Monday, August 19, 2019

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Answering the Kennedys’ Call


The day after last Thursday’s DOW Index plunged 800 points, President Trump Tweeted a request that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu block Congresswomen Ilhan Omer and Rashida Tlaib’s visit to Israel and the West Bank.

His action was more than an attempt to distract from economic policies that might be adversely affecting the financial markets. It was just his latest attempt to promote a fear of dark-skinned immigrants, in order to divide and conquer real or imagined adversaries.

He wanted to stir up as much anti-Islamic sentiment as possible by painting them as the face of the Democratic Party, and Republicans the supporter of Israel, when both political parties staunchly support Israel, the only Democracy in the Middle East.

He is following the precedents of autocratic rulers everywhere that attempt to weaken those that oppose their autocratic behavior. But the United States was founded on the principle that we are equal, regardless of race or creed (though not always in practice).
Patrick Henry, the Revolutionary War patriot, was an early supporter of the United States as a delegate to the Confederate Congresses, though not the Constitutional Convention. His last public speech given in March 1799 said, "Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."
The actual proverb, United we stand, divided we fall, is said to originate from an Aesop’s fable of a lion stalking oxen for his dinner, who realize they are only safe by herding together.

England was the predator ‘lion’ at the time that Patrick Henry believed could only be successfully opposed by a United States of America. Modern nations have avoided major conflicts and been kept safe by the same credo since WWII because they were united by alliances.

Any predator—whether a person or country—can only succeed in weakening the U.S. by exacerbating our divisions, whether between Red and Blue states, or white and dark races, or the rich and poor.

And we now have a predator in our White House that wants to instill the fear of immigrants to divide us.

But we can take comfort in what results from predatory behavior. Autocrats seldom last long in the modern world because they lack the one major element in human behavior that has evolved to create modern civilizations—empathy, or the understanding of others that comes from the realization we are all in this together.

Autocracies are considered pariahs by a civilized world, says Stephen Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature—Why Violence Has Declined.

In spite of modern populist movements that oppose the migration of darker-skinned populations to more prosperous (light-skinned) countries, the number of democratic countries has risen sharply to more than 90, while the number of autocracies has declined to just 10 in countries with more than 500,000 in population, cites Pinker from a 2009 Marshall & Cole study.

There is a good reason for the growth of modern democracies, continues Dr. Pinker. “Not only are democracies free of despots, but they are richer, healthier, better educated, and more open to international trade and international organizations.”

Democracies make their citizens more prosperous by inducing them to cooperate peacefully rather than quarrel among themselves. Patrick Henry’s cry, United We Stand, Divided We Fall, was a plea to oppose any behavior that threatens to weaken the United States of America—whether it is by fomenting trade wars, or culture wars.

Harlan Green © 2019

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

How Low Can Interest Rates Go?

Popular Economics Weekly


 Calculatedriskblog

 Why are interest rates so low—not just in the US? It’s been below 0 percent in the northern EU countries and Japan for years because there is little worldwide inflation, which means there’s not sufficient demand for the things people and businesses buy that would boost inflation and interest rates higher.

The housing market is usually an infallible indicator of inflation trends. The S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index, for instance, shows housing prices rising 3.4 percent annually in May, when it was rising at 5 percent over the past several years. It’s a 3-month average of same-home sales that smooths out some of the bumps due to the difficulties in collecting national sales data that always qualify the price estimates with + or – double figure brackets.

The above Case-Shiller graph highlights the percentage changes. Its huge dip occurred during the Great Recession that busted the housing bubble. Its highest point since then was in 2014, and it began to dip below 5 percent in early 2018.

There’s not much the Central Banks can do about the falling interest rates, since they are already so low. They equivocate as much as the financial markets, which tells us things could get worse. The stock market is swinging wildly as more investors flee to save haven investments like bonds, which drives down interest rates further.

For one thing, JP Morgan says a recession could occur in 9 months if Trump can’t resolve the China trade war soon (Hong Kong unrest, for starters?). And economists are beginning to conjecture that if the inverted yield curve—with 1.65 percent 10-yr Treasury yield below the 2-2.5 percent fed funds rate and 2-year bond yields—remains inverted for too long, 1) banks could cut back their lending sharply, tightening credit markets, and 2) investor confidence will fall as more flee from stocks to bonds, while corporations cut back on capex spending due to future uncertainty.

It certainly looks like housing prices might continue to decline, in spite of still record-low mortgage rates, and even though mostly higher-priced homes are being built these days.

The conforming 30-year fixed mortgage rate has now fallen to 3.25 percent, the lowest I’ve seen it in my 30+ years as a Mortgage Banker, though the Prime rate on which most installment and credit card rates are based is at 5.25 percent. Prime dropped 0.25 percent in concert with the last week’s 0.25 percent Federal Reserve rate reduction, but stay tuned on further Prime rate drops, if consumers cut back on their spending.

Consumers might continue to spend for the rest of this year if consumer sentiment holds up, because the job market is still expanding. The latest JOLTS report (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) says there were 1.65 million more job openings (7.35 million) than the 5.7 million new hires in July.

Why do I see interest rates, and inflation declining further? There’s a worldwide decline in foreign trade that totaled $17.7 trillion in 2017, on which most economies depend. And tariffs will become more reciprocal as other countries retaliate with their own import tariffs. It should be obvious to all by now that tariffs are really a tax on imports, and financial markets know this.

