3/17/11
Since I don’t, thank God and St. Patrick himself, have the South Side Irish Parade to kick around any more, I may as well take the opportunity to tee off on the whole day, or at least the way we celebrate it in this country.
Why, oh why, have we decided, as a collective “culture,” that a day, a holy day originally designated to honor a holy, courageous and somewhat stern and austere man, became an excuse to make drunken idiots out of ourselves? And why, by extension, have we come to equate being Irish and celebrating our Irishness with getting drunk? Just listen and watch the advertising, look at all the “wink wink” “have a great St. Paddy’s Day” wishes, and just observe Western Avenue and its consanguineous Irish-American thoroughfares throughout the country to learn that we Irish, and Irish Americans, are just a pack of purblind and potvaliant palookas packing away pints in the puerile pursuit of a pathetic manifestation of patriotism for the auld sod. It was summed up well in WBBM Newsradio 78’s coverage of last Saturday’s (last Saturday’s! Can you imagine the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Chicago taking place on March 12 when Richard J. Daley was mayor? Saints preserve us!) St. Patrick’s Day Parade when the interviewer asked a parade observer what she was going to do after the parade. This deep thinking suburbanite laughingly proclaimed that she was going to be “a little Irish” after the parade. The interviewer chuckled “We can only imagine what that means!” (Wink, wink) Thanks a lot.
As my Irish-American father used to remind me on the numerous opportunities for such admonition I presented him in the wastrel years of my youth, “It doesn’t take any special talent or ability to be a drunken a—hole.” But people have been conditioned, especially on this day, to think that being a drunken a—hole is the only ability my people have developed We don’t consider the legions of ordinary Irish people who have worked hard to raise their families, follow their God, and make their country the Celtic Tiger it once was and could quickly become again. We don’t remember the millions of Irish who left that land to dig the canals, build the railroads, work in the stockyards, and participate in our country’s peculiar form of self-government so that their kids could have a better life than the old country could afford them. We don’t think of (love or hate anybody on this list, you have to admit they were or are all people of accomplishment and intellect who were not most notable for the number of shots and beers they could consumer before, or after regurgitating in the bathroom, if they are lucky enough to make it, of a watering hole on Western Avenue) Dick Daley, Joe Kennedy, Jim Tyree, Eugene O’Neil, Jimmy Cagney, Pat O’Brien, Maureen O’Hara, Eamon DeValera, Michael Collins, St. Brendan, St. Bridget, Art Carney, Georgia O’Keeffe, Gene Kelly, Andrew Jackson, Sister Monica O'Finnegan, Ronald Reagan, Henry Ford, Tom Monaghan, Jack Ford, Walt Disney, Cyrus McCormick, Robert Fulton, William Brennan, Tip O’Neil, F. Scott Fitzgerald, James T. Farrell, Cardinal O’Connor, James Joyce, Edwin O’Connor, Flannery O’Connor, Father Michael O’Keefe, Dick Quinn, Jimmy Breslin, Ben Hogan, Gene Tunney, Jack Dempsey, Audie Murphy, George M. Cohan, Rosemary Clooney, George Clooney, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or even St. Patrick himself on this day. Instead, we celebrate the Irish and pseudo-Irish whose most salient characteristics are a self-imagined immense capacity for alcohol and an utter lack of shame.
It would be nice to think that the crude portrayal of the Irish and Irish-Americans to which we are especially subjected on this holy day is an insidious media plot perpetrated by outsiders on the noble Celts on both sides of the Atlantic. But when I hear such protestations, I remember a homily delivered by one of my favorite priests, Father Gallagher, who could have come right out of central casting, many years ago at Sacred Heart when I was still young and doing my part to contribute to the negative stereotype that I so heartily protest today. He said that while the Irish like to blame the British for all their problems, we have to admit that it wasn’t only the British who wreaked such havoc on Ireland; the bottle had its role to play as well. Similarly, the asinine image of the Irish portrayed in the popular culture has at least some of its roots in the behavior of many Irish-Americans, disturbingly, of late, among the younger generations, who have bought into the scurrilous notion that to be Irish is to be a besotted bozo. One would think that, with all that is going on in Ireland right now economically and politically, most Irish-Americans would at least make some effort to be aware of the current travails of the auld sod: inter alia, the efforts of Fine Gael and Labor to form a viable government, the impact of the worldwide financial crisis on the only recently emergent Ireland, and the European pressure to have Ireland ditch one of its most business friendly attributes, the 12.5% corporate tax rate that has attracted so much investment to the Emerald Isle. (Perhaps I digress.) But, no, many of our compatriots just ask for another Guinness, or Old Style, sing about how Ireland must be heaven because that’s where mother was born, and start effecting fake brogues that increase in intensity in direct proportion to the volume of alcohol they pour down their never closed gullets.
