On Elephants and Tea Parties

It is really no wonder that thousands of people across the nation showed up Wednesday to protest everything from the $787 billion stimulus package to big bank bailouts done under the cover of darkness. A failing economy, a government determined to insert itself fully in the specter of control, state sovereignty movements, and a good old fashioned tax day frown all combined to whip up enough ire to get folks to take to the streets. Still, many in the media don’t understand why this wave of protest is occurring.

Main Street Under Pressure

Since last summer there have been fairly regular stories even in the mainstream press about banks cutting limits on credit cards. It would seem as though the bankers had decided that the age of consumerism had gone too far. Ironically, these actions happened concurrently with the largest giveaways in the history of mankind. In the past 9 months the United States, #1 on the world financial stage, has committed an entire year of economic output to stem the ongoing crisis. How do banks respond? By cutting credit card limits.

It is like giving a small child sweets until the kid is in a frothing sugar-frenzy, then locking up the candy dish. The analogies are nearly limitless, but the point is obvious. While the banks screamed for the elixir of easy Fed credit, they slammed the door on Main Street. For their part, consumers at some levels have cut back on their spending, which is a good thing. The unfortunate reality is this: Even the most prudent and responsible consumer will have a bad month. There will be a string of unexpected expenses, and that individual might need to carry a balance for a while to get things straightened out. Job losses will cause exactly this type of situation and now in many cases the credit is not there.

Another unintended consequence is that when credit lines are cut, utilization goes up and suddenly the most frugal appear to be on a spending bender. Take the person who has $25,000 in total credit from a number of different sources. Say on average the individual uses $5000/month for regular expenses, but never carries a balance. Now let’s assume that their lines are cut in half. Their utilization just doubled from 20% to 40%. Their new application for a small business loan might now be rejected because they’re judged to be a bad credit risk due to the 40% utilization. More unintended consequences.

Another amazing development has been the continuation and acceleration of foreclosure activity despite all the political rhetoric over the past 15 months from both sides of the aisle in terms of ‘helping’ homeowners. According to RealtyTRAC, foreclosure activity, which includes default notices, repossessions, and auction sale notices, increased 6% from January 2009. This same measure increased nearly 30% from February 2008. So despite trillions of dollars pledged to Fannie (FNM), Freddie (FRE), Bobby, Lulu, and anyone else with a leaky balance sheet to supposedly assist homeowners, not only is foreclosure activity not abating, it is increasing.

Runaway government spending

As most are acutely aware this tax day, their contribution to the team effort of bailing out the economy will not be near enough. Not only will their continued (and increasing) participation be needed, but that of their children, and grandchildren will be required as well. While I could sit here and tally up the various tabs, totals, and sums, it would be pointless. The public is mind-numb from hearing these staggering figures. It is very difficult to even fathom a billion let alone a trillion. However, this reality has dawned on an increasing number of people over the past few months and they are understandably perturbed. We have hopefully learned a valuable lesson, and that is that liberty is akin to a seedling. It is planted, but then must be watered, fed, and protected from the harsh environment in which it lives. While Americans were out collectively living it up over the past umpteen years, that harsh environment has wreaked havoc on our seedling. The bad news is that we’ve got a lot of work to do. Hopefully the sheer magnitude of our task doesn’t discourage us from doing it.

Big Bank Profits = Bubble Watch

After 6 quarters of dire forecasts, failures, predictions of failure, and uncounted bailouts, big banks are suddenly earning money again. Interestingly enough, most of these newfound profits are coming from the investment banking sides of their businesses. Translated, that means they’re back to their old tricks again and it is back to business as usual. Secure in the knowledge that their backs are securely covered by ‘We the People’ and without fear of extinction, the winners of the 2008 financial crisis have been refreshed, revived, and are back at it. Since our economy and monetary system are still compromised by the same structural imbalances that existed before the crisis, it is again time to go on “Bubble Watch”. The ingredients are there: very cheap money from the Fed and existing dislocations in many markets. The only thing missing is you. And this little fact could cause quite a problem. Americans, quickly growing weary of the accelerating boom-bust cycles, and still punch drunk from the last beating are not likely to be as willing to participate in the next bubble.

One of last fall’s pieces focused on the causes of the Great Depression and tried to dispel the myth that the market crash of 1929 was somehow solely responsible for the mess that followed. We pointed to a nagging reality from 1929 and that was the proportion of Americans living in poverty. More than half were living below a minimum subsistence level, which at the time was $750/year. Essentially one half of the population was unable to support further economic growth. That was one of the underlying structural imbalances. The crash and subsequent misguided government responses were the triggers that caused the Depression.

How much different are we really today? Sure, the poverty line has been adjusted upwards in nominal terms, but fundamentally, how many Americans are below it now? Perhaps the most important variable that has changed in the past 70 years is the reliance we have on credit as a society. How many of us would be living below the poverty line, unable to participate in the economy were it not for Visa, Mastercard, and equity lines of credit? The recent spikes in unemployment will only exacerbate the situation, causing further reliance on credit for subsistence; credit which is shrinking by many measures.

In conclusion, it is particularly disheartening that nearly all of the political focus spanning the last two administrations has been about getting credit flowing again, with only token talk of job creation and fostering legitimate economic growth. The actions have been no better. The vast majority of bailout and stimulus dollars have gone to the financial system to encourage lending and borrowing rather than to the real economy. Our fiat monetary system’s reliance on debt for its growth is the elephant standing in the room each time a press conference or media event is held. It is the elephant nobody in charge wants to talk about. It is the question nobody in media wants to ask. And, at the end of the day, I would imagine that is why so many people came out on Wednesday and will continue to do so. They aren’t interested in parties. They just want to talk about elephants.

Comments

[japan20000:]

''The vast majority of bailout and stimulus dollars have gone to the financial system to encourage lending and borrowing rather than to the real economy''
and how is the gov supposed to put the money into the real economy? By hiring loan officers? And what is 'real economy' anyway? That's dangerous piece of bs in itself. A bank is not a real economy? Then why the accounting dept. of an automaker would be real economy? Is that automaker a real economy when it makes autos that are suddenly not satisfying the needs of the society in terms of transportation?
Ok, many people who read this forum will understand. But this sort of crap is also told the public at large and alas .. it wont. That's why this is dangerous.

Apr 19 06:54 AM

[Dave Wrixon:]

I think one has to understand that fundamentally banks want to lend. That is what they do, albeit for the most part very badly. If they don't lend they cease to exist. It is as a simple as that.

Unfortunately, banks have a horrible record on lending in a constructive way. Much of the conflict in Europe over the last five hundred years has its roots in banking. Yes, war used to be their number one business area.

However, more recently since the demise of the aristocrats the banks have developed their business in the democratization of Real Estate. This has been highly profitable, and their former War Business Departments got closed down as they did untold damage to their new main stay business during two World Wars. It is this rather than the Nuclear Missiles that prevented further conflict in Europe.

The new model was easy. You lend money into the market against collateral. The more you lend the more the collateral was worth, so the more you can lend. It is a virtuous cycle that goes on forever. Of course their is the slight problem that eventually housing becomes so expensive that just about nobody can afford to buy one, and at that point it is not too clear how the virtuous cycle continues. But let's not worry about that!

Of course banks have also got involved in the mundane business of lending to industries that make and sell things that people need, but that is rather dull and inherently more risky, so best avoided. But the industries can be supported more indirectly by lending to consumers whose financial status is underpinned by their house.

Of course now we are at cross-roads. Banks either have to figure out how to get Real Estate Market going again using more ingenious financial innovation, or they are going to have to grasp the nettle and start working out how to make money in what used to be called the Merchant Banking sector, i.e. getting their hands dirty in the real world.

Dilemma isn't it?

Apr 19 07:53 AM

[john s. gordon:]

the banksters never miss a trick in their mission of squeezing the consumer. use your credit union instead.
> jack

Apr 19 08:34 AM

[VennData:]

How can so may supposedly pro-business commentators miss the idea that lending today isn't a guarantee to get your money back? Banks are businesses, remember? The people who complain about not getting credit are the problem in our over-indebted culture.

The reason banks need money, and then cut credit is those said-same people aren't paying their bills. If all the citizenry were paying their bills, the banks would be fine. Since they're not, the economy is de-leveraging.

The stop-gap measures are that the government must step into maintain banks so that what lending the banks do do, has sufficient capital. Oh, and to people the banks have decided are good risks. Not the G-20-like protesters on tax day complaining about everything under the sun.

If you want the dominant US banking system components collapse so we can cede international finance to the Chinese and Japanese that's your choice, not mine though.

Apr 19 08:39 AM

[ArtfulDodger:]

Andy Sutton wrote: "In conclusion, it is particularly disheartening that nearly all of the political focus spanning the last two administrations has been about getting credit flowing again, with only token talk of job creation and fostering legitimate economic growth."

Is this not typical of our nation? Trying to fix a problem with the problem. In this case by calling for more debt to fix a debt problem.

As far as investing goes, because of our doing such things, investors must think sell the US and buy nations with better balance sheets and work ethics.

Thank you for the article. Good points all around.

Apr 19 08:52 AM

[ACCOUNTANT:]

This article is a piece of bs. First, the banks weren't "given" anything. The TARP money is the most expensive form of financing any of those banks have had to use since the early eighties, but at that time inflation was 10% not 0%. 5% preferred dividend works out to about 8% cost on money, considering taxes.

Second, where can the banks deploy money costing them 8% in an economically sensible manner, when loans are going out at between 6.5 and 7.5%, or for house mortgages, at 5%?

The best thing that government could do is allow the banks to pay back the TARP money, then, for those banks that need it, loan it back to them at the same rates that the fed uses at its discount window, but allow the loans to be counted as equity (within limits), for regulatory purposes. Then, where there are loans to be made that make sense - the money will get lent out. Currently, lending out TARP money is nothing but a money LOSER for the banks. Remember, making stupid loans is what got us into this mess in the first place - advocating that the banks continue to make stupid loans makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Apr 19 09:00 AM

[joez:]

Mr Sutton,
Thank you for your insightful article!
You got it. We, citizens, do understand that the fundamental mis-behavior of our governments, bankers and the "thing hungry" consumer.
Your critics are just that. They find fault with your attempt to look a bit deeper.

Apr 19 09:53 AM

[mc2406:]

Good article. Unfortunately, America and our economy will be in trouble as long as those people who caused the current monetary problems (people that won't take responsibility for their own actions, and the professional politicians that pander to them for reelection) receive all the grease.

Apr 19 10:00 AM

[fireball:]

it seems like the tea parties were ignored or ridiculed by the mediots. i have heard little from the politicians or beauracrats.
it would be wise to pay attention to a peaceful growing movement of this size.
the simple concept of "live within your means" applies to us but not them?

Apr 19 10:10 AM

[Neil459:]

"Still, many in the media don’t understand why this wave of protest is occurring."

Its not that they don't understand it, its that the news department went away many years ago. But clerks and bureaucrats continued to publish "news" as if it was really news. Its really not, only reformatting of news releases from sources considered politically correct. In this case its the White House.

They are not paid to understand. They do not have the skills to understand. They do not want to understand.

Apr 19 10:47 AM

[jdl51:]

The teabaggers' protests aren't rooted in deficit spending and taxes, otherwise we'd have heard from them when Bush and the republican congress ran up $7 trillion in deficits over the last eight years. And I doubt that even a majority of them are making over $250,000 a year, the line for any tax increase starting in 2011. Basically they're upset that they lost the last election and can't stand the fact that they'll be out of power for at least the next four years. What's ironic is that if they had actually stuck to the principles that they profess to believe in now and protested years before against the real culprits, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, they'd still be in power and the country would be in a lot better financial shape. When republicans learn that their country is more important than their party, then maybe they will again be on the road to regaining the WH.

Apr 19 11:13 AM

[ecliptix543:]

They have been ordered not to understand even if they wanted to, as have been our allegedly elected officials.


On Apr 19 10:47 AM Neil459 wrote:

> They are not paid to understand. They do not have the skills to
> understand. They do not want to understand.

Apr 19 11:15 AM

[ecliptix543:]

The protests were not about Republicans vs Democrats or who controls the White House. To think that is to surrender to the media's tilted and corrupted coverage of citizens from many backgrounds standing up (for once).


On Apr 19 11:13 AM jdl51 wrote:

> The teabaggers' protests aren't rooted in deficit spending and taxes,
> otherwise we'd have heard from them when Bush and the republican
> congress ran up $7 trillion in deficits over the last eight years.
> And I doubt that even a majority of them are making over $250,000
> a year, the line for any tax increase starting in 2011. Basically
> they're upset that they lost the last election and can't stand the
> fact that they'll be out of power for at least the next four years.
> What's ironic is that if they had actually stuck to the principles
> that they profess to believe in now and protested years before against
> the real culprits, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, they'd
> still be in power and the country would be in a lot better financial
> shape. When republicans learn that their country is more important
> than their party, then maybe they will again be on the road to regaining
> the WH.

