Bond Yields

This is a really outstanding analysis by Lacy Hunt and Van Hoisington.  The only part they could have left off is their commentary regarding ACA at the end.  Not because it is wrong, but because it is purely conjecture.  The rest of this analysis has data, and graphs, and wonderful historical perspective.

(Note, not necessarily related to this article:  I think it is important to recognize ACA as the medical equivalent of TBTF.  The dots to be connected here are that the government (through lack of enforcement) and the Fed are essentially taking money from savers and from the US economy and giving that money to the TBTF banks through their policies, and ACA will essentially take money from policy purchasers, and give that money to the medical industry.  So they are just different parts of the same elephant, if you are a taxpayer, or not part of the 0.1%.)

Quarterly Review and Outlook – Fourth Quarter 2013
Hoisington Investment Management
By Van Hoisington, Lacy Hunt
January 30, 2014

In The Theory of Interest, Irving Fisher, who Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman called America’s greatest economist, created the Fisher equation, which states the nominal bond yield is equal to the real yield plus expected inflation. It serves as the pillar of macroeconomics and as the foundational relationship of the bond market. It has been reconfirmed many times by scholarly examination and by the sheer force of historical experience. Examining periods of both low and high inflation offers insight into how each variable in the Fisher equation affects the outcome.From 1871 to 1948, a period of relatively low inflation, the Treasury bond yield averaged 2.9%, with the inflation rate 1.0% and the real yield 1.9%. >From 1948 to 1989, a period of higher inflation, the Treasury bond yield increased to 6.0%, inflation jumped to 4.3% on average, but the real yield remained close to historical levels at 1.7% (Chart 1). In more recent times, the inflation rate has changed, but the real rate has remained close to historical averages. The significant point is that while average inflation and bond yields were volatile, the average real yield was far more stable. Over these longer stretches the average real yield was never far from the post 1871 average of 2.2%. Thus, over long periods of time, bond yields fluctuated in response to rising and falling inflation. However, the real bond yield steadily reverted to its mean indicating that inflation was the driving force in determining the bond yield over time.

Inflation

A host of different factors caused inflation to vary in the aforementioned periods, but two points of significance are identifiable. First, the seventy-year plus span between 1871 and 1948 (excluding the World War years) was an extended global market era. It began about the time of uninterrupted transcontinental railroad travel and the completion of the Suez Canal and resulted in a period of rapidly expanding global trade. By 1871, 10% of U.S. railroad traffic carried goods that were traded globally. This era produced increasing returns to scale and minimized price pressures. Second, the 1871-1948 period encompassed two episodes of high indebtedness: the 1870s and then the 1920s until the mid-to-late 1940s. Both severely destabilized economic activity and produced minimal inflation, which in turn led to bond yields that eventually reached slightly less than 2%.

From 1871 to 1948, there were two, twenty-year periods when the total return on long- term Treasury bonds exceeded the total return on the S&P 500: one from the 1870s to the 1890s and another from 1928 to 1948. Additionally, the traditional vibrancy in demographic trends in the United States ended during the 1930s as both the birth rate and total increase in population slowed dramatically.

The period from 1948 to 1989 differs markedly. By 1948, a global market did not exist, and the excessive indebtedness of the 1920-1930s had been eliminated. In the late 1940s, the Iron and Bamboo Curtains imposed by Russia and China removed roughly 50% of the world’s population from global trade, reducing economies of scale. During the war years, from 1933 to 1948, the U.S. ratio of public and private debt to GDP dropped from 295% to 139%, as the personal saving rate jumped from below zero to 28% (Chart 2). With normal and sustainable debt levels the U.S. entered the post-war boom, a period of rapidly rising prosperity that produced greater returns in the S&P 500 than on long-term Treasury bonds. Additionally, the abysmal demographics of the 1930s gave way to the post-war baby boom as households became more positive about their economic prospects.

Today, conditions resemble the 1871-1948 period. Global trade is once again less inhibited and public and private debt is high and rising. The saving rate is also greatly depressed. In this modern era of high indebtedness, there have been long periods of negative risk premium which have lasted over a decade. Demographics have also soured. The birth rate in 2013 fell to the lowest level on record, and the population increase was the slowest since the depression era year of 1937. Thus, fundamental conditions are now conducive for an inflation rate averaging 1% or less. Based on the Fisher equation, long-term bond yields should be comfortable trading at 3% or lower.

