Category Archives: Capitalism

Macroeconomics Has Lost Its Way, by Alasdair Macleod

Macroeconomics took an ill-advised detour into Keynesianism and has never found its way back. From Alasdair Macleod at goldmoney.com:

The father of modern macroeconomics was Keynes. Before Keynes there were macro considerations, which were firmly grounded in human action, the personal preferences and choices exercised by individuals in the context of their own earnings and profits. In order to give a role to the state, Keynes had to get away from human action and devise a positive management role for central planners. This was the unstated purpose behind his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.

To this day, his followers argue that macroeconomics is different from individual actions, and the factors that determine the behaviour of individuals are not the same as those that determine the wider economy. This article explains why it cannot be true, why modern macroeconomic beliefs are fundamentally flawed, and why interventionism has not only failed to produce overall benefits for the wider public, but has been at an unnecessary economic cost.

The basic fallacy

Last week, Martin Wolf (the FT’s chief associate editor and chief economic commentator) presented a programme entitled Economics 101 on BBC Radio 4, in which he raised the question as to whether a democracy can function when voters have little idea of how the economy works and why there has been so little effort to teach economics in schools.[i] The independent economists interviewed, Larry Summers and Joseph Stiglitz, and Wolf himself are strongly pro-Keynesian, and the programme made no mention of the fact that there are different schools of economic thought. The question as to what information should be given to the public and crammed into the minds of schoolchildren was never addressed, and it was clearly to be the Keynesian view.

Wolf is probably the most senior economic commentator in the British media, and one can therefore understand why the BBC, a state-owned broadcaster whose specific mandate is to be unbiased in matters of opinion, thought that by getting such a senior figure to present the programme, and for him to invite well-known economists to be interviewed, that there was no bias. The vast majority of listeners were similarly likely to be unaware of any bias. Furthermore, Wolf himself, being Keynesian, probably thinks that any other economic theory is simply wrong.

To continue reading: Macroeconomics Has Lost Its Way

Advertisements

Three Economics Lessons I Learned from My Dad, by Ryan McMaken

There are some economics lessons you only learn by being an entrepreneur. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

As long as I’ve known him, my father has always been the entrepreneurial type. Even now, in his seventies, he picks up side jobs both to keep busy and to have a little extra spending money.

Throughout my childhood and youth, he had always been an independent insurance broker and salesman. He often employed one or two people to help with the phones and the paperwork. But also often just worked alone.

Growing up, the idea of going to work for a big company for 30 or 40 years, and then retiring to a golf course or rocking chair somewhere, was something completely alien to me. People my age nowadays mostly expect to work full time until age 75 or more. We can forget about pensions and Social Security. But even when a multi-decade retirement seemed like a viable option in the old days, that wasn’t something to aspire to in my house.

In short, Dad has always been part of a small minority group in America: people who make their living from running their own business. It is estimated that only about 10 percent of Americans actually make their living from businesses they own. The numbers are higher if we look at people who have some small-business income on the side. But when we’re talking about people whose main source of income is their own business, the numbers are smaller.

Not surprisingly, people who are in this minority group have a different way of looking at the world.

For them, there’s no boss or manager to complain about when your income isn’t as high as you like. If there’s not enough money to make payroll at the end of the month, business owners stare failure in the face, and they know they may even be taking some other families down with them. Ultimately, the most important question is always this: How can I get more customers to voluntarily give me their money? A failure to answer this question leads to the failure of one’s business.

This may seem like a very simple observation, but for those who are daily forced to ask the question, it leads to a world view that can be quite distinct from millions of other workers who work for wages.

To continue reading: Three Economics Lessons I Learned from My Dad

The Rules of the Bond Game, by Victor Sperandeo

Banks keep buying government bonds because if they hold them to maturity, they earn the spread between the bonds’ interest and their financing costs, and they don’t have to mark the prices of the bonds to market. From Victor Sperandeo at epochtimes.com:

There are powerful incentives for private banks to keep buying Treasurys despite rising supply and inflation

American hard money advocate, economist, and publisher Franz Pick once called government bonds “Guaranteed Certificates of Confiscation.” In making that statement, he assumed the government would eventually inflate the debt away and thus confiscate the buyers’ purchasing power.

Yet here we are, with U.S. Treasury Bonds holding steady despite seven rate hikes by the U.S. Federal Reserve, huge increases in the supply of bonds, and inflation on the rise. The obvious question is, why?

The reason why government debt keeps increasing and yields are more or less stable isn’t because of the fundamentals of the debt, deficit, or the economy. Instead, it is because the rules of the bond game are written by the banks, for the banks.

In my first book, “Methods of a Wall Street Master,” I introduced “The Gamboni.” Joe is a skilled poker player, but when he sits down at a new game, he has not learned the rules of the house, which include a special set of winning cards called “The Gamboni.” He therefore loses and goes broke. The moral of that story: If you want to win a game, you have to know the rules.

This moral holds true today and is especially applicable to the bond market.

To continue reading: The Rules of the Bond Game

The Market Gods Are Laughing, by Bill Bonner

Whom the market gods would destroy, they first puff up with all sorts of hubris and idiocy. From Bill Bonner at bonnerandpartners.com:

President Trump escalated the trade war yesterday, making a kamikaze attack on a vast armada of Chinese imports – $200 billion in total – headed for California.

The Chinese say they will retaliate.

Phony Wars

Last month, we opined that the trade war wouldn’t go any better than Vietnam… or Iraq… or any of the feds’ other phony wars – against drugs, poverty, or terrorists.

It will be expensive, futile… and perhaps disastrous.

But that doesn’t mean it won’t be popular. Wars give the spectators something to live for – us versus them… good guys against bad guys… winners versus losers.

Their hat size swells as their champion wallops the Chinese. Their girth shrinks as he challenges and taunts the Canadians. Their manhood grows when the enemy gives in and admits defeat.

But while this puerile entertainment is taking place in the arena, the real action is going on in the expensive skyboxes, where the elite collude against the fans.

Wars shift resources from the boring and productive win-win deals in the private sector to the magnificently absurd win-lose deals of the feds and their cronies. The only real winner is the Deep State.

Weatherman David

We saw our colleague, former U.S. budget chief under President Reagan, David Stockman, on TV yesterday. The interview was painful to watch.

He was bravely trying to explain the trade deficit and why it was caused by monetary policy, not by trade ramparts that were too low.

But the young, know-it-all newscasters were such numbskulls – so lacking in any experience, theory, or historical perspective – he might as well have been instructing a walrus on how to chew gum. The lesson was in vain.

The three TV experts saw no problem with the trade deficit… and no danger approaching from Trump’s war on it.

If there were any clouds on the horizon, they didn’t see them; if there was any thunder, they didn’t hear it; whether lightning was striking the light posts near them or not, they had no idea. They wouldn’t even look out the window.

Instead, they seemed eager to get Weatherman David out of the studio so they could go back to their bubble chatter.

They were so confident… so vain… and so dismissive of all risk…

…we thought we heard a bell ringing.

To continue reading: The Market Gods Are Laughing

The World’s Poorest People Are Getting Richer Faster, by Alexander C. R. Hammond

If often seems like a three step forward, two step back process, but hundreds of millions of people have lifted themselves from extreme poverty in just the last few decades. From Alexander C. R. Hammond at humanprogress.org:

In 1820, 94% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. In 1990, 34.8%, and in 2015, just 9.6%.

Last Tuesday marked the 25th anniversary of the United Nations’ International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. The date intentionally coincides with the 30th anniversary of the Call to Action, which saw the French anti-poverty campaigner Father Joseph Wresinski ask the international community, in front of 100,000 Parisians, to “strive to eradicate extreme poverty”.

To mark the occasion, Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, was featured in a short video assessing the current state of world poverty. Despite noting such issues as unemployment, inequality, and conflict continuing in some regions, Guterres correctly observed that since 1990 the world has made “remarkable progress in eradicating poverty.”

While it is valuable to acknowledge that problems remain, it is important to reflect on just how far we’ve come.

The speed of poverty alleviation in the last 25 years has been historically unprecedented. Not only is the proportion of people in poverty at a record low, but, in spite of adding 2 billion to the planet’s population, the overall number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen too.

As Johan Norberg writes in his book Progress, “if you had to choose a society to live in but did not know what your social or economic position would be, you would probably choose the society with the lowest proportion (not the lowest numbers) of poor, because this is the best judgement of the life of an average citizen.” Well, in 1820, 94 percent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (less than $1.90 per day adjusted for purchasing power). In 1990 this figure was 34.8 percent, and in 2015, just 9.6 percent.

In the last quarter century, more than 1.25 billion people escaped extreme poverty – that equates to over 138,000 people (i.e., 38,000 more than the Parisian crowd that greeted Father Wresinski in 1987) being lifted out of poverty every day. If it takes you five minutes to read this article, another 480 people will have escaped the shackles of extreme of poverty by the time you finish. Progress is awesome. In 1820, only 60 million people didn’t live in extreme poverty. In 2015, 6.6 billion did not.

