Flexible Labor Is The Future

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Flexible labor is the future for the basic reason that it is the only viable model going forward.

If we can't go forward, then let's go back: this is the guiding philosophy of the labor movement that seeks security via strict work rules. The premise here is simple: employers could provide their employees with secure employment if only they weren't so greedy.

Unfortunately, it isn't this simple. Even the most generous employers–for example, worker-owned co-ops and state-owned enterprises–must generate a profit that can be reinvested to replace obsolete equipment and boost productivity.

To get guaranteed employment security, you must first guarantee profits that can be reinvested to keep the enterprise afloat.

In today's world of global competition and stagnation, guaranteed profits and guaranteed employment security are both scarce. What could be more guaranteed than profits from oil? Oops. How about offering ObamaCare/ACA health plans? Oops. It turns out profits, even in supposedly rock-solid industries, are not guaranteed.

As a result, the entire idea that employers facing a rocky, uncertain future can guarantee employees anything is nonsensical. Flexible labor is the future for the basic reason that it is the only viable model going forward.

Even the most secure employer–the government–will start shifting to flexible-labor models once local government revenues start drying up and generous salaries-pension-benefits packages become unaffordable.

Rather than attempting to go back to a model that has evaporated, we have to move forward to a model in which employment security is not based on any employer. I sketch out just such a model in my book A Radically Beneficial World.

The insanity of basing employees' security on any employer's ability to permanently navigate increasingly treacherous waters is a core reason why healthcare in the U.S. is a mess: the obvious solution is a system in which employees have health coverage regardless of the financial health and stability of their employer of the moment.

I call the model of flexible labor that shifts to fill whatever scarcities arise mobile creatives. In this model, security is generated by multiple income streams from a broad network of clients, customers and collaborators.

Rather than rely on a single industry and employer to provide security, the mobile creative gains security from a dynamic network of paid work across a variety of industries and fields.

Mobile creatives operate by the principle trust your network, not the corporation or the state. Chasing after security by demanding the impossible of corporations or the state only guarantees failure of the entire system.

It would be nice if we could go back to a time in which employees could count on one employer to provide guaranteed employment for life–but we can't. Even the 20% of the work force that works for the government will have to adapt eventually, as the government itself lives off private-sector profits and wages.

And as this chart shows, wages as a share of GDP have been declining for decades:

 

We can't go back, so we must go forward. It is possible to create employment security, but it can't be forced by imposing guarantees on employers. If employers can't respond flexibly to a dynamic global economy, their only choice will be to shut down. When that happens, everyone loses.

via http://ift.tt/1O5R8p1 Tyler Durden

“It’s A Nightmare” – As Rail Workers Go On Strike In France, Hollande Scrambles For Calm

With just over a week to go before the first match in Euro 2016 gets underway in France, and with the CGT union causing fuel disruptions in the country, French president Francois Hollande is now facing significant transportation disruptions.

Workers at the country's national rail-operator SNCF began a rolling strike at 7pm Tuesday evening, while Metro and rail workers in Paris will start an open-ended strike on Thursday according to France 24. In addition to rail workers, the French Civil Aviation Authority is also set to stage a walkout from June 3 to 5 which is likely to result in cancellations and delays for flights as well.

SNCF said 17 percent of its staff were on strike Wednesday, leading to more than two-thirds of inter-city trains and nearly half of high speed TGV services being canceled, including the majority of trains to Spain and Italy.

"It's a nightmare today, even more than the other strike days" said a SNCF worker surveying the chaos at Ormesson station in the Paris suburbs, where commuters were struggling to squeeze on to one of the few trains that had shown up.

Pressure is building on Francois Hollande to walk back the unpopular labor reforms that the government slammed through parliament without a vote. The SNCF said that the strikes will continue until demands for better pay and conditions are met, and CGT union head Philippe Martinez proclaiming that "this week will see the strongest mobilization in three months."

Despite the disruptions, 46 percent of the people support the unions' calls an opinion poll showed Sunday. A pensioner from Marseille said that he "wholeheartedly supported" the strikes despite delays to his train journey. Even former president Nicolas Sarkozy has said that the government's handling of the crisis is leaving the country in "shambles", and warned of anarchy on the streets.

"Weakness, cowardice, a total loss of authority: this is the spectacle we are witnessing. The bill is far too weak to solve the problems, but stinging enough to arouse the passions of the left. The government has proven its weakness faced with protests." Sarkozy said.

For now, Hollande has stuck to his promise to stand by the reforms, however he announced Tuesday that school teachers would receive a pay raise worth $1.2 billion by 2019, and promised to speed up reorganization talks with the SNCF in an effort to calm the protests.

Throughout all of this chaos, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. CGT's Martinez hinted that negotiations may be an option, saying "let's talk again" and adding that there is "no pre-condition" during a debate Monday evening. Prime Minister Manuel Valls even said that "my door is open", although he insists that the government would not gut the bill of key elements.

We eagerly await to see who blinks first in this dramatic showdown, however with the Euro 2016 tournament looming, we suspect Hollande will be the first to the negotiating table very soon.

via http://ift.tt/1TYb7q7 Tyler Durden

July Rate Hike Odds Rise As Beige Book Signals “Tight Job Market”, “Modest Growth”

The Beige Book offered its ubiquitous modest, moderate, mummified growth outlook but added a few points that provide The Fed more ammo for hiking rates.

