Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.

Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.

The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI – News) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.

Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.

These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.

What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.

So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

It's socialism because we have a Democrat in the office of the President. It's "trickle down" when we have a Republican in office. Let's see:

• Corporate profits up – CHECK
• Stock market up – CHECK
• Non-discretionary spending unmovable – CHECK
• Federal budget as a percentage of the economy hasn't changed much (if at all) – CHECK

Seems like nothing's wrong to me. Oh, sure, the federal government spends a lot of money – money it doesn't have – on some stuff we don't need. But try taking away social security, Medicare, or defense. You'll be out of a job real fast if you're a national politician. Nobody has the wherewithal to do anything about any of this stuff.

So this is what I'd tell the Obama administration, if they asked: GROW the damned economy. Get it to 5-8 percent, and all this debt/deficit talk vanishes, people get hired for good jobs, and Obama gets a second term. It really is the economy, stupid, and Obama should have cracked this nut a while ago.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: The stimulus package was way too small.

And now that both sides of the aisle have either forgotten or dug in their heels on unemployment compensation extensions and further stimulatory legislation, we may be in for a classic double-dip recession.

Only this time, it might drive what seemed to be inevitable and then highly unlikely – a corporate lending and business real estate catastrophe that could dwarf the mortgage meltdown.

Then more cries, this time maybe real, for socialism will come to the forefront. Our brand of market capitalism (highly influenced by the idiots who represent us in Congress) certainly isn't working right now.

Economic Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

 

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.

And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.

But they're not. It's that simple.

If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.

But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond is down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.

They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.

If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.

It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

It's the age-old "deficits are bad" baloney. Well, deficits can be bad. But in our case, they're not. We've been running deficits since the 40s, regularly. There was a time when we got close to eliminating the yearly difference between tax revenues and federal spending (late 90s very early 2000s), but Alan Greenspan warned that surpluses were bad.

Maybe he was right. The federal government certainly heeded his warning: We've spend trillions over the past 9 1/2 years, well above our "normal."

But most of that spending has come in terms of non-discretionary spending ("entitlements" that no politician has the courage to challenge, social security being one of the biggies, Medicare being the other horn of a really nasty bull) and very discretionary war spending.

Neither of which, I'll add, stimulates growth in the economy or jobs. Surely, soldiers have jobs, but they had those jobs before the economy tanked. What's going to happen if we every withdraw and don't need them any more? Will the government have the courage and discipline to "lay them off?"

I doubt it.

The problem is that, while we did put together a $787 billion stimulus package, it clearly wasn't enough. Yeah, you read that right.

They should have spent $2 trillion on boosting the economy from the get-go. But that's just my opinion. Prove me wrong

Yes, the mortgage market is more rigged against borrowers than ever before. If only PMI had been required on all buyers between 2001 and 2007…what if?

In my last column, I indicated that most mortgage borrowers who need private mortgage insurance are not aware that they have options in the kind of premium plan they select. Almost all are directed into monthly premium plans. Yet for many borrowers, the total cost over the period the borrowers will have the mortgage will be higher on a monthly premium plan than on a single financed-premium plan. In every case, furthermore, the increase in payment will be larger on a monthly premium plan.

A Market Rigged Against Borrowers: Why aren’t borrowers offered the option?

More on Mortgage Market Rigging

mortgage market is rigged against borrowers, private mortgage insurance, mortgage meltdown

Economic Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

From Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.

That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago.

And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.

Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.

Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

The verbiage above tells the right story. The official unemployment rate has always been a poor gauge of the employment picture. Only now, it's worse. I'll try to find data to back it up, but my gut tells me there are a lot of people underemployed (not working full time but who need or want to).

By "underemployed," I also mean that people aren't getting paid what they need to survive. Perhaps you lost your cushy 9 to 5 six-figure banking job and now you're working as a retail store manager (big pay cut there). You're working longer and harder but getting paid significantly less than you had been.

That's underemployed. Yes, you have a job and good for you! But you've certainly had to make some lifestyle changes, wouldn't you say?

A lot of personal finance bloggers would tell you that you should always live the frugal life; that's a great opinion to have and if you walk your talk, you're good to go. However, many people cannot live the way you do.

They are married and are the sole providers of their families. Or they have kids or parents to care for. Obligations that they may have acquired at a younger, less financially-aware age.

No matter. For the average man or woman on the street, having a job that fits their basic lifestyle needs is hard to come by right now. And I don't really see any relief on the horizon.

