Thoughts from the Frontline

For the last year, as I travel around, it seems a main topic of conversation is “Where will my kids find jobs?” It is a topic I am all too familiar with. Where indeed? Youth unemployment in the US is 17.1%. If you are in Europe the problem is even more pronounced. The basket case that is Greece has youth unemployment of 58%, and Spain is close at 55%. Portugal is at 36% and in Italy it’s 35%. France is over 25%. Is this just a cyclical symptom of the credit crisis? Much of it clearly is, but I think there is something deeper at work here, an underlying tectonic shift in the foundation of employment. And that means that before we see a true recovery in the unemployment rate, there must be a shift in how we think about work and training for the future of employment. This week is the first of what will be occasional letters over the coming months with an emphasis on employment. (This letter will print a little longer, as there are a lot of charts.) But first, the staff at Mauldin Economics is furiously putting the finishing touches on your free Post-Election Economic Summit webinar, which will air tomorrow at 2 pm Eastern. They are distilling multiple hours of discussion into a fast-paced, thoughtful (and often lively) conversation about what is in store in our economic future. Panelists and guests include Mohamed El-Erian, James Bianco, Barry Ritholtz, Gary Shilling, Barry Habib, and Rich Yamarone. We also have a truly unique interview with the chiefs of staff of Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Rob Portman. While we excerpted part of that interview for the webinar, the entire interview will be made available. If you want to get a true feel for what is going on in Washington, I suggest you listen in. You can sign up to listen here. Now, let’s think about employment.

“Without that sense of security which property gives, the land would still be uncultivated.” – Francois Quesnay “There were at least one million people marching in the streets,” said Alejandro. “No,” said Juan, “it was not anywhere close to that number. I don’t think there were more than 600,000.” When I had driven past the center of town earlier that afternoon, around five, there were only a few thousand. “Where’s the rest of the demonstration?” I asked. “Oh,” Enrique replied, “this is Argentina. Everything starts later here. People won’t really start gathering till eight.” Small pockets of people had started gathering on every street corner, banging their pots and gathering their neighbors as they made their way to the center of town. A trickle soon became a large stream and then a massive river. All across Argentina, demonstrations were held protesting the policies of President Cristina Kirchner. The local press proclaimed the crowd in Buenos Aires to be 700,000+, protesting the increased authoritarianism and policies that are clearly hurting the economy. “As rich as an Argentine” was a saying at the beginning of the last century. And indeed Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world in the early 1900s. It has been a long, slow decay since that time. There have been many upheavals and sea changes. Once, in the early 1990s, Argentina saw hyperinflation, destroying the value of savings. Prices rose by a factor of 20 billion in Argentina from 1975 to 1991. Inflation was eventually contained by fixing the exchange rate, but by 2000 there was serious economic disruption, with bank runs and the eventual collapse of the dollar peg. Some argue that the economic and political crisis was worse than before the peg was put in place. By the end of 2002, the economy had contracted by 20% since 1998. Over the course of two years, output fell by more than 15%, the Argentine peso lost three-quarters of its value, and registered unemployment exceeded 25%. Income poverty in Argentina grew from an already high 35.4% in October 2001 to a peak of 54.3% in October 2002. To say things were volatile is an understatement: Argentina had five presidents in two weeks. Chaos? The destruction of wealth? No doubt. But as I sat down in a very fashionable restaurant in the historic and beautiful Recoleta district, in the midst of one of the largest demonstrations in Argentine history, the contrast of the recent past with the wealth I saw around me was thought-provoking. I thought back to my first visit to Argentina, just after their period of hyperinflation in 1992. It’s hard not to notice the impressive buildings that have been erected since then. And I had just come from Salta province, where agriculture holds sway and the commodity price boom is in full force. For the last two weeks I’ve been in Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. In this week’s letter I offer a few impressions gathered on this trip, as we meditate on what French physiocrats have to tell us about true wealth.