The key higlights from the report:

  • tight labor markets ‘widely noted’ amid modest growth
  • U.S. employment, wages grew modestly since mid-april
  • price pressures grew slightly in most districts
  • contacts in several district ‘generally optimistic’
  • consumer spending up modestly, manufacturing mixed
  • construction, real estate grew, outlook remained positive
  • loan demand up moderately except for Dallas district
  • many Fed districts reported steady to good credit availability
  • energy sector remained weak
  • Chicago, Kansas city Fed districts saw slower growth pace
     
  • Dallas Fed district grew ‘marginally,’ New York generally flat

Some of the key anecdotes from the regional feds:

  • Consumer spending and tourism activity was up modestly in many Districts
  • Boston: March closed sales of single-family homes increased year-over-year in all six New England states
  • New York: Retailers report that inventories are on the high side, particularly for warm weather apparel
  • Philadelphia: Auto dealers reported that light vehicle sales have slowed somewhat during the current period
  • Cleveland: Only consumer spending segment reporting strong activity was restaurants
  • Richmond: Natural gas extraction increased since the previous report, while coal production was unchanged
  • Atlanta: Firms seeking employees for high-demand fields, such as information technology, healthcare, engineering, and construction continued to experience difficulty filling jobs
  • Chicago: Contacts again reported an increase in the length of auto loans
  • St. Louis: Even with a near-perfect year in the field, most row crop operations will struggle to break even unless a crop price rebound is sustained and significant
  • Minneapolis: Number of active drilling rigs in the District continued to fall through mid-May, reaching its lowest level in more than 10 years
  • Kansas City: Several retailers noted an increase in sales for lower-priced items and spring outdoor products, while luxury products sold poorly
  • Dallas: Gulf Coast chemical producers said margins were higher compared with the first quarter
  • San Francisco: Contacts reported that minimum wage increases pushed up wages for low-skilled workers in various service sectors, with diminishing ripple effects up the pay scale

 

The reaction was a further rise in July rate-hike odds (and easing of June and September).

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/1UuRG75 Tyler Durden

What A ‘Carve-Up’ – Economists Fake-Panic Over Brexit

Submitted by Tim Price via SovereignMan.com,

JW: “..Someone like Neil Woodford, star investor, who set up his own fund; he says the fundamentals of the economy will be unmoved [by Brexit] either way..

 

RA: “Well I’m afraid that every, every serious economic forecaster would not agree with that..”

 

JW: “Are you saying he’s not serious?”

 

RA: “Not for economic forecasts, clearly.”

 

JW: “He’s an investor on behalf of pensioners.”

 

RA: “I’m talking about every major economic forecaster. A weaker economy means lower wages, lower profits, lower dividends, lower investment returns and lower pension contributions as well as lower pension fund investments. This isn’t some kind of conspiracy, this is consensus here… What do pensioners want more than anything else? They want certainty.”

 

– Today presenter Justin Webb discussing Brexit pensionocalypse with Baroness Ros Altmann, 27 May 2016.

Carve-up, n. “An act or instance of dishonestly prearranging the result of a competition.”

Just two hours before it was barred from issuing any more fatuous propaganda about Brexit, the UK Treasury last week managed to surpass themselves. They warned that if the UK left the EU, the hit to each individual British pensioner would amount to £137 per year. Those with an additional pension pot worth £60,000 would apparently be worse off to the tune of £1,900. (The “forecasts” arrived conveniently alongside news that net migration into the UK had risen to a third of a million people in 2015.)

Economist (UCL, LSE) and pensions minister Ros Altmann was duly wheeled out to defend this nonsense. The interview on Radio 4’s Today programme was entertaining, if nothing else. Memo to Planet Altmann: pensioners may want certainty, but they’re not going to get it, in or out, no matter how confident you are in the “forecasts” of economics bodies like the IFS, the OECD, the NISR [National Institute of Statistics Rwanda?], the IMF, the Bank of England, the LSE.. Just when you thought it was impossible for the fractious Brexit debate to plumb new depths, Ros Altmann got her spade out. Rubbishing fund manager Neil Woodford because he doesn’t happen to swallow the government line about Brexit triggering economic and financial market meltdown is simply ridiculous. The phrase “credible economic forecasts” carries as much intellectual weight as phrases like “military intelligence”. The British economist Joan Robinson was surely right when she observed that

The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.

Modern economics has a long and inglorious history of believing its own PR.

Conventional (neo-Keynesian) economics is a bastard science. It is not, in fact, a science at all. When the Frenchman Le?on Walras, who had serially failed at every job to which he had previously turned his hand, walked with his father one evening in 1858, he was advised by Walras Sr. to have a crack at “the creation of a scientific theory of economics”.

Walras Jr. had previously botched careers in academia, engineering, creative writing, journalism, and banking. That he had been rejected, twice, from France’s prestigious Ecole Polytechnique due to poor mathematical skills tells you everything you need to know about the birth of modern economics.