The global inflation rate is influenced by many factors, but the current bout of low inflation and the insufficiency of demand are both symptoms of extreme over-indebtedness. Weakness in prices is evident in various price indices. Over the twelve months ending in November, the price of goods in the CPI actually decreased 0.5%, while the more accurately measured durable and nondurable components of the U.S. personal consumption deflator fell by 2.0% and 0.6%, respectively. Prices of imported goods fell 1.5% over the same period; excluding oil the decline was nearly as large. Facing weak domestic demand, foreign producers cut prices on goods headed toward the U.S. market, and this forced domestic producers to match those lower prices.

A lack of pricing power is likely to continue in 2014. First, the global economy continues to incur more indebtedness. Both public and private debt in the major economies of the world continue to move further above the levels that create a sustained negative impact on economic activity. Second, monetary conditions moved in the wrong direction last year, partially as a result of misguided policy efforts at quantitative manipulation of reserves. Third, although the sequester of government expenditures will be less in 2014 than in 2013, fiscal policy in the broadest sense is not supportive of economic growth.

Indebtedness

Academic research has shown that a public and private debt to GDP ratio above the range of 260-275% has a depressing impact on economic growth. In 2000 the U.S. debt level exceeded this range. Since then, the bond yield has averaged 4.6%, with inflation 2.1% and the real yield 2.5%. By comparing growth and debt figures prior to 2000 with those afterward, the magnitude of the problem and likelihood of its persistence can be assessed. From 1871 to 1999, private and public debt averaged less than 165% of GDP (well below the 260-275% critical level), and the trend growth in real GDP was 3.8%. From 2000 through 2013, growth has faltered to just 1.9%. Based on the latest 2013 figures, total private and public debt amounted to $58.2 trillion or 344% of GDP (Chart 3). If the debt to GDP ratio were currently the same as the average from 1871 to 1999, total debt should only amount to $30.5 trillion, or almost half of the existing level. The debt to GDP ratio declined since pea king in 2009 but not sufficiently to re-enter the normal range. Moreover, the ratio resumed its upward trend in 2013. Thus, the U.S. appears to be following the Japanese example of trying to cure an indebtedness problem by accumulating more debt.

Scholarly research conducted in the U.S. and Europe over the past three years indicates that existing levels of government debt relative to GDP have reached the point that historically have produced a deleterious effect on economic growth. In the past this effect has lasted two decades or longer. As termed by European researchers, the current levels have reached the “non-linear zone”. This means that the negative effects on growth are likely to intensify as this debt ratio moves higher. Ignoring this research is ill advised, especially since the debt levels are advancing. Although the U.S. budget deficit was smaller last year, the more critical debt ratio continued to rise.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), General U.S. Government Gross Financial Liabilities as a percent of GDP reached 104.1% in 2013, the highest level since the early 1950s (Table 1). (Gross, rather than net, government debt is the appropriate measure; netting out the government debt held in other government accounts is not appropriate since the social insurance trusts have far greater liabilities than they have government securities to fund those future commitments.) By the end of 2015 the OECD projects this figure to jump to 106.5%. Over the next twenty-five years the Congressional Budget Office projects government debt to GDP to move dramatically higher.

Since European fiscal policies mirror those in the U.S., it is not surprising that growth prospects there remain dismal. According to the OECD, General Government Gross Financial Liabilities in the Euro area reached 106.4% of GDP in 2013, up from 95.6% in 2011, an even faster rise than in the United States (Table 1). New research shows that the world average of total public debt, expressed as a percent of global GDP, is approximating its highest level since 1826 (IMF Working Paper WP/13/266, “Financial and Sovereign Debt Crises: Some Lessons Learned and Those Forgotten”, December 2013, by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff). Private debt to GDP in the Euro currency zone and the UK (and interestingly, in Japan) are all higher than in the U.S. and even further above the levels that research has identified as being detrimental to growth.

Monetary Conditions

As discussed in our last quarterly letter, three academic papers presented at the Jackson Hole conference determined that the present approach of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve has actually slowed economic activity. Three considerations – real interest rates, the money multiplier and the velocity of money – indicate that monetary policy is working against economic growth.

