The Good And The Bad News For The Future Of America’s Jobs

As we reported earlier (and have been for the past three years), there is a reason why the media prefers not to talk about the quality aspect of US job gains, and instead focuses on the seasonally adjusted quantity: there simply is no “quality.” Take today for example, when we learned that more than half of the 74K jobs gained in the month of December were temp jobs (which mysteriously were not affected by the weather: only the high paying ones somehow got crushed by snow in December), and when adding the lowest paying retail and wholesale trade jobs, one got nearly 50% more than all the job gains for the past month.

Perhaps the only good news in today’s job report is that it is now in the past, because absent from some inexplicably respected so-called pundits doing the most idiotic thing imaginable, and saying to just ignore this report, there was absolutely nothing good one could say about the lowest monthly job gain since January 2011 (driven by temp and retail workers) at least until it is revised several times over the next 3 years when we ultimately learn that today’s noisy jobs print was really a gain of 500K jobs. Of course by then, there will be far bigger problem to deal with.

However, while December in the past, the future still remains. And it is here that we have some good and bad news. According to the just released Occupation Outlook Quarterly (OOQ) looking at the period from 2012 to 2022 released by the BLS, in the future the US will be in a significant need of jobs, which is good for all those worried that the economy is grinding to a halt, or those demoralized from not having a job for months on end and unsure if this will ever change.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that as in the case of today, the vast majority of future jobs will pay absolutely miserable salaries.

The chart below shows what we are talking about: it lays out the job categories for the 20 occupations with with the highest projected numeric change in employment. Alas, of the Top 10 highest growing jobs, 9 out of 10 will pay less than $35,000 a year.

Furthermore the composition of where the job growth is expected tells us much about where the government see this nation in the year 2022. Take for example personal-care aides which will be the fastest growing job from 2012 to 2022, among categories with more than 25,000 positions, the Labor Department said in a new report. The field will grow by nearly 50% to 1.8 million jobs.

This is how the OOQ describes this job group:

Personal-care aides help clients “with self-care and everyday tasks, and provide companionship,” the newly released Occupational Outlook Handbook said. The job requires no formal education, but most aides have a high school diploma. Workers in the field earned an average annual income of $19,910. “As the baby-boom population ages, there will be an increase in the number of clients requiring assistance,” the handbook said.

What else is expected to soar? Registered nurses, retail salespeople, home health aides and … fast food workers. That’s the sad future of the US: a nation made up of old people desperate for nurses, and paid companions, who go out shopping and eating fast food.

Ok, it is not surprising that the most jobs will go to the unqualified, uneducated, and unmotivated. Is there any hope for higher paying jobs according to the BLS? Some more good news: the answer is yes!

Actually, considering the most in demand higher paying job will be lawyers, forget what we said about good news.

Finally, looking purely at the bad news, all workers in the government, postal service, animal production and newspaper industries have something to look forward to: a pink slip.

Source


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/l77xpknYu4A/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Good And The Bad News For The Future Of America's Jobs

As we reported earlier (and have been for the past three years), there is a reason why the media prefers not to talk about the quality aspect of US job gains, and instead focuses on the seasonally adjusted quantity: there simply is no “quality.” Take today for example, when we learned that more than half of the 74K jobs gained in the month of December were temp jobs (which mysteriously were not affected by the weather: only the high paying ones somehow got crushed by snow in December), and when adding the lowest paying retail and wholesale trade jobs, one got nearly 50% more than all the job gains for the past month.

Perhaps the only good news in today’s job report is that it is now in the past, because absent from some inexplicably respected so-called pundits doing the most idiotic thing imaginable, and saying to just ignore this report, there was absolutely nothing good one could say about the lowest monthly job gain since January 2011 (driven by temp and retail workers) at least until it is revised several times over the next 3 years when we ultimately learn that today’s noisy jobs print was really a gain of 500K jobs. Of course by then, there will be far bigger problem to deal with.

However, while December in the past, the future still remains. And it is here that we have some good and bad news. According to the just released Occupation Outlook Quarterly (OOQ) looking at the period from 2012 to 2022 released by the BLS, in the future the US will be in a significant need of jobs, which is good for all those worried that the economy is grinding to a halt, or those demoralized from not having a job for months on end and unsure if this will ever change.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that as in the case of today, the vast majority of future jobs will pay absolutely miserable salaries.

The chart below shows what we are talking about: it lays out the job categories for the 20 occupations with with the highest projected numeric change in employment. Alas, of the Top 10 highest growing jobs, 9 out of 10 will pay less than $35,000 a year.

Furthermore the composition of where the job growth is expected tells us much about where the government see this nation in the year 2022. Take for example personal-care aides which will be the fastest growing job from 2012 to 2022, among categories with more than 25,000 positions, the Labor Department said in a new report. The field will grow by nearly 50% to 1.8 million jobs.

This is how the OOQ describes this job group:

Personal-care aides help clients “with self-care and everyday tasks, and provide companionship,” the newly released Occupational Outlook Handbook said. The job requires no formal education, but most aides have a high school diploma. Workers in the field earned an average annual income of $19,910. “As the baby-boom population ages, there will be an increase in the number of clients requiring assistance,” the handbook said.

What else is expected to soar? Registered nurses, retail salespeople, home health aides and … fast food workers. That’s the sad future of the US: a nation made up of old people desperate for nurses, and paid companions, who go out shopping and eating fast food.

Ok, it is not surprising that the most jobs will go to the unqualified, uneducated, and unmotivated. Is there any hope for higher paying jobs according to the BLS? Some more good news: the answer is yes!

Actually, considering the most in demand higher paying job will be lawyers, forget what we said about good news.

Finally, looking purely at the bad news, all workers in the government, postal service, animal production and newspaper industries have something to look forward to: a pink slip.

Source


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/l77xpknYu4A/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: How I Renounced My US Citizenship And Why (Part 1)

Submitted by Doug Casey's International Man,

(Editor's note: The following is a firsthand story of how and why a former US citizen—who kindly shared this information on condition of anonymity—decided to renounce his US citizenship. It's packed with practical advice and priceless insights into this momentous decision. Whether or not you take the ultimate step of renunciation, I believe you will find value from the author's experiences.)

By Citizen of the World

Having evolved philosophically in my adulthood to a fairly hardcore libertarian worldview, I had read the writings of people like Doug Casey, which encouraged people even some decades ago to take concrete steps to internationalize themselves. Not just "talk the talk," but to actually "walk the walk."

My professional career offered me the chance to travel abroad quite a bit, so it was not too difficult for me to begin taking baby steps to internationalize.

I rented an apartment in one of the Asian cities that I frequently visited. A few years later, I made my first overseas real estate purchase of a small apartment in another Asian city, followed by several more in the next few years.

By this time, I was managing to spend about 2/3 of each year outside the US—you could say that I waded into the pool, rather than just diving in.

The passage of the first of the three recent "exit tax" laws by Congress in 1996 had alerted me to how high-stakes the US government regarded full expatriation to be—and inclined me toward doing so.

I reasoned that if they were that anxious to discourage people from leaving, it might well be time to seriously consider doing so.

Still, for about another decade, I wasn't in a good position financially or logistically to do so, although I did begin seriously collecting more information about residency abroad, second passports, etc.

Shortly after my financial and logistical impediments cleared up, Ron Paul began achieving astounding success in the early phases of the 2008 presidential campaign. Encouraged once more at the prospect of there perhaps being a chance to turn things around after all, I put my international plans on hold and devoted nearly the entire first three quarters of the year to his campaign.

But the unremitting ferocity with which mainstream Republicans opposed our every effort led me to renew my efforts to abandon the sinking ship.

Another imperative for me has been the maxim "silence implies consent"—that is, by not acting (especially now that I was in a reasonably good position to do so) to separate myself from the manifest evils of the regime in DC, I would continue granting it my consent.

So, believing at that time (incorrectly, as it turns out) that you had to have another passport before you could give up US citizenship, I settled on the economic citizenship of the Commonwealth of Dominica, which is the quickest legitimate and least-expensive way to clear that hurdle.

I engaged a US-based consultant/agent to undertake the process of applying for Dominica's program—something I definitely recommend.

Even though the agent may not want to hold your hand the whole time or answer every last question you may have, he or she can be quite helpful in navigating any significant rough spots or ambiguities. But be careful: the fees can mount up quickly. Keep in mind that obtaining a second citizenship (so you won't be "stateless" and unable to travel after giving up your US citizenship) and the actual Relinquishment/Renunciation are two distinct phases (there's a third expatriation phase, if you will be a "Covered Expatriate" and have to deal with the "mark to market" exit tax). You'll likely be expected to pay fees to an advisor/agent for each phase, unless you spring for a (much more expensive) "package deal."

Do be careful to choose only a legitimate agency—there are any number of dubious ones offering their "services" on the Internet. If in doubt about one you're considering, you should inquire directly to the government officials of your chosen country whether that agency is in good standing with the officials there.

Initially, it was expected to take about three months to receive the Dominica passport, after all the required documents and preliminaries had been done.

But even as I got those things ready to submit (the required FBI criminal check was routinely quoted as taking up to 12 weeks at that time), the expected approval and completion dates were being pushed out at least several more months.

I had originally considered doing the St. Kitts program, which offered a considerably more useful passport—visa-free entry to all of the EU, as well as to Canada, which is about two dozen more countries than the Dominica passport allows.

So faced with a possibly quite extended delay in getting the Dominica passport and by now having a fair amount of experience in making such an application, I decided to apply for the St. Kitts one as well—and without the additional expense of a consultant/agent.

Since most of the documents and preliminaries I had done for Dominica were also needed for the St. Kitts application, I got the St. Kitts one done much sooner and had everything for it filed about a month after filing for the Dominica one. In the end, the St. Kitts passport was issued about three months before the Dominica one.

With the passport hurdle soon to be cleared, I had to make financial preparations. Not so much on account of the exit tax itself, but much more because of the very punitive, but much less known Section 2801 gift/inheritance tax imposed on all post-expatriation gifts and/or bequests to "US persons" by a "covered" expatriate (which I have the dubious pleasure of being).

[Editor's Note: The term "covered expatriate" refers to the former US citizens who qualify to be stung with the exit tax. See this IRS article for more details.]

Because most of my low-to-mid seven-figure wealth had already been taxed at least once (and also having considerable loss carry-forwards ensuing from the aftermath of the 2008 panic), I was not facing much of an exit tax liability itself.

Once I had the passports in hand, but well before I had finished financial preparations, I made the first of the two visits to a US embassy or consular office abroad required for the actual renunciation process.

On the first visit, you must allow the consular staff to inform (lecture?) you about the "grave" consequences and irrevocability of what you seek to do; and you must assert to them that you understand what you are doing, that you really do intend to do so, and do not expect to retain any rights or privileges of US citizenship.

However, you are not allowed to complete the renunciation process at that first visit. You must go away for at least a short while and then come back on a second appointment, "to be sure you really want to do this."

In my case, the consular official whom I met with on that first visit did not try very much to dissuade me, nor did I have any difficulty convincing her that I had thought about it extensively and knew what I was seeking to do.

Another half-year elapsed before I finished all the required property transfers into irrevocable trusts (to avoid Section 2801 gift/inheritance tax), after which I was finally ready for my actual expatriation appointment.

There are actually two somewhat distinct procedures by which you can give up US citizenship: relinquishment or renunciation. The State Department forms and consular staff procedures are similar, but not identical, for both ways.

Renunciation is the more affirmative way, and may be preferable for that reason alone.

Professional and informal advisors have differing opinions on which is better—and even whether there's any substantive difference at all—apart from the $450 fee now required for a Renunciation filing (no fee at all is currently required for filing a Relinquishment—if one is in a position to choose that route).

There are no differences in IRS/tax consequences, and it's said that the State Department makes no distinction between those who relinquish versus those who renounce.

But the fact remains that there are the two different procedures, and some knowledgeable people do recommend relinquishment (if one's situation permits using that method) instead of renunciation.

Be aware though that pursuing a relinquishment requires the applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State Department people involved (both in the embassy/consular office and the application reviewers in Washington), that the applicant's "potentially expatriating act" (which is usually the act of obtaining citizenship in another country) was truly done "with the intent to give up US citizenship" at the time of "performing the potentially expatriating act."

In contrast, making a renunciation filing, which involves performing an Oath of Renunciation before a consular officer, provides convincing prima facie evidence of intent to give up US citizenship.

The State Department may reject a renunciation filing only if there's clear evidence that the applicant was under some sort of duress to take the oath, or that the would-be renunciant intends to retain any prerogatives of US citizenship (such as continuing to reside in the US without obtaining any residency visa/permission as an "alien").

Because so much time had elapsed since my first visit, I had to re-do it. Mercifully, the consular staff allowed me to return quite soon for the actual renunciation process.

There are numerous reports of delays of weeks to months in getting appointments (for either or both of the two required visits) at many of the busier embassies. I have personal knowledge of an embassy in a major Asian city requiring a two-week interval between an applicant's first and second renunciation visit regardless of how full or slack its appointment calendar was.

A note about embassy/consular office practices: The expatriation requirements and procedures are stated in fairly thorough detail in in Volume 7, chapter 12 of the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM).

In practice though, each embassy/consular office seems to operate with a fair amount of discretion.

As just one example, FAM explicitly states that an embassy or consular office must allow any US citizen to expatriate who applies there to do so. Yet I was told by consular staff in one major Asian embassy that it refuses to let anyone who is not a legal resident of that country expatriate at that embassy.

Though they're primarily focused on the plight of the many Americans who permanently moved to Canada, the Isaac Brock Society maintains an excellent website. It keeps an extensive—if anecdotally based—log of people's expatriation experiences at various embassies/consular offices around the globe.

The actual process of formally doing the renunciation was straightforward and was conducted without any further hassle or delay at my next appointment.

Stay tuned for the second (and final) part of this story. It has specific details about the renunciation process as well as the author's personal experiences dealing with US officials during and after the process.


    



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

“All Yours Janet”: JPM Warns Fed About Using “Arguably Flawed Statistics”

The December jobs report was an ugly mix of slowing employment growth and disappointing labor supply. JPMorgan’s Mike Feroli doesn’t mix his words in his brief report on today’s ugly jobs data. While other ‘economists’ proclaimed we should “ignore it” or blamed it on the weather, Feroli notes for example, “It’s hard to see how the weather — or anything else — was to blame for the 25,000 decrease in employment of accountants.” But it his comments for the Fed that are most concerning as he worries, “the forward guidance decision could be even more difficult than the tapering call… lowering the unemployment threshold further would be doubling down on predicating policy on an arguably flawed statistic.”

Via JPMorgan’s Mike Feroli,

All Yours Janet

The step-down in nonfarm job growth from an upward-revised 241,000 in November to just 74,000 last month can partly be blamed on weather and, perhaps just as important, on the month-to-month noise in the series. Just as the hype over upside risks after strong November data was probably overdone, so too should the string of disappointing December data be taken in stride. Given the economic fundamentals we’d guess the underlying trend in job growth hasn’t materially shifted. More troubling though is not what we are learning about business’ labor demand, but what is happening in households’ labor supply: the unemployment rate plunged 0.3%-point to 6.7% as the labor force participation rate fell another 0.2%-point to 62.8%.

So far, the fall in unemployment is not being accompanied by even the slightest hint of wage acceleration — average hourly earnings were up just 0.1% last month — but it does raise the risk that the economy may bump up against capacity constraints sooner than hoped. Bernanke’s last meeting as Chairman will be a tricky one. We believe the Fed can convince itself there were enough special factors distorting this number that another $10 billion taper will be appropriate at the January FOMC meeting, though there may be some advocating a pause.

The forward guidance decision could be even more difficult than the tapering call. Rather than lower the unemployment threshold further — which would be doubling down on predicating policy on an arguably flawed statistic — we think the Committee will continue along the path of downplaying the significance of the unemployment rate in the setting of interest rate policy.

The weakness in the establishment survey was not just in the headline jobs number, but also in the ticking down in the average workweek to 34.4 hours, and the sluggish 0.1% gain in average hourly earnings, the lowest increase since the summer.

The big question is how much of the disappointment was weather distortion. The 16,000 decline in construction payrolls is an obvious candidate as a casualty of cold weather in the survey week. Another clue comes from the 273,000 who reported themselves as employed but not at work due to bad weather, about 100,000 more than an average December. Caution should be taken in simply adding this 100,000 to the nonfarm payroll number, as the nonfarm number counts people as employed so long as they were paid, whether or not they were at work. Our educated guess is weather may have taken 50,000 off payrolls. It’s hard to see how the weather — or anything else — was to blame for the 25,000 decrease in employment of accountants. Another outlier was health care employment, down 6,000 and the first monthly decline in over a decade, undoubtedly a data point that will enter the civic discussion on health care reform. Going in the opposite direction, retail employment had a strong month, up 55,000, which tends to occur in Decembers following a late Thanksgiving (even after seasonal adjustment). Temp help was also strong, up 40,000. The weakness in average hourly earnings took year-ago wage gains down to 1.8%, partly a base effect as earnings late last year got a boost, perhaps ahead of scheduled tax increases.

Job gains as measured in the household survey came in a somewhat more respectable 174,000 and unemployment plunged 490,000, the most in three years. The decline in the participation rate undid the November rebound that occurred in the wake of the government shutdown. Most demographic groups saw participation decline, though it was more concentrated in persons with lower levels of educational attainment. Similarly the decline in unemployment was fairly broad-based. This decline occurred even before extended unemployment benefits began expiring at the end of December, and in fact was heavily concentrated in those unemployed less than five weeks, i.e. those who will not be affected by extended benefits. The unemployment rate of those unemployed six months or less, which some researchers have flagged as a more reliable measure of how labor market slack affects inflation, fell to 4.2%, a fair bit below the 4.9% long run average.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/aNnPn-ms9aw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

"All Yours Janet": JPM Warns Fed About Using "Arguably Flawed Statistics"

The December jobs report was an ugly mix of slowing employment growth and disappointing labor supply. JPMorgan’s Mike Feroli doesn’t mix his words in his brief report on today’s ugly jobs data. While other ‘economists’ proclaimed we should “ignore it” or blamed it on the weather, Feroli notes for example, “It’s hard to see how the weather — or anything else — was to blame for the 25,000 decrease in employment of accountants.” But it his comments for the Fed that are most concerning as he worries, “the forward guidance decision could be even more difficult than the tapering call… lowering the unemployment threshold further would be doubling down on predicating policy on an arguably flawed statistic.”

Via JPMorgan’s Mike Feroli,

All Yours Janet

The step-down in nonfarm job growth from an upward-revised 241,000 in November to just 74,000 last month can partly be blamed on weather and, perhaps just as important, on the month-to-month noise in the series. Just as the hype over upside risks after strong November data was probably overdone, so too should the string of disappointing December data be taken in stride. Given the economic fundamentals we’d guess the underlying trend in job growth hasn’t materially shifted. More troubling though is not what we are learning about business’ labor demand, but what is happening in households’ labor supply: the unemployment rate plunged 0.3%-point to 6.7% as the labor force participation rate fell another 0.2%-point to 62.8%.

So far, the fall in unemployment is not being accompanied by even the slightest hint of wage acceleration — average hourly earnings were up just 0.1% last month — but it does raise the risk that the economy may bump up against capacity constraints sooner than hoped. Bernanke’s last meeting as Chairman will be a tricky one. We believe the Fed can convince itself there were enough special factors distorting this number that another $10 billion taper will be appropriate at the January FOMC meeting, though there may be some advocating a pause.

The forward guidance decision could be even more difficult than the tapering call. Rather than lower the unemployment threshold further — which would be doubling down on predicating policy on an arguably flawed statistic — we think the Committee will continue along the path of downplaying the significance of the unemployment rate in the setting of interest rate policy.

The weakness in the establishment survey was not just in the headline jobs number, but also in the ticking down in the average workweek to 34.4 hours, and the sluggish 0.1% gain in average hourly earnings, the lowest increase since the summer.

The big question is how much of the disappointment was weather distortion. The 16,000 decline in construction payrolls is an obvious candidate as a casualty of cold weather in the survey week. Another clue comes from the 273,000 who reported themselves as employed but not at work due to bad weather, about 100,000 more than an average December. Caution should be taken in simply adding this 100,000 to the nonfarm payroll number, as the nonfarm number counts people as employed so long as they were paid, whether or not they were at work. Our educated guess is weather may have taken 50,000 off payrolls. It’s hard to see how the weather — or anything else — was to blame for the 25,000 decrease in employment of accountants. Another outlier was health care employment, down 6,000 and the first monthly decline in over a decade, undoubtedly a data point that will enter the civic discussion on health care reform. Going in the opposite direction, retail employment had a strong month, up 55,000, which tends to occur in Decembers following a late Thanksgiving (even after seasonal adjustment). Temp help was also strong, up 40,000. The weakness in average hourly earnings took year-ago wage gains down to 1.8%, partly a base effect as earnings late last year got a boost, perhaps ahead of scheduled tax increases.

Job gains as measured in the household survey came in a somewhat more respectable 174,000 and unemployment plunged 490,000, the most in three years. The decline in the participation rate undid the November rebound that occurred in the wake of the government shutdown. Most demographic groups saw participation decline, though it was more concentrated in persons with lower levels of educational attainment. Similarly the decline in unemployment was fairly broad-based. This decline occurred even before extended unemployment benefits began expiring at the end of December, and in fact was heavily concentrated in those unemployed less than five weeks, i.e. those who will not be affected by extended benefits. The unemployment rate of those unemployed six months or less, which some researchers have flagged as a more reliable measure of how labor market slack affects inflation, fell to 4.2%, a fair bit below the 4.9% long run average.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/aNnPn-ms9aw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Case Of The Missing Recovery

Submitted by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts via Alt-Market.com,

Have you seen the economic recovery? I haven’t either. But it is bound to be around here somewhere, because the National Bureau of Economic Research spotted it in June 2009, four and one-half years ago.

It is a shy and reclusive recovery, like the “New Economy” and all those promised new economy jobs. I haven’t seen them either, but we know they are here, somewhere, because the economists said so.

Congress must have seen all those jobs before they went home for Christmas, because our representatives let extended unemployment benefits expire for 1.3 million unemployed Americans, who have not yet met up with those new economy jobs, or even with an old economy job for that matter.

By letting extended unemployment benefits expire, Congress figures that they saved 1.3 million Americans from becoming lifelong bums of the nanny state and living off the public purse. After all, who do those unemployed Americans think they are? A bank too big to fail? The military-security complex? Israel?

What the unemployed need to do is to form a lobby organization and make campaign contributions.

Just as economists don’t recognize facts that are inconsistent with corporate grants, career ambitions, and being on the speaking circuit, our representatives don’t recognize facts inconsistent with campaign contributions.

For example, our representative in the White House tells us that ObamaCare is a worthy program even though those who are supposed to be helped by it aren’t because of large deductibles, copays, and Medicaid estate recovery. The cost of this non-help is a doubling of the policy premiums on those insured Americans who did not need ObamaCare and the reclassification by employers of workers’ jobs from full-time to part-time in order to avoid medical insurance costs. All it took was campaign contributions from the insurance industry to turn a policy that hurts most and helps none into a worthy program. Worthy, of course, for the insurance companies.

Keep in mind that it is the people who could not afford medical insurance who have to come up with their part of the premium or pay a penalty. How do people who have no discretionary income come up with what are to them large sums of money? Are they going to eat less, drive less, dress less? If so, what happens to people employed in those industries when demand falls? Apparently, this was too big a thought for the White House occupant, his economists, and our representatives in Congress.

According to the official wage statistics for 2012, forty percent of the US work force earned less than $20,000, fifty-three percent earned less than $30,000, and seventy-three percent earned less than $50,000. The median wage or salary was $27,519. The amounts are in current dollars and they are compensation amounts subject to state and federal income taxes and to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In other words, the take home pay is less.

To put these incomes into some perspective, the poverty threshold for a family of four in 2013 was $23,550.

In recent years, the only incomes that have been growing in real terms are those few at the top of the income distribution. Those at the top have benefited from “performance bonuses,” often acquired by laying off workers or by replacing US workers with cheaper foreign labor, and from the rise in stock and bond prices caused by the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. Everyone else has experienced a decline in real income and wealth.

As only slightly more than one percent of Americans make more than $200,000 annually and less than four-tenths of one percent make $1,000,000 or more annually, there are not enough people with discretionary income to drive the economy with consumer spending. When real median family income and real per capita income ceased to grow and began falling, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan substituted a credit expansion to take the place of the missing growth in income. However, as consumers became loaded with debt, it was no longer possible to expand consumer spending with credit expansion.

World War II left the US economy the only undamaged industrial and manufacturing center. Prosperity ensued. But by the 1970s the Keynesian demand management economic policy had produced stagflation. Reagan’s supply-side policy was able to give the US economy another 20 years. But the collapse of the Soviet Union brought an era of jobs offshoring to large Asian economies that formerly were closed to Western capital. Once corporate executives realized that they could earn multi-million dollar performance bonuses by moving US jobs abroad and once they were threatened by Wall Street and shareholder advocates with takeovers if they did not, American capitalism began giving the US economy to other countries, mainly located in Asia. As high productivity manufacturing and professional service jobs (such as software engineering) moved offshore, US incomes stagnated and fell.

As real income growth stagnated, wives entered the work force to compensate. Children were educated by refinancing the home mortgage and using the equity in the family home or with student loans that they do not earn enough to repay. Since the December 2007 downturn, Americans have used up their coping mechanisms. Homes have been refinanced. IRAs raided. Savings drawn down. Grown children, now adults, are back home with parents. The falling labor force participation rate signals that the economy can no longer provide jobs for the workforce. In such a situation, economic recovery is impossible.

What the Treasury and Federal Reserve have done, with the complicity of the White House, Congress, economists, and the media, is to focus on rescuing a half dozen banks “too big to fail.” The consequence of focusing economic policy on saving the banks is rigged financial markets and massive stock and bond market bubbles. To protect the dollar’s exchange value from quantitative easing, the price of gold has been forced down in the paper futures market, with the consequence that physical gold is shipped to Asia where it is unavailable as a refuge for Americans faced with currency depreciation.

At a time when most Americans are running out of coping mechanisms, the US faces a possible financial collapse and a high rate of inflation from dollar depreciation as the Fed pours out newly created money in an effort to support the rigged financial markets.

It remains to be seen whether the chickens can be kept from coming home to roost for another year.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/zKXT_wDJ43s/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Other Side Of Marc Faber: Gold, Hashish, And ‘Efficient’ Whiskey-Drinking

From hashish to drinking cheap whiskey in Chiang Mai clubs, the following clip rounds up the ‘best of’ Marc Faber over the last few years…

  • On the elites – “I am not sure the thinkers are in Davos
  • On the media – “you are an optimist, keep on dreaming… us foreigners just laugh”
  • On solutions – “cut government expenditures by 50%; fire half the government… including the President”
  • On Americans – “people in the western world have abandoned personal responsibility
  • On government – “who would have faith in the US administration, certainly not someone who thinks”
  • On Gold – “not to own gold is to trust central banks, and that you don’t want to do in your life

And another oldie but a goodie that sums up stimulus perfectly…

“The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate.
If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, the money goes to China.
If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs.
If we buy a computer it will go to India.
If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.
If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany.
If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy.”

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/baFJYgGstn8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Other Side Of Marc Faber: Gold, Hashish, And 'Efficient' Whiskey-Drinking

From hashish to drinking cheap whiskey in Chiang Mai clubs, the following clip rounds up the ‘best of’ Marc Faber over the last few years…

  • On the elites – “I am not sure the thinkers are in Davos
  • On the media – “you are an optimist, keep on dreaming… us foreigners just laugh”
  • On solutions – “cut government expenditures by 50%; fire half the government… including the President”
  • On Americans – “people in the western world have abandoned personal responsibility
  • On government – “who would have faith in the US administration, certainly not someone who thinks”
  • On Gold – “not to own gold is to trust central banks, and that you don’t want to do in your life

And another oldie but a goodie that sums up stimulus perfectly…

“The federal government is sending each of us a $600 rebate.
If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, the money goes to China.
If we spend it on gasoline it goes to the Arabs.
If we buy a computer it will go to India.
If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.
If we purchase a good car it will go to Germany.
If we purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan and none of it will help the American economy.”

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/baFJYgGstn8/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Overstock’s First Day of Bitcoin – $130,000 in Sales, 850 Transactions, CEO is “Stunned”

Upon the conclusion of the Senate hearing on Bitcoin this past November, I tweeted that I thought we had entered Phase 2 of the Bitcoin story. A month later, following news that Andreessen Horowitz had led an venture capital investment of $25 million in Coinbase, I wrote:

As I tweeted at the time, I think Bitcoin began phase two of its growth and adoption cycle upon the conclusion of the Senate hearings last month (I suggest reading: My Thoughts on the Bitcoin Hearing).

I think phase two will be primarily characterized by two things. More mainstream adoption and ease of use, as well as increasingly large investments by venture capitalists. In the past 24 hours, we have seen evidence of both.

Phase 2 so far is going even more positively than I had expected. Overstock.com accelerated its plans to accept BTC by many months, and the early rollout has been a massive success. The company’s CEO just tweeted:

This is absolutely huge news and any retail CEO worth their salt will immediately begin to look into Bitcoin adoption.

I hope financial publications that missed the biggest financial story of 2013 continue to mock it with covers of unicorns and waterfalls. It’s the most bullish thing I can imagine.

In Liberty,
Mike

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 1LefuVV2eCnW9VKjJGJzgZWa9vHg7Rc3r1

 Follow me on Twitter.

Overstock’s First Day of Bitcoin – $130,000 in Sales, 850 Transactions, CEO is “Stunned” originally appeared on A Lightning War for Liberty on January 10, 2014.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/01/10/first-day-of-bitcoin-sales-on-overstock-850-transactions-130k-in-sales-ceo-is-stunned/
via IFTTT

Irish Finance Ministry Reveals It Has Lost Banking Crisis Files

We are sure there is a joke in here somewhere but it is no laughing matter. Following a request for copies of 8 documents  of correspondence between Ireland’s (former) finance minister and the nations’ largest bank executives, the Irish minstry of finance has been forced to admit that it cannot find two out of the eight. The documents, previously 100% redacted, raises questions as to whether other documents have gone ‘missing’. As RTE reports, the Department of Finance said it had carried out a widespread search for the documents and it was not clear why the original versions could not be located. Those darn leprechauns… We are sure, however, it has nothing to do with the Irish banks “picking bailout numbers out of their arses.”

 

Via RTE,

Documents relating to the banking crisis have gone missing at the Department of Finance.

 

The department has conceded that some correspondence forwarded from Bank of Ireland to the former minister for finance Brian Lenihan can no longer be located.

 

 

In 2009, the department was asked under Freedom of Information to release copies of all correspondence between the late Mr Lenihan and the chief executives of the banks during the period August 2008 to March 2009.

 

The department released eight items.

 

Late last year, Sinn Féin finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty requested repeat copies of these documents.

 

He was told that two out of the eight could no longer be found.

 

When released in 2009, both had been completely redacted.

 

They concerned correspondence between the governor of Bank of Ireland Richard Burrows and an advisor to the Jupiter group, Noel Corcoran.

 

Jupiter was trying to buy Bank of Ireland at the time.

 

Mr Doherty said the fact that the department could not locate records was worrying ahead of the banking inquiry.

 

He said it raised questions as to whether other documents may have gone missing.

 

In a statement to RTÉ News this evening, the Department of Finance said it had carried out a widespread search for the documents and it was not clear why the original versions could not be located.

 

It said that it had undertaken a project which would ensure the completeness and integrity of its records from the time of the bank guarantee.

 

 

It said that it was not aware of any documents relating to the bank guarantee which may have gone missing.

 

Mr Doherty said: “These letters existed in 2009.  They were released but the content was fully redacted to a journalist under the Freedom of Information legislation.

 

“However I have now been informed that these letters have gone missing from the Department of Finance.

 

These are some of the only documents between the Governor of the Bank of Ireland and the Minister for Finance during a period when the government decided to pump €3.5m of taxpayers’ money into that bank.”

 

He went on to say: “The only reason we know that these documents are missing is because two separate FOIs were made on the same document over a four year period.  The question has to be asked about what other sensitive documents have gone missing.  The reality is that we may never know.

 

“If the upcoming banking inquiry is to be successful it is important that all relevant documents are found or returned.”

 

Good job they got that bond issue off eh?


    



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