The M&A Gift That Keeps On Giving: Mass Layoffs Coming To A Tim Hortons Near You

There are three things that are certain: death, taxes and M&A “synergies.” And while the recent debt and record stock price-funded M&A bubble has been a present from god, or rather the Fed, to the activist shareholders and owners of target stocks (and acquirors, because in the New Normal M&A announcements somehow boost the price of both), it has been a scourge for everyone else: namely the employees of companies that undergo M&A as the first and foremost place where EPS “synergies” are extracted is by eliminating duplicative headcount, read mass layoffs. This is precisely what workers at Canada’s Tim Hortons are about to find out first hand, because as Financial Post reports, citing a study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, “widespread layoffs and strict cost cutting measures could befall Tim Hortons if Burger King’s parent company takes over the chain.” Small correction replace “could” with “definitely will” and the sentence will be spot on.

From the Financial Post:

The left-leaning think-tank released a scathing review of 3G Capital’s past takeovers on Thursday and concluded that the Brazilian private equity firm’s track record is predictive of “overwhelmingly negative consequences for Canadians” and the Tim Hortons restaurant chain.

 

“Without additional strong assurances from 3G Capital that no jobs will be lost … this may not be in the net benefit of Canada,” said CCPA senior economist David Macdonald, who was involved in the preparation of the report.

Well, maybe not Canada. But it certainly will be in the net benefit of Canada’s billionaires, and they are the only ones who matter. 

The policy centre said 3G Capital hasn’t made a suitable case for how the merged company benefits Canadians and it’s urging the federal government to demand “a better deal” before it approves the transaction.

 

Included in its analysis is the assumption that the investment company, in its US$11-billion takeover of the Canadian company, would follow a similar playbook to past takeovers.

 

The report suggests 3G Capital’s debt financing could force Tim Hortons to layoff more than 700 employees — or 44% of staff working outside its restaurants — as its tries to manage the debt of the merged company.

 

The new obligations could pressure Tim Hortons to cut costs, reduce investments and squeeze more from its franchisees, the report said.

So much negativity: maybe in its attempt to be fair and balanced the Financial Post should at least mention the huge positive – consider the billions in stock buybacks that these mass layoffs will permit? After all, now that the Fed is taking a hiatus from the monetization business, someone has to make sure that risk is, for the 6th year in a row, not a concern to the world 0.01%. Because how else will wealth trickle down?

And failing that, will someone please think of the billionaire children?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1E5YRtX Tyler Durden

As Tim Cook “Comes Out”, These Nations Still View Homosexuality As “Morally Unacceptable”

Tim Cook’s decision to openly discuss his sexual orientation is dominating the news cycle with many hoping it can be a watershed moment in the acceptance of openly gay people in the workforce. While it appears nothing but a positive in the United States, there are still stunningly many nations around the world (including Iran, where Apple is trying to sell to now) where Tim Cook’s admission is considered “morally unacceptable” by the great majority.

 

 

Will his Op-Ed affect sales?

 

Source: @ConradHackett




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tFQmCn Tyler Durden

Tensions High After White House Official Calls Israeli PM ‘Chickenshit’’

The rift between the Obama
administration and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi”
Netanyahu is growing more apparent. And it might be indicative of
changing relations between the U.S. and Iran.

On Tuesday The Atlantic published an article titled
“The Crisis in U.S.-Israeli Relations Is Officially Here.” Well, if
it weren’t already, it is now. The piece opens with
this quote
:

The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.

The colorful opinion comes from a “senior Obama administration
official” who remains unnamed. Whoever it was went on to
explain:

The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch
wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach
an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab
states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself
from political defeat. … He’s got no gust.

Netanyahu
responded
on Wednesday:

Our supreme interests, chiefly the security and unity of
Jerusalem, are not the main concern of those anonymous officials
who attack us and me personally, as the assault on me comes only
because I defend the State of Israel. …Despite all of the attacks
I suffer, I will continue to defend our country. I will continue to
defend the citizens of Israel.