First, monetary policy works primarily through price effects. The level of real interest rates determines the price of credit. In 2013, long-term Treasury bond yields rose 100 basis points, or 1.0%. The inflation rate, measured by the year-over-year change in the Fed’s targeted core personal consumption expenditure deflator, dropped 50 basis points. This pushed the real yield on the thirty-year bond to nearly 3% at the close of 2013. Thus, real yields currently carry a significant premium to the long-term average. The effects of this rising price of credit are visible in the high frequency housing data. Pending and existing home sales in November were below year ago levels. Mortgage applications for home purchases in December were at their lowest level in more than a decade.

Second, the money multiplier, which reflects the conversion of bank reserves into deposits (money) by the banking system, fell to a new 100 year low of less than 3 in late December 2013. This is an indication that the Fed’s Large Scale Asset Purchases (LSAP) are not currently producing real, tangible economic effects and are not likely to in the future. Since 1913, $1 of high-powered money has, on average, resulted in an increase of $8.20 of M2 (Chart 4). The current multiplier constitutes an unprecedented historical gap. To begin the process of accelerating economic growth from a monetary perspective, an increase in the multiplier would be necessary. The best indicator of whether this process is working would be the expansion of bank credit, which includes bank investments and bank loans. Unfortunately, the expansion of total bank credit is only 2.0% higher than a year ago, and bank loans have expanded by only 1.9%. In spite of the Fed’s massive LSAP, M2 exp anded at a slightly slower pace in the latest twelve months than it did in 2012.

Third, the even more important velocity of money (V) rejects the argument that monetary policies are gaining traction. Velocity, or the speed at which money turns over, links M2 to the level of nominal economic activity. With the money supply expanding at 5.6% in the latest year, it would be reasonable to expect the same growth rate in nominal GDP if V were stable. Unfortunately, since 1997 velocity has been falling, and in the last twelve months it has dropped by 3% to 1.57, the lowest level in six decades (Chart 4). While velocity is influenced by a myriad of factors, the rate of change of financial innovation and lending for productive purposes affect its direction. If debt generates an income stream that repays principal and interest and creates other activities, it will tend to expand economic activity and cause V to rise. Student, auto and other loans for consumption (which represent the bulk of the increase in consumer credit in 2013) do not meet the necessary criteria, so debt is merely an acceleration of future consumption. This will tend to inhibit the borrower’s ability to increase consumption in the future. Further, new regulations on our financial industries are discouraging financial innovation, and this will bring further downward pressure on velocity. In 2014, if velocity continues to erode at a 3% pace and money supply continues to grow around 6%, it is reasonable to anticipate that nominal GDP will expand at about a 3% growth rate.

Fiscal Issues

Based on scholarly research, only half of the negative economic impact emanating from the $275 billion 2013 tax increase has been registered. Due to the recognition and implementation lags, the remaining drag on growth from the tax increase will occur this year and again in 2015. Carrying a negative multiplier of 2 to 3, this impact far outweighs the sequester (which is expected to be slightly less in 2014 than in 2013) since the multiplier for government expenditures is zero, if not slightly negative.

An important fiscal policy event for 2014 is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Healthcare is the largest U.S. industry, comprising 17.2% of the economy in 2012. This is more than twice as large as residential construction, oil and gas exploration and the automotive sectors combined. The scope and scale of ACA may divert energy and activity away from more productive endeavors. The ACA’s employer mandate was waived in 2013, as were similar obligations of labor unions and others, but these waivers expire this year. Firms may have to cut some full time employees to part time, reduce total employment or cut benefits since they lack pricing power to cover these costs. As such, this will place the burden of adjustment on consumers. On January 1, health insurance premiums that target small businesses and individuals were raised. These groups create jobs and are vital for growth, thus even though the amount of the increase is small, this is still a net drag for economic grow th. While the ACA is an unprecedented event for which no historical point of comparison exists, history does confirm that substantial increases in government regulation are not a springboard for innovation, the lifeblood of economic activity.

The slow nominal growth rate anticipated for 2014 should continue to put downward pressure on the inflation rate as the insufficiency of demand continues to create highly competitive markets. With slower inflation, lower long-term interest rates are a probable outcome.

Van R. Hoisington
Lacy H. Hunt, Ph.D.

