Monday, May 23, 2011

Japan's Foodservice Calamity

May 23, 2011
Japan Sees Huge Decline in Foodservice

TOKYO — A drastic drop in demand for foodservice outlets has rolled across Japan since the triple calamities of earthquake, tsunami and atomic reactors meltdowns hit the island nation two months ago.

Meanwhile, I'm bracing for more calamities right here in the USA.

1. Housing
2. Employment
3. Banking System
4. Federal Debt
5. Household Debt
6. Corporate Debt
7. State and Local Debt
8. Industrial Production
9. Trade
10. Oil

Despite the ever growing popularity of Food TV here in the USA, I have no desire to open a new restaurant business. Go figure.

9 comments:

Mr Slippery said...

No wonder I don't sleep well at night. Too many things looking too dangerous and I can't forget. I've done what I can do to prepare for whatever happens so you would think I would be at peace, but nooooooo. I have this stupid empathy gene that I can't turn off. Lloyd Blankfein and I, we just care too darn much!

getyourselfconnected said...

Here is my idea how QE 3 comes about:
http://tinyurl.com/3qgerr5

Stagflationary Mark said...

Mr Slippery,

No wonder I don't sleep well at night.

Despair not! I too wasn't sleeping until I came up with a similar bullish list to show why things aren't as bad as they appear!

Unfortuantely, my dog ate it. It was a great list though. You'll just have to trust me on that one. Oh wait. I remember now.

1. Dogs

Dogs sure are great. What did we do without them?

Stagflationary Mark said...

GYSC,

I am patiently awaiting another rubicon post. It has been almost 6 months.

#26 would be like half a house of cards! D'oh! (Minus the jokers of course.)

Stagflationary Mark said...

GYSC,

I read your Short Takes.

I have a different opinion.

I'm just not a believer in the conspiracy theory that the government needs the stock market to fall in order to sell our debt.

I'm in the camp that thinks that QE has not removed treasury demand. It merely displaced it into riskier assets. Therefore, when QE2 ends I think there will be ample demand for treasuries.

In other words, I do not think the government is trying to design a stock market fall in order to boost treasury demand. Far from it. The government needs the stock market to continue to rise without its support.

That doesn't mean the conclusion won't be the same though. I just differ over the intent. I truly believe that the last thing Ben Bernanke wants to see is a stock market crash right after QE2 ends.

That doesn't mean he will get what he wants though. He also didn't want to see housing prices fall. Oops.

And lastly, I'm not shorting the stock market. It is just my opinion that it is at risk. All I really care about is the long-term and I'm comfortable in long-term TIPS and I-Bonds (for both inflation and deflation purchasing power protection).

Mr Slippery said...

I'm in the camp that thinks that QE has not removed treasury demand. It merely displaced it into riskier assets. Therefore, when QE2 ends I think there will be ample demand for treasuries.

I agree with that. If you look at what happened to yields after QE1, that is what I expect after QE2:

I have moved a little more into long term bonds expecting a drop in yields.

Stagflationary Mark said...

Mr Slippery,

I have moved a little more into long term bonds expecting a drop in yields.

With the yield curve so steep, there's a chance that long term rates wouldn't rise even if Bernanke actually raised rates.

This last chart shows what interest rates might do over the next 3 years if all goes according to plan. The short end of the curve is where most of the action would likely be. In two of the five periods the yield on the 10-year treasury actually fell.

getyourselfconnected said...

Well it's not a conspiracy theory re QE 3, just an observation that the risk trade will need extra ammo and support.

Stagflationary Mark said...

GYSC,

You said, "For Ben Bernanke to get the kind of panic he will need for QE 3.0, I think a 10% move down is going to happen."

The word "need" stuck in my head.

I reread what you wrote. You also said, "With a few FED speeches that were from the usual wimps being exceptions, the FED seems really determined to get out of the markets this time."

You said that earlier though and it didn't stick in my head. It would seem that I just misread your overall tone. Sorry about that! I stand corrected.