Thursday, July 31, 2014

Good = Bad

The Dow was up slightly when the news hit The Street that GDP growth was a whopping 4% in the second quarter.  That's good news, right?  But, the Dow promptly drops a hundred points on that good news.  Why, because a stronger economy means the Fed is more likely to raise interest rates sooner, instead of later.  And, that's bad news . . . huh?

The Argentine government announces they will default on their debt.  Yet, the Argentine stock market went up, while the U.S. stock market went down.  Does that make sense?  As a result, Argentina will likely be locked out of the world's capital markets for years, but their country will NOT be stripped of all its liquidity right now, which was a big relief in that country, fueling their rally.  In the U.S., however, an Argentine default means the whole arena of international finance, which is dominated by the U.S.,  will now be clouded by this default, which is not really more than a technical default, but it greatly increased uncertainty.  And, we know that increased uncertainty is bad for the stock market.

Maybe, there is pure good or pure evil in this world . . . but, it is not that simple on Wall Street. 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Timing Is Everything

I cannot remember the last time that Consumer Confidence increased 4.5 points in one month, but it did this month.  That means more people are optimistic about their current financial position as well as their future financial position.  There is a close relationship between the labor market and consumer confidence.  As the labor market improves, consumer confidence increases, and both have.

Of course, the Confidence Survey was taken on July 17th, which was the day the Russian separatists shot down the Malaysian passenger jet, as well as the same day the Israelis invaded Gaza again.  Therefore, many analysts are suggesting a survey taken on July 18th would not be nearly so healthy.  I disagree and don't think many Americans are losing any sleep over foreign tragedies so far away.

As consumer confidence increases, consumer spending increases.  Consumer spending is almost 70% of GDP, suggesting GDP growth will increase.  And, lo and behold . . .

I cannot remember the last time that GDP growth was a whopping 4% during the second quarter.  That may sound miserly compared to China's 7.5%, but it is very strong for a mature economy like the U.S.  Of course, it was expected to rebound nicely after the winter-crushed first quarter GDP growth, which was a negative 2.9%.  But, it was not expected to grow at 4%.  Before we rejoice too much, let's wait until we see next month's revised estimate.

Nonetheless, economic data continues to look strong.  Most analysts believe the stock market is 6-12 month leading indicator of the economy, and that certainly seems to be the case again.

Party on, Garth . . . 

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

A Well-Oiled Machine ??

The Federal Reserve System is the only central bank in the world that has a dual mandate, i.e., combating both inflation AND unemployment.  With inflation virtually non-existent, the focus is on unemployment.  The closely-watched monthly "Jobs" report will be released this Friday.  Absent some exogenous factor, the stock market will just churn around the flat line until then.

For all of 2013, we created 195 thousand jobs each month, on average.  So far this year, we have created 230 thousand each month, which is a significant improvement.  It is even more remarkable if you consider that GDP growth in the first quarter was a whopping, negative 2.9%.

With the job creation "machine" functioning so well, attention is turning to wage growth.  Normally, at this point in the business cycle, wages would be increasing 3.9% annually.  However, wages are growing at only 2.3%.  This confirms that inflation is non-existent.  It also reflects just how severe the recession was and how much negotiating strength that workers lost.

Wells Fargo wrote an interesting piece on how big companies don't feel any need to raise wages now, since they didn't reduce them during the recession -- having just reduced the number of employees instead.  With the government's JOLTS report showing employees are increasingly confident in changing jobs, big companies may want to re-think that position.

One final caution on this Friday's highly anticipated Jobs reports.  It is normally issued on the first Friday of the month.  For August, it falls on August 1st, providing less time to massage the numbers, which increases the likelihood that it will be substantially adjusted in September.  This is not a bad thing, as it reduces the volatility following release of the report on Friday.

Since political considerations pollute and contaminate everything, one political consequence of an improving job-creating-machine is that it tends to benefit the incumbent President.  Fortunately or unfortunately, the President is not on the ballot this year.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Geopolitical Risk

The Old Ebbitt Grill at 15th & New York in Washington, D.C., is one of those classic old steakhouses frequented by Congressmen, bankers, and other shady characters.  I had lunch there one day with two analysts who got into an uncomfortable argument about whether Pfizer or Merck was a better investment.  They were even quoting footnotes from the annual statements of both companies?!?!

Sitting in the political capital of the world, I was amused that the subject of politics didn't even come up.  The best laid plans of mice, men, and analysts are easily waylaid by politicians.  That risk rises and falls, unrelated to any analysis of corporate balance sheets.

Here is the definition of Political Risk from Investopedia:

The risk that an investment's returns could suffer as a result of political changes or instability in a country. Instability affecting investment returns could stem from a change in government, legislative bodies, other foreign policy makers, or military control.

Obviously, that risk is quite high right now, but I am not overly concerned about it.  If Russia overtly invades the Ukraine, taking the eastern half, the stock market will drop.  If Isis holds it's position in Iraq and invades Jordan, the stock market will drop.  If Saudi Arabia issues an oil embargo due to the Israeli invasion of Gaza, the stock market will drop.  And, of course, there are other events that could cause the market to drop.

This too will pass!  I don't recommend selling stocks and going into cash unless there is a derivatives fiasco, which I don't see on the horizon.  Rejoice:  we still have time for uncomfortable arguments in fancy restaurants about things that don't really matter anyway.  

Sunday, July 27, 2014

A Guilty Pleasure

One of my guilty pleasures is taking long walks on the beach alone.  During beach season, it is fun to watch the visitors.  Ninety percent of them and 100% of the dogs are enjoying themselves.  I don't know why it is so enjoyable, other than the novelty of it.  Less than 50% of the adults but more than 90% of the kids actually go into the water.  They could more easily stay home and get wet in their bathtubs.  Some psychologists think there is an evolutionary need to remember the watery world of pregnancy.  My wife  thinks it is just a grand conspiracy to track sand into the house.

During non-beach season, I have the beach to myself and a few other hearty souls, as I watch the ships going in and out of the Chesapeake Bay.  I have seen many awesome aircraft carriers pass serenely, secure in the knowledge they could easily defend or destroy Hampton Roads whenever ordered to do so.  Several times, I have been inspired whenever I see the U.S.S. New York, which was forged from the steel girders of the World Trade Center.  The Chesapeake Bay also reminds me to take a long view -- of everything, especially when I remember the giant meteor strike hundreds of millions of years ago that formed the Bay.  We are merely a vapor.

Yet, this blog touches on things existential and things economic.  What is existential about this guilty pleasure?  Well, I like taking these walks alone and even do so during those forlorn winter months.  Remember:  every person is an island.

And, what is economic about this guilty pleasure?  Economics is a study of how scarce resources are allocated.  One very scarce resource is time.  How can I justify a 90-minute walk when I could spend the time solving the quadratic equations of the latest econometric analysis by some academic nerd?  If you have to even ask that question, you wouldn't understand the answer!

Oh, yeah . . . it is also good exercise . . . so, as Nike says . . . JUST DO IT!

Saturday, July 26, 2014

I Don't Understand

There are many things that I do not understand.  For example, I don't understand why it takes years to build a road.  I don't understand what makes window treatments cost so much money.  I don't understand why women are so obsessed with shoes.  But, most of all, I don't understand what happened to moderate politicians?  Maybe, they were a species of animals, like dinosaurs, that just became extinct?

No, wait -- I DO understand what happened to them!  It was a political purge to get rid of "compromisers" or those people who aren't true to the faith.  The tool used was called "redistricting."  Unfortunately, the purpose of re-drawing the boundary lines of political districts every ten years, based on data from the latest population census, is NOT to draw boundary lines of each district that are "contiguous and approximately equal in population, not square miles."  Theoretically, neither ethnicity nor past voting history should matter.  In fact, the ONLY thing that does matter is making the district SAFE for either an incumbent Democrat or an incumbent Republican.  Most Congressional district elections are determined in the partisan primary.  If it is a safe Democratic district, the Democratic primary effectively determines who will win the general election against a Republican, and the same process is true in safe Republican districts.  If I am running in a safe Democratic district, I need to appeal to left-wing voters and ignore the right-wing voters.  In that case, I would have to be a true-blue politician, who will fight everything the evil Republicans propose.  A moderate Democrat will not win the primary.  The same thinking is true if I'm running in a safe Republican district. A moderate cannot win the Republican primary.  Protecting the incumbent should NOT be the objective of redistricting . . . but it is.

If we don't allow foxes to guard the henhouse, why do we allow politicians to draw these all-important political boundaries?  Politicians say that they represent the people, when they represent only their political party.  Some states have appointed redistricting commissions that have been no better, UNLESS their final decision is binding on the state legislature, which politicians abhor.  The alternative is to let the state judiciary draw political boundaries.  Because both political parties oppose this, it is probably the only semi-workable solution.  It could not be any worse.

Otherwise, we'll have to see our moderate politicians in the museum . . . as fossils.

Maybe, that is not so bad as I understand extinction . . . better than I understand partisanship.

Friday, July 25, 2014

Inverted Thinking

The Democrats are correct in saying we need comprehensive immigration reform.  The Republicans are correct in saying we need comprehensive tax reform, especially reform of the corporate income taxes.

If you doubt the need for tax reform, consider the increasing number of "tax inversions" over the last three years  The U.S. has one of the highest tax rates on corporate income in the world.  Making a dollar's worth of profit in this country is worth less here than in other nations, because you're paying more in taxes here.  If you want to make your company more profitable, you can do so by paying less in corporate income taxes, and you can do this by doing a tax inversion, which means you buy a smaller company in Europe or anywhere with lower marginal corporate income tax rates.  Then, you make that foreign company your corporate headquarters and begin paying corporate income taxes to that nation, instead of paying taxes to the U.S.  One day, you're an American company.  The next day, you're a European company.  Nothing else changes.  You just change your corporate home-country on paper and begin paying the lower corporate income taxes in that country and stop paying higher corporate income taxes in the U.S.  That leaves you more money to pay dividends or pay employees or to invest in factory equipment or to buy another company.

The United States is expected to lose $20 billion in tax revenues over the next ten years from tax inversions. Want to increase the value of stocks by $300 billion?  Just cut expenses by $20 billion (assuming a price-earnings ratio of 15 times).  Don't forget -- the primary job of CEOs is to increase value.

Corporate income taxes are just another expense of doing business.  Businesses have an obligation to minimize expenses.  That includes all expenses, including energy costs, employees costs, occupancy costs, AND tax costs.  Any CEO who voluntarily pays higher costs will have to answer to his shareholders.

Are those corporations un-patriotic?  The Treasury Secretary said so at a conference in New York a week ago.  Yesterday, the President agreed.  I totally disagree!

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Today, We Are All Dutch

On some days, I am actually proud to be part of the human race.  Today was such a day!

During the course of my workday, I routinely channel-surf between CNBC, Bloomberg, FBN, and CNN.  Today, because the stock market was so placid, I became transfixed by CNN's coverage of the arrival of corpses from Malaysia flight #17 back to the Netherlands.  The first forty corpses were ferried along deserted roads by forty hearses to a suburban location for forensic processing.  This tiny nation of 17 million lost 200 citizens on that flight.  Hundreds of thousands of them stood in respect along the road or upon the bridges and overpasses -- mostly in prayerful silence.  Tomorrow, there will be another procession of forty hearses.  And, on the next day . . . and the next day . . .

After being left to rot in the field for days, nibbled by animals and insects, the corpses were finally given the respect and dignity they deserve.  The Dutch rose to the occasion and exhibited the very best of mankind.  I salute them!

The contrast between the nobility of the Dutch compared to the barbarism of the Russian separatists is simply over-whelming.  But, it is too easy to describe the Russian separatists as mere thugs.  Harsher language should be reserved for their commanders and, more specifically, their Commander-In-Chief.

But, what is the crime -- the accidental shooting down of a passenger plane or the criminal neglect of the wreckage and the corpses?

Regardless, the Dutch people showed the world what class really is!  I just hope Putin was watching too.

Friday, July 18, 2014

Quarterly Column

For anybody waiting breathlessly by their mailbox for the latest issue of Inside Business, so they can read my quarterly column, you can also read it online at:

When It Rains . . .

Yesterday, a civilian plane was shot down over the Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers.  Within the hour, Israel invades Gaza.  The Dow drops 161 points, the biggest drop in two months, reflecting the increased uncertainty.

In addition, the civil war in Syria still rages on.  Despite our investment of lives and treasure, Iraq is sub-dividing itself.  We're still not out of Afghanistan, and they cannot agree on who won their Presidential election.  Massacres of the weak are still routine in the Sudan.  Only Putin knows why he has not already taken the eastern half of the Ukraine, to go with his seizure of Crimea.  The Shining Path is still alive and murderous in Peru.  Argentine is dangerously re-writing the rules of international finance.  Even the U.S. has a thorny invasion issue on its southern border.  And, just for good measure, there is another outbreak of Ebola in Africa.

I recall a professor in college saying it was not a constitutional requirement that the President of the United States be intelligent.  In fact, it is such a lousy job that no intelligent person would want it.  Anybody who actually wants the job is inherently unqualified for it.

The bright side is that this uncertainty spike may finally cause a much-needed dip in the stock market.  On average, the market experiences a 10% or more dip every 18 months.  We haven't had one in 32 months now and are long overdue.  (Frankly, I was surprised the Dow dropped less than 1% yesterday, which may indicate the underlying strength of the bulls.)

Without insensitivity to the human heartache involved, this uncertainly spike will resolve itself to a more normal level, and the stock market will resume its more normal long-term growth.  Until then, let it rain, let it rain . . .

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Fretting Each New High

The Dow set a new high yesterday.  Today, the world is worrying whether the stock market is over-valued and ready for a replay of 2008.  The answer is NO.  Take a look at this chart:

Chart of the Day

If you take the price of a share of stock and then divide it by the earnings per share of stock (EPS), you have the Price-Earnings (PE) Ratio, which is the measure of how "over-valued" the stock is or is not.  In other words, how many years of EPS are you paying for a single share?

Looking at this chart, you'll see the trend line is that the market becomes fully valued when each share of stock costs about 23 times the earnings per share.  Today, we're at 20 times, which means the alarm bell is not ringing yet.

Does that mean the stock market cannot take a bear swoon right now?  Of course not!  A dip of 5-10% is always possible at any time and is indeed healthy for the market in the long-run.  Since yesterday's new high was the fifteenth new high of the year, why is a sixteenth new high hard to imagine?

Paraphrasing the iconic Warren Buffet, I don't know where the market will be tomorrow, but I do know where it will be in ten years . . . UP!

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Such Sweet Justice

If you live long enough, you might get to see history repeat itself.  When I first started studying economics, forecasting had a heavy dose of person-to-person interaction, where the thoughts of other thought leaders were at least as important as any independent information I might discover.  When I took my first course in statistics, I thought it would be an interesting sideline to either confirm or dispute a forecast.  Little did I know that statistics would evolve into econometrics, beginning a reign of terror over the whole field of economics.  Nothing mattered if it didn't have a formula.

Yes, I know that armies of Ph.D. economists have spent their lifetime constructing mathematically pure models of economic behavior.  I also know that the very best models of the Fed and other central banks did not foresee the Global Financial Crisis.  Of course, their response to this failure has been to construct "new & improved" economic models.

In fairness, all those things I was forced to learn about econometrics have been helpful in explaining market volatility to clients, but other than that . . . oh, yeah . . . it also helps me to understand political polling.

Still, it was with a certain glee when I saw the head of Canada's central bank admitted his disappointment with their economic models and instructed his economists to get on airplanes and go talk with industry executives face-to-face.  Econometrics may once again be used to test a hypothesis -- but not to make decisions or forecasts.

Oh . . . such sweet satisfaction . . .

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Shooting The Survivors . . . and/or Shareholders

Another major bank just agreed to pay a $7 billion fine for actions leading up to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).  In total, banks have now paid roughly $100 billion in fines, which is certainly a great deal of money.  However, estimates of the damage done by the GFC vary between $5 TRILLION to $20 TRILLION.  Assuming even the lower estimate, how does the $100 billion payment of fines make Americans whole?  All it does is make the current shareholders $100 billion poorer.

Corporations have a "legal" identity, but that still doesn't make them human.  No corporation said they were going to "put lipstick on this pig," as one banker described a security just before selling it to his clients.  It was a human being, who was never charged with any crime and then retired with his millions.  He was not unique.  All the decisions to knowingly sell trash to clients were made by human beings.

My conclusion is that a person can do things legally inside a corporation that would be illegal outside the corporation.  The logically-absurd-conclusion is that I can kill somebody when I'm employed but not when I'm unemployed.

Painfully few people have done the "perp walk."  Of course, I recognize it is a waste of time and money to allocate legal resources towards hopeless causes, but fairness sometimes demands it.  The defense asks "Did a senior employee decide to sell trash to clients because his boss told him so?"  That defense should be as useless as the Nazi defense that senior generals had no guilt because they were just "following orders."  They were executed.  Fairness demands "perp walks," if not executions.

  If we cannot punish the guilty employees, is justice then served by punishing the shareholders?

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Latest NABE Survey

I could join the American Economic Association (AEA) but find them to be too academic and detached.  Instead, I belong to the National Association of Business Economists (NABE), where the everyday work of members depends on their knowledge of economics.  Their latest survey of members was just released and is briefly discussed.below.  The latest survey of the AEA is not.

Following the unexpectedly lousy first quarter, when GDP shrank a whopping 2.9%, most NABE economists have reduced their full year forecast from 3.5% growth to only 3.0%.  This is reasonable.

Full Year 2014 export growth was reduced from 3.0% to 2.5%.  (It was estimated at a whopping 5.5% as recently as March.)  This is a big drop but is reasonable.

Only 8% of NABE economists think there is even a 25% probability of recession this year or in 2015.  Over 60% think there is less than a 10% probability.  This is reasonable.

Over half believe the Fed will begin tightening in the first half of 2015, with the majority thinking it will begin in the second quarter.  I'm in general agreement with these survey results except for this one.  I don't expect monetary tightening by the Fed until late next year, probably Q4.  When tightening begins, two bad things start to happen.  One, the budget deficit gets worse because the Federal government must pay increased interest expense on the almost $18 trillion of debt.  Two, inflation gets constrained by money tightening, and we need inflation to help make the national debt more manageable.  So, why would you invite this trouble before absolutely necessary? 