(c) Hoisington Investment Management

www.hoisingtonmgt.com

Stem Cells

For those of you who missed the story this morning on NPR about stem cells.  It appears that scientists have invented an entirely new way to “make” stem cells.  The written article is not nearly as interesting and complete as the audio, so please take a few minutes to listen.  It seems to me that this might lead to entirely new ideas about where/when/how to produce stem cells and where/when/how they might be used.

A Little Acid Turns Mouse Blood Into Brain, Heart And Stem Cells

by Michaeleen Doucleff

January 29, 2014 1:20 PM

Credit: Courtesy of Haruko Obokata

Back in 1958, a young biologist at Cornell University made a stunning discovery.

He took a single cell from a carrot and then mixed it with some coconut milk. Days went by and the cell started dividing. Little roots formed. Stems started growing. Eventually, a rose up from the single cell.

Imagine if you could perform a similar feat with animal cells, even human cells.

A team of Japanese biologists say they’ve taken a big step toward doing just that, at least in mice. Instead of using coconut milk, though, the magic ingredient is something akin to lemon juice.

Biologist and her colleagues at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology say they’ve figured out a fast, easy way to make the most powerful cells in the world — embryonic stem cells — from just one blood cell.

The trick? Put white blood cells from a baby mouse in a mild acid solution, Obokata and her team Wednesday in the journal Nature. Eventually a few stem cells emerge that can turn into any other cell in the body — skin, heart, liver or neurons, you name it.

For decades, scientists have been searching for easy ways to make human embryonic stem cells. These cells hold great potential for treating diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease and diabetes.

But for a long time, human stem cells were essentially off limits for researchers because the only way to get them was by destroying human embryos.

Then in 2007, another team of scientists at the RIKEN center figured out a way to make human stem cells from skin and blood by manipulating the cell’s genes.

That discovery won the team the and opened a whole new avenue for exploring the power of stem cells. But that process has come with its own set of problems.

“It’s quite messy, and we don’t really understand how it works,” biochemist of the University of Cambridge tells NPR’s Rob Stein.

Making Stem Cells From Blood

In contrast, Smith says, the method developed by Obokata and colleagues, if it pans out, is straightforward and doesn’t involve any manipulation inside the cell, only a small change in the cell’s environment.

Obokata and her team tested a whole range of treatments in the hopes of creating stem cells, including starving the blood cells, heating them up and even squeezing them through a thin pipette.

What worked the best was simply putting the blood cells in a mild acid for about 30 minutes. The pH of the solution was about 5.7, or a little more acidic than milk. A few days later, the cells stopped acting like blood and started behaving like stem cells.

When the researchers injected the cells into a mouse embryo, the cells acted just like other stem cells: They created all the organs needed for an adult mouse. The team named the cells stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP.

“It seems like a new paradigm,” says Smith, who wasn’t involved with the study. “The method could have many applications, but it really depends on finding out if and how we can extend this [method] in humans.”

The researchers don’t know whether the method works with blood from adult mice. So far, all of the experiments have used cells taken from infant mice just 1 week old.

“The cells are only a few days old,” Smith says. “But we need to know if it works with adult cells and in human cells.” That would be essential if the cells are to be used for medical treatments.

And of course, even if the method does work with human cells, there’s still a long, long way to go before the cells could be tested in humans.

 

Dollar Store Bargains

From Yahoo News:

Definitely buy these 15 things at a dollar store

Dollar stores lure us in with rock-bottom prices. Sometimes you get what you pay for, but often the things they sell are good products at a tremendous discount — a real bargain.

Watch the video of ‘Definitely Buy These 15 Things at a Dollar Store’ on MoneyTalksNews.com.

1. Greeting cards

…

2. Party supplies

By some estimates, you can save up to 70 percent by using party supplies from a dollar store. Get plastic tablecloths, paper plates and cups, streamers and favors from the dollar store and save a bundle. Don’t forget to look for Mylar/foil balloons too. These are an absolute bargain and can easily sell for five times as much elsewhere.

3. Gift bags, boxes and wrapping paper

…

4. Seasonal décor

From extra ornaments for your Christmas tree to a scarecrow to stake in your front yard for the fall, dollar stores can have a surprisingly robust selection of seasonal décor. Pick up some bargain-priced items to decorate your house for less. But stay away from holiday lights, which have a poor track record of safety at discount stores.

