May 14, 2009
Wednesday was a rough day on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 184 points (just over two percent) to 8284; the Standard and Poor’s 500 index gave up over 24 points (2.69 percent) closing at 883.92 and the NASDAQ 100 index gave up 51.73 points (3.01 percent). One didn’t have to look very far to find the reason. At The Daily Beast website on Wednesday evening, item number 2 on the Cheat Sheet was a link to an article from The Wall Street Journal by Peter McKay, entitled: “Signs of Consumer Strain Hit Stocks”. The morning’s bad news was described by Mr. McKay in these terms:
The Commerce Department reported that retail sales fell 0.4% in April from the prior month, a steeper decline than the 0.1% gain economists expected. Sales in March were revised down, falling 1.3% instead of 1.2% as previously reported.
The Wall Street Journal also ran an article on this subject by Justin Lahart: “Retail Sales Stall on Consumer Caution”. Mr. Lahart’s piece underscored the message reverberating through the evening’s financial reporting:
Indeed, retail sales rose in January and February after sliding for six straight months. But those hopes were undermined by the 1.3% drop in retail sales in March as well as April’s decline.
The data suggest that a recovery won’t come until the second half of the year, and that when it does arrive it will be sluggish, said Michael Darda, an economist at MKM Partners in Stamford, Conn.
As I scanned through a number of websites to peruse the evening’s news stories, I was quite shocked to see the following headline on the Huffington Post blog, with screaming, bright red, upper-case, oversized font: “BLOOMBERG NEWS: CONSUMERS FEELING ‘INSPIRED’ TO SPEND MORE”. Huh? Just below the headline were three large photos. The photo on the left featured a lineup of luxurious yachts, reminiscent of what can be found along Indian Creek during the Miami Beach Boat Show. The middle picture showed that guy from Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, raising a silver goblet in a toast to the photographer. The photo on the right depicted a headless woman, adorned in enough jewelry to turn Ruth Madoff green with envy. Had someone hacked into the HuffPo website and put this up as a gag? (Later in the evening, I checked back at the site. Although there was a new main headline relating to a different story, the link to the “inspired consumers” story was still there, although down the page.)
Clicking on the “inspired consumers” headline brought me to a story from Bloomberg News, entitled: “‘Good Bad’ Economy Inspires Consumers As Slump Eases”. “Good bad economy”? I had trouble figuring out what that meant because I lost my George Orwell Decoder Ring. Looking at this slice from the story told me enough about what they were trying to say:
Investor Exuberance
A Bloomberg survey of users on six continents showed that confidence in the global economy rose to the highest level in 19 months.
Antarctica and what five other continents?
The Huffington Post‘s BizarroWorld headline struck me as an attempt to imbue readers with a perception of Happy Days in Obamaland. That headline and its incorporated story reminded me of a point recently made by one of my favorite bloggers, Jr. Deputy Accountant:
You know, there are times when I wonder just how difficult it is to keep the PR machine running at full speed and keep the market propped up artificially and massage Goldman’s nuts all at once. Somehow, the powers-that-be are pulling it off, and I imagine that a large part of the dirty work, at least when it comes to PR, is taken care of by our moronic friends in mainstream media who feed up gems like this: Citi using most of TARP capital to make loans.
(As an aside: the reference to “Goldman” is Goldman Sachs, the second largest contributor to President Obama’s election campaign.)
Instead of relying on “the PR machine” to feed me propaganda about the economy, I rely on some of the sources included on this website’s blogroll. Most of the writers for those sites are credentialed professionals, regarded as experts in their field (as opposed to the dilettantes, who cheerlead for Wall Street in the mainstream media). One of these experts is Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism. If you want to keep up with what’s really happening in the financial world, I suggest that you read her blog.