I am proud to be Irish-American, happy to have roots in the old country but delighted that my ancestors made the decision to get on the boat and come over here. As a people, we have contributed mightily to this country and to the old country. We have a lot of which to be proud. Why do we, and America and perhaps the world insist on celebrating the things of which we should be ashamed?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
YEN TRADE LOOKS EASY HERE
3/17/11
The action in the yen in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear power plant parade of horrors that has befallen that country is fascinating. While there has been plenty of volatility, the direction of the yen has been decidedly up since the chorus of horribles has stricken our closest Pacific friend.
Most attribute the strength of the yen to the repatriation trade as Japanese individuals and companies buy yen to bring the money home for rebuilding or just to sustain life and/or operation or, more properly, the markets act on the belief that Japanese will pursue such a course of action. Apparently, Japanese officials are skeptical of this explanation and, instead, blame the yen’s action on that omnipresent whipping boy “speculation.”
No matter what has led to the yen’s rise (As I write this, the U.S. dollar buys 78.99 yen), I think a terrific shorting opportunity exists for the yen for three reasons:
--The most obvious reason to short the yen is the problems that have befallen that poor nation. Despite the silly talk that rebuilding will provide an economic stimulus for Japan (the broken window fallacy), having ports destroyed, industry shut or slowed down, power supplies delayed or eliminated, and whole industries hobbled cannot be good for one’s economy and, hence, one’s currency.
--The BOJ is flooding Japan with liquidity since the onset of the crisis. Printing currency at prodigious rates does not strengthen that currency.
--As part of its rebuilding effort, one suspects, given Japan’s monetary history, that the BOJ, the Ministry of Finance, and other Japanese government entities involved in such matters will make a concerted effort to weaken the yen in order to give Japanese industry a boost in its recovery.
This is not necessarily a short term prediction, but one would think that the smart money should be betting on a weaker yen in the not too distant future.
The action in the yen in the wake of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear power plant parade of horrors that has befallen that country is fascinating. While there has been plenty of volatility, the direction of the yen has been decidedly up since the chorus of horribles has stricken our closest Pacific friend.
Most attribute the strength of the yen to the repatriation trade as Japanese individuals and companies buy yen to bring the money home for rebuilding or just to sustain life and/or operation or, more properly, the markets act on the belief that Japanese will pursue such a course of action. Apparently, Japanese officials are skeptical of this explanation and, instead, blame the yen’s action on that omnipresent whipping boy “speculation.”
No matter what has led to the yen’s rise (As I write this, the U.S. dollar buys 78.99 yen), I think a terrific shorting opportunity exists for the yen for three reasons:
--The most obvious reason to short the yen is the problems that have befallen that poor nation. Despite the silly talk that rebuilding will provide an economic stimulus for Japan (the broken window fallacy), having ports destroyed, industry shut or slowed down, power supplies delayed or eliminated, and whole industries hobbled cannot be good for one’s economy and, hence, one’s currency.
--The BOJ is flooding Japan with liquidity since the onset of the crisis. Printing currency at prodigious rates does not strengthen that currency.
--As part of its rebuilding effort, one suspects, given Japan’s monetary history, that the BOJ, the Ministry of Finance, and other Japanese government entities involved in such matters will make a concerted effort to weaken the yen in order to give Japanese industry a boost in its recovery.
This is not necessarily a short term prediction, but one would think that the smart money should be betting on a weaker yen in the not too distant future.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
I KNOW A COUPLE GOOD BOOKS YOU CAN READ ON THIS SUBJECT…
3/16/11
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 3/16’s, page A2) Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is intensifying its search for the next FBI chief. On the short list, apparently, is none other than U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and bane of crooked politicians in these parts, Patrick Fitzgerald.