5. Reading glasses

…

6. Hair accessories

…

8. Vases and decorative bowls

…

9. Mugs and glasses

Like vases and bowls, mugs and glasses are also a good buy at dollar stores. The quality is comparable to what you might get at Walmart or other mass merchandisers. As a bonus, you can typically buy only the items you need rather than being forced to purchase a set.

10. Dishware

Dollar stores also often have a nice selection of open stock dishware. This isn’t going to be top-of-the-line quality, but they’re perfectly serviceable pieces. For those with little kids, dollar store dishes can be just what you need to get you through that phase of life when something seems to get broken in the kitchen on a weekly basis.

11. Storage containers

…

14. SocksMuch of the clothing you find at dollar stores is of an inferior quality and not worth the money. One exception may be socks. Dollar store socks can be as good as department store varieties if you buy the right type. Look for ones made with acrylic or spandex for a comfy fit.

15. Washcloths and dish towels

This article was originally published on MoneyTalksNews.com as ‘Definitely Buy These 15 Things at a Dollar Store’.

Stock/Bond mix using Sharpe ratio

Daniel Morillo did an analysis here of the optimal stock/bond ratio over 10 year periods, using Sharpe Ratio as the determination of optimal.  The result seems intuitively obvious to me, in fact, nearly a required conclusion.  That is, the percent bonds increases in direct relationship with bond returns, almost to the exclusion of stock returns.  I think this is a mathematical artifact of the definition of the analysis.  See these two graphs:

It is interesting that the overall “optimal” percent was 43% bonds.

Dorsey-Wright looks at this study and concludes:

In some 10-year periods it was best to have 90% allocation to bonds and in other 10-year periods it was best to have 0% allocation to bonds!  While some may look at this study and conclude that there is no need to be tactical, I look at this study and come to the exact opposite conclusion.

What I am wondering is, what does this say about how likely one is to meet their financial goals?  I don’t think it really addresses that question at all.  I find it especially frustrating that both blog posts seemed to find the idea of asset allocation begins from the assumed starting point of 60/40.  There is no discussion of investment horizon, or investment results.  The whole 60/40 thing, I think, is more about career risk than any risk associated with the client’s investments or goals.

Bitcoin

Catherine Austin Fitts on Bitcoin, via Jim Sinclair:

On Bitcoin, Fitts says, “I am not a fan of virtual currency, even though I think virtual currency is here to stay.  I always say it’s the hardware that controls.  So, whoever controls the cable, whoever controls the pipe can intercede and can come in and grab the server.  Sovereign governments have physical control, and the most sophisticated intelligence agencies are going to have the ability to hack on in.  The notion that this stuff is anonymous, you’re dreaming.”

If you don’t know who she is, look her up.  She has an educated opinion on this stuff.

I don’t like Bitcoin because I don’t totally understand how it works, so I don’t understand how it can be secure.  And it seems to me that there are a lot of ways that it could be the opposite of secure.

Sweet Potato Hummus

From chef Tona Bays.  This is the shortcut method.

Sweet Potato Hummus

• 2 medium sweet potatoes
• 16 oz. pre-made Hummus
• Turkish Spice (from Penzeys)

1. Peel and cut up sweet potatoes into 1/2″ chunks.  Boil in water until very soft but not falling apart.
2. Mash sweet potatoes.  Allow to cool.
3. Mix with pre-made hummus. (should be about equal parts)
4. Add turkish seasoning to taste.  This might be 1/2 – 1 tsp.
5. Refrigerate overnight.
6. Serve with fresh vegetables for dipping, or pita chips.

Spy Reforms

So I have read the analysis of Obama’s lengthy speech on reigning in the NSA.

Mish Shedlock begins by explicitly thanking Edward Snowden (who is clearly the ONLY reason that NSA reform is even a topic of consideration):

Obama says we need more “balance” between security and liberty. The president would “not dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations”.

I will. Edward Snowden is a national hero who should be given immunity from prosecution and welcomed back to the US.

Instead of praising Snowden, the president says “the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we might not fully understand for years to come.”