Friday, July 11, 2014

The Final Word on Iraq

Greg Wright is a good friend and client.  A retired attorney, he is now a successful writer.  (You should visit his blog at )

He was also a former Marine infantry officer and knows the horrific details of war too well.  Sadly, as a father, he knows that the "full measure of devotion" in war can mean losing your son on the battlefield, and he did.  There is no greater pain!

His son paid that last full measure and was killed almost nine years ago.  A year later, Greg wrote the most penetrating and intellectually fierce analysis of the war that I have seen.  Even though that analysis is now eight years old, it is still THE definitive analysis.  With his permission, I am proud to post it below:


When we were getting close to invading Iraq in March of 2003, several friends came to me to ask my opinion about the Administration’s venture.  The men in my family, which is a Navy-Marine Corps family, discussed the subject at great length.  Our discussions centered on not whether we should go in, but when and why.  Evidently, we were going to bring a new and democratic dynamic to the Mid-East.  We were going to eliminate those dangerous weapons of mass destruction.

For my part, I always counseled caution.  Having been in the Marine Corps at the end of Vietnam War, and having made a serious study of my profession, my take was simple.  Before we saw fit to expend one Marine’s life, I said, we had better measure the risks; we had better define the strategic objectives and we had better know what the odds of achieving the end game were.  In the end, like most Americans, I trusted that the Bush Administration had, in mature fashion, made those calculations.  I supported our regime’s effort to change the other guy’s regime.  This was before I knew that one of the precious lives expended in the effort would be that of my own son.

Since he was killed in Iraq in December of 2005, I have been trying to make sense of my son’s death in the wider context of this question: “Was his death in vain?”  And further, both before and since the November 2006 election results, “What do we do from this point forward to ensure that our nation’s blood and treasure are spent wisely?”

As to the first question, I have long since come to the conclusion that, in the greater scheme of things, no American who, like my son, sacrificed his life for his buddies and this nation, has died in vain.  To think otherwise is like saying that those who “gave the last full measure of devotion” at the battle of Gettysburg died in vain.  They did not, because, as Abraham Lincoln foretold, from those honored dead, this nation celebrated a new birth of freedom.  Our government, of, by, and for the people, did not perish from the face of the earth.

So from this perspective, and because I do not think that this nation shall perish but will continue to flourish (although I question any “new births” of freedom), I do not think that the three thousand American lives spent in Iraq have been spent in vain.  But moving to the next question, I ask, “Have they and shall they be spent wisely?”

While I have always been interested in foreign affairs, and while I have lived in or visited a number of countries, I knew that I was unprepared, by training and experience, to answer this question.  From December 2005 forward, I have studied everything that I could get my hands on to become familiar with the Iraq campaign.  I read articles and news accounts in at least three papers weekly.  I have read or listened to the opinions of alleged experts - the opinions of Smart Men of all factions and perspectives, both American and foreign, both military and civilian.  I have come to think of most them as Sadducees and Pharisees.  That is, while they may know what they are talking about from the viewpoint of their particular fields of expertise, most of them have missed the Big Picture.

I do not intend to impugn the motives or character of any administration official or military officer whose influence or decisions have gotten us to this point.  My opinion is that the great majority of them have served honorably and to the very best of their abilities.  Any attempt at an accounting by the average citizen (or a Democratic House or Senate) would now not only be futile, but counter productive.  Understanding this, I ask that the reader allow me to reveal my bitterness at my loss to this extent:  I do not like Donald Rumsfeld because he cheats at racquet ball.  I despise Dick Chaney and his former minion, Scooter Libby, the intelligence abortionist, because they are not truthful.


Although there are several options being discussed at the moment (all are grasping at the seventy-nine straws of the just-released findings of the Iraq Study Group), the most serious discussions being batted around in the mainstream press are: 1) troop strength levels, and the derivatives thereof, that is, should we train, fight, or both, and when do we bring the boys home, 2) negotiating with Iraq’s neighbors, particularly Syria and Iran, to bring about a modicum of stability, and 3) preventing tripartite division of the country.

1.  Troop Strength Levels

As to the issue of troop strength levels, it seems to me that because we refused, at the outset, once the combat phase was over, to follow the most basic military dictum of “seize, hold, and consolidate”, we have been overtaken by events.  The guerrilla that does not lose, wins.  Because we could not or would not send in sufficient troops to fully interdict the insurgents’ major supply and reinforcement routes, to occupy and police the major cities with overwhelming forces, to protect critical infrastructure (and museums), we did not and have never furnished sufficient security to minimize our own casualties or to permit political processes to flourish.  In short, because we never furnished an occupied population with a militarily secure environment, we have permitted the insurgents to deflect loyalties of most Iraqi factions away from our goal of a unified government.  The insurgents have effectively sabotaged our efforts to establish a semblance of order.  Significantly, once the Shiite mosque in Samarra was blown in February of this year, the civil war so desired by (the now deceased) al-Zarqawi was truly born.