Alistair Baskey, spokesman for the National Security Council,
assures that the “chickenshit” comment does not reflect the views
of the rest of the Obama administration. However,
reports
Fox, “administration officials … did not signal there
would be any robust effort to find out who said it.” Baskey also
says that the two nations “do not agree on every issue,” pointing
out the U.S.’s view that Israel’s annexation and settlement of
certain territories is illegitimate and counter-productive.

At The Washington Post Daniel Drezner points out that
the report coincides with news “on how the United States appears to
be tacitly and not-so-tacitly coordinating with Iran across a range
of Greater Middle East issues.” He
speculates
:

The one thing this kind of trash-talking does is send a signal
to Iran about the U.S. commitment to a nuclear deal. Bear in mind
that in recent weeks the administration has made it cleat
that it
won’t be going to Congress
 to get approval for the
permanent lifting of any Iran sanctions. But this raises the
question for both Iranian negotiators and Iranian hardliners of
just how much they can trust their American interlocutors to
implement such a deal. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s persistent and
bellicose rhetoric towards Tehran would also have to be a source of
concern for the Iranians. If they cut a nuclear deal, they want it
to be implemented and they want the shadow of military action
lifted.

Calling out Netanyahu serves both functions for the Obama
administration. The way one signals credibility in a world of
uncertainty is to take a costly action. Since congressional
approval is now off the table, dissing America’s closest ally in
the region serves as an imperfect substitute. It’s costly, so it
sends a signal of serious intent.

In August I highlighted a report from global intelligence and
advisory firm Stratfor that indicated the ISIS war could mark a

positive change
in U.S.-Iran relations.

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

Steve Chapman: Obama and the Virtues of Inaction

ObamaIn responding to the Ebola crisis, President
Barack Obama is being his usual self: passive, detached, unable or
unwilling to lead. So say his critics, who accuse him of being an
idle observer of his own presidency.

Idleness in the Oval Office is not necessarily a vice. What
Obama displays in this episode are not his worst qualities but his
best ones. In refusing to succumb to the demands for showy action,
he is dampening emotions that others exploit for political
convenience. He is insisting on rational responses to a danger that
preys on primal fears, writes Steve Chapman.

In many ways, that’s a sound approach. But it can be a handicap
in a media environment biased toward big, visible choices, even if
they are largely symbolic or self-defeating. Longtime adviser David
Axelrod told Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “There’s no doubt that there’s
a theatrical nature to the presidency that he resists.”

The safety of modern American life makes many people yearn for
excitement and danger. With crime falling sharply, life expectancy
rising, the specter of all-out nuclear war relegated to history and
homeland terrorism nearly nonexistent, things can feel so placid as
to be boring. So some of us look for ways to liven up our
existence, according to Chapman.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/30/steve-chapman-obama-and-the-virtues-of-i
via IFTTT

Why We’re Poorer: Inflation And Deflation Are Now Globalized

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

We're being hit with a double-whammy: Wages are under deflationary pressure, and almost everything else is exposed to inflationary pressure.

As correspondent Mark G. observed in Globalization = Permanent Instability, it's impossible to understand inflation and deflation now except in a global context.

Now that prices for commodities such as oil and grain are set on the global market, local surpluses don't push prices down. If North America has record harvests of grain, on a national basis we'd expect prices to fall as local supply exceeds local demand.
 
But since grain is tradable, i.e. it can be shipped to other markets where demand and thus prices are much higher, the price in North America reflects supply and demand everywhere on the planet, not just in North America.
 
If we put ourselves in the shoes of a farmer or grain wholesaler, this is a boon: why sell your product for 1X locally, when it fetches 2X in other countries? You'd be crazy not to put it on a boat and get double the price elsewhere.
 
