November 6th, 2009 11:24 pm |
by Marc Gallagher
|
Published in
Big Government, Constitution, Economics, FOX news, Free Market, John Stossel, Libertarianism, Liberty, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, andrew napolitano, government spending, inflation, rand paul |
November 6th, 2009 2:46 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Big Government, Economics, Health Care, Obama, Peter Schiff, Politics, government spending, jobs, unemployment |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
Two dissatisfied customers comment about a restaurant. One says, “The food here is terrible.” The other replies, “I know, and such small portions!” In many ways, they could be describing our current employment picture. Not only are the portions shrinking, but the jobs themselves are steadily losing quality.
Today’s release of the October jobs report showed the loss of another 190,000 jobs had pushed the official unemployment rate to 10.2%, only the second time since the Great Depression that unemployment was quoted in double digits (factoring in workers who had given up job hunting altogether or have settled for part-time work would push that rate to 17.5%). That didn’t stop Wall Street pundits from trying to fashion a silk purse of this sow’s ear. The ‘green shoots’ crowd focused on the slowing pace of job losses, the nascent economic ‘recovery’ (even if it is jobless), and the projected improvement in 2010. No mention was even made of the quality of what few jobs were being created.
The analysts completely ignored the continued trend of replacing goods-producing jobs with those jobs that require production from other sources. For example, we lost 61,000 manufacturing jobs last month, but added 45,000 jobs in education and health services. In particular, the addition of health workers is nothing to celebrate. Just as a family’s economic position is not improved by higher medical bills, the country as a whole does not benefit from increased health-care spending. Until this trend reverses, our unbalanced economy will not regain its stability, a real recovery will never take hold, and the overall job outlook will get much bleaker.
Read More »
November 5th, 2009 8:00 am |
by Marc Gallagher
|
Published in
Activism, Commentary, Constitution, Election, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Peter Schiff, Politics, Ron Paul, Ron Paul Republicans, rand paul, rule of law |
Republicans displaying their “Red State pride” following the results of Tuesday’s elections need to face reality. The two GOP gubernatorial election victories in Virginia and New Jersey were unsurprising and expected. Now if a true limited government conservative beat out Bloomberg in the New York mayoral race there would be a reason for celebration.
The reason Bob McDonnell beat out Creigh Deeds in Virginia was not because McDonnell represents some new style small government Republican. McDonnell won because Deeds made campaign mistakes. McDonnell made none. Deeds lost the race more than McDonnell won it.
The same is true for the New Jersey race. Corzine, a former chairman at Goldman Sachs, easily became a scapegoat for a failing economy and political corruption. So, he lost.
What Tuesday’s election results really demonstrated was a lack of conviction for either Democrats or Republicans. When the political spectrum shines red, then blue, then red, then blue, over and over again something tangible comes to light:
America is not rooting for either party to win. America is rooting for the underdog.
Read More »
October 30th, 2009 1:19 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Big Government, Debt, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics, government spending |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
The GDP numbers out yesterday, which showed economic growth at 3.5% in the third quarter, brought a deafening chorus from public and private economists who all agreed that the recession is officially over. With such a strong report, they are happy to tell us that not only has the Fat Lady finished her aria, but she has left the building and is sipping champagne in the bath. As usual, it falls on me to rain on the parade.
Even the giddiest commentators admit that the upside GDP surprise resulted almost entirely from government interventions. But, by pushing up public and private debt, expanding government, deepening trade deficits, and pushing down savings rates, these interventions have succeeded only in putting our economy back on an unsustainable path of borrowing and spending. Accordingly, they have prevented the rebalancing necessary for long-term health. Could there be a simpler illustration of trading long-term pain for short-term gain?
Rather than asking these pre-K economists to make such a three dimensional leap, it may be easier just to give them a brief history lesson.