But Walras Jr. did not give up. Rather, he flunked again. Before Walras, economics had not even been a mathematical field. Eric Beinhocker in ‘The Origin of Wealth’ takes up the story:

Walras and his compatriots were convinced that if the equations of differential calculus could capture the motions of planets and atoms in the universe, these same mathematical techniques could also capture the motion of human minds in the economy.

In other words, Walras hijacked a bunch of principles from the realm of physics and then misapplied them to a grotesquely oversimplified model of his own economy. Modern economics, in other words, was born out of physics envy.

Walras was not alone. Beinhocker points out that he was “not the only economist during his era raiding physics textbooks in search of inspiration”; the British economist William Stanley Jevons is also cited for ‘borrowing’ from the theories of gravity, magnetism and electricity in an attempt to turn economics into a mathematical science.

It isn’t, and never can be.

We have involved ourselves in a colossal muddle,

wrote the British economist John Maynard Keynes in his essay ‘The Great Slump of 1930’;

..having blundered in the control of a delicate machine, the working of which we do not understand. The result is that our possibilities of wealth may run to waste for a time – perhaps for a long time.

Keynes was right to warn about the baleful prospects for wealth. The Great Depression would run on for the best part of a decade.

But words matter, and their meanings matter. Keynes’ metaphor of economy-as-machine is not just inaccurate, it’s inappropriate. The economy is not some simple machine that can be driven back to equilibrium (an illusory state that doesn’t even exist in the real economy). The economy is as complex as human nature because the economy is human interaction on a global scale. The economy is us. And by extension, the financial markets are us, too.

Keynes would be proven right about the slump in wealth. But the ‘economy as a machine’ metaphor is invalid, just as Walrasian economics is invalid. The great insight of the so-called Austrian or Classical economic school, inspired by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, is that the economy is far too complex to be compared to a simple mechanism. The economy is subject to all of the hopes, fears, frailties and illogicalities of human beings. Good luck modelling that.

Not that it has stopped economists from trying.

A key prediction of traditional economics, for example, is that the economy as a whole must at some point reach equilibrium – a prediction made by both the general equilibrium theory of microeconomics as well as by standard macroeconomics. So how long does it take for the economy to reach that equilibrium?

In the 1970s, the Yale economist Herbert Scarf determined that the time to equilibrium scales exponentially with the number of products and services in the economy to the power of four. The intuition behind this relationship is straightforward: the more products and services, the longer it takes for all the prices and quantities to adjust.. if we optimistically assume that every decision in the economy is made at the speed of the world’s fastest supercomputer (currently IBM’s Blue Gene, at 70.72 trillion floating-point calculations per second), then using Scarf’s result, it would take a mere 4.5 quintillion years (4.5 x 1018) for the economy to reach general equilibrium after each exogenous shock. Given that shocks from factors such as technological change, political uncertainty, weather and changes in consumer tastes buffet the economy every second, and the universe is only about 12 billion years old (1.2 x 1010), this clearly presents a problem.

The essential problem of traditional economics is that it assumes a largely closed system of, in Eric Beinhocker’s words, incredibly smart people in unbelievably simple worlds. The reality, as objective non-economist modern commentators tend to agree, is that the economy is closer to being a complex, adaptive, dynamic system – not unlike a living organic being, vulnerable to illnesses and other sudden exogenous outbreaks.

The yin to Keynes’ yang is the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. As part of his magnum opus, ‘Human Action’, Mises wrote about the impossibility of economic calculation in the centrally planned economy:

The paradox of “planning” is that it cannot plan, because of the absence of economic calculation. What is called a planned economy is no economy at all. It is just a system of groping about in the dark. There is no question of a rational choice of means for the best possible attainment of the ultimate ends sought. What is called conscious planning is precisely the elimination of conscious purposive action…

 

The mathematical economists are almost exclusively intent upon the study of what they call economic equilibrium and the static state. Recourse to the imaginary construction of an evenly rotating economy is, as has been pointed out, an indispensable mental tool of economic reasoning. But it is a grave mistake to consider this auxiliary tool as anything else than an imaginary construction, and to overlook the fact that it has not only no counterpart in reality, but cannot even be thought through consistently to its ultimate logical consequences. The mathematical economist, blinded by the prepossession that economics must be constructed according to the pattern of Newtonian mechanics and is open to treatment by mathematical methods, misconstrues entirely the subject matter of his investigations. He no longer deals with human action but with a soulless mechanism mysteriously actuated by forces not open to further analysis. In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy there is, of course, no room for the entrepreneurial function. Thus the mathematical economist eliminates the entrepreneur from his thought. He has no need for this mover and shaker whose never ceasing intervention prevents the imaginary system from reaching the state of perfect equilibrium and static conditions. He hates the entrepreneur as a disturbing element. The prices of the factors of production, as the mathematical economist sees it, are determined by the intersection of two curves, not by human action.

Keynes was looking for a lever to move the economy. But the lever does not exist. The economy as machine does not exist. The metaphor he used is not grounded in objective reality.

We do not know precisely what might happen if the UK were to vote to leave the EU. It is intellectually and morally unacceptable for economists to pretend that they do.