As the share of the economy exposed to digitization increases, so does the share of work that can be done anywhere on the planet. When work is digitized, it is effectively commoditized, meaning that it no longer matters who performs the work or where they live.
 
If people in countries with low wages can perform the work, why on Earth would you pay double to have high-wage people do the work? It makes no sense. Taking advantage of the differences in local pay scales is called labor arbitrage, as the employer is trading on (i.e. arbitraging) two sets of prices.
 
It's not just labor that can be arbitraged: currency, interest rates, risk, environmental regulations, commodities–huge swaths of the global economy can be arbitraged.
 
The basic idea of the global carry trade is to borrow money cheaply in a currency that's weakening and use the money to buy low-risk, high-yield assets in currencies that are gaining in relative value.
It's a slam dunk arbitrage: not only does the trader earn an essentially free return (borrowing yen at 1%, for example, converting the yen to dollars and buying Treasury bonds paying 3%), but there is a bonus yield on the dollar strengthening against the yen: a two-fer return.
 
Global labor is in over-supply–one reason why wages in the U.S. have been declining in real terms, i.e. when inflation is factored in. The better description is purchasing power: how much can your paycheck buy?
 
Here is a chart reflecting the decline in purchasing power of U.S. earnings since 2006:
 
Courtesy of David Stockman, here is a chart of inflation (i.e. loss of purchasing power) since 2000:
 
Whatever isn't tradable can skyrocket in cost because, well, it can–since there's little competition in healthcare and school districts, both of which operate as quasi-monopolies, school administrators can skim $600,000 a year: Fired school leaders get big payouts:
 
A former Union City, CA superintendent took home more than $600,000 last year, making her the top earner on a new online database tracking salary and benefit information for California public school employees.
 
Since healthcare is only tradable at the margins, for example, medical tourism, where Americans travel abroad to take advantage of treatments that are 20% the cost of the same care in the U.S., healthcare costs can rise 500% when measured as a percentage of wages devoted to healthcare:
 
Note that this doesn't mean that healthcare costs rose along with wages–it means a larger share of our earnings is going to healthcare than ever before. Other than a brief period in the 1990s when productivity gains drove wages higher, healthcare costs have risen faster than earnings every decade. The consequence is simple: the more of our earnings that go to healthcare, the less there is for savings, investments and other spending.
 
In a way, we're being hit with a double-whammy: whatever can't be traded, such as the local school district and hospital, can charge outrageous fees and pay insiders outrageous sums for gross incompetence, while whatever can be traded can go up in price based on demand and currency fluctuations elsewhere.
 

Meanwhile, as labor is in over-supply virtually everywhere, wages are declining when measured in purchasing power. Wages are under deflationary pressure, and almost everything else is exposed to inflationary pressure. No wonder we feel poorer: most of are poorer.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tUeqCO Tyler Durden

“Gold Is A Good Place To Put Money These Days” – Greenspan

“Gold Is A Good Place To Put Money These Days” – Greenspan

As expected, the Fed announced yesterday it would end its six year money printing and bond buying programme.

Given the fragile nature of the U.S. economy, Eurozone economy and indeed the global economy, Fed critics continue to believe that this may be a short term hiatus prior to a resumption of QE, if asset prices start to fall or economic growth falters.


File:Alan Greenspan.jpg

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), that QE and the Fed’s bond buying program, which aimed to lower unemployment and spur stronger economic growth, fell short of its goals.

It has been a busy week for the man once known as “Maestro”. The end of last week saw him engage in public discussions with the likes of Marc Faber and Peter Schiff at the New Orleans Investment Conference.

Ominously, Greenspan warned at the New Orleans Investment Conference that the Fed’s balance sheet is a “pile of tinder” and gold is a “good place to put money these days” as it will rise “measurably” in the next 5 years.

He told the CFR that the bond buying program was ultimately a mixed bag. He said that the purchases of Treasury and mortgage backed securities did help lift asset prices and lower borrowing costs. But it didn’t do much for the real economy.