Apr 19 11:18 AM

[PROXIMO:]

Of course there wouldn't be much coverage of the tea parties by the mainstream media. The tea parties are an indictment of the sick ideology shared by the MSM and the bureacrats.

Apr 19 12:34 PM

[Phil Trupp:]

The professional media understood tea bagging. It is naive to believe professional journalists are "paid not to understand." The coverage gave us different angles to the story, of course--some of them out of whack, others straight to the point. This is an inherent quality of news coverage generally. Like most things in life, it tends to be uneven and shaded by countless points of view.

But the essential crux of the column isn't news coverage of tea bagging (an unfortunate choice of words); the writer's focus is credit and how to get it flowing in a responsible manner. It's an important point. The major banks have shown a dangerous tendency to be dysfunctional. Their erratic business practices are subject to much study and debate. A few questions:

Does the current Wall Street banking model work in an orderly way? Is the concentration of credit activity among a few big i-banks--those considered "too big to fail"--a fatal flaw of our present economic model? Are there other options? For example, do we need to continue to prop up the present Wall Street system or might we be better off relying on smaller, more nimble regional banking? Should leverage be regulated under a standard formula designed by public-private consensus? Is banking a business or a public utility? Does the business model of American banking (competitive, profit by any means necessary) distort the flow of global credit?

Credit and risk are at the heart of the matter. How to create a flow of tier one capital most efficiently and effectively is a major challenge to the future of the global economy.

Apr 19 12:52 PM

[Realista:]

Republicans have become " NO (know) NOTHING PARTY" of Religious Extremists, Rapture Freaks, and White Supremecists!

Fading into A Fog of Failed Fascism.

Apr 19 01:06 PM

[Frugalvoter:]

Realista----had to give you a thumbs down though you made a few valid points. True --religous extremist applies to some, rapture freaks fall in the same category! RELIGION IS NOT TO BE PART OF GOVERNMENT!!!! PERIOD!!!!!
KKK - not TRUE!
"Fading into A Fog of Failed Fascism" TRUE of both Parties!!!!
The last part is the worst. Few are aware of what they do!
BIG GOVERNMENT is evil! It will make serfs of all but the elite. The ELITE will have total power!

Apr 19 01:26 PM

[realold:]

Although I agree with the banks complicity, why is it that no one brings up the Congressional mandate to loan money to "poor people" so they can "buy" their own homes, and their concommitant changes to laws making it possible? Congress and Clinton, to some degree, forced banks to not "discriminate" against people who could not normally afford a house. The credit ranking business (Moody's, etc.) are the real idiots in this mess and their officers should be imprisoned. Politicians - what's new.


On Apr 19 10:14 AM User 357469 wrote:

> Consumers are only in small part to blame for the current banking
> crisis. True, some consumers are indebted way over their heads but
> that is not entirely their fault. If you needed money desperately
> and someone offered it to you at a lower than normal rate, or where
> you did not even qualify for it, I am sure that you too would have
> taken it and worried about tomorrow later.
>
> The banking problem is 2-fold >>
>
> First, banks should never have offered sub-prime mortgages in the
> first place to those who did not qualify for conventional mortgages.
> The banks should have realized that a large percentage of those mortgages
> would never be repaid.
>
> Second, there is the credit-card bubble which is about to burst.
> When credit card companies offered sucker intro-rates for the first
> 6 mos or more to virtually any new applicant through pre-approved
> no credit check applications, offered extremely high credit limits
> of $25,000 or more, allowed consumers to go over limit for just a
> monthly fee, and had agreements with clauses which would increase
> interest rates to 25% or more for just being late on 1 or 2 payments,
> what on earth did they expect? Business as usual? To me their actions
> spelled only one word: DEFAULT
>
> Unfortunately we have not seen anything yet. When those bubbles break,
> and they will, the current perceived banking crisis will pale to
> only a small blip on the global radar compared to what will then
> follow. The entire US banking system will most likely collapse leaving
> the feds and ultimately taxpayers to pick up the pieces.
>
> On Apr 19 08:39 AM VennData wrote:

Apr 19 02:18 PM

[henarl:]

Power will always accrue to the elite over time. Every government thruout human history has experienced this. When the elite become excessively overbearing, they will be overthrown and replaced with a new elite and the whole sad process will repeat. An individual can try to become one of the elite, become fodder for the "revolution", escape to a better system elsewhere if he can find one, or just try to survive to the best of his ability within the local existing system. If you are a thinking individual, rather than an easily swayed mindless group member, these are the choices you have.