Notwithstanding Ros Altmann’s hypothetical pensioners and the hypothetical behaviour of post-Brexit financial markets, doubt may be uncomfortable, but certainty is absurd. The tone and content of the Brexit debate, thus far, has been a disgrace – and the economists are amongst the guiltiest parties.

via http://ift.tt/1ZdDNeP Tyler Durden

David Brooks Wants to Talk About Love

Big love, little love, what begins with love?Like clockwork, David Brooks periodically produces a column bemoaning either Americans’ unwillingness to trust our leaders or our unwillingness to embrace the Big Dreams a powerful leader would enact. I’m glad he does this: Sometimes I’m feeling a little glum about the direction the country’s taking, and then Brooks comes along with a little reminder that the American spirit of disobedience isn’t dead. Or at least that it’s alive enough to aggravate writers like Brooks.

So Brooks’ latest column is a nice pick-me-up. Once you wade through the intro (sample sentence: “Recently neuroscientists have shown that the experiences of beauty and awe activate different parts of the brain”), you get to his Big Point, which is to contrast “little love” and “big love.” Little love turns out to be real love: personal passions, family ties, local loyalties—most of the stuff that makes life worth living. Big love means grand projects and the abstractions that animate them. Brooks thinks the latter “is almost a foreign language” today, and being Brooks, he thinks that is bad:

In dreams begin irresponsibility.

Almost nobody speaks about the American project in the same ardent tones that were once routine.

Big love is hopeful, but today pessimism is in vogue. Big love involves a confidence that one can use power well, but today Americans are suspicious of power, have lost faith in leaders and big institutions and feel a sense of impotence in the face of big problems.

Big love involves thinking in sweeping historical terms. But today the sense that America is pursuing a noble mission in the world has been humbled by failures and passivity. The country feels more divided than unified around common purpose.

In practice, Brooks’ big loves tend to crush the little ones. Someone dreams up a “noble” “sweeping” “mission” and plows a highway through your neighborhood, or tries to uplift everybody by outlawing people’s pleasures, or sends your son to fight in one of those wars that Brooks is always cheering on. Afterward, it becomes less “routine” to speak about such projects with “ardor.” What a coincidence.

Brooks sees things differently, but at this point I’m used to disagreeing with David Brooks. If you don’t share his big love for “faith in leaders and big institutions,” check out the column; it’ll boost your spirits.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1VwTNcI
via IFTTT

Well, What Do You Expect From “Dan Quayle’s Brain”? The End of Bill Kristol & Right-Wing Seriousness

If you were like 99.9 percent of Americans, over the course of Memorial Day weekend, you gave precious little thought to politics, especially the 2016 election that until recently pitted two historically disliked candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, against one another.

But if you were at the Libertarian Party national convention, or you followed the news at least a little, you know now that there is now an “honorable” and bracing “Libertarian Alternative” to the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees. Former two-term New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, running for the second time as the LP nominee, along with his running mate William Weld (another two-term governor, of Massachusetts), preach fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. They are in favor of things such as abortion rights, marriage equality, more-open borders, more-free trade, and robust Second Amendment rights. Unlike Clinton and Trump, both of whom have said, in effectively identical language, that we need to censor the internet, Johnson and Weld also believe in free speech, too. They are opposed to mindless interventionism, spending like there is no tomorrow, and they question the sagacity of giving up privacy in the name of the war on global terrorism. Which is to say, the Johnson-Weld ticket represents the center of what most Americans believe.

Over the weekend, you might also have caught The Weekly Standard co-founder Willam Kristol teasing out a big reveal on Twitter:

Alas, in naming National Review writer David French as his savior-candidate, the only thing that Kristol actually revealed is how sad and misguided the leaders of the #NeverTrump right really are. Indeed, they are as fundamentally out of touch as the #AlwaysTrump and anti-libertarian conservatives with whom they share so many beliefs.

The son of the immensely influential conservative intellectuals Irving Kristol and Beatrice Himmelfarb, Kristol has himself wielded influence in Washington at least since his years as “Dan Quayle’s Brain,” (that is, his chief of staff). In the mid-1990s, Kristol helped to launch the Rupert Murdoch-funded Weekly Standard and promote what he and his then-colleague David Brooks called “national greatness conservatism,” which mostly consisted of supporting wars where you could find them, overspending on the part of Republican administrations, and denouncing “the moral vacuity of dogmatic libertarianism” because it “is poisonous to public life.” While I’m no fan of French’s—he is a saber-rattling, trans-phobic, anti-immigrant, anti-PC right-winger out of Central Casting—he’s not the issue here. That Bill Kristol could straightfacedly put forward a person whose qualifications for president are even less visible than Donald Trump’s is the end of Kristol as an analyst worth taking seriously. (I rush to add that Bill Kristol has always been exceptionally personable to me on the few occasions we’ve met and that he is a great and interesting conversationalist; none of this is personal, it’s political).

He’s not alone on the right, of course, in revealing himself to be utterly dogmatic in the way that libertarians are routinely dismissed. Consider another conservative, the publisher of The Federalist, Ben Domenech, who from time to time espouses a not-uninteresting “libertarian populism” (and who is also, like Kristol, an exceptionally cordial and interesting conversationalist). Here’s Domenech’s take of the Johnson-Weld ticket:

The logical vehicle for any real resistance to Trump or Clinton as the next president would have been the Libertarian Party given that they already have the ballot access hurdle solved. The key was the issue of abortion: an effort with a candidate sufficiently pro-life to satisfy social conservatives would have presented an interesting campaign challenge for Trump and Clinton, given that single issue pro-lifers are going to have a hard time voting for either candidate.