Hmm…
Rahm Emanuel leaves the White House chief of staff’s job to run for Mayor of Chicago with the blessing and full hearted, if not full throated, endorsement of the Daley family. Bill Daley replaces Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Suddenly, Patrick Fitzgerald, whom just about every pol in this state has been trying to get rid of ever since he was appointed at the suggestion of maverick one term Senator Peter Fitzgerald, is being considered for a big job in Washington.
This, my friends and readers, is the kind of thing that keeps Chicago politics interesting even in this post demise of the ward based Machine era. And if they keep Chicago politics interesting, such machinations make books about Chicago politics, especially The Chairman and The Chairman’s Challenge, by the ever insightful yours truly, compelling reading.
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 3/16’s, page A2) Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is intensifying its search for the next FBI chief. On the short list, apparently, is none other than U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, and bane of crooked politicians in these parts, Patrick Fitzgerald.
Hmm…
Rahm Emanuel leaves the White House chief of staff’s job to run for Mayor of Chicago with the blessing and full hearted, if not full throated, endorsement of the Daley family. Bill Daley replaces Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff. Suddenly, Patrick Fitzgerald, whom just about every pol in this state has been trying to get rid of ever since he was appointed at the suggestion of maverick one term Senator Peter Fitzgerald, is being considered for a big job in Washington.
This, my friends and readers, is the kind of thing that keeps Chicago politics interesting even in this post demise of the ward based Machine era. And if they keep Chicago politics interesting, such machinations make books about Chicago politics, especially The Chairman and The Chairman’s Challenge, by the ever insightful yours truly, compelling reading.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
HAIL TO THE ORANGE, HAIL TO THE SIOUX…
3/12/12
Yesterday, the North Dakota Senate voted to require the University of North Dakota to keep its nickname, The Fighting Sioux. The state House has already passed the bill and Governor Jack Dalrymple has indicated he will sign it into law.
I, like many of you, am disheartened by the hypersensitivity and runaway political correctness that has led to the defenestration of numerous venerable college nicknames and, as a proud graduate of that object of Harvard’s undying envy, the University of Illinois, and a fervent fan of Chief Illiniwek, such unabashed silliness hits home. These hebetudinous pursuits of longstanding icons are especially infuriating when one considers that the hyperventilation behind them originates not, primarily, from the native-American community but, rather, from the white, upper class, busybody community with both too much time on its hands and a fervent belief that some self-styled innate moral and intellectual superiority entitles them to dictate how the rest of us should live.
In the case of UND, the efforts to eliminate the Fighting Sioux nickname, efforts that the UND administration vows to continue, are especially fatuous because one struggles to come up with reasons that “Fighting Sioux” is somehow offensive. Would one rather have the “Surrendering Sioux,” the “Yielding Sioux,” the “Timid Sioux,” or the “Pat-a- cake Playing Sioux”? Why wouldn’t one want a proud people portrayed as they were, a nation that was not about to give up, either land or pride, to the greedy designs of the white Europeans without a fight? Or would the politically correct crowd rather just have the Sioux name dropped altogether, to blot out forever remembrance of those original inhabitants of North Dakota?
Clearly, I am almost as much in favor of keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname for UND as I am in favor of rewelcoming Chief Illiniwek and keeping the Fighting Illini, not the, as someone has proposed, the Fighting Farmbots, battling for the national championship in Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall. However, it is indeed disheartening to see the pols stick their considerable probosces into such, in the great scheme of things, trivial matters as school mascots. Is this something with which the politicians in Bismarck ought to concern themselves? Is there nothing outside the purview of the government? Maybe…if focusing on such jejune matters keeps them diverted from bollixing up things that really matter.
Yesterday, the North Dakota Senate voted to require the University of North Dakota to keep its nickname, The Fighting Sioux. The state House has already passed the bill and Governor Jack Dalrymple has indicated he will sign it into law.
I, like many of you, am disheartened by the hypersensitivity and runaway political correctness that has led to the defenestration of numerous venerable college nicknames and, as a proud graduate of that object of Harvard’s undying envy, the University of Illinois, and a fervent fan of Chief Illiniwek, such unabashed silliness hits home. These hebetudinous pursuits of longstanding icons are especially infuriating when one considers that the hyperventilation behind them originates not, primarily, from the native-American community but, rather, from the white, upper class, busybody community with both too much time on its hands and a fervent belief that some self-styled innate moral and intellectual superiority entitles them to dictate how the rest of us should live.
