/
/
/
2016: 'End of the Road" For Economy?
2016: 'End of the Road" For Economy?
America is less than seven months from its next election for President. The top problem among voters is the economy. Not one of the candidates has given us his or her position on how they would address the problem.
Beyond the usual "Create more jobs" of "Give the average citizen more access to this or that", not a single candidate has provided a comprehensive answer. The real problem, unless you agree with Trump's idea of bringing jobs back to America and junking the climate change hypothesis as the garbage it is, is the normal statistics do not apply to this 'recovery' or the usual platitudes since it may very well be we've reached the end of the proverbial road and the 'can' can no longer be kicked down it. Government spending for make-work projects is not feasible either except for the short-term. In the long run they are simply too costly
While we are less than two weeks into April, scanning through the first quarter reports--particularly those of the banking sector--one gets he eerie feeling economists are already writing off 2016 as yet another lost year in the Obama non-recovery from the Great Recession.
One alarming fact emerges. There is almost universal consensus now that this will be the worst first-quarter report since 2008. Analysts are expecting a 20% decline in earnings for the six biggest U.S. banks from 2015 and if you remember that was worse than anyone expected as it caught the forecasters flat-footed after a reasonable 2014 final quarter boost.
From IMF's Christine Legarde's 2016 economic warnings to the Fed's Janet Yellen's hapless flailing to China's almost continuous official economic revisions, one is beginning to suspect 2016 isn't just going to show a lessening of economic growth but quite possibly a contraction that hasn't really been seen since the 1930s.
How bad is it really? A clue came from Legarde while making the usual rounds of Sunday news shows. Legarde pushed the International Monetary Fund agenda of negative interest rates for the global central bankers as a sure-fire means of delivering extra stimulus while trimming lending conditions.
Here is the dirty laundry for American voters to consider. Six of the world's central banks have already gone to negative rates! The leaders--in size--have been the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. A full quarter of the world's GDP (not economic activity but real gross domestic production) is now governed by rates that are less than zero. If this plan worked as intended there would be no more need for additional stimulus plans.
In China the People's Republic Bank of China devalued twice inside a one calendar year and the world's second best economy is still stagnating. Low interest rates--as witnessed in America--did not get down to the Main Street folk but was estopped in the Beltway and on Wall Street
If a loose monetary policy won't work and government spending programs are a loser, what should the candidates be promoting? The easy answer is something that will actually revive Main Streets across the land. If it is true that cream rises to the top, then Wall Street and the Beltway will also benefit in the long run from this plan.
But none dare make the statement. They are wedded to the campaign donation and the sizable ones, the sustaining ones originate on Wall Street. So the direct payback pipeline must go through there first. So the cream originates to the top and that's where it wants to be. There is no trickle down effect to benefit Main Street.
It is paraxial that the candidates need the average person's vote but need the big company's financial support. Inevitably they side with the cash cows the campaigns rely on and never truly the constituents they are supposed to represent, except by lip service.
That's why they cannot put forth a workable plan for the people--only a plan that maintains the political status quo.
The bummer is whoever wins the campaign isn't going to help Main Street one bit. Every politician thinks that's Main Street's job. Beltway politics and Wall Street money-grubbers just impeded that process to the point the economy has no option but to fail. When it fails enough, then there'll be a popular revolt--to elect someone who appeals to the masses in looks or talk but is still answerable to the good old boy system currently in place.
It is tough to come up with a new, solid plan under those circumstances.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
America is less than seven months from its next election for President. The top problem among voters is the economy. Not one of the candidates has given us his or her position on how they would address the problem.
Beyond the usual "Create more jobs" of "Give the average citizen more access to this or that", not a single candidate has provided a comprehensive answer. The real problem, unless you agree with Trump's idea of bringing jobs back to America and junking the climate change hypothesis as the garbage it is, is the normal statistics do not apply to this 'recovery' or the usual platitudes since it may very well be we've reached the end of the proverbial road and the 'can' can no longer be kicked down it. Government spending for make-work projects is not feasible either except for the short-term. In the long run they are simply too costly
While we are less than two weeks into April, scanning through the first quarter reports--particularly those of the banking sector--one gets he eerie feeling economists are already writing off 2016 as yet another lost year in the Obama non-recovery from the Great Recession.
One alarming fact emerges. There is almost universal consensus now that this will be the worst first-quarter report since 2008. Analysts are expecting a 20% decline in earnings for the six biggest U.S. banks from 2015 and if you remember that was worse than anyone expected as it caught the forecasters flat-footed after a reasonable 2014 final quarter boost.
From IMF's Christine Legarde's 2016 economic warnings to the Fed's Janet Yellen's hapless flailing to China's almost continuous official economic revisions, one is beginning to suspect 2016 isn't just going to show a lessening of economic growth but quite possibly a contraction that hasn't really been seen since the 1930s.
How bad is it really? A clue came from Legarde while making the usual rounds of Sunday news shows. Legarde pushed the International Monetary Fund agenda of negative interest rates for the global central bankers as a sure-fire means of delivering extra stimulus while trimming lending conditions.