“Effective demand is dead in the water” and the effort to boost it via bond buying “has not worked,” Greenspan said. Boosting asset prices, which aids the already wealthy, however, has been “a terrific success.”

When asked about QE, Greenspan made the unusually frank admission that “the Fed’s balance sheet is a pile of tinder, but it hasn’t been lit … inflation will eventually have to rise.”

Greenspan, who headed the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 surprised guests in New Orleans when he stated bluntly, “I never said the central bank was Independent!” in response to criticism that the Fed was financing social programmes.

This stunning admission, if true, begs the obvious question: to what extent are the current policies of the Fed and other central banks the result of careful reasoning by independent monetary experts and to what extent are they being dictated by politicians desperate for public popularity and reelection or worse still by unelected powerful banks and bankers?

Greenspan said that currency debasement had failed to foster economic growth and unemployment had not been alleviated. However, at least asset prices had been boosted which he described as a “terrific success.”

So Wall Street reaped tremendous benefits from QE while main street flounders and taxpayers, both living and yet to be born, have the privilege of footing the  USD 4,000,000,000,000 bill – that is $4 trillion. He also indicated that ending QE would “unleash significant volatility in markets.”

In what may be the saving grace of his legacy, he continues to expound the virtues of gold.

In New Orleans, he was asked why central banks still own gold. His answer was encouraging if a little vague, “Gold has always been accepted without reference to any other guarantee.” When asked where the price of gold was headed in the next five years he said “measurably” “higher.”

Question: “Where will the price of gold be in 5 years?”

Greenspan: “Higher.”

Question: “How much?”

Greenspan: “Measurably.”

He told the CFR that “gold is a good place to put money these days given it’s value as a currency outside of the policies conducted by governments.”
 

So, the primary policy the Fed has – which is to put a floor under favoured markets and support U.S. bond and asset prices and give the process a complicated sounding title – has failed, according to the ‘Maestro’ who devised said policy.

What happens next? We don’t know but for once we would be inclined to follow Mr. Greenspan’s advice.


As we discussed last year, Mr. Greenspan is not the only person to have chaired a major central bank who views gold as a highly relevant strategic asset.

Mario Draghi, head of the ECB and former governor of the Bank of Italy, has this to say:

“Well you’re also asking this to the former Governor of the Bank of Italy, and the Bank of Italy is the fourth largest owner of gold reserves in the world, which is out of all proportion to the size of the country. But I never thought it wise to sell it, because for central banks this is a reserve of safety, it’s viewed by the country as such.”

“In the case of non-dollar countries it gives you a value-protection against fluctuations against the dollar, so there are several reasons, risk diversification and so on.”

The smart money continues to understand the importance of gold as diversification.

Marc Faber, who also spoke at the New Orleans Investment conference, summed up our view perfectly when he suggested that each individual should be their own central banker, holding the reserve currency that is gold as insurance against government bungling.



See Essential Guide to  
Storing Gold and Silver In Switzerland here



GOLDCORE MARKET UPDATE
Today’s AM fix was USD 1,205.75, EUR 958.09 and GBP 753.59 per ounce.
Yesterday’s AM fix was USD 1,228.00, EUR 963.67 and GBP 761.65 per ounce.

Gold fell $17.40 or 1.42% to $1,211.20 per ounce yesterday and silver slid $0.14 or 0.81% to $17.07 per ounce.


Gold for Swiss storage or immediate delivery dropped 0.7% to $1,203.22 an ounce in late trading in London. The yellow metal hit $1,201.53 today, its lowest since October 6th.

Gold for December delivery slid 1.8 % to $1,202.50 on the Comex in New York. Futures trading volume was 65% above the average for the past 100 days for this time of day, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

Silver for immediate delivery slipped 1.5% to $16.60 an ounce in London. Platinum fell 0.7% to $1,251.75 an ounce. Palladium lost 0.9% to $787.50 an ounce, after a five-day bull run.