I suggest the revelations by Snowden shed an immense amount of light into the downright scary surveillance tactics of the NSA.
Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/obamas-message-on-nsa-translated.html#uhEivYApypXcxijL.99

Mish then sums up the entire speech with a picture:

Hugh at Corrente kind of nails it right off the bat:

Obama’s NSA Speech: Review Without Review, Reform Without Reform

Submitted by Hugh on Sat, 01/18/2014 – 10:32pm

Obama’s speech on intelligence gathering was the full on horseshit performance many of us thought it would be.

Obama began with a revisionist, some might say tortured, reworking of American history which placed the NSA in the tradition of Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty. I guess what they say is true, that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and Obama’s wrapping the NSA’s war on the Constitution up in the flag certainly qualifies.

He then goes on to do a detailed analysis of the speech, contrasting it with actual reality.  He brings up the fact that it is difficult to justify any of the programs based on objective, known evidence.  He also goes into many of the related issues, like what about all the people who have died in the wards, US citizens as well as others.  And what about all the other spy related stuff that goes on, that we just don’t know about yet.  And Snowden:

Until Edward Snowden blew the whistle on the NSA, Obama was perfectly fine with the NSA and the police state he was happily expanding. Nor has his attitude changed in any material way. He has always viewed Snowden as a nuisance and Snowden’s revelations as a public relations problem.

The most positive review came from The Prospect, and even they credited Snowden:

Last week, Barack Obama delivered a speech announcing some reforms in response to Edward Snowden’s revelations about the National Security Agency. As with most aspects of Obama’s record on civil liberties, my response is inevitably mixed. The outlined reforms would certainly constitute a real improvement over the status quo, but they are also too narrow and limited. Some of these limitations reflect real political constraints, while others don’t.

They also included this tidbit, which maybe shouldn’t have made me laugh out loud, but did:

“Effective immediately,” Obama said, “we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of three.” This is hardly earth-shattering reform, but it’s an improvement that will increase privacy on balance.

So, my summation of the speech, obviously, “Blah, blah, blah.”

Income Inequality

Yesterday was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  For some reason a lot of bloggers decided that was the perfect time to rail against income inequality.  Oxfam came out with a report last week stating that the world’s 85 richest individuals have as much wealth as the bottom 1/2 of humanity combined.  The Guardian published an excellent article detailing a lot of the facts.  I am trying to understand why income inequality is bad.  It seems to me that a lot of people are looking at it as a zero sum game.  That is, if rich people have more, then poor people must have less.  Josh Barro explains it in this video I pulled from Andrew Sullivan:

Conveniently, he describes the assumption that I think is incorrect, in general.  That is, the size of the economy does not stay the same over time.  In addition, he talks about how this is politically an issue for those who fail to address it.   Really, I think this means that income inequality is bad because then more people feel bad about what they have.  Whether it is good, bad, more, less, or whatever.  It’s less than Mr. Big Money.  So income inequality is a problem of human nature and perception, not a real issue of need (that is, need is a separate issue).

I have also read several posts describing income inequality in the US.  I will try to find them and link them, but apparently all of the income gains since around 2000 have gone to the top end of the income scale, with the bottom large percent (like 90%) stagnant.  I would like to see that chart including all benefits, as I believe health care that is a benefit not paid as income would increase that actual total compensation for the bottom 90%.  Maybe I’ll see if I can make that chart on FRED.

Andrew Sullivan posted about why income inequality is bad back in November:

The Political Threat Of Soaring Inequality

Nov 21 2013 @ 12:11pm

I read several pieces today that, together, were a somewhat grim insight into the acute social and economic crisis of our time. The first is a challenging and persuasive historical account by historian Peter Turchin of what Aristotle first observed in The Politics. The graphic (by Jennifer Daniel) is a crude but powerful summary of an historical pattern we see again and again in human history:

In this cycle, I’d say the US is roughly in the elite fratricide moment, which means very choppy waters ahead. Turchin’s thesis is basically the following: the eternal tension between liberty and equality has a recognizable shape in historical and economic cycles, which are perhaps better understood today. The optimal moment for successful societies is when the middle class dominates, where political institutions reflect a mass interest in governing the society well, because everyone feels they have a stake (so more people than usual want and need collective success), and because they share some basic commonalities in experience, and so can find a way to compromise.