The truth of what the economy has in store for us is not pretty. If you are ready to have a look at it, read Jeremy Grantham’s most recent report. His bottom line is that late this year or early next year there will be a stock market rally, bringing the Standard and Poor’s 500 index near the 1100 range. After that, get ready for seven really lean years:
A large rally here is far more likely to prove a last hurrah — a codicil on the great bullishness we have had since the early 90s or, even in some respects, since the early 80s. The rally, if it occurs, will set us up for a long, drawn-out disappointment not only in the economy, but also in the stock markets of the developed world.
Unfortunately, it’s already too late for President Obama to accept the following rationale from Mr. Grantham’s essay:
We should particularly not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the financial mafia into believing that all of the failing financial companies — or very nearly all — had to be defended at all costs. To take the equivalent dough that was spent on propping up, say, Goldman or related entities like AIG (that were necessary to Goldman’s well being), as well as the many other incompetent banks and spending it instead on really useful, high return infrastructure and energy conservation and oil and coal replacement projects would seem like a real bargain for society. Yes, we would certainly have had a very painful temporary economic hit from financial and other bankruptcies if we had decided to let them go, but given the proven resilience of economies, it would still have seemed a better long-term bet.
After reading Jeremy Grantham’s recent quarterly letter, ask yourself this: Do you feel “inspired” to spend more?
The C Word
June 8, 2009
I always find it amusing when politicians adopt the catch phrases and other expressions, obviously created by their lobbyist/puppeteers. One of my favorites is “foreign oil”, as in: “We need to end our dependence on foreign oil”. Do they expect people to believe that Jesus made our oil different from that “Muslim oil”, which causes air pollution? The expression: “foreign oil” is obviously being used to vilify Arab countries for last year’s inflated gasoline prices, caused by oil speculators and American oil companies. (Let’s not forget the price gouging by gasoline retailers.) Most Americans realize that we have a serious problem with our dependence on petroleum products and, more generally fossil fuels, including coal, as sources of energy. According to a March, 2009 Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans are “worried a great deal or fair amount” by global warming. Although this is down from last year’s 66 percent, 76 percent of Americans are “worried a great deal or fair amount” by air pollution itself, independent of the global warming consequences (according to the same poll).
Attention is increasingly focused on the concept of “clean coal” as an energy source. In his February 24 address to the Joint Session of Congress, President Obama made it clear that he supported Congressional financing of the development of “clean coal” as a viable energy source. The timing seemed intended to coincide with the aggressive advertising campaign against “clean coal”. In case you’re wondering just what “clean coal” is . . . Ben Elgin wrote an article for Business Week last year, entitled: “The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal”. Here’s some of what he had to say:
Needless to say, President Obama’s advocacy on behalf of the “clean coal” lobby has outraged more than a few people. Will Harlan wrote an article for the March 20 edition of Blue Ridge Outdoors magazine, entitled: “The Dirty Truth Behind Obama’s ‘Clean Coal’ Stimulus”. In addition to addressing the problems yet to be overcome with carbon capture, as well as the problems associated with mountaintop removal mining, sludge spills, dam breaches, poisoned wells, skyrocketing cancer rates, childhood asthma, premature deaths, slurry ponds, coal ash waste and mercury emissions, Harlan pointed out that:
Eugene Robinson deserves a hat tip for his June 5 Washington Post column, criticizing Obama’s stance on this issue. The strongest point made by Robinson was the cost/benefit analysis:
It should come as no surprise that the Greenpeace website would feature an essay, critical of “clean coal” with the following conclusion:
Nevertheless, what does come as a surprise is that the very same article quoted above appears on Barack Obama’s Campaign for America website. In case you’re wondering how to reconcile that point of view with Obama’s enthusiasm for “clean coal”, you have to read the disclaimer appearing at the end of the article on the Campaign for America site:
In other words: “Don’t be dumb enough to believe that President Obama is really going to support anything you read here”.
In his June 4 opinion piece for The Washington Post, E.J. Dionne observed how the media are:
To the objective observer, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Barack Obama is as much of a hypocrite as any other politician who found his way to the White House.