Gold fell on the expected Fed announcement and confirmation that the Fed is to end QE and their highly unorthodox money printing and six year monthly bond purchasing programme.

The move was not unexpected by precious metals market participants and therefore the sudden sharp selling raised some eyebrows. Indeed, it has all the hallmarks of continuing manipulation of the gold and silver futures market.

If the mooted end of QE is bearish for gold and silver, then it is also equally bearish if not more so for overvalued stock and bond markets. Yet, those markets saw far less volatile trading and saw minor losses – the S&P closed down just 0.14%.

The move lower yesterday also took place despite very high global coin and bar demand in recent days which would ordinarily have led to higher prices. It also comes at a time of heightened geopolitical and economic concerns and the emergence of the Ebola virus. Not to mention, the bullish “Save Our Swiss Gold” initiative.

Is yesterday’s trading another sign of manipulation? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

Gold is testing support at $1,200/oz and below that is support at the triple bottom at $1,180/oz.

Prudent money will continue to dollar cost average into coins and bars on price weakness.

Get Breaking News and Updates on the Gold Market
Here  

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1sKZ2SZ GoldCore

Gold Drops Below $1200 On Heavy Volume, Silver Freefalls To Feb 2010 Lows

It appears the machines forgot the shift in DST across the pond and started their European close flush a little early. Someone/something decided it was an opportune time to dump thousands of contracts of gold and silver futures this morning – clearly ignoring Alan Greenspan’s advice. Gold ETF holdings are now back at levels first seen in April 2009. Gold’s break below $1,200 likely brought some momentum chasers but Silver is in freefall, down over 5% and back to Feb 2010 lows. WTI Crude also broke below the crucial $81 level…

Gold

 

And Silver…

 

and from FOMC…

 

Gold ETF holdings are back at levels first seen in April 2009….

 

and one more thing….

 

Charts: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wNZnM5 Tyler Durden

Jared Polis Says Vote Democrat for Real Libertarian Values

Libertarian-inclined voters often have to make a
difficult choice. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) believes that
libertarians should vote for Democratic candidates, particularly as
our Democratic nominees are increasingly more supportive of
individual liberty and freedom than Republicans. When he’s working
in Congress to expand and enhance our freedoms like stopping the
Drug Enforcement Administration from enforcing anti-marijuana laws
in states where it is legal, removing the authority of the National
Security Agency to engage in mass surveillance, and keeping the
government out of our private lives, he can count on most of the
Democrats to support me. And while there are a few libertarian
minded Republicans like Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who are willing
to stand up to their party’s leadership, the vast majority of
Republicans in Congress vote lockstep against these measures time
and time again.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/30/jared-polis-says-vote-democrat-for-real
via IFTTT

On Drug Policy Reform, a Dozen Republican Congressmen Get an A+ (and 136 Get an F)

What do Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), Earl
Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), and Jared Polis
(D-Colo.) have in common? If you follow drug policy, it probably
won’t surprise you to learn that they all rate A+ grades in a

new voter guide
that scores members of Congress based on their
votes for reform. A bit more surprising: So do 45 of their
colleagues in the House, including 10 additional Republicans: David
Schweikert (Ariz.), Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Paul Broun (Ga.),
Justin Amash (Mich.), Kerry Bentivolio (Mich.), Walter Jones
(N.C.), Mick Mulvaney (S.C.), Mark Sanford (S.C.), Steve Stockman
(Texas) and Tom Petri (R-Wis.).

Drug Policy Action (DPA), the political arm of the Drug Policy Alliance, based its
grades on seven votes (see list below) dealing with issues such as
hemp cultivation, medical marijuana, and banking services for
state-legal cannabusinesses. To earn an A+, a representative had to
vote in favor of reform all seven times. In addition to the 49
members who rated an A+, 116 got an A (six votes), 33 got a B+
(five votes), 14 got a B (four votes), 31 got a C (three votes), 23
got a D (two votes), and 141 got an F (one or zero votes).
 The rest did not have sufficient voting records to be
graded. The lowest-rated group consists almost entirely of
Republicans, as you might expect, but there are also five Democrats
who merited an F: Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), John Barrow
(Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah), and Nick Rahall
(W.V.).