Apr 19 02:32 PM

[realold:]

This would make Democrats Know it all Green extremists, pain specialists and anti-white racists? The hate that you have expounded will surely help us all find the way to a better world.


On Apr 19 01:06 PM Realista wrote:

> Republicans have become " NO (know) NOTHING PARTY" of Religious Extremists,
> Rapture Freaks, and White Supremecists!
>
> Fading into A Fog of Failed Fascism.
>

Apr 19 02:35 PM

[Big Al45:]

Accountant

Your comment that:

"TARP money is the most expensive form of financing any of those banks have had to use since the early eighties"

Is not accurate. Banks have routinely issued Trust Preferred stocks that have interest rates above 8%.

If you want a recent example, look at SY Bankcorp. (SYBA) They were approved for CPP but backed out of the program because of the "restrictions" (i.e. caps on executive pay.) So to raise capital, they issued $30 million in trust preferred stock with a 10% interest rate.

Apr 19 02:48 PM

[jdl51:]

The CRA did not "force" the banks to loan to uncreditworthy borrowers. It required them to loan to areas they serviced. In other words, if you take people's deposits, you should also be willing to loan money to them if they meet your credit requirements. The default rate on loans under Carter's CRA from 1977 were in the normal range, low single digits, yet you hear repeatedly how the CRA some 30 years later was the cause of our current meltdown. Greenspan, Snow and Cox all testified before a congressional committee that the CRA or Fannie or Freddie were not at fault for the banking crisis, but lax banking standards, fraudulent mortgage brokers, appraisers, rating agencies were the culprits. The vast majority of problem loans were not even covered by the CRA and Fannie only backed loans up to $250,000 until a few months ago. How many homes can you buy in SoCal for under $250,000, yet it has the highest default rate of just about any other area. Lax or no regulation and outright fraud by ALL the parties involved in the mortgage chain and the subsequent securitization and global distribution of those securities with the multiplier effect of the CDS market has given us our present financial mess.


On Apr 19 02:18 PM realold wrote:

> Although I agree with the banks complicity, why is it that no one
> brings up the Congressional mandate to loan money to "poor people"
> so they can "buy" their own homes, and their concommitant changes
> to laws making it possible? Congress and Clinton, to some degree,
> forced banks to not "discriminate" against people who could not normally
> afford a house. The credit ranking business (Moody's, etc.) are the
> real idiots in this mess and their officers should be imprisoned.
> Politicians - what's new.

Apr 19 06:54 PM

[rm:]

[Say on average the individual uses $5000/month for regular expenses, but never carries a balance. Now let’s assume that their lines are cut in half. Their utilization just doubled from 20% to 40%. ]

So what? Fair, Isaac has been moving the goalposts for years to keep the consumer at a disadvantage. This is just one more example. The rules have changed... again. Play accordingly.

[So despite trillions of dollars pledged to Fannie (FNM), Freddie (FRE), Bobby, Lulu, and anyone else with a leaky balance sheet to supposedly assist homeowners, not only is foreclosure activity not abating, it is increasing.]

From the investors' perspective, you have a secured lien in a declining price environment. 1/2 of the borrowers who get a mod default again. What would a smart investor do?

[Sure, the poverty line has been adjusted upwards in nominal terms, but fundamentally, how many Americans are below it now?]

You seem to imply that individuals spend their lifetimes in one income bracket. Reality is much more fluid than that.

[How many of us would be living below the poverty line, unable to participate in the economy were it not for Visa, Mastercard, and equity lines of credit?]

If some have chosen to take on credit card debt in order to "participate in the economy," if they bought today and paid tomorrow (plus 12-25% interest), they've made a poor choice, haven't they?

Apr 19 07:11 PM

[Fighting Yoda:]

accountant:
Yes the TARP money was expensive but it also was the lifeline - without it the banks would have gone under. Now that the panic is over, and also banks likely will get other forms of bailout like PPIF - interest free and above par - they are of course eager to return back TARP.