I submit that by now events have so overtaken us that it may not much matter what mission our troops outside of Al Anbar Province are given.  The guerrilla that does not lose, wins.  The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites has become so polarized that the Iraqi government, whose writ goes unheeded in the critical provinces, has become an instrument of Shiite extremists, megalomaniacs, criminals, and goons.  Its sole underlying interest is consolidating Shiite power in strategically important areas, not in achieving federalist compromises with the Sunnis.  This means that the Iraqi government’s primary interests vis-a-vis the United States is to milk us for everything it can and to direct our troops to hot spots where its own forces or militias lack the wherewithal to restore order (or detain and murder Sunnis).

Caught in the middle of this dog fight, our mission of suppressing the 30,000 strong insurgency is pretty befuddled.  While the Marines can hold Al Anbar Province for now, the Iraqi Army will never hold it. Given the country-wide chaos that has emerged, it is hard for our military commanders to concentrate on destroying the Alqeda network and its allies, the remnant Baathists.  This brings us back to the domestic U.S. discussion of “What to do?”  The only serious question being debated among the most influential of our political class is how and when to withdraw the troops.  We may call this the “Plan For a Graceful Retreat”, or, more accurately, the “Unmitigated Disaster Plan”.

You may note that I have dismissed the issue of embedding our troops with the Iraqi Army as an effective tactic.  The proposed Study Group deadline of removing most of the combat arms from the country by March of 2008 makes that task an impossible one.  We simply cannot train the 15,000 to 20,000 troops that would be needed and get them embedded in time to have any lasting effect.

The most punted about scenario is one that envisions gradually drawing down the U.S. forces (by stated “benchmarks”) to a rump army of 50,000 whose mission would be to act as a kind of logistics unit and fire brigade. Its most urgent role would put out conflagrations that the Iraqi army cannot.  Let us call this descent of military strategy “Whack-a-Mole Lite”.   In other words, the guerillas or insurgents would be permitted to choose a battleground at their leisure, then ensure that we would be called upon by the Iraqi government to fight the battle on their terms.  I think that a Dien Bien Phu is a Dien Bien Phu by any other name.

I think too that this idea of a gradual draw-down of troops is another part of the recipe for disaster.  As our response capabilities decrease, the guerrillas will progress their insurgency (as theorized by Mao Tse Tung) from Phase I to Phases II and III.  They will increasingly mount larger and larger campaigns by regular forces, seeking to hold discrete territories, most likely in Al Anbar Province, which they could then govern.  Whether these attempts individually succeed or fail is, in the end, immaterial.  The perception among the populations of Iraq would be that the guerrillas’ eventual success is inevitable.  Allegiances held by important sheiks would shift.  At some point, Al Anbar Province’s entire population shall rise against us or the “unified” Iraqi government.

For these reasons, I think that the only sane solution is to firm up the Iraqi government as best as we can for some period of time (six months, perhaps), then pull our people out quickly and entirely.  We might want to plan for this evolution.  As of today, in our hubris, we have already betrayed every Iraqi who voted for a unified government and who proudly displayed a purple finger in proof thereof.  To be fair, and to avoid useless finger-pointing, we should understand that the ultimate purpose of our experiment may never have been achievable.  Who could have predicted the intractability of the Sunnis or that they would prefer murderous strife to a unified government with ascendant Shiites?

I also suggest that we make arrangements to extract the many Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, who have aided us.  If we do not remove them from the scene, we shall have consigned many of them to certain death.  For their sake, and ours, and for all the world to see, we should not repeat the 1975 travesty of flight from our embassy roof in Saigon.

2. Talking With the Neighbors

To paraphrase Von Clauswitz, diplomacy is merely war carried on by other means.  This means that negotiating from a position of weakness is never a desirable option, and that it should be done only as a last resort.  It may be properly done, for example, when a war is lost.  In our case, bringing Iran and Syria to the table, having in our heyday warned them to keep their fingers out of Iraq (to no avail), means that we shall have to make real concessions to gain the pretence of their cooperation in establishing the stability we seek.

What Syria wants is plain for all to see.  It wants, with no interference, full control of the northern half of Lebanon.  Both Syria and Iran want the southern half held in the grasp of their client, Hesbollah.  If James Baker means what he says about “not just talking to our friends”, he shall have to reassure us often that the sacrifice of many patriotic Lebanese, both Christian and Muslim, and Israeli Jews is indeed for the Greater Good.  And never mind the promotion of democracy in the region.

As for the Iranians, we shall have to acquiesce, to some degree, to their self-proclaimed “peaceful pursuit” of The Nuc and their goal of achieving hegemony over Shiites in the entire Mid East.  So much for deterring nuclear proliferation anywhere.  And, again, never mind the promotion of democracy in the region.  But perhaps we can persuade the Iranians to stop shipping Non-Improvised Explosive Devices to their clients in Iraq.  This, at least, would be helpful.