The failing congressmen included Andy Harris
(R-Md.), John Fleming (R-La.), and Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), whom DPA
describes as “drug war extremists.” Harris
distinguished himself
by doggedly trying to prevent Washington,
D.C., from decriminalizing marijuana possession. DPA describes
Fleming as “a committed foe of marijuana reform efforts,” known for
“distorting and misrepresenting the facts about marijuana use in
hearings, floor speeches and briefings” (here,
for example) and for “taking to the floor to speak against
floor amendments that would support states’ rights to reform their
marijuana laws, improve access to medical marijuana and improve the
ability of states to regulate marijuana businesses.” DPA highlights
Rogers’ resistance to federal funding for “syringe service programs
that save lives and reduce health care costs by preventing the
spread of HIV and hepatitis C.” Although such subsidies are not
exactly libertarian, Rogers’ opposition to them is driven by
prohibitionist orthodoxy rather than any principled belief in
limited government, as his support for the war on drugs clearly
shows.

It is encouraging that the “drug war extremists” in DPA’s report
are far outnumbered by the 10 “champions of reform” (including
Rohrabacher, Blumenauer, Massie, and Polis) and the 23 legislators
receiving “honorable mentions” for sponsoring or cosponsoring
reform legislation as well as voting for it. Important bills that
have not gotten a vote include the Respect State
Marijuana Laws Act
, which would make federal prohibition
inapplicable in states that legalize cannabis; the Marijuana
Businesses Access to Banking Act
, which would protect financial
institutions that serve state-licensed marijuana businesses from
criminal prosecution, regulatory penalties, and loss of deposit
insurance; and the Smarter
Sentencing Act
, which would make crack sentence reductions
retroactive, cut the mandatory minimums for various drug offenses
in half, and expand the “safety valve” for low-level, nonviolent
drug offenders. Bills that not only got a vote but were approved by
the House included Rohrabacher’s
amendment
aimed at stopping the Drug Enforcement Administration
from undermining medical marijuana laws; an amendment sponsored by
Rohrabacher, Denny Heck (D-Was.), Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), and
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that aimed to stop the Treasury Department
from punishing banks for doing business with state-legal marijuana
growers or sellers; and an amendment sponsored by Massie,
Polis, and Blumenauer that approved pilot hemp cultivation
projects, which
made it
all the way through Congress.

Here are the seven votes that DPA counted in legislators’
favor:

1. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 1947 allowing colleges and
universities to grow and cultivate industrial hemp in states where
it is already legal without fear of federal interference
(passed the House, 225 to 200; also passed the Senate).

2. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 4660 that would have cut the
DEA’s budget by $35 million (rejected by the House, 339 to 66).

3. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 4660 that would have barred the
Justice Department and the DEA from spending money to undermine
state laws that allow hemp cultivation (passed the House, 237 to
170). 

4. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 4660 that would have barred the
Justice Department and the DEA from spending any funding to
undermine state medical marijuana laws (passed the House, 219 to
189).

5. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 4660 that would have barred the
DEA from blocking implementation of the federal law allowing hemp
cultivation research (passed the House, 246 to 162).

6. No on an amendment to H.R. 5016 that would have prevented the
Justice and Treasury departments from implementing their guidance
to financial institutions that serve state-licensed marijuana
businesses (rejected by the House, 236 to 186).

7. Yes on an amendment to H.R. 5016 that would have barred the
Treasury Department from spending any funding to penalize financial
institutions that provide services to state-legal marijuana
businesses (passed the House, 231-192). 