Instead, the Libertarians nominated former Republican governors Gary Johnson and Bill Weld—the latter a particularly odd choice, with virtually no libertarian bona fides—both of whom are, unlike every current libertarian-leaning elected Republican in Congress, pro-choice on the abortion issue (and decidedly not classically liberal on religious liberty, but that’s another topic). More’s the pity—but they are the Libertarian Party after all, and no real effort was ever made by conservatives to meet them halfway.

To his credit, Domenech slams Kristol for wasting everyone’s time with a candidate who is ridiculous as a serious proposition, especially if you’re trying to stop a clownish Republican nominee who somehow bested more than a dozen actual senators, governors, and other unqualified CEOs. But what fresh hell is this, that no conservative or Republican can ever be in favor of legal abortion? Is the right wing such that there is no issue but abortion? And that it’s a bridge too far when the Libertarians—of all dogmatic ideological types!—nominate two moderate former governors who are former Republicans themselves? And note this: Just as you can be against drug prohibition but against drug use, you can argue strenuously against abortion while not believing it should be banned by the state.

As it happens, just one in five voters insist on a candidate sharing his view on abortion. Among pro-lifers, the percentage is slightly higher (23 percent) and among pro-choicers, it’s slightly lower (19 percent). Tying a broad-based political movement—conservatism, Republicanism, or even #NeverTrumpism—to a single issue is always a bad idea, but it’s especially so when 40 percent of Republicans support legal abortion.

As I’ve written before, I don’t expect Johnson-Weld to win, and I don’t think Trump is the “extinction-level event” to the American Way of Life that many #NeverTrumpers seem to believe.

But what we are seeing in this election, which still has many twists and turns to go, is the end of a broad, right-of-center coalition that has been dissolving since at least the end of the Cold War. Libertarians and conservatives could get along when they had to when the Soviet Union represented an actual existential threat to freedom (and even then, the differences were many and real).

In the rise of Donald Trump, the impotence of the conservative and Republican establishments was made clear. In the continuing failure first to offer and then to spurn credible alternatives, the looming irrelevance of socially conservative and pro-war rightists is only becoming clearer and clearer.

“The Libertarian Moment Is So Dead That Libertarians Are Now the Largest Group,” finds Gallup, and the news can’t be worse for the current iterations of the Republican and Democratic Parties, who insist on brittle, unchanging, out-of-date positions for their members. Yes, a Democrat (god help us) or Republican (god help us) will almost certainly be the next president of the United States, but if they wave away the simple fact that most of us are now socially liberal and fiscally conservative—they will command even less of our respect and attention and loyalty than they do now.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1t1Eb6g
via IFTTT

UCLA On Lockdown After Shooting Reported On Campus – Live Feed

Police at UCLA were investigating a possible shooting in Boelter Hall, according to the university.

The campus remains on lockdown.

 

 

People are being asked to shelter in place in Boelter Hall, according to the university. Police are investigating…

 

Live Feed:

via http://ift.tt/1ZdzJeK Tyler Durden

“Clients Still Don’t Believe The Rally” – Smart Money Sells Stocks For Record 18th Consecutive Week

Last week, when BofA reported that its “smart money” clients had sold stocks fora record 17th week, the bank offered the following silver lining.

Sales have now been slowing for the last four weeks, with last week’s net sales of $218mn notably the smallest since late February. Institutional and private clients continued to sell US stocks for the 13th and 15th consecutive weeks, respectively, though net sales by institutional clients were the smallest since mid-February. Hedge fund clients were net buyers, after selling stocks the previous four weeks. Net sales were entirely in mid-caps last week, as small caps saw net buying for the second week, and large caps saw net buying for the first time since January.

We cautioned that this may be overly optmistic for two reasons: selling by hedge funds, institutional and private clients had slowed down in the past only to spike up again shortly thereafter, and that the ongoing liquidations are less likely an indication of overall market sentiment, as much as pent up redemption requests and forced selling as investors demand their cash at a time when the market has failed to achieve new highs for over a year.

We were right, and as BofA’s Jill Carey Hall writes overnight, “last week, BofAML clients were net sellers of US stocks for the 18th consecutive week, continuing the longest uninterrupted selling streak in our data history (since ’08).”

More importantly, she admits that as expected, sales accelerated last week to $1.6bn, the largest net sales since late April after sales had slowed in the prior three weeks. Clients still don’t believe the rally; persistent negative equity sentiment has been echoed in EPFR flow data as well as by our Sell Side Indicator. Net sales were led by institutional clients last week, private clients and hedge funds were also net sellers. Clients sold stocks in all three size segments.”

Of note, buybacks by corporate clients continue to be below recent levels, were similar to the prior week’s levels (about 500mn), below the typical May weekly average of about $900mn. Cumulative buybacks by corporate clients YTD are tracking  slightly above levels we saw by this point last year, though below 2014’s record levels.”