I think too, that the idea of talking to Iran ignores their strategic interest in having Iraq remain in chaos or becoming divided.  They feel that they would have a natural ally in a Shiite dominated and oil rich government in the south of Iraq.  Why should they fear an Al Anbar Province that is a staging ground for Al Queda?  The United States is the Mullahs’ ultimate and consummate enemy; likewise, the United States is Al Queda’s natural enemy.  What is there for Iran not to like in this scenario?

3. Dividing up the Country

To paraphrase Julius Caesar, another military man, all Iraq is already divided into three parts.  The task of deciding territorial disputes in the process of this ongoing division is already underway in the form of a nascent civil war.  The process will continue to be very messy, very deadly, very prolonged, and very tragic.  At the end of this road, the only remaining vestige of democracy will be in the north, in the new Kurdistan.  Who knows what the Sunnis and Shiites will make of the rest of the country?  Not I.  Not anyone.

The nub of this particular subject of debate is that we can do nothing to stop the process.  We cannot change the facts on the ground.  As hard as we may try, Iraq is no longer a place where we can successfully participate in the experiment of nation building.  Our troops and our contractors no longer have a role in this regard; they are simply in the way.


In sum, Iraq, to all intents and purposes, is a world lost to us.  This statement is not made to malign the commanding officer of our forces, General John Abizaid, who is dedicated to his given mission, who is far-seeing, and who is extremely capable.  This is not to impugn our ambassador, Zalmay Kalilzad, who has been brilliant in his efforts to bring the contending parties together to solve their common problems, and to form a unified and effective Iraqi government.  Sometimes, you can lead horses to water, but you just can’t make them drink.  At this juncture, the Sunnis and Shiites of Iraq will not partake of peaceful power sharing.  Instead, many scoundrels seek power and will sacrifice their children and anyone else to achieve it.

So, the game is over.  In leaving Iraq, we shall leave behind an unfulfilled dream and a sanctuary for our enemies.  More regimes will fall than we ever imagined.  We shall, somehow, have to start anew on our quest to make the world safe for freedom loving peoples and from the forced imposition of a universal Sharia.

I return now, to the remaining questions before us:  “Have the lives of our young men and women been spent wisely? and “What do we do now?”  My wife, who is much wiser than I, has suggested that I not answer any of these questions in the negative, as we know so many who are still fighting and who deserve to retain hope in their cause.  But I feel that I must be honest in my appraisal because I was taught in the Marine Corps that the prudent commander does not send reinforcements into a losing battle.

Iraq is a lost battle.  Therefore, we ought not put any more precious young men and women in harm’s way.  In this light, I can only conclude that the lives of those already lost were not spent wisely.  Further, that we should leave Iraq soon and in good battle order, so as to better prepare for the next phase of this clash of philosophies, this war against terrorists.  For example, in Afghanistan, it is already half time and we are down by three points.

In parting from this subject, I wish to offer one last note.  Will someone please invite the very patrician John Kerry to spend an afternoon in Section 19 of Quantico National Cemetery?  Should he make the visit he may, if he is very still, hear a whisper upon the wind telling him why my son, a VMI graduate, chose to serve his country in a very difficult place.

Gregory R. Wright, Sr.
December 12, 2006

Thursday, July 10, 2014

JOLTing Jobs

Five or six years ago, I attended a conference in D.C. on problems with economic measurement.  Of course, there was a great deal of focus on the monthly "jobs report" issued by Department of Labor, because Wall Street invariably obsesses about it.  One of the problems is a lack of agreement about who is really a part of the labor force and who is not -- making any percentage of that number very suspect.

Increasingly, economists and Fed watchers are focusing on the JOLTS report, which stands for Job-Opening & Labor-Turnover.  The latest report supports the normal Jobs Report that the labor market is improving significantly.  Job openings are now almost at the high during the last expansion, before the global financial crisis.  This is a good sign.

Fed Head Yellen focuses on quits or "voluntary labor turnover" in particular.  You probably know the market for jobs in your skill set in your town better than anybody, and you won't quit your job unless you're confident you can get another.  Therefore, a higher number of jobs quit reflects a healthy job environment.  That number has been falling but seems to have finally stabilized at 61.6% of jobs separated.  In comparison to May of last year, an additional 329 thousand workers felt confident enough to quit -- this is a good sign.

When good news in the old methodology like the Jobs Report is supported by the new methodology like the JOLTS report, this is a great sign!