Here is the dirty laundry for American voters to consider. Six of the world's central banks have already gone to negative rates! The leaders--in size--have been the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. A full quarter of the world's GDP (not economic activity but real gross domestic production) is now governed by rates that are less than zero. If this plan worked as intended there would be no more need for additional stimulus plans.
In China the People's Republic Bank of China devalued twice inside a one calendar year and the world's second best economy is still stagnating. Low interest rates--as witnessed in America--did not get down to the Main Street folk but was estopped in the Beltway and on Wall Street
If a loose monetary policy won't work and government spending programs are a loser, what should the candidates be promoting? The easy answer is something that will actually revive Main Streets across the land. If it is true that cream rises to the top, then Wall Street and the Beltway will also benefit in the long run from this plan.
But none dare make the statement. They are wedded to the campaign donation and the sizable ones, the sustaining ones originate on Wall Street. So the direct payback pipeline must go through there first. So the cream originates to the top and that's where it wants to be. There is no trickle down effect to benefit Main Street.
It is paraxial that the candidates need the average person's vote but need the big company's financial support. Inevitably they side with the cash cows the campaigns rely on and never truly the constituents they are supposed to represent, except by lip service.
That's why they cannot put forth a workable plan for the people--only a plan that maintains the political status quo.
The bummer is whoever wins the campaign isn't going to help Main Street one bit. Every politician thinks that's Main Street's job. Beltway politics and Wall Street money-grubbers just impeded that process to the point the economy has no option but to fail. When it fails enough, then there'll be a popular revolt--to elect someone who appeals to the masses in looks or talk but is still answerable to the good old boy system currently in place.
It is tough to come up with a new, solid plan under those circumstances.
2016: 'End of the Road" For Economy?
America is less than seven months from its next election for President. The top problem among voters is the economy. Not one of the candidates has given us his or her position on how they would address the problem.
Beyond the usual "Create more jobs" of "Give the average citizen more access to this or that", not a single candidate has provided a comprehensive answer. The real problem, unless you agree with Trump's idea of bringing jobs back to America and junking the climate change hypothesis as the garbage it is, is the normal statistics do not apply to this 'recovery' or the usual platitudes since it may very well be we've reached the end of the proverbial road and the 'can' can no longer be kicked down it. Government spending for make-work projects is not feasible either except for the short-term. In the long run they are simply too costly
While we are less than two weeks into April, scanning through the first quarter reports--particularly those of the banking sector--one gets he eerie feeling economists are already writing off 2016 as yet another lost year in the Obama non-recovery from the Great Recession.
One alarming fact emerges. There is almost universal consensus now that this will be the worst first-quarter report since 2008. Analysts are expecting a 20% decline in earnings for the six biggest U.S. banks from 2015 and if you remember that was worse than anyone expected as it caught the forecasters flat-footed after a reasonable 2014 final quarter boost.
From IMF's Christine Legarde's 2016 economic warnings to the Fed's Janet Yellen's hapless flailing to China's almost continuous official economic revisions, one is beginning to suspect 2016 isn't just going to show a lessening of economic growth but quite possibly a contraction that hasn't really been seen since the 1930s.
How bad is it really? A clue came from Legarde while making the usual rounds of Sunday news shows. Legarde pushed the International Monetary Fund agenda of negative interest rates for the global central bankers as a sure-fire means of delivering extra stimulus while trimming lending conditions.
Here is the dirty laundry for American voters to consider. Six of the world's central banks have already gone to negative rates! The leaders--in size--have been the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. A full quarter of the world's GDP (not economic activity but real gross domestic production) is now governed by rates that are less than zero. If this plan worked as intended there would be no more need for additional stimulus plans.
In China the People's Republic Bank of China devalued twice inside a one calendar year and the world's second best economy is still stagnating. Low interest rates--as witnessed in America--did not get down to the Main Street folk but was estopped in the Beltway and on Wall Street
If a loose monetary policy won't work and government spending programs are a loser, what should the candidates be promoting? The easy answer is something that will actually revive Main Streets across the land. If it is true that cream rises to the top, then Wall Street and the Beltway will also benefit in the long run from this plan.
But none dare make the statement. They are wedded to the campaign donation and the sizable ones, the sustaining ones originate on Wall Street. So the direct payback pipeline must go through there first. So the cream originates to the top and that's where it wants to be. There is no trickle down effect to benefit Main Street.
It is paraxial that the candidates need the average person's vote but need the big company's financial support. Inevitably they side with the cash cows the campaigns rely on and never truly the constituents they are supposed to represent, except by lip service.
That's why they cannot put forth a workable plan for the people--only a plan that maintains the political status quo.
The bummer is whoever wins the campaign isn't going to help Main Street one bit. Every politician thinks that's Main Street's job. Beltway politics and Wall Street money-grubbers just impeded that process to the point the economy has no option but to fail. When it fails enough, then there'll be a popular revolt--to elect someone who appeals to the masses in looks or talk but is still answerable to the good old boy system currently in place.
It is tough to come up with a new, solid plan under those circumstances.
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
/
Something Evil Has Surfaced: Whats Hidden Beneath Busted Wide Open—Corruption Of Epic Proportions
No comments:
Post a Comment