Data on weekly flows by sector, client & size

Clients sold single stocks in all sectors except Consumer Staples last week, led by Health Care and Financials. In addition to Staples stocks, just ETFs saw net buying. This was a reversal from the prior week, when clients had been net buyers of stocks in all but two sectors (Discretionary and Industrials). Industrials currently has the longest net selling trend, at four consecutive weeks, followed by Discretionary at three consecutive weeks.

And Health Care has notably seen outflows in 12 of the last 13 weeks as clients resumed sales of this sector last week; uncertainty over the US election and a positioning unwind have hurt Health Care stocks this year. No sector has a long-term net buying streak; Staples is the only sector which has seen two consecutive weeks of inflows.

Institutional clients were the biggest net sellers last week, which has been true for the majority of the selling streak, while private clients and hedge funds were also net sellers. Corporate buybacks were similar to the prior week’s levels. Clients sold stocks in all three size segments last week.

 

Rolling four-week average trends by client type:

  • Hedge funds have been net sellers on a 4-week average basis since early Feb.
  • Institutional clients have been net sellers on a 4-week average basis since early Feb.
  • Private clients have been net sellers of US stocks on a 4-week average basis since early January.
  • The four-week average trend for buybacks by corporate clients suggests a bigger slowdown in buybacks than what we have seen the last few years at this time

And some more notable flows:

  • Health Care, Energy and Financials saw net selling by institutional clients, hedge funds and private clients alike last week. No sector saw net buying by all three groups.
  • While institutional clients as a group led the net selling last week, pension fund clients—a subset of institutional—were net buyers last week for the first time in five weeks. Net buying was led by Health Care and Consumer Discretionary stocks; their biggest net sales were of Industrials and Materials. This group has remained a net buyer of US stocks year-to-date. See Pension fund flows for details.
  • Clients continued to “sell in May” (after selling in February, March and April)—Chart 1 below shows the clients sold stocks in all sectors except Telecom last month; they were also small net buyers of ETFs. All three size segments saw outflows last month, and all three client groups were sellers, led by institutions

 

What will get the “smart money” clients out of their rut? We don’t know, however what we do know is that neither the biggest short squeeze in history nor contstant predictions of all time highs coming from every pundit have succeeded. Perhaps a better question is what happens when whoever it is that is pushing stocks higher, and “buying the market”, stops.

via http://ift.tt/1ZdAl3O Tyler Durden

The Death Of The Virtuous Cycle

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via 720Global.com,

Despite many promises, there has been no sustainable economic recovery. The United States, and the developed world for that matter, have made repetitive attempts over the last 16 years to return economic growth to the pace of years long past. These nations are stuck in a cycle in which hopes for economic “escape velocity” get crushed by economic recession and asset price collapse. Following each failure is an increasingly anemic pattern of economic growth accompanied by rising mountains of debt, which ultimately lead to another failure. The perpetual excuse from the central bankers is that not enough was done to foster “lift-off”. In their view, lower interest rates, more fiscal spending and additional quantitative easing will eventually provide the needed spark that will cause the economic engine to fire on all cylinders. In the profound words of Mark Twain:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

What follows in this article is evidence that current economic policy is not simply flawed in its logic and application but actually destructive. As should be evident to all by now, these experimental monetary and fiscal policies provide short term economic relief but only serve to exaggerate the problems they claim to solve. The elegant Virtuous Cycle that propelled western economies to prosperity has been quietly dismantled and replaced with an unproductive imitation. This new, Un-Virtuous Cycle euthanizes discipline and prudence in exchange for the immediate gratification of debt-fueled consumption.

The Virtuous Cycle

One of the primary differentiating characteristics between rich and poor countries is the presence or absence of physical capital in the form of abundant sophisticated machinery and equipment. These productive assets are accumulated through savings (individual or institutional) which is converted to investment in physical capital. In the natural order, there is a sequence of events properly characterized as The Virtuous Cycle (illustrated below). It is an identity associated with sustainable productive output and growth.

Virtuous-Investment-Cycle-720-Global

Saving, or simply the discipline of consuming less than one earns, is a prerequisite for capital accumulation and the chief requirement in the Virtuous Cycle. The amount of saving determines how much investment will take place. Investment in new property, plant and equipment – better tools – fuels new and improved forms of production and leads to increased productivity and enhanced income. Higher incomes increase consumption and produce higher levels of savings, so economic prosperity continually grows. This cycle enables us to produce things of greater complexity than we otherwise could, and thus advance productivity, income and prosperity.
It is logical therefore that government and central bank policies should focus on promoting a healthy savings rate. However, over the last several decades we have seen the exact opposite. Central bank policy dismembers the Virtuous Cycle by punishing savers.

 

Two Primary Factors of Economic Growth

The impact of misguided economic policy is best understood through an evaluation of the two key components of economic growth.

1.) Demographics – the size of the working population
2.) Productivity – the amount of goods and services that can be produced in a unit of time

The working age population in the United States and most developed nations has become stagnant with the recent on-set of the baby boomers retiring. There is little a country can do to influence this variable outside of a dramatic relaxation of immigration policies which clearly runs counter to the current trend. Productivity, on the other hand, is more readily influenced by policy. Economic policy however, has incentivized a preference for consumption fueled by debt instead of saving which feeds and encourages productivity. Productivity growth is experiencing a multi-year decline as a direct result of these policy errors. As demographic and productivity trends worsen, it should be no surprise that economic growth remains anemic and the outlook will deteriorate further.

