Monday, August 26, 2013

Durable Goods Orders Plunge 7.3%, Nondefense New Orders for Capital Goods Plunge 15.4%; Plunge to Accelerate?

US treasuries rallied a bit again today, with the 10-Year yield down 12 basis points in two days to 2.80% in the wake of a huge plunge in durable goods orders as reported by the commerce department.
New Orders

New orders for manufactured durable goods in July decreased $17.8 billion or 7.3 percent to $226.6 billion

Transportation equipment, down following three consecutive monthly increases, led the decrease, $16.7 billion or 19.4 percent to $69.7 billion. This was led by nondefense aircraft and parts, which decreased $14.5 billion.

Shipments

Shipments of manufactured durable goods in July, down three of the last four months, decreased $0.8
billion or 0.3 percent to $228.8 billion. This followed a 0.1 percent June decrease.

Computers and electronic products, also down three of the last four months, drove the decrease, $0.9 billion or 3.2 percent to $26.6 billion. This followed a 1.1 percent June increase.

Inventories

Inventories of manufactured durable goods in July, up three of the last four months, increased $1.3 billion or 0.4 percent to $379.1 billion. This was at the highest level since the series was first published on a NAICS basis, and followed a 0.2 percent June increase.

Transportation equipment, up fourteen of the last fifteen months, led the increase, $0.7 billion or 0.6 percent to $117.1 billion.

Capital Goods

Nondefense new orders for capital goods in July decreased $14.2 billion or 15.4 percent to $78.0 billion. Shipments decreased $1.0 billion or 1.4 percent to $73.6 billion. Unfilled orders increased $4.4 billion or 0.7 percent to $610.2 billion. Inventories increased $0.6 billion or 0.3 percent to $171.3 billion.
New Durable Goods Orders



New Durable Goods Orders Excluding Transportation



New Durable Goods Orders - Nondefense Capital Goods



Plunge to Accelerate? 

Is this the plunge that accelerates or is another bounce coming?

Given the "unexpected" plunge in new housing and the rise in mortgage rates, I suggest an acceleration to the downside.

For further discussion, please see New Home Sales Plunge 13.4% in July, June Revised Lower; Blame Rising Mortgage Rates; Starts 896,000 - Sales 394,000 - Hmmm.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Income Inequality Explained: Why Wages Don't, Won't, and Can't Keep Up With Productivity

By now, everyone is well aware that real wages have not kept up with worker productivity. But why is that?

The Fed, government bureaucrats, and economists are puzzled by the phenomenon as well as what to do about it.

I can explain easily, but first let's zero in on what is happening.

Workers Don't Share in Companies' Productivity Gains

In stark contrast to the great American dream, CNN notes Workers don't share in companies' productivity gains.
Companies are on a tear in terms of productivity and profits, but they aren't sharing much of the gains with their workers.

The gap between hourly compensation and productivity is the highest it's been since just after World War II. This divergence is one of the major drivers of the nation's growing income inequality.

"A bigger share of what businesses in the U.S. are producing is going to the owners of the firms and the people who lent money to the firm, and a smaller share is going to workers," said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution.

Productivity, which measures the goods and services generated per hour worked, rose by 80.4% between 1973 and 2011, compared to a 10.7% growth in median hourly compensation, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, which crunched the numbers last year.
Real Wages vs. Productivity



CNN states "Global competition and national deregulation have kept compensation down, while the decline of union power weakened workers' ability to bargain for higher pay."

Where Did the Productivity Go?

Is the demise of unions and deregulation really the story? The answer is "no", but first consider superficial analysis by Paul Krugman in Where The Productivity Went.
Where did the productivity go?

The answer is, it’s two-thirds the inequality, stupid. One third of the difference is due to a technical issue involving price indexes. The rest, however, reflects a shift of income from labor to capital and, within that, a shift of labor income to the top and away from the middle.
Krugman offered no insight as to why this was happening, but he did accurately state "Income stagnation does not reflect overall economic stagnation; the incomes of typical workers would be 30 or 40 percent higher than they are if inequality hadn’t soared."

The Wedge Between Productivity and Wages

Mark Thoma commented on Krugman's post in his Economist's View take on The Wedge Between Productivity and Wages
Inequality has reverted to levels unseen since the Gilded Age, financial regulation has waned, monopoly power has increased, union power has been lost, and much of the disgust with the political process revolves around the feeling that politicians are out of touch with the interests of the working class.

We need a serious discussion of this issue, followed by changes that shift political power toward the working class. But who will start the conversation?
Who Will Start The Conversation?

Thoma asks "Who will start the conversation?"

