Market Currents
May Nonfarm Payrolls: +69K vs. consensus of +150K, prior 79K (revised). Unemployment 8.2% vs...
-
Friday, June 1, 2012, 8:30 AM ETMay Nonfarm Payrolls: +69K vs. consensus of +150K, prior 79K (revised). Unemployment 8.2% vs 8.1% expected, 8.1% previous.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 113 comments:
in this report we have bad nonfarm, falling hours, falling AWE... just ugly, april was revised down a lot !
the household isn't as bad, it was up and is up 450K since Jan
i'm surprised the market is not down more
And Hussman. From this week's commentary:
http://bit.ly/Nj1RIO
"We will undoubtedly have moments of promising news that will relieve economic and Euro-area concerns for brief periods of time. Part of the reason that the markets have been fairly complacent despite deterioration on these fronts is exactly the hope and expectation of investors for these transitory but unpredictable moments of relief. If one steps back from the trees to observe the forest, the reality of the situation is that Europe is already largely in recession, the global economy is slipping quickly toward the same outcome, and in my view, the U.S. is also entering a recession that will ultimately be dated as beginning in May or June of 2012 (i.e. now). The economic headwinds already in place are likely to make any meaningful budget progress virtually impossible in the Eurozone, and without meaningful budget progress, the likelihood of continued bailouts to peripheral European states is slim. So while short-lived bouts of hopeful enthusiasm are likely, the reality of the situation is much more challenging."
By cutting taxes on the wealthy, of course! :)
Any thoughts about how the Obama administration has brought the unemployment down these past three plus years?
> the unemployment down these past three plus years?
One thought: they /actually/ have brought unemployment down these past three plus years.
No one is saying Obama is doing a great job -- well, Terry I guess :) -- but I challenge anyone to provide realistic evidence that a 2013-2017 Romney administration would do any better for anyone but the financial industry (you know, the government's owners).
Remember, this is America -- we don't get to vote for who we think will do a good job, we are stuck having to vote for the one who scares us a little less than the other one. :)
Somebody please enlighten me as to how he will significantly improve things over sad-sack Barak Obama? And "he knows business" is not an acceptable answer.
" provide realistic evidence"
Please explan to me and others just how one provides "realistic evidence" for a forecast or prediction.
Obama meanwhile has a track record, albiet a lousy one.
Let me help you out----Obamacare, government regulations and uncertainty created by the administration are just three reasons companies aren't hiring.
> evidence" for a forecast or prediction.
What specific plans has Mitt put forth? What are his policies? Any inkling of what he'll do in the white other than pass into law the official hating of Obama?
> Obamacare, government regulations and uncertainty created by
> the administration are just three reasons companies aren't
> hiring.
Incorrect, they're not hiring because there's no demand. You can take away every regulation on the books and they still wouldn't hire, because there's not enough demand to warrant hiring.
Similarly, if demand picked up, you'd see hiring in a heartbeat, regulation or not. The math for business owners is simple: do what makes you money.
This is basic economics, as opposed to voodoo economics. :)
If there is anyone to blame, it is Alan Greenspan. The man who spoke above everyone's heads so that no one would know that he had no clue what he was talking about and many of his so-called facts were just theories. Theories that have been proven wrong now.
Greenspan was warned about OTC derivatives and did nothing about it. Not only did he do nothing about it, he silenced and discredited those who tried to change regulations at the CFTC. Greenspan watched as many markets would form bubbles and do nothing about it. Greenspan advised US citizens to treat their homes like banks and pull out the equity. Greenspan fueled the speculation which has eventually brought us to where we are today, one big hot mess! Throw in one of the worst presidents ever (George W.) after
Greenspans' term and you get the result we have today. Capitalism on the brink of collapse.
Sorry folks but you heard it here first, it is going to take at least 20 years to dig ourselves out of this mess (best case scenario). I won't even discuss the worst case scenarios because I am not a bear and think the U.S. will pull through.
And regarding Obama who I did not vote for, don't just jump on the bandwagon and blame him. He had nothing to do with this. He may make it worse but he is not the cause.
