, for example, no longer trusts its gold in others' hands and wants it back in country. Try telling that to GLD, which won't be transferring gold to any "owners". I'd say that's very negative for GLD going forward, and very negative for gold prices generally because of GLD's sheer heft, just as possible confiscation of weak sovereigns' gold looming as a very real possibility is negative for gold prices because of their relative size and importance.

When it comes to GLD or any other form of paper gold, the only important question is, "Where are all the customers' yachts?"

Forbes: The Fed Is The Most Hypocritical, Thieving, Incompetent Bank In The Country

Richard Salsman for Forbes here savages the thieving, incompetent US Federal Reserve for its utter hypocrisy in keeping comparatively well-capitalized big banks from paying out dividends when its own balance sheet is the most under-capitalized of all and pays out 100% of what it makes.

Not news, but it bears repeating as often as possible, especially when it's stated so well:

'[I]n the century prior to the Fed’s founding in 1913, U.S. commercial banks were far more liquid and far better capitalized; in the century since 1913, however, and especially since the FDIC was established in 1934, the banks’ liquidity and capital adequacy measures have steadily deteriorated. This artificial, policy-induced financial precariousness has been used routinely as a pretext to justify onerous regulations – which, it’s easy to notice, have never quite adequately curbed all the excessive risk-taking and hence periodic banking crises. Bank executives often oppose the onerous regulations, but not the government subsidies which invite them. ...

'What about the Fed? It’s now got the biggest balance sheet of all the major banks in the U.S. – $3.1 trillion in total assets (versus $2.2 trillion at Bank of America, the largest private-sector bank in the U.S.) – and yet the Fed also has only $55.1 billion in capital (versus $160.3 billion at Bank of America). That means the Fed’s capital/assets ratio is a mere 1.8%, less than a quarter of the average capital ratio for the top eighteen banks subject to CCAR (8.0%) and of the three banks recently deemed inadequate (8.2%). The Fed’s capital ratio is only 15% of the ratio of BB&T (11.5%), the most-capitalized of the top private banks. Moreover, the Fed’s dividend payout ratio is hardly conservative or capital-preserving (like 10-33%); it is a 100% payout, since the Fed pays all its income (mainly from Treasury bonds, notes and bills), none of which is taxed, straight to the Treasury. Whereas the Fed is leveraged 56:1 (liabilities/capital), the top eighteen banks are leveraged by just 12:1 (average), while the three censured banks are leveraged by only 10:1 (average). ...

'This is the same Fed which, over the past century, has debased the dollar to such a degree that it’s now worth only 5% of its initial real purchasing power in 1913 (whereas the dollar in 1913 was approximately as valuable as it was in 1813, because it was anchored by the gold standard, not by a flimsy Fed standard). This is the same Fed that Alan Greenspan touted in a 1996 speech as “the ultimate guardian of the purchasing power of our money.” Is it truly a “guardian” – or instead an incompetent, or perhaps a thief – who presides over a loss of 95%? This is the same Fed which now censures private banks for having capital levels many times greater than the Fed’s own capital level. Isn’t it high time we ended the hypocrisy whereby the politically-financially reckless among us rule the day?'

The big banks' off-balance-sheet assets make their capital ratios much worse than stated above, but that just makes them more like the Fed in that respect. Salsman points out that before 1913 when we still had true, private banking, capital ratios averaged 20%+, whereas today 8% is about as good as it gets. 

The Nation: Bill Clinton Wrecked The Economy, Not David Stockman

So Robert Sheer, here:

It wasn’t Stockman who wrecked the economy. It was Bill Clinton who deregulated the too-big-to-fail banks, and it was George W. Bush and Barack Obama who bailed them out. But even Paul Krugman, who knows how bad things are and yet manages to be charitable in appraisals of his Princeton colleague Ben Bernanke, dismisses Stockman’s critique as “cranky old man stuff. ...” ...

Herein is a lesson that the bankers should have been taught back during the Clinton presidency when, as Stockman writes, the principle of a bailout for Wall Street’s hustlers “was reinforced by the Fed’s unforgivable 1998 bailout of the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management.”

That fiasco’s enablers—Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers—and the more disastrous ones to follow were crowned “The Committee to Save the World” on Time magazine’s Feb. 15, 1999, cover and are still welcomed in those polite circles where truth-teller Stockman is being treated as a pariah.

Does The Fed Help Precipitate Recessions By Raising Rates, Or Lowering Them?

Yes!

Alan Greenspan was confirmed as Federal Reserve Chairman in August 1987, Ben Bernanke in 2006.

Laughs at Fed Meetings Peaked With Housing Bubble in 2006

So says The Daily Stag Hunt here, where the data show that laughs suddenly surged in 2006.

Compared with the average of 20 laughs per meeting in the previous six years, laughs in 2006 bubbled up to an average of nearly 44, an increase of 115 percent.

Call it "irrational exuberance."