When societies grow more unequal, commonalities fray. Wealth accumulates among the few, who begin to see the polity as something to be used for private interests rather than engaged in for public-spirited reform. But as wealth at the top grows and grows, and as more and more of the middle class attempt to become part of the super-wealthy club, the loss of economic demand among the increasingly struggling majority puts a crimp in the social mobility of the wannabe elites. So we have a wealth glut: hugely wealthy one-percenters and a larger group of under-employed or unemployed professionals. It’s from these disgruntled elites that you will get the tribunes of the new plebeians. And they will be guided by revenge just as destructively as the top one percent is now guided by naked self-interest.

What disappears in this moment of the cycle is the lubricant for all successful polities: a sense that we are all in this together. When that crashes into economic stagnation, and the fight for a slice of the pie gets even more frenzied, you’re in for some serious social unrest – which will either lead to a period of reform or to further social and economic disintegration.

So do we have elite fratricide? When a Harvard and Princeton alum like Ted Cruz emerges as a wildly swinging wrecking ball for the entire global economy, you bet we do. When Republicans up the ante on judicial appointments by trying to prevent a president from filling any vacancies and when the filibuster has become much more common than, you know, actual legislation, ditto. When the response to that is to scrap one of the last remaining mechanisms for legislative balance and compromise, ditto. When a major political party offers nothing on a major social and fiscal problem, like our grotesquely inefficient form of socialized medicine, but is content merely to attack, attack and attack the law of the land and sabotage it, ditto. When a former Tory prime minister breaks ranks and accuses his elite successors of ignoring the impact of growing social immobility, ditto. When news channels decide to become propaganda channels, and when there are close to no major media institutions retaining trust as neutral arbiters of our national debate, ditto. When elite sister breaks with elite sister over an appeal to the masses, ditto.

You can probably add a whole litany of additional data points yourselves. But to my mind, what matters now in politics is finding a party or a candidate that recognizes this core problem and tries to ameliorate it.

Obama was and is such a person, but the response to his moderate reforms shows how deeply intractable this crisis now is. It may have to get worse before it gets better – and that may mean a dangerous period of unrest and dysfunction. But the challenge remains: how do we reverse this centrifugal force on the polity, especially when it has been put on steroids by the globalized economy? At some point, someone among the sane Republicans and sane Democrats is going to have to run on a robust and aggressive platform of reform that can – yes – begin sharing the wealth and tackling the entrenched and destabilizing perquisites of the super-rich, as well as tackling the populists who engage in selfish and dangerous exploitation of the resentments of our time.

For now, though, we actually have a figure in the middle of this polarizing vortex still straining to forge a middle ground. He’s our president. If he doesn’t succeed, someone else more radical will follow him. That’s why I, as a conservative, continue to support him. It’s time to leave ideology in the dust and see our predicament with unblinking eyes. It’s time for a conservatism that can grasp the necessity for reform – despite the ideology that made sense thirty years ago but has obviously become incapable of adjusting to our time – and build a new majority from the center on out. That small-c conservatism – the type that cares about the coherence and stability of the polity above all other considerations – can take shape among Democrats and Republicans. If Obama cannot succeed in it, more radical options will present themselves. But if real reform cannot find an anchor in this society anywhere, we will all face the consequences.

I find a lot wrong with that post, starting with pretty much all of the assumptions, but it is AN EXPLANATION of why income inequality is bad.  (oh, and don’t get me started on Obama.)

But really, I don’t like linking it to MLK.  That just seems wrong to me.  What he did was so monumental, that now, to link it to the scourge of the day, seems diminishing.  Just got this in an email from Marriane Williamson, who I love:

Dear Susan, Today we honor as a nation the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. It is a day when all of us have the opportunity to remember the extraordinary difference one life can make. Around the country, there are those who are performing works of charity and national service to mark this day. But in truth, Dr. King was not simply about alleviating the pain and suffering of individuals; he worked to counter the huge political and economic forces that kept entire groups of people shackled by injustice. If Dr. King were alive today, there is no doubt he would be a tireless soldier in the battle against income inequality. For the forces of oppression that he so eloquently called to account have not disappeared in the decades since his death. Today, it is up to us to continue the work of protecting and fostering justice in America. The Civil Rights movement, through which Dr. King applied the philosophy of non-violence to the struggle for Civil Rights in the 1960’s, was an example of what happens when groups of Americans forge the political power to channel the power of the heart. According to Dr. King, the desegregation of the American South was the political externalization of the Civil Rights movement — but its ultimate goal was the establishment of the beloved community. Today, it is time once more for the American people to address a fundamental gap between the compassion and decency of the American people and the policies of our government.  For we are experiencing today a historic, dangerous swerve away from our ethical, democratic center – and in the spirit of Dr. King, it is up to all of us as citizens to ensure that our country, in his words, “live out the true meaning of its creed.” For over thirty years, the American government has been systematically siphoning off large portions of the material wealth of our country — through banking, tax and trade policies — into the hands of a relatively few Americans. In addition, many who have promoted such policies have promulgated a public relations scheme to demonize those who struggle in America, creating the caricature of everyone having a hard time as merely lazy “takers” who are parasites on the U.S. economy. In the words of Dr. King, “If they give it to the poor, they call it a handout. If they give it to the rich, they call it a subsidy.” America needs a new pro-democracy movement, once again creating a political vessel for the highest yearning of our hearts. May we, as today’s stewards of American democracy, do the work necessary to take America back to its soul. Not all of us are historic figures like Dr. King. But all of us are imbued with the same spirit of God, and the same rights and responsibilities as Americans. Dr. King is not here to address income inequality and economic injustice; but we are. He is not here to address to scourge of child poverty in America; but we are. He is not here to address the injustice of our high mass incarceration rate; but we are. He is not here to resist America’s corporatist and militarist leanings; but we are. May Dr. King’s work continue, in our hearts and in our country. May a renewed passion for  the ideals of democracy rise up from our depths and spread its blessings far and wide. With love, Marianne Williamson http://MarianneForCongress.com

Now, I am certain that she is right about MLK and poverty.  Yesterday I read an interesting post about his ideas to eliminate poverty through a guaranteed minimum income from the government (possibly with a work requirement attached).  However, that is a far cry from eliminating income inequality.

She has conflated income inequality, poverty, and crony capitalism.  This is the common problem.  Crony capitalism, regulatory capture, whatever you want to call the wholesale ownership of the political process by the large corporations, is an issue all on its own.  Even the MLK quotes support that he saw this issue as its own problem, not a way to fix some other issue.

Poverty is also an issue all on its own.  (here’s a good post from Noah Smith at Noahpinion blog).  That’s the issue MLK was interested in solving.

Sorry this is not a very good post but I just wanted to get some of this out there all together.

 

 

 

More vaccine stuff

Again, from this post by Aaron Carroll at Incidental Economist:

This guy does a great job of distilling the science and summarizing the studies.  He didn’t say anything about the schedule, but certainly the data is compelling and as presented, suggests that the schedule is irrelevant.

And Aaron added this great map from CFR, showing outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases.  So sad and frustrating.  DPT!!! on schedule!  And if you are in Europe, MMR!  on schedule!

http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map

Change is Good (and inevitable, so you might as well agree it’s good)

Here’s a post from Zero Hedge.  The data may be entirely correct, but the headline and conclusions could not be more wrong.

The Death Cross Of US Manufacturing

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/16/2014 16:56 -0500

The theme of both the robot-ization of the global workforce and the populist desire for a hike in the minimum wage have been popular and ongoing ones here at Zero Hedge. However, never has it been more clear just where the future lies than this chart from BofAML’s Michael Hartnett… As he says, “we are long robots, and short human beings.”

Of course – from Applebees to Jamba Juice and now fast-food restaurants, the robots are coming and cries of millions of minimum-wage-hike-demanding union workers will do nothing but encourage it… (oh and the Fed’s financial repression)

Chart: BofAML

First of all, US manufacturing is not dying.  More stuff is being made here now than ever before.

From St. Louis FRED:

The real complaint is about the number of jobs.  But that must, inevitably, decrease.  That’s progress.  That’s capitalism.  As an engineer, that’s thrilling.  It’s what is supposed to be happening.  People who complain about this have never worked a factory job.  Yes, they have in the past been good paying jobs, and it’s scary for those jobs to go away.  But they are not jobs that anyone really aspires to do.  Have you ever heard anyone say, this is my passion, packing these products into boxes?  Or this is my passion, loading these raw materials into these machines?

Have a little faith.  People are tremendously innovative.  As our manufacturing and service economies change (for the better), so will people, and the jobs they figure out for themselves.