In the case of UND, the efforts to eliminate the Fighting Sioux nickname, efforts that the UND administration vows to continue, are especially fatuous because one struggles to come up with reasons that “Fighting Sioux” is somehow offensive. Would one rather have the “Surrendering Sioux,” the “Yielding Sioux,” the “Timid Sioux,” or the “Pat-a- cake Playing Sioux”? Why wouldn’t one want a proud people portrayed as they were, a nation that was not about to give up, either land or pride, to the greedy designs of the white Europeans without a fight? Or would the politically correct crowd rather just have the Sioux name dropped altogether, to blot out forever remembrance of those original inhabitants of North Dakota?
Clearly, I am almost as much in favor of keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname for UND as I am in favor of rewelcoming Chief Illiniwek and keeping the Fighting Illini, not the, as someone has proposed, the Fighting Farmbots, battling for the national championship in Memorial Stadium and Assembly Hall. However, it is indeed disheartening to see the pols stick their considerable probosces into such, in the great scheme of things, trivial matters as school mascots. Is this something with which the politicians in Bismarck ought to concern themselves? Is there nothing outside the purview of the government? Maybe…if focusing on such jejune matters keeps them diverted from bollixing up things that really matter.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
WORSHIPING AT THE ALTAR OF THE GREAT GOD “DEMOCRACY”
3/10/11
Reports that clashes between Coptic Christians and Muslims have killed 13 people in Egypt in recent days have confirmed, as if there were any doubt, the prescience, seminality, and perspicacity of my, inter alia, 2/11/11 post on Egypt NEED A LITTLE RAIN ON YOUR PARADE? I’M YOUR MAN!
The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the Christian/Muslim fighting, along with other travails befalling the democratic paradise the U.S. mainstream media told us to expect in the wake of the swift deposition of Hosni Mubarak, contained two salient quotes. The first was from Mr. Naguib Sawiris, chairman of Orascom Telecom, one of the largest publicly held companies in the Middle East:
“Another 60 days and the economy will go bust.”
But who needs an economy when the hearts of “the people” are in the right place and Uncle Sam will, in the end, pick up the bills anyway, right?
The other especially piquant quote came from Mr. Rifaat Atif, a Christian pharmacist:
“What have we gotten from the revolution? We don’t trust the army any more. The money has stopped. There’s no security.”
Whether Mr. Atif was referring to Egyptian Christians or Egyptians in general when he used the pronoun “we” is not certain, but it probably doesn’t matter; the sentiment he so articulately expressed applies to both.
Christians and Jews fare especially poorly when Middle Eastern strongmen are rapidly deposed either by angry mobs or by foreign intervention inspired by a diaphanous yet ardent desire to install democracy. This has been especially true in, of late, Egypt and Iraq.
Why do Jews and Christians do so poorly in the wake of the hasty overthrows that the Bush/Obama administration, the U.S. (and, for the most part, the world) media, and at least a hefty plurality of the western public think are such terrific ideas? Because democracy is not such a great idea. Democracy, either quickly in the case of the Third World or slowly in the case of the West, becomes mob rule, a mere means of the majority to rob and/or exploit the minority. In the Middle East, the majority is not favorably disposed toward Christians and Jews and thus, when democracy arises, or is imposed, the majority sees it as an opportunity to go after those the majority doesn’t like. Our Founding Fathers knew that democracy, at least in its pure form, was glorified mob rule, which is why they established on these shores not a democracy but a democratic republic, with proper safeguards (perhaps most importantly, the Bill of Rights) against the onset of mob rule, safeguards which have been fraying over the last hundred years or so, but that is another issue.
While democracy is not such a great system, self-rule, generally in the form of a democratic republic, can be a very good idea, the best form of government, but only if the proper groundwork is in place, including respect for minority rights, property rights, the sanctity of contracts, etc.. Self governance is more than voting or, in the latest bastardizations of which the Bush/Obama Administration and the media are so fond, assembling a mob in the street and tossing out the people in charge with nary a clue as to what their replacement will be. Effective and enduring self governance requires a people that understands the proper limits of government, respects the rights of their neighbors, and embraces the responsibilities that come with self government. But democracy requires only a vote or the ability of a mob to get the authorities to accede to its demands. And yet we are supposed to genuflect at the mere mention of the word “democracy,” as if the repeated and strident utterance of it gives legitimacy to whatever those demanding "democracy" would like.