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Living In The Present

To an extent I’ve never seen before, it seems the divide between bulls and bears is increasingly along partisan lines – not completely but increasingly.  Republicans tend to view the market through the lens of Austrian economics, where government budgets must be balanced every year.  Democrats tend to view the market through the lens of Keynesian economics, where budgets must be balanced in the long run, not every year.  (Of course, neither political religion is always faithful to their economic religion and strays whenever expedient.)  Republicans are more likely to argue the stock market is on a “sugar-high,” courtesy of deficit spending and the Fed.  Democrats are more likely to argue the stock market merely reflects an improving economy. 

My perspective is that the Democrats are probably right in the short run.  Since “the trend is my friend,” it is a time to be bullish.  But, the Republicans are almost certainly right in the long run.  Named after Keynesian economist Hyman Minsky (1919-1996), the “Minsky Moment” occurs when the debt bubble expands to the point it can no longer expand and then suddenly collapses.  That Minsky Moment will prove the Republicans are right . . .  but not in the short run.  

Isn't it ironic that a Keynesian economist could prove Republicans were correct?

Monday, July 7, 2014

An Extreme Tarheel

I was reading about the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina and saw that he subscribed to the Murray Rothbard wing of the Austrian school of economics.  While I think Austrian economics is an under-utilized but useful tool in the toolbox of economists, I loosely subscribe to the Ludwig von Mises wing, which seems quite moderate compared to the Rothbard wing.

Rothbard (1926-1995) was opposed to the Federal Reserve System and argued strongly that the dollar should be linked to gold, which effectively removes almost all control over the economy.  Recessions would be much more frequent, and economists would have fewer tools to fight them.

Libertarians also tend to be supporters of Ayn Rand, feeling there are super-humans among us, known as "Job Creators."  Still, their political philosophy is very appealing with its emphasis on individual choice, even to the point of legalizing drug use.

I can take Libertarianism and von Mises and even Ayn Rand . . . but no Rothbard, please.

North Carolina, we're counting on you!

No No Doz Needed

One of those little noticed news items from last month has been keeping me awake.  That is the probe into the huge “dark pool” run by Barclay’s Bank.  Sometimes, when large institutional investors need to buy or sell large stock positions, it can cause the stock market to move suddenly and irrationally.  So, “dark pools” were developed where these positions could be traded in private, which is quite legal.  Large banks handle the BUYS and SELLS between their customers directly, avoiding the sunshine at the New York Stock Exchange and other exchanges.  Today, 37 percent of all stock trades are secret. 

Of course, secrecy breeds conspiracy theories, and there have been many.  This probe also involves high-frequency trading (HFT), which has been discussed in this blog frequently.  HFT is also not illegal, but this unholy marriage of high-frequency trading inside secret pools does keep me awake at night!  

Unfortunately, this probe is not aimed at the practice but is instead aimed at whether Barclay’s was honest about it.  I wish it was instead aimed at the unholy marriage .

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Still Proud

Memorial Day is the saddest American holiday, as we mourn those who died for our way-of-life.  Veteran's Day is probably the second saddest holiday, as we remember those who could have died to save our way-of-life.  But, Independence Day is probably our happiest holiday, as we congratulate ourselves on having a way-of-life worth dying for.

Since it's debut in 1984, no Independence Day would be complete without hearing that proud American Lee Greenwood perform his classic song God Bless the USA.  It used to make me want to wear my now-shrunken Army uniform.  But maybe, I've aged enough now to let younger people wear that uniform, and I hate that!  The young soldier inside me recoils from General Douglas MacArthur's commencement comments at West Point when he said "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

At least, this conflation of emotions does answer . . .  for me anyway . . . the annual question of whether our way-of-life is worth dying for, and the answer is . . .  Absolutely!

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

"Mad Men"-In-A-Box

If you don't understand that Facebook is just another advertising firm, you don't understand Facebook!  And, if you think advertising firms have any ethical compass, you haven't watched Mad Men.

Today, it was learned that Facebook conducted an experiment on almost 700 thousand of its users, to see if the company could manipulate the emotions of those users.  Some users were shown depressing stories and photos, while others were shown positive stories and photos.  Not surprising, those shown depressing stories then demonstrated evidence of being depressed.  (I just pray nobody killed themself?)

Why would this company use its clients as lab rats without telling them?  Because Facebook users are not the clients.  They are the product.  They are just lab rats.  The clients of Facebook are the advertisers who use Facebook to reach the lab rats.  Social media exists to identify data on the lab rats which it sells to clients.  The clients then pay to advertise in front of certain lab rats but not other lab rats.

Let's see -- if I'm selling cremation services in a particular area, could I pay Facebook to flood local lab rats with depressing stories and photos to make them more likely to purchase my product?

Facebook is not alone.  I doubt anybody collects more data on lab rats and then sells that data to advertisers than Google.  Just remember:

Social Media = Advertising Firms.