To continue reading: The World’s Poorest People Are Getting Richer Faster

SEC Frets about Share Buybacks, “Torrent of Corporate Trading Dominating the Market,” and “Short-Term Financial Engineering” by Wolf Richter

If share buybacks are supposed to be for the long-term benefit of the company, why do so many corporate insiders sell right after share buyback announcements lift the price of the stock? From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

“Right after the company tells the market the stock is cheap, executives overwhelmingly decide to sell.”

A study by the SEC of 385 recent share-buyback announcements — this is when companies announce how much money they will spend in the future on buying back their own shares, but before they actually begin buying them — found:

  • Share-buyback announcements led to “abnormal returns” in the share price over the next 30 days.
  • Executives used this share price surge to cash out.

“In fact, twice as many companies have insiders selling in the eight days after a buyback announcement as sell on an ordinary day. So right after the company tells the market that the stock is cheap, executives overwhelmingly decide to sell,” explained SEC Commissioner Robert Jackson Jr. – appointed by President Trump and sworn in earlier this year – in a speech today. He went on:

And, in the process, executives take a lot of cash off the table. On average, in the days before a buyback announcement, executives trade in relatively small amounts—less than $100,000 worth. But during the eight days following a buyback announcement, executives on average sell more than $500,000 worth of stock each day—a fivefold increase. Thus, executives personally capture the benefit of the short-term stock-price pop created by the buyback announcement:

“This trading is not necessarily illegal,” he added. “But it is troubling, because it is yet another piece of evidence that executives are spending more time on short-term stock trading than long-term value creation.”

The surge in buybacks is largely due to the new corporate tax law. In the first quarter, companies actually repurchased an all-time-record $178 billion of their own shares. In terms of announcements of future share buybacks, May set an all-time record of $174 billion – in just one month! So this business is heating up.

To continue reading: SEC Frets about Share Buybacks, “Torrent of Corporate Trading Dominating the Market,” and “Short-Term Financial Engineering”

FANGMAN Stocks Are Not a Bubble, Pleads Goldman Sachs, by Wolf Richter

Conventional valuation don’t seem to matter much…when markets are on the way up. From Wolf Richter at wolfstreet.com:

This time, it’s different, say the strategists. So we’ll take a look.

In the bewildering wilderness of the most hyped Wall Street acronyms, we’re going to stick to FANGMAN – Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google’s parent Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, and Nvidia – for the special moment. And the special moment is that the Nasdaq, or more loosely “tech stocks,” closed today at a new high.

But don’t worry. With regards to tech stocks, no matter how high they’ve soared, there is no bubble, based, believe it or not, on fundamentals, Goldman Sachs strategist Peter Oppenheimer and Guillaume Jaisson pleaded in a note, cited by Bloomberg. And the fun is going to continue, the said. And it’s different this time:

“Unlike the technology mania of the 1990s, most of this success can be explained by strong fundamentals, revenues and earnings rather than speculation about the future.”

“Given that valuations in aggregate are not very stretched, we do not expect the dominant size and contribution of returns in stock markets to end any time soon.”

“Leading tech companies today have become very large in terms of market value, but that reflects the significant growth of technology spending and its ability to displace other more traditional capex spending.”

So tech will continue to dominate, they argue, as everyone will have to buy it, including retailers as they try to escape the brick-and-mortar meltdown by shifting to e-commerce. And then there’s the whole huge promise of AI. They add:

“This ‘snow balling’ effect is similar to what was experienced during the industrial revolution where one technology led to another and caused traditional industries to spend more on technology to survive.”

Yes, Y2K comes to mind.

So let’s take a look at the non-bubble in the FANGMAN stocks. Here are their basic data as of Monday evening: Market capitalization, price-earnings ratio (P/E Ratio), annual revenue growth, annual revenues for the last full year reported, and price-to-sales ratio.

Market Cap,
billions
P/E
ratio
Annual revenue growth 2017 Revenue,
billions
Price-to-Sales Ratio
FB $562 32 47.1% $41 13.8
AMZN $797 210 30.8% $178 4.5
NFLX $156 243 32.8% $12 13.3
GOOG $783 48 23.7% $111 7.1
MSFT $774 56 5.5% $90 8.6
AAPL $935 19 6.7% $229 4.1
NVDA $156 44 40.6% $10 16.1
Combined: $4,163 $669.0

To continue reading: FANGMAN Stocks Are Not a Bubble, Pleads Goldman Sachs