This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Great Disconnect - Markets Vs. Economy
Submitted by Lance Roberts of Street Talk Live,
Last week I was swamped with interviews, both radio and television, to discuss the meaning of the markets hitting new all-time highs. The general consensus of the analysts and economists that I was pitted against was that the rise in capital markets, given weak current economic data and a resurgence of the Eurozone crisis, is clearly a sign of economic strength. This, combined with rising corporate profitability, makes stocks the only investment worth having. My arguments were much more pragmatic.
First, it is worth noting that the markets have only risen to "all-time highs" only on a nominal basis. As I posted in this past weekends newsletter entitled "Why You Can Never Beat The Index" I stated that:
"While the markets have hit an all-time high on a nominal basis (due much to the substitution effect as discussed above), there is still much to go before making up lost ground on an inflation adjusted basis.
The chart below shows the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation. Investors today, if they had been able to get exactly the same performance as the index are now back to where there were effectively in 1997. Of course, the reality is that investors have fared far worse given emotional mistakes, jumping from one investment strategy to another, taking on excess risk, and chasing past returns.
As I explain to my kids in baseball – it is not getting hits that win baseball games but rather having fewer errors than your opponents. In investing – the winner is the person with the fewest errors."
Setting aside for the moment the impact of all other factors and looking at the rise of the index solely as an indication of economic strength - we find a very large disconnect.
Since Jan 1st of 2009, through the end of March, the stock market has risen by an astounding 67.8%. However, if we measure from the March 9, 2009 lows, the percentage gain doubles to 132% in just 48 months. With such a large gain in the financial markets we should see a commensurate indication of economic growth - right?
The reality is that after 4-Q.E. programs, a maturity extension program, bailouts of TARP, TGLP, TGLF, etc., HAMP, HARP, direct bailouts of Bear Stearns, AIG, GM, bank supports, etc., all of which total to more than $30 Trillion and counting, the economy has grown by a whopping $954.5 billion since the beginning of 2009. This equates to a whopping 7.5% growth during the same time period as the market surges by more than 100%.
However, as shown in the chart above the Fed's monetary programs have inflated the excess reserves of the major banks by roughly 170% during the same period of time. The increases in excess reserves, which the banks can borrow for effectively zero, have been funneled directly into risky assets in order to create returns. This is why there is such a high correlation, roughly 85%, between the increase in the Fed's balance sheet and the return of the stock market.
Unfortunately, while Wall Street benefits greatly from repeated Federal Reserve interventions - Main Street has not. Over the past few years as asset prices have surged higher - consumer confidence has remained mired at levels historically associated with recessions. This is reflective of weak growth in personal consumption expenditures which is primarily a function of weak income growth.
As an example - the last two reports on personal incomes and expenditures show that more than half of the increase came from increase in gasoline and food prices. The problem with this, as we have explained previously, is that higher "sales" is not a function of greater volumes of product sold - just simply more dollars spent for the same amount of goods. This is more commonly known as "inflation."
Of course, weak economic growth has led to employment growth that is primarily a function of population growth. Sustained levels of unemployment have reduced the standard of living for many Americans forcing them to turn to social support programs. Food stamp usage and disability claims have soared to record levels along with the percentage of real disposable incomes that are comprised by social benefits as shown below.
It is extremely hard to create stronger, organic, economic growth when the dependency on recycled tax-dollars to meet living requirements remains so high.
Corporate profits have surged since the end of the last recession which has been touted as a definitive reason for higher stock prices. While I cannot argue the logic behind this case, as earnings per share are an important driver of markets over time, it is important to understand that the increase in profitability has not come strong increases in revenue at the top of the income statement. As the chart below shows while earnings per share has risen by over 200% since the beginning of 2009 - revenues have grown by less than 10%.
As expected, since the economy is 70% driven by personal consumption, GDP growth and revenues have grown at roughly equivalent rates. Therefore, the question as to where corporate profitability came from must be answered? That answer can be clearly seen in the chart below of corporate profits per worker which is at the highest level in history.
Suppressed wage growth, layoffs, cost-cutting, productivity increases, accounting gimmickry and stock buybacks have been the primary factors in surging profitability. However, these actions are finite in nature and inevitably it will come down to topline revenue growth. However, since consumer incomes have been cannibalized by suppressed wages and interest rates - there is nowhere left to generate further sales gains from in excess of population growth.
So, while the markets have surged to "all-time highs" - for the majority of Americans who have little, or no, vested interest in the financial markets their view is markedly different. While the mainstream analysts and economists keep hoping with each passing year that this will be the year the economy comes roaring back - the reality is that all the stimulus and financial support available from the Fed, and the government, can't put a broken financial transmission system back together again. Eventually, the current disconnect between the economy and the markets will merge. My bet is that such a convergence is not likely to be a pleasant one.
»
- 15908 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
There's only one way this can end (clue: the economy will not go up to catch up with the market).
Precisely. Which will in turn send the economy down further into the debt death spiral vortex we know is coming. Until the reset. The big Q is who/what will be in charge of the reset and who/what will they favor?
"The big Q is who/what will be in charge of the reset and who/what will they favor?"
Who's in charge now? Bernie pumps the stock markets with limitless amounts of new cash while Barry deflates the real economy with new taxes and regulations to feed the growing welfare state. Both are destroyin the middle class, so we know what they favor.
Why do you think DHS's Janet Nappy is buying up every bullet in sight?
The Obama Admin has "plans" for all of us comes the meltdown...
The bankers have the plans. The Admin doesn't matter, though you correctly observe that the current one has Obama as the titular head.
We know, The Admin never matters to you when it's a progressive liberal.
So what's your point? That it matters?
No. It seems like it still matters to you. Any President that mattered was "dealt" with. Anyone now, D or R coming up the ranks that may possibly make a difference and is against the progressive Statist agenda is dealt with by the MSM.
Progressive Statist agenda? What about the conservative Statist agenda? Is that okay, or do you hereby renounce your conservativism? Reagan and Bush I and II were statists, my Red friend. For God's sake -- Reagan practically invented the transfer of money from taxpayers to the banks via the State, or at least reinvented it after a brief hiatus.
See, here goes your disinformation, Reagan was a Statist. Sure the Bush Dynasty bought into the same statist agenda any like progressive Democrat, but not Reagan. Or JFK for that matter, That's why he was dealt with. I know you're not dumb enough to believe what you say about conservatives, so I must think you're praying on low information people.
Did government and government debt grow or decline under your God Reagan? Pretty simple question with a clear answer. Apologize for him much, Red Team? How about some high information about why I'm wrong....
Government and government debt has NEVER declined since the creation of The Fed. That was the start of the 100 year centrally planned economy that eventually progressed to the present condition The welfare State could not have grown anywhere close to it's present size if it were limited by sound money, So a new central banking system was created in 1913 by progressive hero, Pres. Wilson. So now with the end of the Fed at hand, is the end of the great central planning experiment and a once great free Nation is reduced to bankruptsy.
Well, that pretty much ducks the question. No facts to back up the bumper stickers?
Not to suggest that republicans do not carry a serious burden in our current debacle, but just a cursory overview of what we face today is a DIRECT reflection of the progressive agenda. Everything we face from education to public entitlements to healthcare to social policies to immigration, ALL reflect progressive agendas. Yes, republicans have done little to stem the tide and many times been complicit in its advancement, but do not confuse actions with agendas. Republicans have foolishly believed that they could out Santa the left and have only proven themselves to be hypocrites. It hasn’t helped that most of these capitulations have been to benefit their supporters, but even though republicans have many times been traitorous to conservative principles, it seems that they have taken the role of speaking for us, much in the way Jesse Jackson has become the default spokesman for blacks. Just because we have some perverted priests buggering little boys does not disprove the existence of God, it actually proves it. The left will never let any belief to be propagated that demonstrates their policies do not work. They simply point at republicans that have done similar things, but less, as proof that enough is never enough. Forward!
Thanks Oldwood, you get it. Too many young twigs don't understand that many of the problems we face today are a direct result of an ongoing progressive agenda.
What Ben and Barry are doing is a conservative's wet dream. Following the lead of the axis of non-evil Bush, Greenspan and Paulson, the rich are getting richer while the middle class is asked to pay more for the benefits to which it thinks it is "entitled." Large banks remain effectively unregulated and are getting larger, while small banks and other small businesses are regulated to death to the benefit of big banks/big business which have record cash to spend into the economy.
P.S. If this doesn't prove that trickle down/supply side economic policy is a cruel joke that causes laughter only among the top .1% and pain to everyone else, I don't know what does. So by all means, let's have less regulation and less tax on the wealthy. That will fix it.
Still gladly wallowing in the red team/blue team mudpuddle made for you by TPTB and the lamestream media, I see.
Right, that's what I was saying. I wasn't responding to a poster who blamed Obama for our problems as if it matters who occupies the puppet house.
"What Ben and Barry are doing is a conservative's wet dream." LoL. Maybe to a consevative marxist. You can't have any less regulation or less taxes on the 1%, under barry's new regime, look at his list of corporate buddies. At the same time he fleeces the middle class with new regulations while increasing the National debt to historic levels.
Did you even read my post? Read it again and then compare it to what you said. You just don't like my conclusion about trickle down economics because it threatens your worldview. Get over it.
I read your post. What I didn't like is your disinformation. Including your definiton of conservatives. Who cares about trickle down economics or the progressive redistribution of wealth and social justice in the last 50 years, when the entire 100yr experiment of central planning is failing.
You speak in riddles my Red Team friend. If you think that "social justice" is the problem, you have a long way to go. Tell me again how the poor caused almost all of the wealth of this country to be transferred to the top .1%. The very wealthy have convinced the somewhat successful that the poor are the problem, while they are raped. Those violated sheep sound a lot like you.
The wealth isn't transferred as much as it's diluted from the general population by the state. The poor didn't cause anything, the socialists caused the present indebtedness by slowly growing the size of their Govts over decades. Now the systems they set up are unsustainable so they're resorting to stealing from the private middle class to feed the public sector.
So by the socialists, you mean the Conservatives who were in power throughout most of that period?
No, he means the fucking liberals, who can't do anything except blame someone else for their failures. They're never responsible for anything. Except, maybe, personally shooting Osama Bin Laden - who's been dead of Renal failure since about 2005.
I think he means the inflationists. But inflation doesn't matter, right? Just ask Mr Krugnuts. IIRC, it was the Chicago Boys that warned about the evils of monetary inflation and were basically ignored by BOTH political parties. And it was the Chicago Boys that warned us about "regulatory capture", as well. But, "we're all Keynesians, now".
Because we gave it to them! We have willing given our government the power to determine our future. A government run by the very same people who run the economy and industry. The people have made their choices. They have voted, they have allowed much of this to happen out of their own ignorance. We have allowed a society to believe that the government's primary role is to protect the weak and stupid, thereby promoting the weak and stupid. Rather than worrying about what you believe to be unfair wealth distribution, how about worrying about an unfair knowledge or education distribution. The anwer you seek to the problems we have is knowledge and a general unwillingness to accept that anyone or thing cares about you more than you do. The primary fraud has occurred in our education system where quantity has taken priority of quality and it is gauged more by ideology that anything that could actually be useful in a person's future, unless of course they seek a government position.
http://bobbiblogger.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/reagan-and-bush-sr-laughing...
oops--sorry, i double dipped the ol funny pic link...
That profits to employees chart is insane.
Fortune Magazine's mantra was "fire, fire, fire". Been awhile since I read one.
It'll turn out OK, right? </sarc>
Economies of scale in reverse. Just wait until things snap Back. In order to manufacture with a bunch of robots you still have to have quite a bit of P&E in place. When the consumer base continues to erode businesses will have no where else to cut- they' start at cutting production runs, but that'll eventually start jacking up the per-unit costs, thus killing "economies of scale." Pretty soon that piece of iCrap will only be affordable by the few; until, that is, it becomes WAY too expensive to maintain the P&E for such low production numbers (think Tesla Motors).
Really goes to show these "profits" are inflated and fake, as corporations take on more debt to buy up other companies, buyback shares to prop up their asset prices, and of course, the executives take a little off the top for their bonuses.......and most of these bonuses are funded in the form of government tax cuts (because that money HAS to go somewhere).
Personal income rose last month......why? Annual raises. And they are reported to be slightly up from 2.2% to 2.6% on average. Why? Because the corporations, and Fed, are scared. They are scared that inflation is finally taking hold, and that they won't be able to keep up with it, and that the American consumer, the almighty "resilient" American consumer.....will just fucking tap.
Very good article.
The S&P will bottom below 666
The S&P will bottom above 666
NOTE: the table I pasted here is NOT in my preview, so if it does not appear, my numbers won't make sense. See the "BEARS" table in the instablog I mention below....
This is a table from "What's Your Decade, man?", an instablog I wrote on Seeking Alpha. For all those expecting a new low in this secular bear market, tell me which "down" marked the bottom for prior secular bears?
fyi: These numbers are based on monthly DJIA prices, the source I had available, and are "eyeball" up and down moves based on a price chart while looking at percentage moves.
It would appear that everyone but me expects the worse to come. From my perspective, the worse is here... what is "the worse" in a secular bear market is NOT simply the extent of the decline. Look at the table!
What makes a secular bear market so devistating is that "it mauls you, down AND UP!".
I lost my job as a buy side tech analyst in 2004 after I refused to accept that secular bear markets bounce "hard" (up). If you look at the stocks I covered, in hindishight, I was right. They've gone nowhere, but that didn't protect my job.
If you refuse to accept the "strength of bounce ups" in a secular bear, you're probably not going to protect your assets.
Oh, and the answer to the question - where did the market bottom in prior secular bears. In the 30s, it was the 47% move down, the 2nd out of 5 down moves. In the 70s, out of 6 down moves, the 3rd move down was the bottom. I think we've made our bottom, shown in the table as the 3rd move down, and it appears that we're still on our 3rd bounce back up. It would not surprise me to see at least two more big moves down but I doubt we'll see a new low. Regrettably, what will be "new" is the length of the bear, which all ready seems to be long in tooth.
In the 30s, a war helped "solve" the bear and in the 70s systemically high inflation caused a "severe" regime change. I think we;re "done with war" for the time being, so I would guess a "severe" regime change comes in 2016, but remember under Reagan, we still had a down leg when he instituted his policies, and then things turned. God help us, but I don't see "a real turn" until 2018 or so.
" but I don't see "a real turn" until 2018 or so."
And what are you basing this forecast on?
I see NO growth ahead, ever (again). I fully agree with Chris Martenson's notion that we've hit "peak prosperity." Higher returns are only really possible in a firm growth environment. And growth environments are linked to the ability to do more work, with "more work" being done by more (cheap) energy. The globe is done with cheap energy, which means that everything points back/down.
ECONOMIES OF SCALE IN REVERSE (I won't stop hammering on the importance of this point!)
Nearly ALL of the upside of things over the course of the last 40 years has been more about gimmickry/trickery than in real growth-producing activities. It shouldn't be of any surprise that this period initiated from the US's peak oil production and its "default" (dropping off the gold standard); this was from the world's overwhelming economic super power!
The only way to protect ourselves against the coming collapse is to sell precious metals, buy more stocks and hold more US dollars. In stocks we trust!
Yep. Stocks sure are awesome during collapses.
So ... how long can the fed print $85 billion a month?
... without causing enormous dislocations in asset and labor prices.
TFN, Angie. Til Further Notice. Which is why the situation is FUBAR.
To be fair, they can't exactly spell it out lest that cause BIG shifts. BUT... it doesn't really matter what we all do on the Titanic, it's still going down.
Rather than spending one's time trying to time the meltdown I'd think it better to spend it preparing for the real future...
Forever because.....well, we have the drone and the guns.
The UK, Japan, and Southern Eurozone countries.....they on the other hand, kind of screwed.
Nice article, clearly showing why the hockey stick projections will fail. Because capitalism did not have a chance to punish the stupid and careless, and re-set the economy, there is no basis for a sustainable recovery.
there is no longer any need to manage risk-why is there even a VIX index any more?
VIX is only a volatility index. It does NOT predict directions.
no shit-the 2 go hand in hand
If you understand the hockey-stick concept then you should know that it's not possible to have a "sustainable recovery." (one would have to qualify this in terms of [over] time, but then again using the word "sustainable" is pretty much an oxymoron)
I believe that also made unsustainable cost reductions in staffing and inventory and in investment in the business, but I've been believing that for the last 20 years. I know for example that the toys that are offered now for kids are crap compared to what they were 10 years ago. Also the service and maintanance of inventory and the quality of product at Home depot gets worse every year. Cars get worse every year (for a while they were getting substially better each year) - my Lexus is crap compared to my old Nissan.
" our bet"?
You "bet"
We just want to live.
FUCK YOU.
<<The problem with this, as we have explained previously, is that higher "sales" is not a function of greater volumes of product sold - just simply more dollars spent for the same amount of goods. This is more commonly known as "inflation.">>
Inflation...
Today, NPR reported that the ISM number, though lower than expected, was a "very good report".
Its always "better than expected" or "it could have been worse". At this point an astroid could be hurdling towards earth and they would be reporting on the positive impact to our economy of mineral importation. We are experiencing, almost word for word, every absurd theme ever printed in the future world fictions. At this rate I would not be shocked to see superman flying through the sky as it seems every supposed impossible fiction is coming to reality.
Economic strength, eh? How many economist retards still think a half trillion trade deficit doesn't matter?
What you see right now is as good as it's ever going to get. Everything else is just BS.
Don't the banks have to pay the money they borrowed back to the Fed?
Clearly you haven't been paying attention! </sarc>
Only three(?) choices:
1) A miracle occurs (e.g. construction boom on Mars) and banks can pay off the loans;
2) Banks get bailed out, again (until it can no longer happen);
3) Banks get taken over by a larger fish, which gets written off on the backs of the taxpayers (a slight variation on #2).
Excellent post and charts. Really liking the analysis from Lance Roberts.
too much globalisation in the planning of corparations, the idea of a growing middle class in emerging markets making demand for production and fuel profits even as the U S market stagnates. the problems are international competition keeping margins low . demand worldwide can't rise in this environment
" demand worldwide can't rise in this environment"
Demand will ultimately fail to rise because this is a finite planet. Well, I suppose that we CAN have infinite demand, though at some point when people realize that there's no supply they'll quit "demanding."
This will last a long time. There's still plenty to steal from the middle and lower class sheep and its being done stealthily enough via fraud, ZIRP, inflation, and perpetual deficits so they'll walk into the slaughter house smiling. Eventually all of our cities will go the way of Detroit and the prospects of our children and grandchildren will be those of the Rio street kids today.
Too many well conditioned sheep in this world and the sociopaths have taken firm control. Homo Sapiens will be exploited and supplanted by Homo Sociopathiens. The bleak worlds of 1984, The Time Machine, and Atlas Shruged are our future.
What, exactly, is it that TPTB want to "steal" from the "middle and lower class sheep?" Their debt?
The System is being recalled. I have NO idea whether they're racking it all up for some other "new game" or toe reset the existing game, but let's be clear here- the current System HAS failed.
"Eventually all of our cities will go the way of Detroit and the prospects of our children and grandchildren will be those of the Rio street kids today."
Cities are, by definition, unsustainable. It takes WAY more to keep them going than they produce: this isn't a promising equation.
The majority of the world's population lives close to subsistence levels. People tend to be repulsed by this word so they try and come up with all kinds of reasons why THEY themselves could not be one of "those."
I KNOW what the realities are, my wife is from Manila. The US, due to a bounty of natural resources, was able to supply cities to such an extent as to keep them lifted up. You never beat entropy, eventually IT (either simple entropy, OR, something like the next glacial period) wins.
I just hope someone, anyone, in power in the U.S. understands the importance of our basic industrial companies before we lose another one. Can't have a penthouse without a basement.
Repost: And another thing! The propaganda that "profits of a major corporation" are something to be despised has to stop. I can sue a corporation, but I can't sue the government.
WTF does all this mean?
Ideological-induced BS if you ask me.
Our failings have to do with the FACT that we're on a finite planet (all planets, are, as they are spheres, finite).
Pro or Anti corporation is rah-rah shit.
The FACT is that BIG = FAIL.
BIG corporations maximize Jevons Paradox, they enable capitalism to be the best builders of our noose. ANY system or ideology that is based upon the need for perpetual growth WILL fail.
BTW - Don't tell me to stop anything.
I missed this one:
" I can sue a corporation, but I can't sue the government."
REALLY? What country are you in? It's not only POSSIBLE in the US, but it happens a LOT: which tends to tack on costs to government operations.
Here's a nice example:
Sailors sue government over retention board dismissalshttp://www.stripes.com/news/sailors-sue-government-over-retention-board-...
Mr Roberts, while I appreciate the lengths you went to in proving your point, hasn't Bernanke admitted he thinks it's all about the market and the economy will follow? The admin really has done nothing to improve the economy, all the assist has been market side. So of course there's a "disconnect". Obama is even quoted as saying he thinks the high unemployment rate is "natural" and since he thinks it's caused by "productivity gains" then there's not much can be done about it.
That's what these nitwits really believe. They live in an insular, anything for the 1% and the rest be damned, world.
"Obama is even quoted as saying he thinks the high unemployment rate is "natural" and since he thinks it's caused by "productivity gains" then there's not much can be done about it."
Obviously this is a communist/socialist perspective! </sarc>
Not pretending to KNOW what's in someone's head, and not intending to defend any of TPTB's puppets, but there IS a logical connection with what he's saying if you qualify it.
The devil is hiding here via the omission of WHAT is causing the "productivity gains." "Production" can ONLY occur via humans OR robots/automation*.
* Any that doesn't occur naturally (such as nature is producing oil [at a VERY slow pace]).
The reason why we don't engage in this discussion? The next question would be WHY robot/automation over humans? The answer would be that it's done to keep product prices low (need robots to create iCrap). The circular function would start to appear as we continued the questioning. Cut jobs to make things cheaper so that people who are not employed could buy the products? Um... no. This is all to ensure that the 1% can obtain stuff; for them, however, this is problematic as this is a path of "economies of scale in reverse"- without all the junk consumers out there (think of the importance of junk mail to USPS) the 1% would have to pay more, a LOT more due to lower production numbers.
Again, I won't try to state what others believe (as I would not want them trying to do the same with me). I go by system logic and physics. The bottom line for all is that we've hit, as Chris Martenson puts it, "peak prosperity." In the face of nature it matters little what the "1%" (or the 100%) believe, nature is going to do what nature does, and anything that humans do that is not sustainable per nature's laws WILL eventually cease. Our hockey-puck growth and consumption, which has set up the "positive" aspects of "economies of scale," has a shelf life.
The article mentions population growth being related to an expanding economy, but that is in historically normal times. our demographics are a design for disaster. Thanks to birth control and abortion, our most economically productive people are not reproducing. Our least economically productive people are mostly just producing more burdens on society. Some go on to be millionaires in the entertainment industry, but bread and circuses are not a viable long term plan for a country.
"Thanks to birth control and abortion, our most economically productive people are not reproducing."
"Our least economically productive people are mostly just producing more burdens on society."
Cognitive dissonance much?
It's that America is God's nation thing, isn't it?
Maybe those who are most productive are TOO busy being "productive" to be fucking a lot?
I could also say that this could hold true with gays/lesbians (their not reproducing means that they're "economically productive"), but I'm sure that that isn't what you're referring to (because these people couldn't possibly be "productive," no siree!).
PERPETUAL GROWTH ON A FINITE PLANET IS NOT POSSIBLE. It does NOT matter whether the "non productive" or the "productive" try this, it WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO FAILURE/COLLAPSE!
Based on our "economic" measurements the "most economically productive people" have been our bankers. Have you looked at their birth rates, their abortion and birth control rates?
"The article mentions population growth being related to an expanding economy, but that is in historically normal times."
Your violation of logic is just plain painful!
What the fuck is "historically normal times" mean?
Is history normal or not?
Are you trying to say "historical average?" If so, please provide the statistics and state the actual span of time that they cover.
Expansion = surplus, and surplus means growth, and growth means more consumption by humans. WTF would humans continue to over-produce surplus if it wasn't to CONSUME it (in which case it couldn't exactly BE "surplus," unless, of course, there were deficiencies, which is when the "surpluses" would be consumed)?
Since we cannot know the future enough to say with certainty how much we can produce in any particular year (though we actually DO do a pretty good job at guessing- what other animal can forecast like humans can?) we generally miss the mark, over or under. As I note, we cannot perpetually go over the mark (it doesn't make sense; AND, since this is a finite planet our surpluses would eventually not have a place to be stored!). Underages WILL, therefore, occur, and WILL bring about hardships. Hardship sucks, but to lash out at everything, blaming everything because an underage occurs is to say that underages shouldn't happen, and that's ENTIRELY illogical/impossible.
" our demographics are a design for disaster."
No clue what you mean by "design," but, yes, demographics WILL kill the System, because the System HAS to grow, and, well, old people don't make new people very well. If you want to change this balance then you might want to see Logan's Run for a glimpse of one possible way to deal with this. I'll defer to you to be your own guide as to whether killing the System is good or not.
All things grow and then die. I sense you're uncomfortable with the notion of death. Can't help you there: perhaps seek advice from those that have programmed you.
Good article.
It is why I believe the IRS will emcpirage Enron accounting this year. Banksters do not care at this point. They have lost and must open the doors of fraud to non-financial corporations to continue as DHS makes final preparations and so that secret deal, that Obama promised Putin last year for after his re-election, is able to unfold.
" final preparations and so that secret deal, that Obama promised Putin last year for after his re-election, is able to unfold."
WTF?
For fucks' sake, people, perpetual growth on a finite planet is NOT possible. SOMEONE is going to be sitting on the throne when we discover the realities of this fact; and That SOMEONE isn't responsible for consequence/outcome of the entire human paradigm of "go forth and multiply."
Obama and Putin are PLAYING the game. They didn't DESIGN the game (see "God," "Mother Nature," "Space Aliens," "The Flying Spaghetti Monster," whatever).
"NEVER underestimate the replacement power of stocks within an inflationary spiral."
That's why all the deli's in Manhattan are crammed while restaurants in Des Moines are empty.
If you don't register something then it's not/can't be a problem, right? </sarc>
Anyone recall the Dave Barry story about the little league baseball player/kid? The kid was standing in the outfield praying that the ball wouldn't get hit to him. The Slovenian central banker is That kid.
The last nation standing is the one where its "leader" is able to convince the populace that their System isn't a Ponzi.
It's 1.6 billion plus rounds for you, courtesy of the DHS, if you get hostile muppets!!
The police goons will have no problem beating and shooting the muppets.