Reports that clashes between Coptic Christians and Muslims have killed 13 people in Egypt in recent days have confirmed, as if there were any doubt, the prescience, seminality, and perspicacity of my, inter alia, 2/11/11 post on Egypt NEED A LITTLE RAIN ON YOUR PARADE? I’M YOUR MAN!
The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the Christian/Muslim fighting, along with other travails befalling the democratic paradise the U.S. mainstream media told us to expect in the wake of the swift deposition of Hosni Mubarak, contained two salient quotes. The first was from Mr. Naguib Sawiris, chairman of Orascom Telecom, one of the largest publicly held companies in the Middle East:
“Another 60 days and the economy will go bust.”
But who needs an economy when the hearts of “the people” are in the right place and Uncle Sam will, in the end, pick up the bills anyway, right?
The other especially piquant quote came from Mr. Rifaat Atif, a Christian pharmacist:
“What have we gotten from the revolution? We don’t trust the army any more. The money has stopped. There’s no security.”
Whether Mr. Atif was referring to Egyptian Christians or Egyptians in general when he used the pronoun “we” is not certain, but it probably doesn’t matter; the sentiment he so articulately expressed applies to both.
Christians and Jews fare especially poorly when Middle Eastern strongmen are rapidly deposed either by angry mobs or by foreign intervention inspired by a diaphanous yet ardent desire to install democracy. This has been especially true in, of late, Egypt and Iraq.
Why do Jews and Christians do so poorly in the wake of the hasty overthrows that the Bush/Obama administration, the U.S. (and, for the most part, the world) media, and at least a hefty plurality of the western public think are such terrific ideas? Because democracy is not such a great idea. Democracy, either quickly in the case of the Third World or slowly in the case of the West, becomes mob rule, a mere means of the majority to rob and/or exploit the minority. In the Middle East, the majority is not favorably disposed toward Christians and Jews and thus, when democracy arises, or is imposed, the majority sees it as an opportunity to go after those the majority doesn’t like. Our Founding Fathers knew that democracy, at least in its pure form, was glorified mob rule, which is why they established on these shores not a democracy but a democratic republic, with proper safeguards (perhaps most importantly, the Bill of Rights) against the onset of mob rule, safeguards which have been fraying over the last hundred years or so, but that is another issue.
While democracy is not such a great system, self-rule, generally in the form of a democratic republic, can be a very good idea, the best form of government, but only if the proper groundwork is in place, including respect for minority rights, property rights, the sanctity of contracts, etc.. Self governance is more than voting or, in the latest bastardizations of which the Bush/Obama Administration and the media are so fond, assembling a mob in the street and tossing out the people in charge with nary a clue as to what their replacement will be. Effective and enduring self governance requires a people that understands the proper limits of government, respects the rights of their neighbors, and embraces the responsibilities that come with self government. But democracy requires only a vote or the ability of a mob to get the authorities to accede to its demands. And yet we are supposed to genuflect at the mere mention of the word “democracy,” as if the repeated and strident utterance of it gives legitimacy to whatever those demanding "democracy" would like.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
YUAN I SHOULD BUY SOME MORE STUFF FROM YOU?
3/8/11
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 3/8’s, page A9) Wall Street Journal reports that China is seeking to reduce its trade surplus but does not plan to do so by allowing the yuan to appreciate. Rather, China plans to lower tariffs across the board but to be especially aggressive in reducing duties on goods imported from developing countries. The National People’s Congress also emphasized that it would like to increase imports from the U.S. in order to rebalance unilateral trade with the world’s largest economy. Whether China will be able to get its people to import more from the United States is questionable; Chinese consumers and, especially, Chinese businesses seem to have a decided preference for German goods. Perhaps the Chinese rulers will have to flex their authoritarian muscles a bit more than usual to achieve this alteration of the people’s mindset, but I digress.
China’s efforts to reduce its trade surplus but its refusal to do by allowing the yuan (or renminbi, depending on, I suppose, what day it is) to appreciate confirms a point I made in my 6/21/10 post LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW. The Chinese authorities’ extreme reluctance to let the yuan appreciate has little to do with its trade balance and almost everything to do with its enormous stock of dollar denominated assets, $1.16 trillion dollars in U.S. treasuries alone at last count. In other words, China’s steadfast defense of the yuan arises from a concern about its balance sheet rather than its income statement.
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 3/8’s, page A9) Wall Street Journal reports that China is seeking to reduce its trade surplus but does not plan to do so by allowing the yuan to appreciate. Rather, China plans to lower tariffs across the board but to be especially aggressive in reducing duties on goods imported from developing countries. The National People’s Congress also emphasized that it would like to increase imports from the U.S. in order to rebalance unilateral trade with the world’s largest economy. Whether China will be able to get its people to import more from the United States is questionable; Chinese consumers and, especially, Chinese businesses seem to have a decided preference for German goods. Perhaps the Chinese rulers will have to flex their authoritarian muscles a bit more than usual to achieve this alteration of the people’s mindset, but I digress.
China’s efforts to reduce its trade surplus but its refusal to do by allowing the yuan (or renminbi, depending on, I suppose, what day it is) to appreciate confirms a point I made in my 6/21/10 post LOOK WHO’S PULLING THE RICKSHAW NOW. The Chinese authorities’ extreme reluctance to let the yuan appreciate has little to do with its trade balance and almost everything to do with its enormous stock of dollar denominated assets, $1.16 trillion dollars in U.S. treasuries alone at last count. In other words, China’s steadfast defense of the yuan arises from a concern about its balance sheet rather than its income statement.
“LET’S LEND IT, SPEND IT, SEND IT ROLLING ALONG…” PART (AT LEAST) II
3/8/11
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 3/8’s page A5) Wall Street Journal reports the great news that consumer non-mortgage borrowing grew in January at a 2.5% annual rate. Economic and financial cognoscenti are delighted that the consumer is out there digging a hole for himself again, but the economic solons are sullen and down in the mouth at the news that the 2.5% increase was largely attributable to a 7% increase in non-revolving debt, i.e., loans for cars, college, and boats. Revolving debt (i.e., credit card debt) shrank at a 6.4% annual rate. But the economic wunderkinds did find some solace, some glimmers of hope, in the otherwise baleful news that consumers are actually getting themselves out from under credit card debt. Opined IHS Global Insight economist Gregory Daco:
“Strong demand for credit for automobiles is a good sign for consumer spending. We might see a few more drops in revolving credit over the coming months, but there is evidence that we’re at a turning point.”
Oh, boy! Consumers are doing what comes all too naturally for the average American by burying themselves in credit card and other consumer debt. This, of course, is good news because such financial self-immolation will help us emerge from a crisis that arose from too much debt, primarily too much consumer debt. And it is the smart guys, the economic wise men, the best and the brightest who are spewing this counter-intuitive nonsense.
Ever wonder why I am seemingly permanently bearish on the markets, the economy, and the future of the Republic?
This morning’s (i.e., Tuesday, 3/8’s page A5) Wall Street Journal reports the great news that consumer non-mortgage borrowing grew in January at a 2.5% annual rate. Economic and financial cognoscenti are delighted that the consumer is out there digging a hole for himself again, but the economic solons are sullen and down in the mouth at the news that the 2.5% increase was largely attributable to a 7% increase in non-revolving debt, i.e., loans for cars, college, and boats. Revolving debt (i.e., credit card debt) shrank at a 6.4% annual rate. But the economic wunderkinds did find some solace, some glimmers of hope, in the otherwise baleful news that consumers are actually getting themselves out from under credit card debt. Opined IHS Global Insight economist Gregory Daco:
“Strong demand for credit for automobiles is a good sign for consumer spending. We might see a few more drops in revolving credit over the coming months, but there is evidence that we’re at a turning point.”
Oh, boy! Consumers are doing what comes all too naturally for the average American by burying themselves in credit card and other consumer debt. This, of course, is good news because such financial self-immolation will help us emerge from a crisis that arose from too much debt, primarily too much consumer debt. And it is the smart guys, the economic wise men, the best and the brightest who are spewing this counter-intuitive nonsense.
Ever wonder why I am seemingly permanently bearish on the markets, the economy, and the future of the Republic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