Despite the fact that in the long-run it is the primary determinant of a country’s future standard of living and affluence, the importance of productivity is not well understood by many outside the economics profession. As a clinical economic measure, productivity tells us how much an individual is able to produce in one hour of labor. If productivity is growing, then workers are incrementally able to produce more in an hour of work than they were previously. Although productivity can improve for a variety of reasons, it generally occurs because the tools employed make workers more efficient.

In the United States, we are currently experiencing a secular decline in productivity growth and this has troubling implications for the future. As shown below, productivity growth trends in the U.S. and 9 other leading economies are currently measured at their lowest levels since at least the year 2000.

720Global-Productivity-060116

While this fact may seem counter-intuitive given how much technological advancement there appears to have been, Total Factor Productivity and Labor Productivity data clearly point this out. Further supporting this analytical evidence is the consistently poor rate of economic growth, stagnant wage levels and the widening gap of wealth disparity.

 

Why is Productivity Falling?

The question of why U.S. productivity growth is so weak has been a topic of much debate. Explanations include employer and worker behavior patterns, the influence of a rising service sector economy and the most commonly cited excuse, measurement error. The disparity of explanations implies that most economists do not have a sound diagnosis for this “economic mystery” as Neil Irwin of The New York Times recently called it. One thing is certain to economists – to the extent that productivity is in fact weak and even potentially in decline, a continuation of this trend will have important implications for U.S. and developed world economic growth and, of course, asset prices whose returns are predicated on growth.

 

No Economic Mystery

Dear experts,

The solution to the mystery is straight-forward. Rising productivity depends upon the perpetuation of evolving complex production which hinges upon saving, otherwise known as consumption deferred. The accumulation of, and refinements to, physical capital through savings and investment provides the cornerstone for the advancement of labor and technology. In other words, productivity requires savings to feed the Virtuous Cycle.

That is, simply enough, the answer to this great economic mystery.

 

The Un-Virtuous Cycle

Since the financial crisis, a growing number of people are beginning to question the foundation upon which our economic prosperity rests. Our ability and willingness to transact does not appear to have changed but we seem to harbor more doubts. Stagnant growth and incomes aggravate this view. Inflation is reported as worryingly low but the cost of many high expense items such as healthcare, tuition and rents are rising significantly faster than wages. A dwindling middle class is most acutely suffering the consequences resulting from this squeeze.

Maybe the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are reflective of the erosion in confidence and trust. Perhaps current generations have realized they are not likely to be wealthier than their parents. Certainly the secular decline in our economic and productivity growth offers clues. Whatever the reasons, the system on which our affluence was built has been quietly dismantled. The doubts and frustrations reflected in all various forms by the general population are among its manifestations. Finding a culprit is also part of the problem because it appears no one can quite put their finger on how we got here. Equity and housing market bubbles are often-cited villains but those and other financial irregularities are the symptoms not the causes.

In a world where governments and central banks of the most affluent countries are manipulating interest rates to zero or even negative yields, the Virtuous Cycle, which depends upon saving and investment, is conspicuously neglected. In its place, the natural order of economic output has been rearranged for political expediency and at times as a reaction to numerous financial crises. A durable, time-tested model of prosperity, Savings-Investment-Production-Income, has been hi-jacked by a model focused solely on consumption, requiring ever increasing levels of debt to grow. It is an impatient, undisciplined model. Not only is such a model unsustainable, it is destructive.

720Global-Productivity-060116-2

In their textbook Macroeconomics, Rudiger Dornbusch and current Federal Reserve Vice-Chairman Stanley Fischer state:

“When the return on savings becomes negative, one of three things happens: Households sharply reduce their saving or they shift their saving abroad (which we call capital flight) or they accumulate their saving in unproductive assets, such as gold. One way or another, the financial environment for saving is an important factor in mobilizing resources for capital formation and in channeling them from households, via financial intermediaries, to investing firms.”

To paraphrase their point: When the financial environment discourages savings, the investment and production components of the virtuous cycle suffer which also negatively affects productivity and income. That is precisely what we are seeing.

Some may argue that the recent rise in the national savings rate invalidates this perspective. On the contrary, policies that incentivize consumption over savings have been in effect for decades. It is myopic to observe the savings rate over the last few months in an effort to invalidate what is best described as a secular, policy-driven change. The cumulative effects of these policies are quietly corrosive. The savings rate (expressed as a percentage of disposable income) as shown below, averaged 8.9% from 1976 to 1996. Over the most recent 20 years the average is 4.9%.

720Global-SavingsRate-060116

The subordination of saving to consumption was born in earnest in 1971 when President Nixon closed the gold window and eliminated any form of discipline imposed on the value of our currency. It was further advanced in the Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen eras at the Federal Reserve through so-called “pre-emptive” monetary policy and more recently quantitative easing. Those efforts allowed citizens and lawmakers to shirk their fiscal responsibilities and as a result, the size of the national debt is now seen as a major security risk.

Further proof of this behavior can be seen in the record low yields, and rash of negative yields in the global bond markets. As evidenced by the bond yields in the table below, the incentive to save and fuel the Virtuous Cycle is nil.