.http://on.msnbc.com/L3...
http://on.wsj.com/L3hdyZ
http://bit.ly/L31rGF
Need more? Put down your Hopium pipe and see the clear picture
Gov regulations are price blind consumption taxes that raise fixed costs for production without regards to productive knowledge. If the fixed costs dropped drastically, industry in the US would become one of the most competitive places in the world and one of the safest for capital. Economic opportunity would increase at an exponential rate, and investors would need help in capitalizing on those opportunities. This is why they would hire. It might take 9 to 18 mos, but it would begin.
The real voodoo economics is subsidizing consumption by capital erosion to get people to spend because such a plan relys on defrauding the public into believing the capital erosion is the same thing as income.
DV, what realistic evidence did you require when you voted for Obama, someone without a lick of business sense. Now dont even try to tell me you didnt vote for Obama. Your remarks shine a light on who your real true love is and its not Romney.
Good point. What is his plan to reduce gov price blind interventions? I have been saying this for a while, and its important to consider for the markets. Obama will continue over the cliff head first into destruction. Romney may just be content to hang on to the edge of the cliff with his fingers. Until we hear a politically feasible plan that will allow him to roll back the mountaing of gov mismanagement, you may still want to be very defensive with your investments even if Romney wins the election. There is still congress and the bureaucracy to consider. They are huge obstacles to enlightened economics and exponential prosperity.
BTW- why so down on Mitts Hope and Change, are you so invested in Obamas failures that you are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water
You asked me this "I love the way you try to blame this on Obama. What would you do in his shoes enigmaman? "
Simply- I would stop digging
By French law, once a company has at least 50 employees working
inside France, management must create three worker councils,
introduce profit sharing, and submit restructuring plans to the
council if the company decides to fire workers for economic reasons.
As a result, France has 2.4 times as many companies with 49
employees as with 50. In fact, to circumvent the onerous labor laws
and costs associated with compliance, many French companies
that wish to expand their business and employee base beyond 49
employees have simply sent production to surrounding countries
including Tunisia or Romania. With near 10% unemployment in
France, labor laws that were designed — 102 years ago, mind you
— to aid workers appear to be exacerbating unemployment woes
by sending jobs across the border.
In the current Affordable care act, businesses with fewer than 50
employees are exempt from having to provide health insurance.
Will we become a nation of 49 employee firms?
To quote your articles:
"They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging" (demand)
"Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets like India, China and Brazil" (demand)
"Meanwhile, consumer demand in the U.S. has been subdued" (demand)
"The decision is based on demand: Asia-Pacific sales soared 38 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared with 16 percent in the U.S. Caterpillar stock is up 64 percent this year. " (demand)
"As a greater percentage of our sales have been outside the U.S., we have seen our work force outside the U.S. grow" (demand)
""We've globalized around markets, not cheap labor. The era of globalization around cheap labor is over," he said in a speech in Washington last month. "Today we go to Brazil, we go to China, we go to India, because that's where the customers are." " (demand)
In summary, jobs are mostly driven by DEMAND. Thank you so much for providing me with these articles that support that point, you're too kind! :)
"Incorrect, they're not hiring because there's no demand."
Wake up dude.
The demand is not there for, as example, the three simple first grade examples I laid out for you.
Sometimes, facts trump ideology.
please correct my memory. I don't recall Romney voting in either the house or senate.
http://seekingalpha.co...
Yes, Obama is worse, but Mitt is just another European Socialist himself.
Supply drives demand, because without supply demand is meaningless. The ability to drive demand with supply requires advances in productive knowledge. Advances in productive knowledge only come from learning, and learning requires mistakes.
Governments have guns. They don't have to learn from mistakes until it is too late to avert serious austerity. Just printing money mediums and handing them out relies on gov guns. Thus the supply of money mediums increases to "stimulate demand" and thereby "getting business going" is a consumption subsidy because it relies on the foundation of gov force.
This reduces the incentives to innovate and create new products or improve the production methods of existing products. Using gov to increase the supply of money mediums via gov force is a subsidy for old technology and encourages malinvestment in highly depreciable assets. In other words it creates a bubble, that will lead to another recession.