I am just a poor boy. Though my story's seldom told, I have squandered my resistance For a pocketful of mumbles, Such are promises All lies and jest Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest.      – From “The Boxer,” by Paul Simon In a few hours we will know the outcome of the US elections (hopefully without a repeat of 2000!). So, given that eventuality, why should we bother to explore the rather significant disparity in the models being used to create the polls to predict the outcome of the elections? Because doing so will help us understand why the models we use to predict the effects on our investments of market behavior and macroeconomics so often fail us, and why we should approach the use of such models with a full measure of wariness and skepticism. Yet, at the same time, we should understand when the models may actually be useful, and how to use them. We all like to think of ourselves as completely rational human beings, ruled by logic and reasonable analysis; but sadly we are not hard-wired for logic. We bring all sorts of biases to our decisions, and even the very way in which we process information in our human brains creates its own set of biases. We are hard-wired to see what we expect to see, and so we not only fail to see the forest for the trees but are equally prone to miss the trees while gazing at the forest. We all too often see what we think we should see (which is one of the reasons it is so hard to edit your own writing!). So, this week, let’s continue our examination of the problems with models, but this time through the lens of political polls.

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” – Albert Einstein “To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown – the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states. First principle: any explanation is better than none… The cause-creating drive is thus conditioned and excited by the feeling of fear …" – Friedrich Nietzsche “Very few beings really seek knowledge in this world. Mortal or immortal, few really ask. On the contrary, they try to wring from the unknown the answers they have already shaped in their own minds – justifications, confirmations, forms of consolation without which they can't go on. To really ask is to open the door to the whirlwind. The answer may annihilate the question and the questioner.” – Anne Rice, The Vampire Lestat The last two weeks we have been looking at the problems with models. First we touched on what I called the Economic Singularity. In physics a singularity is where the mathematical models no longer work. For example, models based on the physics of relativity no longer work if one gets too close to a black hole. If we think of too much debt as a black hole of sorts, we may understand why economic models no longer work. Last week, in “The Perils of Fiscal Cliff,” we looked at the use of fiscal multipliers by economists in order to argue for or against governmental economic policies. Do you argue for austerity, or against it? There is a model that will support your case, most likely using the same data that your adversary uses. These letters have generated a great deal of positive response and conversation. While I very rarely suggest to readers to go back and read previous letters, but reading these may help you appreciate why it is so difficult to understand what is happening in the global economy today. This week, in a somewhat shorter letter, we once again consider the vagaries of measurements and models. Growth of the US economy, we are told, was 2% last quarter. That number will of course be revised, but what is it we are measuring? Should we attach any importance to the measurement at all? The short answer to the last question is yes, but it is important to understand that there is no certainty in that number. Or at least not any certainty according to the generally accepted meaning of that word.

“Spain is not Greece” – Elena Salgado, Spanish Finance Minister, February 2010 “Portugal is not Greece” – The Economist, April 2010 “Greece is not Ireland” – George Papaconstantinou, Greek Finance Minister, November 2010 “Spain is neither Ireland nor Portugal” – Elena Salgado, Spanish Finance Minister, Nov. 2010 “Ireland is not in ‘Greek Territory’” – Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan, November 2010 “Neither Spain nor Portugal is Ireland” – Angel Gurria, Secretary-General OECD, Nov. 2010 “Italy is not Spain” – Ed Parker, Fitch MD, June 12, 2012 “Spain is not Uganda” – Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy, June 2012 “Uganda does not want to be Spain” – Ugandan foreign minister, June 13, 2012             Having been to all the countries listed above, with the exception of Uganda (although I have been to 15 countries in Africa, several bordering Uganda), I am most happy to confirm that they are all different. Just as you would grant me the fact that the US is not the UK and that France is not Argentina. To paraphrase Tolstoy, dysfunctional countries come by their unhappy sets of circumstances in their own individual ways.             How does one go about comparing the financial crisis in one country to that of another? The International Monetary Fund tried to do just that, setting off a rather torrid debate in economic circles. And while we will look today at their analysis, the upshot is that the economic models used to guide monetary and fiscal policy may not be working as they did in the past. Last week in this letter, I postulated a condition I called the Economic Singularity. Just as the singularity at the center of a black hole creates a region where mathematical models break down, a large mass of debt will create its own Economic Singularity where economic models no longer work as expected. Given that within a few weeks a very large debate will erupt in Congress about how to deal with the “Fiscal Cliff,” with both sides displaying economic models that demonstrate the clear superiority of their chosen solutions and the utter disaster that will ensue if the opposition’s plans are enacted, I think we will find it useful to look at some of the underlying assumptions. Given the fact that almost everyone, including your humble analyst, has concluded that if the tax increases and spending cuts were to be enacted as the legislation currently dictates, a rather serious recession would follow in short order, it might help us to look at some of the assumptions behind that assessment. In today’s letter we’ll peek over the Fiscal Cliff and see what economic models can tell us about government spending. And if we have time we’ll quickly look at an interesting study that uses economics to predict the outcome of this US presidential election. At Mauldin Economics we have a laser-like focus on estimating what the economic climate will be in the coming year. As a bit of a preannouncement, I’ll be doing a Post-Election Summit Conference on November 20 with a few of my friends, looking at the likely direction of the economy with the certainty of the presidential and congressional elections behind us. It will be a free seminar, cosponsored by my friends at Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com) and available on the Internet to those who register. I’ll give you more details as we get closer, but this is something you won’t want to miss. And now let’s hang our toes out over that Fiscal Cliff.