720Global-BondYields-060116

 

Summary

The organic economic structure that made western economies uniquely successful and prosperous has been altered. The virtues of discipline, patience and work ethic have been mortgaged away, traded in for quick growth schemes that yield far less than promised. The Virtuous Cycle of savings, investment, production and income which delivered unparalleled prosperity and opportunity for centuries has been tossed aside by those charged with shepherding this durable but fragile gift.

The nation’s economic illness and her citizens’ growing intolerance is testimony. The developmental effects of this economic subversion has taken decades to emerge. The economy is sick but leaders refuse to acknowledge it, offering only weak reassurances because the implications are deeply troubling. The fact that the Fed and other central bankers were blindsided by asset bubbles and have so wrongly predicted economic activity highlights their lack of understanding of the principles of the Virtuous Cycle.

Unfortunately, ignoring or not understanding the facts does not change them, and if repairable at this late stage, fixing the problem will be very painful. At the same time, and even more importantly, repairing America’s economic foundation first requires proper diagnosis and understanding of the cause as has been presented here.

via http://ift.tt/1XgXy7Y Tyler Durden

Poll: Most Americans Reject Criminal Penalties for Prostitution

Americans are split on whether prostitution should be legal, according to a new survey from The Marist Poll and PBS TV-series Point Taken. Forty-nine percent of respondents in the new national poll said prostitution between two consenting adults should be legal, while 44 percent responded that it should be illegal.

Younger respondents were more in favor of legalization, with 58 percent of those under 45 supprotive, compared to just 40 percent of those 45 and older. Men were more in favor of prostitution legalization than women, at 54 percent versus 44 percent. And Democrats and political independents were much more likely than Republicans to say it should be legal: 52 and 58 percent, versus 35 percent.

It should be noted that while pollsters use the terms “legal” and “illegal,” they did not define these terms for respondents. The ambiguity of the terms becomes evident in subsequent responses. For instance, around 40 percent of those who said prostitution should be illegal also said criminal charges were not appropriate. And overall, some 63 and 60 percent said selling and buying sex should not yield criminal penalties.

Legalization, in the context of prostitution, generally refers to a system by which some forms of prostitution (say, in brothels) are allowed—and highly regulated—while all prostitution outside these bounds is still considered criminal. Decriminalization refers to a system that ditches all criminal penalties for sexual exchange between consenting adults, and is the desired goal of most sex-worker, human rights, and criminal-justice reform advocates. Under a decrim model, of course, activity involving force, fraud, coercion, or minors would still be criminalized, and regulation of business like brothels and/or opt-in licensing could schemes could exist. 

In the Point Taken/Marist poll, a majority of respondents did oppose criminal sanctions for prostitution—though many thought it should still be a civil infraction. Fines for sex workers and clients appealed to 30 and 29 percent of respondents, respectively. Slightly larger blocks opposed any penalty for selling (33 percent) or buying (31 percent) sex. Twenty-nine percent of respondents still said sex workers should face criminal charges, and 33 percent said the same for people who purchase sex.

The poll, conducted May 24-25, was small: 516 U.S. adults. And with an error margin of ±4.3 percentage points, none of these slight statistical pluralities and majorities are assured. The only conclusion that we can safely draw here is that Americans are conflicted about prostitution. Fifty-nine percent of poll respondents—including 43 percent of those who favored prostitution legalization—said they would be at least a little bit bothered to have a sex worker as a neighbor. Thirty-eight percent of all respondents, and 58 percent of Republicans, said they would be very bothered by living next door to a sex worker. Moral and social stigma against sex work is certainly still strong. 

But the results of a live poll during Tuesday night’s Point Taken episode indicate that something else is at play. The four-guest segment, promoted as “Should Paying for Sex Be a Crime?“, turned out a referendum on the sex trade in both voluntary and violent/coercive forms. The guest most in favor of decriminalizing prostitution was Jenna Torres, a former sex worker turned community organizer and poet. She talked eloquently from a place of experience about the economic pressures that drove her and those around her to sex work, the factors most likely to keep people in sex work when they don’t want to be (things like lack of money or job options, not evil pimps), and how criminalizing prostitution hurts those most vulnerable. After growing up in foster care and having her first child at age 13, Torres turned to part-time prostitution starting at age 15. By 2013, at age 17, she had graduated from high-school, had three children, continuing to make a living through sex work, and enrolled to start college in the fall—plans postponed after she was arrested for prostitution by New York City police.  

The two guests most opposed to decriminalization were a Kings College philosophy professor and a self-described “investor, author, and finance expert,” who cast Torres as a privileged activist concerned with some vague notion of “empowerment” but oblivious to the many sex workers who would rather not be. They came ready with ample unsourced and misleading if not outright false statistics about the average age of entry into prostitution, the prevalence of sex trafficking in countries where prostitution is legal, and the compassion and prudence of the Nordic Model (which punishes sex buyers more harshly than sex workers). “Legalization allows traffickers to hide victims in plain sight, which creates greater trafficking,” insisted the finance expert, against all evidence.

After the beginning of the segment, 72 percent of people in the Point Taken studio audience said that paying for sex should not be a crime. By the show’s end, just 53 percent held this position, with 47 percent now saying it should be a crime. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1O5ESVy
via IFTTT