I will say, though, that lots of times the turn in the business cycle is unseen until it happens right in front of your eyes. That is to say, often times nobody sees it coming. Leading indicators are only so good. As they say, "hindsight is 20-10."

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Next up: Deficits are bad

unemployment, economy, economic myths, three economic myths

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Housing starts fell to a five-month low in May but industrial output rose, evidence of an uneven recovery that has kept inflation at a minimum.

As the government’s tax incentives for homebuyers expired, new home building dropped 10 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 593,000 units, the lowest level since December, the Commerce Department said on Wednesday.

Home building plH – Yahoo! Finance

economy, housing, real estate, homebuyer tax credit

WASHINGTON – Job creation by private companies grew at the slowest pace since the start of the year, as a wave of census hiring lifted payrolls by 431,000 in May. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent as people gave up searching for work.

Of course, the critical question is what happens when those Census jobs are cut.

economy, jobs, unemployment, Census

NEW YORK (AP) — A computerized selloff possibly caused by a simple typographical error triggered one of the most turbulent days in Wall Street history Thursday and sent the Dow Jones industrials to a loss of almost 1,000 points, nearly a tenth of their value, in less than half an hour. It was the biggest drop ever during a trading day.

Wall St. rollercoaster: Stocks fall nearly 10 pct – Yahoo! Finance

Supposedly, government regulators are looking into the issue. However, might this be another financial reform that ought to be looked into a little more closely? Is this type of automated trading a good thing, overall, for the market?

I think not.
 

[Editor's Note: Investors battered stocks again yesterday (Wednesday) over fears that the Greek debt contagion will spread to Portugal and even to Spain. Money Morning's Martin Hutchinson, a former merchant banker who has written extensively about the European debt crisis, explains why the Spain debt situation isn't so dire.]  

It had a huge housing boom, and is now dealing with the fallout. It has a left-of-center government and a big budget deficit, but relatively low debt in relation to its gross domestic product (GDP). And it has a worrisome current account deficit.

I'm talking, of course, about Spain, which investors clearly fear will be the next domino to fall as a result of the Greek debt contagion.

I disagree. 

 

The Spain debt outlook is nothing like that of its Greek counterpart. When you get right down to it, Spain looks more like the United States than it does the other European "PIGS" (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, or "PIIGS," if you wish to include Italy). It's because of those U.S. similarities that Spain is fairly unlikely to share the fate of its Mediterranean neighbor, Greece, which is essentially insolvent.

Indeed, in one respect, Spain's position is actually much better than its U.S. counterpart. We'll see why shortly.
 

A Tale of Two Monocracies

Like Greece, Spain suffered from a reviled dictatorship that exited the scene in the 1974-1975 time frame. The dictatorship in Greece ended in 1974 with the collapse of the "Regime of the Colonels," while the curtain came down on Spain's autocracy in December 1975 with the death of General Francisco Franco.

However, both the tenure of the dictatorships and the two countries' reactions to the collapse of their respective regimes were quite different.

Greece's dictatorship lasted only seven years, was never stable, and occupied itself mostly with corruption, military expenditure and saber rattling in Cyprus. Franco, on the other hand, after winning a truly devastating civil war in 1939, devoted himself over his remaining 36 years to developing his country's economy on a more or less free-market basis, with low public spending, while maintaining an international posture of caution and neutrality.

With the two countries traveling down such divergent paths, it's no surprise that they experienced very different outcomes. By 1975, Greece was a total basket case, with only its offshore (and non-taxpaying) shipping sector flourishing, whereas Spain was a rapidly developing tourist magnet, with a substantial industrial economy behind it.
 

The Next Phase

After 1975, the two countries continued to develop very differently. Greece – which had exiled its king, Constantine II – elected the leftist socialist Andreas Papandreou and in 1981 joined the European Union (EU), where it became a master in the art of subsidy corruption: After all, Greece was the union's poorest country at that time.

Spain, on the other hand, kept King Juan Carlos, who thwarted a coup in 1981, elected a moderate social democrat government under Felipe Gonzalez followed by a very good center-right one under Jose Maria Aznar. The nation also developed the best luxury tourism sector in Europe, together with one of its best business schools in the University of Navarra's IESE.

Today, while both countries have similar per-capita GDPs – $33,700 for Spain and $32,100 for Greece – Spain is ranked 32nd on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, while Greece is ranked 71st – below much poorer countries like Bulgaria and Ghana.