I am more than happy to start the conversation (and indeed already have on numerous occasions). Nonetheless, let's try once again, starting with a link a close friend sent just today: "A Peek Inside Tesla's Robotic Factory"

I invite you to read the article, but please watch the video.



Technology Overtakes Demographics

Watching that video should explain many things. The key point that should be easy to spot is  technology has surpassed demographics.

Krugman's Mea Culpa

Paul Krugman was late to the recognition party as evidenced by his article Is Growth Over?
"Smart machines may make higher GDP possible, but also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots."
Robots, Demographics, the Fed

Amusingly, Krugman admitted in December of 2012 that he did not understand what was happening (let alone what to do about it).

In Human Versus Physical Capital Krugman stated ...
So the story has totally shifted; if you want to understand what’s happening to income distribution in the 21st century economy, you need to stop talking so much about skills, and start talking much more about profits and who owns the capital. Mea culpa: I myself didn’t grasp this until recently. But it’s really crucial.
Robots, Demographics, the Fed

Not only was Krugman late to the problem, he also missed the central cause of the problem, who is to blame, and what to do about it.

As noted above, technology has overtaken demographics. Before that happened, the Fed (central banks in general) could inflate at will, waiting for wages to rise with inflation.

However, the natural state of affairs as a result of productivity increases is falling prices (not rising nominal wages). One look at computer prices (where there is no government or union interference) should suffice to prove the point.

Yet the Fed is hell bent on preventing price deflation. The Fed succeeded but it has been a Pyrrhic victory.

Prices are going up, but wages have not kept up. It is as simple as that.

In the absence of Fed policies, wages would be stable to declining, but prices would fall more, and thus real wages would rise.

Instead, and as a direct result of Fed inflationary policies, profits have gone to those with first access to money, notably banks and the already wealthy.

The solution is to get rid of the Fed and fractional reserve lending, not tax robots or increase inflation as Krugman and others hypothesize.

Unfortunately, we see all sorts of preposterous proposals by various inflation proponents stating that more inflation is the key to success.

For example, Noah Smith, economist author of the "Not Quite Noahpinion" blog, recently proposed 5% inflation stating "Inflation makes you richer  ... to the benefit of the young and the poor ... which is why conservatives don't like inflation"!

For details of Noah's Alice in Wonderland economic thesis, please see Ivory Tower Academics, Inflation, and Kindness.

Bottom Line

The Fed and its inflationary policies are directly responsible for the massive rise in income inequality, yet numerous economists promote more inflation and taxation of robots as the solution.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Hurry! Only 121 Shopping Days Left Before Christmas; What to Expect This Holiday Season; Perpetual Christmas

Better hurry. There's "only" 121 shopping days left before Christmas.

If you think that sounds ridiculous so do I. But all it takes is for one major retailer to start Christmas promotions a few days earlier than last year, and all the lemming fall in line.

Thus, retailers en masses started bombarding customers with Christmas promotions three days sooner this year than last.

What to Expect This Holiday Season

MarketWatch says Wal-Mart’s free layaway launch foreshadows a competitive holiday to come.
Many top retailers have cut their full-year earnings outlooks, a clear indication they see a rough holiday season ahead.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT , cognizant of the climate, is wasting no time getting a jump on the competition.

Merchandising and marketing chief Duncan Mac Naughton, speaking Wednesday before 6,000 employees at Wal-Mart’s annual holiday meeting, said the company for the first time will introduce free layaway with no opening fee and no gift-card reimbursements. Last year, Wal-Mart layaways carried a $5 fee. It’s also adding infant toys, car stereos and other automotive electronics to the list of categories available for layaway.  The program starts Sept. 13, three days earlier this year, and lasts through Dec. 13.

Citigroup analyst Deborah Weinswig said Wal-Mart’s layaway-tied sales last holiday season rose about 10%. “We have a cautious view on the consumer,” she said, adding Wal-Mart’s no-fee program will resonate with shoppers given the challenging economic environment.
Christmas in August

As goes Wal-Mart, so goes the rest of retail. On Thursday CNBC stated Retailers start Xmas deals.
Even before the school bells are ringing for many families, retailers are sounding sleigh bells.

Yes, that's right. With 120-plus shopping days left, stores are already talking up their holiday offers.

Toys R Us announced Wednesday that it would expand its price-match guarantee to include online retailers including Amazon.com, Walmart.com, Target.com and BestBuy.com, among others. The aim, according to the release, "Removing any doubt before holiday shopping begins in earnest that customers are receiving the best available prices."