So the financial markets are telling us this isn’t the right time to raise taxes.

Harlan Green © 2019

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Trade Protectionism = Recession?

Popular Economics Weekly


BEIJING (AP) — China’s government has threatened unspecified “necessary countermeasures” if Trump’s planned tariff hike goes ahead said the AP. And it followed up the threat by devaluing their Yuan by more than 7 percent against the dollar, say news reports.

President Trump Thursday had suddenly tweeted that he would levy a 10 percent tariff on $300 million of Chinese imports last week, after what he perceived to be Chinese backtracking on their good faith efforts to negotiate. It completely unsettled financial markets, causing the DOW to plunge more than 600 points Friday and almost 1,000 points today from a rally spurred by the Federal Reserve rate cut on Wednesday, and today’s counterpunch by the Chinese—though some commentators remarked that investors should have seen it coming.

The beefed-up tariffs on Chinese imports add to an existing 25 percent tax Trump has already placed on Chinese goods. As the New York Times notes, the United States is now “taxing nearly everything China sends to the United States, from iPhones to New Balance sneakers to children’s books.”

Republicans and Trump seem to have a bad case of historical amnesia. Historians generally agree it was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that helped to precipitate the Great Depression. The US lost some 50 percent of its foreign trade as a result. Other governments reciprocated with higher tariffs, just as the China is doing with Midwest farmers, and now devaluation that makes their exports cheaper. They are also threatening to ban the export of rare earth minerals used in high-tech manufacturing components, of which China is the world’s major supplier.

China’s Commerce Ministry said Trump’s announcement is a violation of his agreement with President Xi Jinping in June to revive negotiations aimed at ending their fight over Beijing’s trade surplus and technology ambitions. The ministry had earlier said if the U.S. measures took effect, “China will have to take necessary countermeasures to resolutely defend its core interests.”

What is really happening between the lines? One Chinese minister posited that China had slowed negotiations for any meaningful trade agreement to a crawl until after the 2020 election, when it will know with more certainty who to deal with over the longer term.

Whereas President Trump sudden announcement must mean he is trying to divert media attention away from his other problems. To name a few: Trump hadn’t vetted Republican Congressman Daniel Radcliffe, who had to withdraw from consideration for the CIA Chief after it was obvious he wasn’t’ qualified for the job; Senate Majority Leader “Moscow Mitch” McConnell is drawing fire from all sides for refusing to allow a Senate bill to come to the floor that protects upcoming elections from foreign interference; and lastly, all signs are pointing to a gradually slowing economy precisely because of the ongoing trade war.

It is not a pretty picture, but empty bluster and posturing rarely is. We now have the makings of a currency devaluation war, says former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder, when other countries may now want to also devaluate their currencies. Such a result could lead to plummeting commodity prices worldwide, and what else…?

The Chinese know the clock is ticking on the Trump administration and Republicans who continue to blindly support him, when congress is by law the real maker or breaker of trade agreements. Who will step up that actually knows the “Art of the Deal?”

Harlan Green © 2019

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Thursday, August 1, 2019

What Happened to Main Street—Part II?

Popular Economics Weekly


Corporate responsibility is back in the air with a vengeance; not only from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who constantly remind us on the campaign trail that corporate misbehavior has tilted the “playing field” of economic benefits too much in corporations’ favor.

Now Jamie Gamble, a former corporate attorney, has touched the third rail of corporate behavior—business ethics. He has written an as yet unpublished essay that asserts corporate executives “are legally obligated to act like sociopaths,” according to Andrew Sorkin of the New York Times.
“The corporate entity is obligated to care only about itself and to define what is good as what makes it more money,” Gamble is quoted as saying in his essay. “Pretty close to a textbook case of antisocial personality disorder. And corporate persons are the most powerful people in our world.”
I call it the third rail because it’s a topic that comes up for discussion only when a crisis is brewing, or an election, though economic futurists like Hazel Henderson have been writing about the need to train business executives on higher business ethics for decades in books like, Building a Win-Win World, (Berrett-Koehler, 1996).
“When I published “Should Business Solve Societies' Problems? In the Harvard Business Review in 1968,” said Henderson, “there were few MBA courses on business ethics. By 1995 such courses were standard and often compulsory.”
Ethical behavior leads to what she calls “win-win” corporate behavior, defined as cooperative outcomes that benefit not just corporate executives and their shareholders as happened with the recent Republican tax cuts.

Simply put, such sociopathic behavior benefits just the few with its pre-occupation with maximizing quarterly profits, rather than benefiting the employees and market customers it also services, while adding to the ‘hidden’ public costs of maintaining a clean environment and public infrastructure that it depends on.

These are what are termed the social costs of doing business that Senator Elizabeth Warren intoned in her first campaign to become a Massachusetts Senator:
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.
 “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
In fact, Jamie Gamble has formulated a list of ethical rules he wants corporation executives and shareholders to adopt, and be liable for if they are not adhered to.  They should include:
· Their “relationship with their employees.”
· With “their communities in which they produce and sell.”
· Their “relationships with customers.”
· Their “effects on the environment.”
· And “effects on future generations.”
It is not surprising that Gamble’s ethical rules also meet the definition of sustainable economic growth, which is growth for the long term that benefits more than the few, because it is the “win-win” path that maintains stronger, lasting economic growth with fewer down cycles and economic crises that have wreaked so much economic and social damage in recent decades.

Harlan Green © 2019

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen