Comments on: Economic optimism now official Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: AJ876 Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:43:46 +0000 Well this guy is wrong, the central bankers of world are plotting a 1 World Company Limited, where they implode every nation-state republic to consolidate and buy up everything, signing everyone onto their fraud derivatives.

By: matthewslyman Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:30:17 +0000 @AZreb: “why put your savings in a bank if you are going to get low interest while the banks use your money to pay obscene bonuses and more “wars” on the horizon.” — That’s right (money in the bank is effectively being confiscated by central banks right now, in a globally competitive currency devaluation).

So what are you going to do with your savings then?

May I suggest investing in the shares of an “ethical fund”? You might also lose money that way, but over the medium to long term, this strategy is almost guaranteed to do better than money in the bank (especially under the economic circumstances you describe)…

By: AZreb Sun, 25 Nov 2012 13:45:00 +0000 Please, sir – send me a pair of the rose-clored glasses you are using or some of the wacky-tobacky you must be smoking. We have no agreement on a budget – good, bad or indifferent. The EU is a mess and since “globalization” is the name of the game, we are tied to its success or failure. No one knows the outcome of the Affordable Healthcare Act on small businesses, big businesses or individuals and it might not be a bed of roses for anyone. Big corporations such as Ford are increasing their activities in other countries, which does not bode well for our own factory workers and owners. Plus, just for good measure, home foreclosures are looming for more homeowners – the price of food will go up next year due to natural disasters such as the drouhgt – the unemployment number is still way above what it should be – more hunger and poverty in our own country – and why put your savings in a bank if you are going to get low interest while the banks use your money to pay obxcene bonuses and more “wars” on the horizon.

Of course we will muddle through the coming years – but at what cost?

By: Laster Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:48:16 +0000 Thinly Traded Optimism!

Some bad things coming down the pike real soon. Years from now most will wonder what happened to the social safety nets.
This is a real bad scene.

By: jrpardinas Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:08:36 +0000 The Stimulus may not have worked as well as hoped but, then again, what would the alternatives have been?

Republicans will never cut Defense which gobbles up an outsized share of GDP to service activities of essentially zero economic value. They’ll also not want to cut taxes on the super-rich citing the bogus and thoroughly-discredited trickle-down theory.

Austerity, in general, doesn’t seem to work in deep recessions. The Europeans have pursued savage austerity measures and all they’ve accomplished is to write themselves off the world’s economic map.

Assuming one is not an inveterate denier of reason and of available experiential and scientific evidence (i.e. not an American right-winger): What would make anybody think that austerity might work any better in the USA?

By: matthewslyman Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:50:33 +0000 p.s. Bernanke looks pretty tired in this picture. I think it’s dangerous to get congressional leaders/ Federal Reserve chairmen negotiating late into the night to force a deal through (this happens all too often these days). The political settlements that come out of those sorts of negotiations are never well thought out, and often don’t stand up to later congressional scrutiny. Psychologists have proven that tired people tend to gamble on rapid gains, rather than patiently negotiating a far better deal… I sincerely hope they won’t push this “fiscal cliff” negotiations right up against the deadline…

By: matthewslyman Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:54:44 +0000 …Of course, there are down-side risks even to Lockheed Martin, but what I’m saying here is that there’s upside potential in any currently foreseeable market scenario — even the completely wild “outside the box” cases.

By: matthewslyman Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:34:42 +0000 FOCUSSING FOR A MOMENT ON EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA:


US Federal Government:
15% taxation/GDP.
25% spending/GDP.
0% annualized GDP growth (with annualized growth never above 5% in the last 60 years, over a presidential tenure).
We need to fix this unsustainable mess, right now. After four years of deficit spending stimulus, we’re over 100% debt/GDP, and the stimulus isn’t working. These numbers are now the limiting factor for “sentiment”.

> “Best of all, the uncertainty about U.S. politics and monetary policy…is about to disappear.”
Shares always get oversold (a buying opportunity) prior to US presidential elections. As pointed out in the Reuters/RAND panel discussion, the US system is somewhat more robust than people seem to think. IN THE SHORT TERM, your assessments are almost bound to be correct.

IN THE MEDIUM/LONG TERM, however, besides the “fiscal cliff”, there is another elephant in the room: reuters-tv-quantitative-easing-a-time-bo mb-stephen?videoId=239344066
— “The fundamentals don’t support the current bond-spreads.” — No kidding. There are surely some more choppy economic waters ahead… The market might improve (or, might still collapse if they get it wrong — especially if we let ourselves believe that market collapse is no longer a possibility); but in either case, volatility will remain with us for some time to come.


Now let’s look at the global picture.

> “Political uncertainties have been resolved or dramatically improved in all the most important economies.”

Perhaps true in the Middle East (many aggrieved peoples are obtaining some degree of political settlement, which in theory should mean greater stability in the long term — although democratic governments are hardly more predictable than dictatorships!) It’s been interesting to watch Netanyahu deal with the new Egyptian government (which itself enjoys newfound credibility with Hamas and others).

South America is getting progressively more predictable over the long term, with the gradual taming of FARC and the fading away of old hard-line communist threats. Post Cold War, the CIA thankfully no longer appears interested in overthrowing left-leaning leaders like Chavez (instead, we can wait until the political tide changes internally within Venezuela for them to rebalance their own affairs).

The Korean Peninsula has been quiet (at least, it terms of news) for a year or two…

I wonder, what are the chances of peaceful resolution of the current dispute in the South China Sea? Perhaps fairly high, given the culture and maturity of the people in South East Asia. Perhaps the current “tension” is partly posturing and positioning for the final resource-sharing deal…

…Which brings us onto another excellent point from that Reuters/RAND panel discussion (link above): China is poised for growth, if their new leaders are as smart as we think they are (I can’t understand why they’re not abandoning that idiotic, demographically suicidal one-child policy). How can we play a part in China’s growth? What do they need from us???


Back to the question of volatility. I’ve seen some pretty big waves in the stock market. I’m seeing the development of nine-monthly to three-yearly cycles in oil prices: il-crisis/

Alongside monthly swings in steel: b&q=NYSE:X

We may not be able to clearly foresee where the market is ultimately heading, but I’m predicting volatility in any case. Like using wave power to generate electricity, smart traders can tame these waves and make a profit. The volatility can be turned to our advantage, for the benefit of all…

So what safe bets are there in the current market? Which companies might do well, in any of the conditions that might emerge?
NYSE:LMT — Lockheed Martin Corporation
P/E: 10.48
New products coming to market — technical problems have largely been overcome.
Export driven, in the defense market (which always grows in volatile times).

By: jrpardinas Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:29:12 +0000 I have always found Anatole Kaletsky’s articles insightful and, more often than not, on target. I think he’s probably right.

But even if he’s not, as Pascal argued about believing in God, there’s no down side to believing that he is right. Mood is a little-appreciated ingredient in all economic recoveries.

At this point we could all use some rational, or for that matter, some irrational exuberance!

By: Mike_s1 Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:59:53 +0000 I think that you are missing the point. The author is suggesting that businesses have been dealing with the risk of uncertainty due to many global challenges, but these challenges are now resolved (good, bad, indifferent, it doesn’t matter, they are resolved). With less uncertainty, businesses can get back to business instead of watching from the sidelines.

You’ve obviously never read The Economist…astute, politically neutral and pro-business (unlike, say, WSJ). ‘Economic statistics are clearly improving’ are based on fact, not personal preference. Try to bash the opinion part of the article rather than the actual facts.