During the decade that corresponds to the Great Depression, annual GNP expanded for six years and contracted for four. After nose-diving in the early years of the decade, GNP turned positive in 1934 and then logged three more years of solid growth (the four year average annual growth rate was 8.5%). But does anyone really believe the Great Depression ended in 1934, when the economy first stopped contracting? Unemployment reached 19% in 1938, nearly the peak of the entire Depression, almost a full decade after the stock market crashed! Why will we be so much luckier this time around?
Read More »
October 23rd, 2009 3:23 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Big Government, Economics, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics, government spending, inflation |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
For the most part, the value of the dollar is given cursory attention by the financial media. Typically, its movements are assigned an importance on par with much less determinative metrics such as natural gas futures and construction permits. It’s only when major milestones are reached that anyone really takes notice of the dollar. We are living through one of those times.
The great dollar rally of 2008-2009 has come full circle. When the financial crisis exploded in its full ugliness in mid-2008, the dollar, which had steadily declined over the previous four to five years, put in a rally for the record books. By March 2009, as investors across the world sought safety from the financial storm, the index had surged more than 25%. Since then, the dollar has steadily declined to the point where nearly all those gains have vanished. In short, the panic rally has given way to the long term trend.
So, as the dollar index makes fresh 52-week lows on a nearly daily basis, discussion on the greenback is heating up. And while real insight on the topic is hard to find, the debate centers on the battle between two conventional opinions – both of which are wrong.
The first camp, which is generally supportive of government intervention in the economy, argues that dollar’s decline is a positive for both the economy and the stock market. The second camp, which tends to fall on the more conservative end of the political spectrum, views the dollar’s decline as a problem but feels that tough talk and slightly higher interest rates are all that is needed to restore ‘King Dollar’ to its throne.
First of all, a weak dollar is no better for Americans than a lower paying job is for a worker. And although I would prefer that the dollar remain strong, I know that currency values are a function of supply and demand, not wishful thinking. The past years of reckless monetary and fiscal policy have created conditions that must push the dollar down. Vastly expanded debt levels and monetary expansion have created a greater supply of dollars, while poor investment performance and diminished industrial capacity have lessened the demand for dollars.
Read More »
October 16th, 2009 3:01 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Banking, Debt, Economics, Free Market, Market Regulation, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics, government spending |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
While all the talk at present is about economic corners turned and markets charging ahead, no one is paying much notice to an American economy deteriorating before our eyes. These myopic commentators seem to be simply moving past the now almost-universally held conclusion that before the crash of 2008, our economy was on an unsustainable course. If these imbalances had been corrected, then perhaps I too would be joining in the euphoria. But evidence abounds that we have not veered at all from that dangerous path.
Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that consumer spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has risen to 71%, a post-World War II record. This level is notably higher than other wealthy industrialized countries, and vastly higher than the levels sustained by China and other emerging economies. At the same time, our industrial output is contracting, our trade deficit is expanding once again (after contracting earlier in the year), and our savings rate is plummeting (after an early year surge).
The data confirms that government stimuli are worsening the structural imbalances underlying our economy. The recent ‘rebound’ in GDP is not resulting from increased economic output, but merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever. That is precisely how we got ourselves into this mess. An economy cannot grow indefinitely by borrowing more than it produces. Not only is such a course untenable, but the added debt ensures a deeper recession when the bills come due.
This soon-to-be-called depression will not end until the pendulum of consumer spending habits swings violently in the other direction. This will be a jarring change, but it is the splash of cold water that we need to return our economy to viability. I believe that consumer spending as a share of GDP will need to temporarily contract to roughly 50% of GDP, before eventually moving toward its historic mean of 65%. Such a move would indicate a restoration of our personal savings, a decline in borrowing and trade deficits, and an increased industrial output. That would be a real recovery.
In the meantime, the higher the spending percentage climbs, the more painful the ultimate decline becomes.
Read More »
October 2nd, 2009 2:13 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Banking, Big Government, Economics, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics, unemployment |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
For those market boosters who are prattling on about the possibility of a “jobless recovery,” I offer an invitation to join me for a breakfast of “fat-free bacon,” “eggless omelets,” and “no-carb bread.” As unappetizing as such a meal may sound, it would nevertheless offer more substance than the oxymoronic concept of an economic resurgence without job creation.
Those who do cling to the absurd belief that, absent exponential productivity gains, the economy can expand while workers are being laid off will undergo a massive test of their convictions now that it’s clear the employment picture is bleak. Today’s weaker-than-expected report on non-farm payrolls revealed that employers shed 263,000 jobs in September. The losses propelled the headline unemployment rate to a 26-year high of 9.8%. U6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most complete measure of unemployment, has risen to a dismal 17%. This figure includes those people who want to work full time, but have simply given up looking, or who have accepted part-time work in the interim. As it is similar to the methodology used during the Great Depression, U6 offers better historical perspective on the severity of our current crisis.
Taken together with yesterday’s larger-than-expected pickup in unemployment claims (first time claims rose by 17,000 to 551,000), today’s report makes it certain that the job market is still contracting, even while some indicators like GDP and consumer confidence are moving in the opposite direction.
There is no question that the sense of panic has temporarily subsided. In recent interviews, Treasury Secretary Geithner has been almost giddy in his descriptions of the recovery – all the while crediting his own policies for averting disaster. Americans are once again taking the government’s bait by spending money they don’t have to buy things they can’t afford. Evidence of this trend was contained in data released earlier this week which showed that even while income growth was largely stagnant, U.S. consumers showed the biggest month-over-month increase in personal spending in ten years! With the same report showing a 25% drop in the savings rate, the source of the spending money is clear. But depleting savings and increasing borrowing does not a recovery make.
To really recuperate, the government must allow market forces to restructure our economy. The government and individuals must rein in their spending; we must replenish our stock of savings, allow interest rates to rise, asset prices to adjust to economic reality, insolvent businesses to fail, and wages to reflect productivity. To accomplish these goals, subsidies that distort market forces must be removed and regulations that undermine our competitiveness must be repealed.
Read More »
September 30th, 2009 9:43 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Banking, Economics, Liberty, Peter Schiff, Politics |
by John Browne – Senior Market Strategist, Euro Pacific Capital
As a part-time member of the press corps, I had the good fortune to attend many of the public sessions at last week’s G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. As impressive as it was to closely witness the gathering of countries representing some 85 percent of the world’s GDP (along with the governors of the World Bank, the IMF and the European Central Bank), it was equally remarkable to witness the immense security forces deployed to restrain those who feel the gathering harbored the forces most responsible for the world’s economic and financial problems.
The meeting got off to an unexpectedly gloomy start as President Obama, accompanied by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, jointly announced the discovery of secret Iranian nuclear facilities. These revelations were eye opening, and the mood in the room was nothing short of electric. This contrasted sharply with comments offered the day before by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, who reiterated his country’s reluctance to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. As a result, the risks of continued conflict in the Middle East remain a global preoccupation, with major implications for the prices of gold and oil.
But despite the geo-political setbacks, the failure to achieve any major agreements, the somber atmosphere, and the sanguine final communiqué, the U.S. stock and junk-bond markets continued to roar in nervous volatility.
U.S. markets appear to have taken on a casino-like life of their own, while the fundamentals and even some technical measures urge caution – such as the U.S. dollar plummeting to new lows. Something just does not add up. This feeling may have been the root cause of the somber mood enveloping the G-20.
Increasingly, there appears to be a distinctly volatile disconnect between market sentiment and practical reality. It is eerily similar to the market of 1931, which presaged the second of six major downturns of the Great Depression, leaving U.S. stock markets at only 10 percent of their pre-crash values.
There are a number of concerns that have caused some of the world’s shrewdest observers to be less than completely credulous about the current ‘recovery.’ Read More »
September 25th, 2009 2:09 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Banking, Big Government, Debt, Economics, Money, Peter Schiff, Politics |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of Crash Proof 2.0: How to Profit from the Economic Collapse
As another G20 meeting rolls around, this time on home soil, the time comes once again for the economically curious but politically unconnected to wonder what is really happening behind closed doors. But while admiring the pageantry, chuckling at the awkward group photos, and parsing the joint communiqués like newly found Dead Sea scrolls, the overwhelming majority of observers will miss the meeting’s dominant theme: hypocrisy.