The DPA guide includes a handy table toward the end that shows
how your congressman voted and the grade he received.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/30/on-drug-policy-reform-a-dozen-republican
via IFTTT

BusinessWeek Wants YOU To Become A Keynesian Debt Slave

There are those, increasingly more of them, including such shocking statist luminaries as Alan Greenspan (the person more responsible for today’s global depression than anyone else) and the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, who are realizing that the old debt=growth, saving=bad, spending=prosperity and inflation=utopia economic paradigm, the one unleashed by John Maynard Keynes, is the primary reason for today’s worldwide economic devastation, a condition where $100 trillion in global debt has brought global growth to a crawl, and which coupled with endless “wealth effect” printing by central banks who have deposited $10 trillion in electronic money at their favorite commercial banks with the explicit instruction to buy spoos, have bet everything on reflating the world out of its debt quagmire, instead having achieved a world that has never been more split between the haves and have nots.

And then there is BusinessWeek, which quite to the contrary, is urging its readers in its cover story, ignore common sense, and do more of the same that has led the world to dead economic end it finds itself in currently. In fact, it is, in the words of NYT’s Binyamin Appelbaum, calling the world governments to become the slaves of a defunct economist.  And spend, spend, spend, preferably on credit. Because, supposedly, this time the resulting crash from yet another debt-funded binge will be… different?

Then again, an article that has this line…

With fiscal policy missing in action, the world’s biggest central banks tried heroically to plug the gap.

… surely has to be premised on sarcasm: hardly anyone can be so clueless not to realize that it is the “heroic” central banks “getting to work” for the past 6 years that has enabled fiscal policy to stay on the sidelines as politicians become nothing but Wall Street marionettes, that has led to the most dysfunctional Congress in history, to a Europe that in the past 5 years has implemented precisely zero reforms, and where nothing at all has changed… except debt has hit new record highs, the amount of reserves in circulation is unchartable, the number of billionaires is hitting new records every week even as the people living on foodstamps and out of the labor force is unprecedented, and, of course, the S&P 500 is at an all time high.

So we will operate on the assumption that indeed BusinessWeek’s Peter Coy, in his cover story, is merely pulling a prank.  Because the alternative is far scarier, if funnier to contemplate.

There is a doctor in the house, and his prescriptions are more relevant than ever. True, he’s been dead since 1946. But even in the past tense, the British economist, investor, and civil servant John Maynard Keynes has more to teach us about how to save the global economy than an army of modern Ph.D.s equipped with models of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium. The symptoms of the Great Depression that he correctly diagnosed are back, though fortunately on a smaller scale: chronic unemployment, deflation, currency wars, and beggar-thy-neighbor economic policies.

Some of the other pearls.

This isn’t a stable status quo. The mid-October shock in global stock markets betrayed grave concerns about a relapse. While the U.S. economy is growing adequately for now despite the drag from fiscal policy, China’s pace is slowing, Japan is suffering from the self-inflicted wound of its consumption tax hike, and the 18-nation euro zone had zero growth in the second quarter. That simply isn’t good enough, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said in an October visit to Bloomberg. “You need all four wheels to be moving,” he said, “or it isn’t going to be a good ride.”

 

Enter Lord Keynes. Cutting interest rates is fine for raising growth in ordinary times, he said, because lower rates induce consumers to spend rather than save while stimulating businesses to invest. But where rates sink to the “lower bound” of zero, he showed, central banks become nearly powerless, while fiscal policy (taxes and spending) becomes highly effective as a fix for inadequate demand. Governments can raise spending to stimulate demand without having to worry about crowding out private investment—because there’s plenty of unused capacity, and their spending won’t lift interest rates.

 

It’s the closest thing economists have found to a free lunch. Keynes, ever the provocateur, argued that in a deep recession anything the government did to induce economic activity was better than nothing—even burying bottles stuffed with bank notes in coal mines for people to dig up.