The only solution is to reduce regressive taxation on the poor via price blind gov regulations, and allow private price sensitive regulations to set new price and quantity equilibriums. This will improve the return on current opportunities where the returns to justify the risks, and economic opportunity will grow exponentially.
Quickly, depreciable assets will deflate in price, and assets that can make such items (consumables) will inflate in price. Choice will grow with the opportunities, and so will the need for employees. In enlightened economics, jobs aren't paid for - they pay for themselves. In 24 to 36 mos, unemployment would be around 4% and GDP would be in the 8% to 9% range.
I think that is a point that a lot of people usually miss, and government always seems to miss. History is replete with examples of government pouring money into declining industries while ignoring new ones.
Such as investment banks! :)
A central bank, when done from the perspective of improving the economy, whether through the voodoo mechanics of aggregate demand or as a lender of last resort, is basically a subsidy for the financial markets. Thus, whatever you subsidize you get more of, and presto we get more of financial markets.
This was JP Morgan's mindset when he pushed for a Federal Reserve. JP was an investment banker. He made money doing deals. The amount of deals he could do was limited to his and his partner's capital and liquidity. However, if he could tap the capital of the populace at large, then there is no reason for him to stop doing deals. Thus, the financial markets inflate.
Then the very people who advocated for gov's price blind intervention that leads to the inflation of specific markets, then moan about the very inflation they advocated for.
bbro doesn't drink the kool aid and when he says ugly, it is there.
http://bit.ly/KDSSmD
I meant that bbro is a technician that relies on official numbers and doesn't have a political agenda on his comments. However, I have not agreed with his technical optimism as I don't think our current numbers are comparable to most historical trends due to the heavy Federal Reserve intervention.
Well as soon as Planned Parenthood can get the abortion rate up to 100% there will be no economy.
J. A.
Or mattress stuffers.
In any event, it don't matter as he hasn't been President in 42 months.
26.7 million in 2007...Presently 46.4 million.
2007-2010:
http://1.usa.gov/KrhiRl
Present:
http://1.usa.gov/qbUdym
Bush 2000-2008
28 222 630 - 16 701 000 = 11 521 630 added
Obama 2009-2011
44,708,726-33,489,975 = 11 218 751 added
That was what I was basing my info on, although using up to this month that it would be different.
Food stamp usage nearly doubled since the start of one of the worst economic downturns in history. This is not terribly surprising, even though it's still certainly undesirable, and certainly doesn't indicate any kind of "recovery".
Funny thing though, food stamp usage also nearly doubled from 2000 to 2007,which was one of the /best/ economic booms in history -- at least for some, apparently.
In summary:
Obama Administration policies: meh
Bush Administration policies: retarded :)
I suppose the prior number was revised down big (The April jobs report, released Friday morning, found that the U.S. economy created a disappointing 115000 jobs - May 4, 2012). I wonder how was the other 3 months of 2012!
..."200K Americans went back to work at McDonald's for free food this month, up from 100K last month.."
and I dream of Japan...
After QE3, they'll start fudging the participation rate again to make employment look better than it really is.
It's all just sad.
"The number of Americans working full-time fell by 266,000 in May, erasing all the gains of the past three months. The total employment figure only rose because 618,000 more people got part-time jobs. Many of those people would rather be working full-time: The number of people classified as “part time for economic reasons” — meaning they’re working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job — rose by 245,000 to 8.1 million."
http://on.wsj.com/M7JRSj
I would rather go the six months without anyone running anything. Running everything into the ground for the last three and a half years is getting old.
They're all the same.
http://on.wsj.com/LQvw9a
For investors with longer time horizons, here's his advice in context:
“I’m very bullish on the market,” he said, citing the increased liquidity from the U.S. and European central banks. “I think the market is focusing too much on noise like Greece. And yet we’re going to have a lot of volatility and we’re going to have to live with it.”
A summer dip is one thing (arguably, a good thing for long-term investors, as it gives you great buy-in opportunities); a crash is another. He's suggesting that the fundamentals paint a positive long-term picture for equities.
For the ones that will survive, that is.
Well, good buying opportunity for high quality stocks, then.