"Retailers are determined not to be left on the sidelines," said Dave Cheatham, managing principal of Velocity Retail Group. "They're reinventing the rules on how to do holiday shopping."

And there is some basis for the Christmas-in-August approach. "We do know that 40 percent of holiday shoppers say they begin shopping before Halloween," said Kathy Grannis, spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. If it draws in even a few extra customers, early action can be a big advantage in a competitive season, she said.
"Perpetual Christmas"

So when does Christmas in July start? Heck, why not perpetual Christmas?

And I have just the slogan: "It's always Christmas at Wal-Mart". And if it's "Always Christmas",  there's never any shopping days left - so you really better hurry with that shopping!

Wal-Mart better grab this slogan before Amazon does.

Retailers seem to be worried. But if consumers behave rationally for a change, it will be a good thing.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Brazil Plans $60 Billion Currency Intervention Scheme; Indonesia Abandons Intervention, Adopts Other Measures

The Financial Times reports Brazil, Indonesia launch measures to shore up their currencies.
Brazil and Indonesia have moved to stem the declines in their currencies and shore up confidence at the end of a torrid week for emerging markets where local borrowing costs hit a two-year high.

The central bank of Latin America’s largest economy said late on Thursday that it would launch a currency intervention programme worth about $60bn to ensure liquidity and reduce volatility in the nation’s foreign exchange market.

On Friday, Indonesia’s chief economic minister Hatta Rajasa told reporters that the government would increase import taxes on luxury cars, introduce tax incentives for companies investing in agriculture and metals industries and aim to reduce oil imports.

Brazil’s huge programme, which will be conducted through currency swap and repurchase agreements, follows a more than 15 per cent depreciation in the real against the dollar this year to its weakest levels in more than four years.

Brazil’s central bank said in its statement that it would on Monday to Thursday offer $500m a day in currency swaps to support the real, while on Fridays it would sell $1bn on the spot market through repurchase agreements.

“If judged appropriate, the central bank will take additional measures,” the bank said in the statement. The programme, which will last until December, follows intervention this year by the bank through derivative markets and other means worth about $45bn.
Brazil's  Currency War

These moves by Brazil  are rather amusing since Brazil launched a "currency war" while complaining bitterly over the past two years that its currency was too strong.

Flashback March 3, 2012: Brazil Declares New Currency War on US and Europe; Japan Losing Balance of Trade Battle
Brazil has declared a fresh “currency war” on the US and Europe, extending a tax on foreign borrowings and threatening further capital controls in an effort to protect the country’s struggling manufacturers.

Guido Mantega, the finance minister who was the first to use the controversial term in 2010, said the government would not “sit by passively” as developed nations continue to pursue expansionary monetary policies at the expense of Brazil.

“When the real appreciates, it reduces our competitiveness. Exports are more expensive, imports are cheaper and it creates unfair competition for businesses in Brazil,” he said on Thursday after announcing changes to the so-called IOF tax.
Be Careful of What You Ask 

Countries need to be careful of what they ask as they just might get it.  Brazil got what it asked and now does not want it.

OK Guido, what happened to the increased competitiveness you thought you were going to get?

Brazil's currency madness should provide a lesson for Japan, but it won't.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Diversion from Down Under

Here is an extremely well done video by reader Peter Sonners who lives in Australia. I offer this as a weekend diversion from economic news, war news, political news, etc.



Link if video does not play: King Tide on Tallebudgera Creek.

"Just once or twice a year, the mangrove forest next to Tallebudgera Creek floods deep enough to paddle all the way through to the other side"

Enjoy.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Prepare for War: Pentagon Crafts "Limited Strike Plans" for Syria; U.S. Forces Ready to Act With "Wide Range of Options"; Lose-Lose Situation For US; A Sensible Option

Flashback May 17, 2013: Foreign Policy magazine reports Obama rules out unilateral action in Syria as Russia ships advanced missiles to Assad
Top News: U.S. President Barack Obama again ruled out unilateral U.S. military action in Syria at a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday. "It's not going to be something that the United States does by itself. And I don't think anybody in the region would think that U.S. unilateral actions … would bring about a better outcome," the president said, promising to "keep increasing the pressure on the Assad regime and working with the Syrian opposition.”
Pentagon Crafts Limited Strike Plans for Syria

Today's "Top News" looks remarkably different: Pentagon Crafts Limited Strike Plans for Syria
A U.S. official said the Pentagon has crafted military options for limited U.S. air strikes in Syria that would send a message to the regime of President Bashar al Assad not to continue using chemical weapons against its civilians. There has been no presidential decision to use the military options, and U.S. intelligence continues to investigate an apparent large-scale chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime this week that may have killed as many as 1,000 civilians.

The official said the military options developed for consideration by the White House are limited in scope and would be intended to “deter or prevent” the Assad regime from the further use of chemical weapons.The options are not intended to remove the  Syrian president,  who has tenaciously hung on to power as Syria’s two-year civil war has raged on.

Traveling on a plane to Malaysia, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirmed to reporters that  Obama had asked the Pentagon to provide military options in Syria in light of the reported use of chemical weapons against civilians by the civilian government.
Ready to Act

Bloomberg reports U.S. Forces Are Ready to Act on Syria as UN Envoy Arrives.
“The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies,” Hagel told reporters yesterday while en route to Kuala Lumpur, where he starts a week-long visit to the region. “That requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets to be able to carry out different options, whatever option the president may choose.”

Military options include the repositioning of personnel and assets including ships, so as to be ready if the president chooses a military intervention, a senior U.S. defense official told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning.

Obama is under increased pressure to intervene in Syria amid allegations that President Bashar al-Assad’s government used chemical arms in an Aug. 21 attack in a Damascus suburb that opposition groups say killed 1,300 people.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called on the world to respond “with force” to any use of chemical weapons.

Iran’s foreign ministry warned against any international military action in Syria today, saying that intervention would heighten tensions in the Middle East.

“There are no international authorizations for a military intervention in Syria,” foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Araghchi was quoted as saying by the state-run Iranian Students’ News Agency. “We warn against any moves or announcements that would result in further tensions in the region.”
"Wide Range of Options"

Liberty Radio reports Obama To Meet National Security Team To Discuss Syria
The White House says President Barack Obama is meeting with his national security advisers to discuss possible next steps in Syria.

The meeting comes amid reports that the Syrian government has carried out a toxic-gas attack near Damascus on August 21.

A White House official said in a statement Washington had "a wide range of options available."

Hagel said Obama had asked the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria, and that some of these options "require positioning our forces."
Lose-Lose Proposition

Edward N. Luttwak, in a New York Times Op-Ed says In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins
The Obama administration should resist the temptation to intervene more forcefully in Syria’s civil war. A victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States.

At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests.

Indeed, it would be disastrous if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the rebellion and restoring its control over the entire country. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have become key factors in the fighting, and Mr. Assad’s triumph would dramatically affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanon-based proxy — posing a direct threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.

But a rebel victory would also be extremely dangerous for the United States and for many of its allies in Europe and the Middle East. That’s because extremist groups, some identified with Al Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting force in Syria. If those rebel groups manage to win, they would almost certainly try to form a government hostile to the United States. Moreover, Israel could not expect tranquility on its northern border if the jihadis were to triumph in Syria.

The war is now being waged by petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their alien ways; Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and Christians merely because of their religion; and jihadis from Iraq and all over the world who have advertised their intention to turn Syria into a base for global jihad aimed at Europe and the United States.

Given this depressing state of affairs, a decisive outcome for either side would be unacceptable for the United States.

There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.

By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.

That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.
Maintain Stalemate Says Luttwak

Luttwak continues with a hugely controversial set of statements "Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning."

Stalemate Option Foolhardy

Up until his "maintain stalemate" position, Luttwak was on track. The point being the US receives no particular benefit regardless of who wins.

Yet, by alternating support depending on who was winning, both sides would resent US tactics. And sooner or later one side is going to win by some US miscalculation somewhere, intervention by Russia, or intervention by other Mideast countries.

In the meantime, the hot-cold practice of on-again off-again backing of both sides would be 100% guaranteed to inflame tensions in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (all of which would resent US policy).

Better if Assad Won?
 
One might even argue it would be better if Assad won than a group of belligerent Al Qaeda rebels guaranteed to stir up more problems in the region if they win.

Yet backing Assad is hardly an option.

Sensible Option

I suggest the sensible option is to condemn chemicals, condemn bloodshed, and otherwise stay out of the mess.

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect the US will not choose the sensible option. Preparing a wide range of military options and sending forces to the area is hardly encouraging. So mentally prepare for the US to engage in another senseless, unwinnable war, that we cannot afford in the first place.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Friday, August 23, 2013

Humorous Clarke and Dawe Video - Same Special Subject as Everyone Else - Ben Bernanke

Here's a bit of weekend humor on Ben Bernanke.



Link if video does not play: Clarke and Dawe - Same Special Subject as Everyone Else

Here is a flashback to another Clarke and Dawe Video, one of the funniest ever.



Link if video does not play: Clarke and Dawe: Lending merry-go-round

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com