"Concern about politics and the processes of international co-operation is warranted but the best one can hope for from politics in any country is that it will drive rational responses to serious problems. If there is no consensus on the causes or solutions to serious problems, it is unreasonable to ask a political system to implement forceful actions in a sustained way. Unfortunately, this is to an important extent the case with respect to current economic difficulties, especially in the industrial world. "While there is agreement on the need for more growth and job creation in the short run and on containing the accumulation of debt in the long run, there are deep differences of opinion both within and across countries as to how this can be accomplished. What might be labelled the 'orthodox view' attributes much of our current difficulty to excess borrowing by the public and private sectors, emphasises the need to contain debt, puts a premium on credibly austere fiscal and monetary policies, and stresses the need for long-term structural measures rather than short-term demand-oriented steps to promote growth. "The alternative 'demand support view' also recognises the need to contain debt accumulation and avoid high inflation, but it pushes for steps to increase demand in the short run as a means of jump-starting economic growth and setting off a virtuous circle in which income growth, job creation and financial strengthening are mutually reinforcing. International economic dialogue has vacillated between these two viewpoints in recent years." – Lawrence Summers, The Financial Times, October 14, 2012 There is indeed considerable disagreement throughout the world on what policies to pursue in the face of rising deficits and economies that are barely growing or at stall speed. Both sides look at the same set of realities and yet draw drastically different conclusions. Both sides marshal arguments based on rigorous mathematical models "proving" the correctness of their favorite solution, and both sides can point to counterfactuals that show the other side to be insincere or just plain wrong. Spain and Greece are both examples of what happens when there is too much debt and austerity is applied to deal with the problem. One side argues that the cure for too much debt is yet more debt, while the other side seemingly argues that the cure for a lack of growth is to shrink the economy. It is as if one side argues that the cure for a night of drunken revelry is a fifth of whiskey while the other side prescribes a very-low-calorie diet of fiber and veggies. Both sides have arguments that are intellectually appealing, yet both cannot be right at the same time. What I think we need to consider is the possibility that there is something that is happening outside of traditional economic theories, which will mean that following either traditional policy solution could lead to disaster. But is there a third alternative? If we want to find one, the first thing we need to do is to properly diagnose the problem. In today's letter we begin to explore why the models aren't working. Sometimes the best way to understand a complex subject is to draw an analogy. So with an apology to all the true mathematicians among my readers, today we will look at what I will call the Economic Singularity. And maybe we'll have a little fun on the way. Let's jump right in.

The unemployment number surprisingly dropped to 7.8% last Friday, and the shoot-from-the-hip crowd came out in force. To say that the jobs report was met with skepticism would be a serious understatement. The response that got the most immediate airplay was ex-GE CEO Jack Welch (who knows a few things about making a number say what you want it to say) tweeting, "Unbelievable job numbers ... these Chicago guys will do anything ... can't debate so change numbers." Not be left out, Fox Business quoted Ed Butowsky of Chapwood Capital Investment: "'No way in the world these numbers are accurate,' he said. 'Somebody needs to do an investigation.... Investigate these numbers.'" Such a significant drop in the unemployment rate does not seem, at least on the surface, to be consistent with the slowing economy. It certainly wasn't what most Republicans were expecting one month prior to the elections, and the partisan reaction from my fellow Republicans was sadly predictable. So, since an investigation has been called for, this week we will do just that: we will investigate the numbers. What we will find is that the falling unemployment number was perfectly consistent with a slowing economy, if you look at the details. That seemingly contradictory conclusion gives rise to a question, gentle reader, that will take more than one paragraph to answer. It will make for some interesting reading, I think. Let me start by acknowledging that one of the most dangerous things one can do in the writing business is try to separate a man from his pet conspiracy theories. But this is one conspiracy that needs to be thoroughly debunked, as the reaction to it is an example of the coarsening of our American culture. If some bit of data does not dovetail with our favorite meme, our immediate reaction is to shoot the messenger rather than examine the facts as presented. With that proviso, let's jump right in.