Everyone agrees that the principal agenda item in Pittsburgh will be the need to rein in the ‘global imbalances’ that created the late economic crisis. Everyone also agrees that these imbalances involve too much spending and borrowing by Americans and too little of both by the Chinese and other developing nations. In his remarks this week at the United Nations, President Obama used his peerless rhetorical skill to frame the issues clearly and plainly. Noting that a return to pre-crisis economics is impossible, the president assured the world that his administration will pursue policies to increase savings and decrease spending at home and challenged his Chinese counterparts to enact measures with the opposite effect in their own country.
While this is roughly what needs to happen, President Obama is actually doing everything in his power to prevent it. In point of fact, every policy move undertaken by his administration has exacerbated the very imbalances he supposedly wants to curtail. To so seamlessly profess one goal while simultaneously undermining it is an impressive piece of political theater. Unfortunately, this particular drama is likely to have an unhappy ending – and the ticket price will be staggering.
What exactly are the federal fiscal stimuli other than deliberate, but clumsy, efforts to get people, companies, and governments to spend money they don’t have? Programs like tax credits for new homebuyers or ‘cash for clunkers’ are intended to encourage consumers to spend money that they otherwise might have saved. Grants to municipalities allow them to hire workers and spend money locally that they otherwise would have forgone.
Read More »
September 18th, 2009 2:29 pm |
by Mike Miller
|
Published in
Bailouts, Banking, Big Government, Economics, Federal Reserve, Free Market, Liberty, Market Regulation, Peter Schiff, Politics, inflation |
by Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets
As we pass the one year anniversary of the fall of Lehman Brothers, journalists, politicians and market analysts have seized on the occasion to offer seemingly sober assessments of what went wrong and what went right in the lead up and aftermath of the biggest financial event since Black Tuesday.
The most popular storyline offered by these Monday morning quarterbacks is that the mistaken decision to allow Lehman to fail resulted from the Bush Administration’s misplaced faith in the free markets. In this telling, the real crises began in the days following the Lehman bankruptcy, which unleashed a financial panic that would have caused complete economic collapse – if not for the subsequent federal intervention.
In reality, Lehman’s demise was simply the result of an unfolding crisis that began years before. Popular belief aside, allowing the institution to succumb to the overwhelming debts on its balance sheet was perhaps the only correct decision made by government since this crisis began. The propagandists’ complete reversal of cause and effect now threatens to spur the government to compound prior mistakes and bring on the next phase of the financial crisis. Unfortunately, this chapter will likely be much more dangerous than what we saw last fall.
In March of 2008, in the aftermath of the Bear Sterns “bailout” (which itself was a major mistake), equity shareholders walked away with a generous ten dollars per share, all creditors were made whole, and most employees got jobs and bonuses from JP Morgan. As a result of this largess, the Fed created a very serious problem for itself. After Bear, the perception took hold that investment banks were too “interconnected” to fail. The resulting moral hazard decreased the financial stability of the banking system and exposed taxpayers to open-ended risks. The Bush administration rightly determined that a message needed to be sent that Bear was an isolated case, and that capitalism still held sway on Wall Street. The fall of Lehman, which was helped along by the unrealistic recalcitrance of its chairman Richard Fuld, would be that clear signal.
However, politics quickly trumped economics, and the Lehman trial balloon soon turned into the Hindenburg. Washington had no stomach for the ensuing financial carnage, and when other institutions began to topple, Bush, Paulson and Bernanke abandoned their prior convictions and threw all they had into the ensuing bailout bonanza. As a result, the moral hazard that they had sought to avoid now exists on a scale unprecedented in our history. Capitalism has been extinguished on Wall Street, and our financial institutions now exist as public utilities. The presidents of our biggest banks are now the highest paid civil servants in the world!
Read More »