 

Of course, it’s far better if the money is spent well. Considering the crying need for better roads, bridges, tunnels, schools, and the like, it’s a no-brainer for governments to build them now, when there are willing hands and cheap loans. Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary, and Brad DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley argued in 2012 that infrastructure investment might even pay for itself, in part by keeping people employed so their skills don’t atrophy.

 

 

Love him or hate him, there’s no one like Keynes on the world stage today. He was a statesman, a philosopher, a bohemian lover of ballet, and a member along with Virginia Woolf in the artsy, intellectual Bloomsbury Group. He made and lost fortunes as an investor and died rich. In 1919, in a prescient book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace, he condemned harsh reparations imposed on Germany after World War I, which were so punitive that they helped create the conditions for Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. In 1936 he essentially invented the field of macroeconomics in his masterwork, The General Theory. From 1944 until close to his death at age 62 two years later, he led Britain’s delegation in negotiations that resulted in the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The world was lucky in the 1970s and early 1980s, when finally Keynes lunacy quickly unravelled, when as even Coy admits, “his theories couldn’t readily account for stagflation—the coexistence of high unemployment and high inflation.”

Academic economists were drawn to the new theory of “rational expectations,” which said that government couldn’t possibly stimulate the economy through deficit spending because foresighted consumers would rationally expect that the stimulus would have to be paid for eventually and so would save for future tax hikes, offsetting the initiative. Supply-side economists said Keynes missed how low taxes could stimulate long-term growth by inducing work and investment. “Unsuccessful policies and confused debates have left Keynesian economics in disarray,” the Swedish economist Axel Leijonhufvud wrote in 1983 for a conference celebrating Keynes’s centennial. A successor theory that evolved in the 1980s and 1990s, New Keynesianism, attempted to inject rational expectations theory into Keynes’s worldview while preserving his observation that prices and wages are “sticky”—i.e., they don’t fall enough in a slump to equalize supply and demand. New Keynesians range from conservatives such as John Taylor of the Hoover Institution to liberals like Berkeley’s DeLong.

Of course, what ended up happening is that one bad theory was replaced by an even worse one, when in 1980s Alan Greenspan unleashed the “Great Moderation” genie and the Fed’s bubble factory was put on Max. But that is a topic too complex for the BW author. Instead, he quotes Joe Lavorgna:

On Wall Street, Keynesianism never really died, because its theories did a good job of explaining the short-term fluctuations bank economists are paid to predict. “We approach forecasting more from a Keynesian perspective whether we like him or not,” says Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities

Actually, Joe, speak for yourself. And then there is the inevitable outcome of the entire world following Keynesian policies. War.

If Keynes were alive today, he might be warning of a repeat of 1937, when policy mistakes turned a promising recovery into history’s worst double dip. This time, Europe is the danger zone; then it was the U.S. What’s called the Great Depression was really two steep downturns in the U.S. The first ended in 1933. It was followed by four years of output growth averaging more than 9 percent a year, one of the strongest recoveries ever. What aborted the comeback is still debated. Some economists blame President Franklin Roosevelt for signing tax hikes and cuts in New Deal jobs programs. Others blame the Federal Reserve. Dartmouth College economist Douglas Irwin argues that the Roosevelt administration triggered the relapse by buying up gold, removing it from the U.S. monetary base. The move to prevent inflation succeeded all too well, causing deflation. Whatever the cause, Britain and other trading partners were dragged down, and U.S. output plunged and didn’t fully recover until America’s entry into World War II. “We are really at a kind of 1937 moment now,” says MIT’s Temin. “It’s a cautionary history for us.”

In short, let’s accelerate the world’s collapse into yet another global war and listen to Keynes once again. Judging by the number of all out conflicts around the globe, and how much the latest “war on terror” boosted US Q3 GDP we are already half way there.

Not enough humor? The rest can be found here.

Then again, maybe the joke’s on us, and the only thing that one can hope is “stimulated” are magazine sales.




via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/OYNvq3EaBl4/story01.htm Tyler Durden