Spain's debt load – at about 55% of GDP – is less than half of its Greek counterpart. Clearly, Greece's GDP per capita needs to be sharply deflated for the country to regain competitiveness; it's much less clear that Spain needs to do the same.
 

Why Spain Won't Flinch

In addition to a budget deficit of 11.5% of GDP in 2010 – very similar to that of the United States – its banking and real estate mess (though the largest bank, Banco Santander SA (NYSE ADR: STD) is pretty solid), and its relatively low debt, Spain (also like its U.S. counterpart) also has itself a left-leaning government with a proclivity for overspending.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was unexpectedly elected on an anti-U.S. platform after a terrorist attack in 2004, and was re-elected in 2008 – both times by small majorities. Zapatero is undoubtedly responsible for much, though not all, of Spain's budget problems; he undertook two economically damaging "stimulus" packages in 2008 and 2009 and has raised public spending from about 38% of GDP when he took office to 46% of GDP today.

In fairness to Spain, the big run-up in spending wasn't due to a big run-up in poorly thought out handouts: The country moved enthusiastically – perhaps too much so – into the green-technology sector, to the point where an all-too-familiar boom-and-bust scenario played out.

Like the United States, Spain is stuck with its left-leaning administration until 2012 (both have four-year electoral cycles; Spain's is seven months earlier). However, it has one enormous advantage over the United States – a savings ratio (personal savings as a percentage of disposable income) that stood at an extraordinary 24.7% in the 2009 fourth quarter, compared with a mere 2.7% in the latest month here in the United States.

Admittedly, Spain's saving is highly cyclical, so the annual average is only about 20%. Nevertheless, the much-higher level of domestic saving suggests Spain should be able to finance its budget deficit domestically much more easily than will the United States.

With public debt also lower than in the United States – let alone in Greece – Spain's position is thus fundamentally sounder. It should be relatively easily able to navigate the current storm and ride out the current government's spendthrift tendencies – giving the voters the chance to put a more-fiscally-appropriate government in place in the next election.

That being said, investors have to acknowledge that panic can trample logic. Indeed, as U.S. investors learned all too well back in 2008, in a market panic even well-run institutions can get into trouble (not that many of the Wall Street houses of that year were well-run, but a few were).

The same is true of countries, and Spain under Prime Minister Zapatero has weak-and-economically damaging leadership, which the voters are stuck with for another two years. Nevertheless, with its debt rating still a very respectable "AA," only the worst storm should cause Spain to take the same kind of crisis-spawned battering that Greece continues to face.

[Editor's Note: With Martin Hutchinson, Money Morning readers have seen it time and again - the kind of creative, profit-focused thinking that's allowed him to succeed again and again where other experts have failed - one right after the other. And Hutchinson has pulled off this string of successes in the face of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - a financial crisis that, not surprisingly, Hutchinson is widely credited for having predicted and warned about well ahead of time.

With his "Alpha Bulldog" investing strategy - the crux of his Permanent Wealth Investor advisory service - Hutchinson has managed to combine dividends, gold and growth in a winning formula that has developed eye-popping returns for subscribers. To find out more about opportunities related to dividends, gold, "Alpha-Bulldog" stocks and The Permanent Wealth Investor, please click here.]

iShares MSCI Spain Index (ETF) (Public, NYSE:EWP)

When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced Friday that it had filed a fraud action against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), the news hit the financial markets like a carefully targeted bomb.

The Goldman Sachs fraud case, which relates to the investment bank’s subprime-mortgage business, caused the financial giant’s shares to nosedive 12.8%. The fallout spread to the broader markets, too, causing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to drop 1.1% and the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index to skid 1.6%.

That reaction wasn’t overblown.

Depending on how rough the SEC wants to play it, the case has the potential to shut down the cartel known as Wall Street. It could even jump-start the kind of sweeping overhaul that legal or regulatory reformists have so far failed to launch.

How the Goldman Sachs Fraud Case Could Accelerate Wall Street Reform

Technorati Tags: Wall Street reform, finance reform, Goldman Sachs, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, fraud, NYSE, S&P 500

A Bank of America worker pleaded guilty Tuesday to installing malware on more than 100 ATMs, and stealing $304,000 over a seven-month period.

Technorati Tags: hack, ATM, steal money, hack ATM, Bank of America ATMs hacked