“By ‘uncertain’ knowledge, let me explain, I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable. The game of roulette is not subject, in this sense, to uncertainty; nor is the prospect of a Victory bond being drawn. Or, again, the expectation of life is only slightly uncertain. Even the weather is only moderately uncertain. The sense in which I am using the term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the rate of interest twenty years hence, or the obsolescence of a new invention, or the position of private wealth owners in the social system in 1970. About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever.” -John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, 1937 “... there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.” -Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 2002 “There are four types of men: 1. One who knows and knows that he knows... His horse of wisdom will reach the skies. 2. One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows... He is fast asleep, so you should wake him up! 3. One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know... His limping mule will eventually get him home. 4. One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know... He will be eternally lost in his hopeless oblivion!” -Ibn Yami, 13th-century Persian-Tajik poet

I have several important announcements for readers of Thoughts from the Frontline, including changes to the publication schedule for my letters. In addition, there are new publications that I want to tell you about. I’m excited about them all and I think you will be, too.

There is an intense debate going on in the first-class cabin of Economics Airlines about the direction in which our plane should be pointed. And while those of us back in the cheap seats don't get to help decide, knowing where we will land is of intense interest to all of us. This week we listen in on the debate, in the form of speeches and academic postings passed back from first class for the rest of us to read. This type of debate also occurred when Greenspan held rates down at an abnormally low level for a very long time. The unintended consequence of that move was a housing and debt/leverage bubble. Are there potential unintended consequences to Bernanke's current monetary policy, which some are calling Quantitative Easing Infinity? I suggest you put up your tray tables and fasten your seatbelts – the ride could get bumpy as we explore QE Infinity: Unintended Consequences.

"How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." – Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises We are often told that the current election is the most important in recent history. I think I have heard that in about ten presidential cycles, ever since I first voted, for McGovern, as a young man. And looking back, only about one of those elections actually qualified on that score. I think this election does have the potential to be one of those rare times, at least in terms of economic outcomes. In Thoughts from the Frontline we cover economics and investments, money and finance. We only rarely stray into the political world, and then only glancingly. Today, we cross that gray line, but at a somewhat different angle, as we look at the economic consequences of the political decision that will come with the choices we make in November in the US. But it is not as simple as suggesting that choosing one party over the other will solve the nation's economic ills. If that were the case, we would not be facing the momentous challenge we now do, because both parties have had firm control of the levers of power in recent years, and both have failed to deal with what has become, at least for this economic analyst, the burning issue of the day. Indeed, both have made it worse. Today we look at what the choices are and the impacts of those choices.

"In the financial markets, the current economic cycle is still often viewed as if it is comparable to the far shorter cycles we have experienced since World War II. If that was indeed the case, the solution would be to implement fiscal and monetary stimuli now until lending to the private sector and thereby growth rise substantially. However, what is being overlooked is that the total debt/GDP ratio has risen so sharply over the past 75 years that the limit has probably been reached. "That would mean that the governments and central banks can no longer create high growth; at best they can prevent growth from sliding fast. In addition, the drawbacks for central banks of opening the liquidity taps further are growing, while the effectiveness of the action is waning. Therefore, although we anticipate the Fed to embark on additional easing measures, we believe they will be disappointing in scope and effectiveness. For the ECB, maintaining the EMU and the euro is more important. To achieve that, interest rates in Italy and Spain have to be rapidly reduced. Nevertheless, the measures the ECB recently announced will achieve no more than creating a degree of calm in the financial markets, unless Spain and Italy make substantial structural reforms to their economies. However, there is great resistance to those reforms." - ECR Research The unemployment numbers came out yesterday, and the drums for more quantitative easing are beating ever louder. The numbers were not all that good, but certainly not disastrous. But any reason will do, if what you want is more stimulus to boost the markets ever higher. Today we will look first at the employment numbers, because deeper within the data is a real story. Then we look at how effective any monetary stimulus is likely to be. I am in Carlsbad today at the Casey Research Investment Conference. I got to hear my good friend Dr. Lacy Hunt give a presentation on monetary policy, and he was on fire. I think I persuaded David Galland of Casey Research to give me access to the speech for you, when it is available, and you will want to listen to it. It was one of the best speeches I have heard on current monetary and fiscal policy in a very long time. In this week's letter I will touch on a few of his points and make a few of my own. Let's jump right in, as there is a lot to cover.