On Apr 19 09:00 AM accountant wrote:

> This article is a piece of bs. First, the banks weren't "given" anything.
> The TARP money is the most expensive form of financing any of those
> banks have had to use since the early eighties, but at that time
> inflation was 10% not 0%. 5% preferred dividend works out to about
> 8% cost on money, considering taxes.
>
> Second, where can the banks deploy money costing them 8% in an economically
> sensible manner, when loans are going out at between 6.5 and 7.5%,
> or for house mortgages, at 5%?
>
> The best thing that government could do is allow the banks to pay
> back the TARP money, then, for those banks that need it, loan it
> back to them at the same rates that the fed uses at its discount
> window, but allow the loans to be counted as equity (within limits),
> for regulatory purposes. Then, where there are loans to be made that
> make sense - the money will get lent out. Currently, lending out
> TARP money is nothing but a money LOSER for the banks. Remember,
> making stupid loans is what got us into this mess in the first place
> - advocating that the banks continue to make stupid loans makes absolutely
> no sense whatsoever.

Apr 19 07:27 PM

[tonym:]

Job creation is the key to recovery. Government must take less so private job creation can begin.


On Apr 19 08:52 AM ArtfulDodger wrote:

> Andy Sutton wrote: "In conclusion, it is particularly disheartening
> that nearly all of the political focus spanning the last two administrations
> has been about getting credit flowing again, with only token talk
> of job creation and fostering legitimate economic growth."
>
> Is this not typical of our nation? Trying to fix a problem with the
> problem. In this case by calling for more debt to fix a debt problem.
>
>
> As far as investing goes, because of our doing such things, investors
> must think sell the US and buy nations with better balance sheets
> and work ethics.
>
> Thank you for the article. Good points all around.

Apr 19 07:57 PM

[HerrHansa:]

The moratorium on foreclosures helped banks financial reports in the first quarter. Those good numbers then generate more investors, with the hope that will prop up second quarter results. At some point, intervention or not, banks will need to show some bad numbers, most likely in the next two quarters.

Apr 19 11:43 PM

[declineandfall:]

Why is a political blog on SA? I come for stock advice not Republican (or Democratic) talking points. Take it somewhere else.

Apr 20 12:37 AM

[john s. gordon:]

declineand - we are at the stage where politics drives economics.
> jack

Apr 20 10:42 AM

[Customer16:]

Seems like declineandfall is looking for free advice and can't seem to get outside left vs. right. Wow. This is about people vs. oppressive government.

Apr 20 12:28 PM

[reluctantQuant:]

realold, jd51, others here are on to something that's not hitting the media much...

Prior to this last decade, the highest national home ownership was 62%. Then we took it up to %68 via the "credit super highway." 102-IQ mortgage broker tells janitor that he qualifies for a $400k house, and the loan is off to Credit Suisse's warehouse before the title company licks the stamp. Fair Isacc tells GMAC that 24 yr old w/ $52k job is "good" for that Cadillac Escalade with 20 inch wheels. Company that runs a baby-name website gets hedgefund financing at Libor + 75 which fits nicely in that CLO for a state pension fund.

The "parallel" banking system has created massive amounts of crap credit by going around the banks - real banks, with deposits, not "investment vehicles" built by broker dealers and consumer credit companies (GECC, et al). Ba-Trillions of credit was extended to totally unworthy borrowers. Why should anyone in their right mind replace that credit? Not in my bank, thanks, TARP or no TARP. Of course, the banks are far from "without sin," but they're not nearly as large a component of this problem as the media would have us think.

Giving a 25k credit line to a $52k salaried borrower? Nuts. Is it going away? Well, it should. Should that borrower be "impaired" when he looks for another type of loan? Hmmm. How'd he do with the first one?

Wise users of credit are still getting credit, by the way.
Welcome to "The Great Cleansing."
It's gonna take another 24 months, folks, and it doesn't take THAT much homework to sift the eventual winners from the eventual losers.

--rq

Apr 20 12:50 PM

[declineandfall:]

John s gordon:

Agreed, but what else is new? Politics always drives economics.

The point is some guys random political opinions are worthless to this site unless it comes with some good data to help trading/investing.

Whats the trading advice given his opinions? I dont see any, just some political parties talking points. I can get those on any number of political blogs out there of all stripes.

Traders can be politcal whackos of all stripes for all I care, all I ask is some teeth in the article that follows the principle of "actionable stock market opinion and analysis"

seekingalpha.com/page/...









On Apr 20 10:42 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> declineand - we are at the stage where politics drives economics.

Apr 20 06:11 PM