The meeting with the fewest laughs? October 1, 2001, with just 7 recorded laughs during the Federal Open Market Committee meeting.

Remembering the $Trillions Withdrawn from the Housing ATM

Boy, don't we wish we had those back today.

Consider The Washington Post, May 30, 2007, here:

According to Fed data, homeowners' equity -- the value of their homes minus mortgage debt -- grew to nearly $11 trillion at the end of [2006], or double the value at the end of 1998. ...

[T]he housing boom ... fueled spending directly by turning homes into cash machines. As prices rose and interest rates fell, Americans extracted trillions of dollars in extra cash through home sales, mortgage refinancings and home equity loans.

Homeowners gained an average of nearly $1 trillion a year in extra spending money from 2001 through 2005 -- more than triple the rate in the previous decade -- according to a study by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and Fed economist James E. Kennedy. That's the "free cash," as the authors call it, left over after closing costs and other fees deducted from equity withdrawals.

Most of the money extracted during those boom years, nearly two-thirds, came from home sales, the authors found. Another 21 percent came from home equity lines of credit, while 15 percent came from mortgage refinancings.

About a third of the free cash gained during this period was used to buy other homes, they calculated. About 29 percent was used to acquire stocks and other assets. About 12 percent went to home improvements. And nearly a fourth, 23 percent, went to consumer spending, including paying credit card bills and reducing other non-mortgage debts.

Translated into dollars, a trillion dollars a year for five years over 2001 through 2005 is $5 trillion nominal in extra spending money, nearly a quarter of which, $1.15 trillion, was simply blown. Some people literally ate it, drank it, and danced the night away with it. If the study is correct, the extra spending money in the 1990s from our homes came to an additional $3 trillion. I can only guess about the 1980s, but even if only $1.5 trillion, this means Americans have easily extracted almost $10 trillion from home equity over the course of 30 years.

A review of the latest Federal Reserve data here shows that net worth of owners' equity in household real estate has fallen $7 trillion just since 2005. Falling from $13.2 trillion in 2005 to $6.2 trillion as of the end of Q2 2011, this is a decline of 53 percent. This metric pretty perfectly mirrors the bubble in housing which began in earnest in 1997, coincident with the change in the tax law permitting capital gains tax free every two years up to $500K with conditions. Except that the measure hasn't yet quite reached what it was in 1997. We're still about a trillion dollars shy of that mark in nominal terms.

Total real estate valuation over the same period has fallen less, from $22.1 trillion to $16.2 trillion, or 27 percent. But equity as a percentage of value has fallen more than valuation, 35 percent.

A longer term chart of the latter phenomenon found here shows that since 1980 home equity as a percentage of value has been under constant pressure, most probably from what is called portfolio shifting, debt expenditures from car loans and credit cards, college tuition, stock investing and second, third and fourth home investing piling into HELOCs, 2nds, refis and the like. The interest on all that stuff before 1986 was tax deductible in its own right, but after Reagan's famous tax reform, deductibility was restricted to interest from home equity loans and lines of credit only. That arrangement was formalized at levels up to $100K in 1987, precisely after which as shown in the chart the decline in owners' equity commenced with new vigor. So people who could financed everything they could through HELOCs, cash out refinancing and the like in order to continue to be able to deduct the interest expense on their tax returns.

As a result of this and the collapse in the real estate bubble, today we are faced with the dramatic all time low of 38 percent in owners' equity as a percentage of value, a decline of nearly 47 percent since 1982.

Just think how much better off we would be today if we hadn't tapped all that equity over those three decades, especially in inflation-adjusted terms. We truly have been the squanderers.

So present household real estate valuation at $16.2 trillion represents a level last seen in 2003 in nominal terms. But adjusted for inflation, that's $13.7 trillion, which was actually the total nominal value of household real estate last seen in 2001. To get to the pre-bubble valuations of 1996, today's number would have to fall yet further to $11.8 trillion.

In other words, to erase completely the effects of the bubble on valuations, adjusted for inflation, would imply that total real estate valuation would need to fall another 27 percent from here, or $4.4 trillion.

The American dream nightmare.

I Don't Like Felix Salmon's Chart. I Like My Chart.

His chart here makes it look like what's been going on since 1995 has been part of one relentless long term uptrend, the sanguine implication of which is that we should stop worrying if we are long term investors:

My chart shows that since the beginning of 1995 the trend supercharged into what people call, for lack of a better description, irrational exuberance, so named by Alan Greenspan himself at the end of 1996, whose own Federal Reserve management arguably makes him the very author of it:

You'd entirely miss that from Felix's chart.

There is no reason why stocks should be down today, as Felix says, except that from the long term perspective an S and P 500 index in the vicinity of 800 looks like a more fair valuation than 1200. The market has twice tried to tell us that, in 2002-2003 at the 775 level, and again in 2008-2009 at the 675 level.

It may be getting ready to tell us something similar again.

What say 575?