tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post8790898763830296492..comments2024-02-17T12:34:01.400-08:00Comments on Illusion of Prosperity: The Illusion of an Auto Industry "Recovery"Stagflationary Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-33213268736740769682013-08-10T21:09:53.298-07:002013-08-10T21:09:53.298-07:00As a side note, gold should be interesting to watc...As a side note, gold should be interesting to watch.<br /><br />On the one hand, I believe that real yields of the future will be lower because I believe real GDP growth will suck. That should support gold's price in theory, since gold's inflation adjusted price tends to be higher when real yields are low.<br /><br />On the other hand, I could also see real oil prices of the future be lower because people just stop driving so much. That should depress gold's price in theory, since many like to look at the oil to gold price ratio.<br /><br />May we live in interesting times.<br /><br />As for China, <a href="http://www.voanews.com/media/video/1713720.html" rel="nofollow">Carpool Campaign Gets Rolling in China’s Capital</a>. Gotta love that <a href="http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2008/05/global-transportation-rebalancing.html" rel="nofollow">global transportation rebalancing</a> act!Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-2004635765502691502013-08-10T20:29:16.518-07:002013-08-10T20:29:16.518-07:00TJandTheBear,
You are too kind!
I suspect that w...TJandTheBear,<br /><br />You are too kind!<br /><br />I suspect that we'll both look back years from now and say...<br /><br /><b>Dead Cat Bounce</b>Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-26722807005422955122013-08-10T18:33:36.599-07:002013-08-10T18:33:36.599-07:00Excellent work again, Mark. I've been meaning...Excellent work again, Mark. I've been meaning to do the same sort of thing to debunk the "housing recovery" BS but am not the chart master that you are.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Recently read an excellent piece on demographics and economic growth. Let's just say it's a good thing they decided to artificially goose, ahem "recalculate", the GDP, because there isn't a chance in hell of real growth in the coming decades.TJandTheBearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10735388072841457108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-60976362546205062492013-08-10T17:38:18.461-07:002013-08-10T17:38:18.461-07:00Mr Slippery,
A calculated risk heckling Calculate...Mr Slippery,<br /><br /><i>A calculated risk heckling Calculated Risk?</i><br /><br />I didn't intend for it to be a heckle so much as a relatively strong disagreement. He's turned very optimistic lately and I think it shows with this prediction. It assumes there will be improvement in the future even though there has been zero improvement so far.<br /><br />Further, for the first time we're seeing a divergence in the opinions of Calculated Risk and Robert Shiller. Both saw the bubbles in the past (as did I) and I have respected both of them for it. They can't both be right now though. <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-never-ending-struggle-with-speculative-bubbles-by-robert-j--shiller" rel="nofollow">I'm in Shiller's camp.</a><br /><br /><i>Great Recession II, ZIRP Harder!</i><br /><br />LOL!!<br /><br />Great Recession III, ZIRP Hard with a Vengeance<br /><br /><b>Great Recession IV, Live Free or ZIRP Hard</b><br /><br />I sure hope we choose ZIRP Hard, because I'd really like the Homeland Security of the future to install cameras inside my house. You know, for my own protection, lol. Sigh.Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-75011209323973050402013-08-10T17:15:16.480-07:002013-08-10T17:15:16.480-07:00Troy,
There's also wonky timing issues with t...Troy,<br /><br /><i>There's also wonky timing issues with the baby boom and its echo, however.</i><br /><br />Indeed there are. Nice charts!<br /><br />On a related topic, I do not believe that the global population will grow to the moon, any more than a locust population can.<br /><br />It will someday take down a great many exponential growth stories with it. I won't be around to see it, more than likely. I just find it interesting.Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-33538122578147411032013-08-10T16:12:17.862-07:002013-08-10T16:12:17.862-07:00Great Recession II, Ben and Tim's Bogus Journe...Great Recession II, Ben and Tim's Bogus Journey [fixed]Mr Slipperynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-18051119019837228102013-08-10T16:11:20.307-07:002013-08-10T16:11:20.307-07:00A calculated risk heckling Calculated Risk?
Great...A calculated risk heckling Calculated Risk?<br /><br /><i>Great Recession II, return of the killer recession.</i><br /><br />Great Recession II, ZIRP Harder!<br /><br />Great Recession II, Electric Boogaloo<br /><br />Great Recession II, Jason Takes the Fed<br /><br />Great Recession II, Yellen vs. Predator<br /><br />Great Recession II, Ben and Tim's Bogus HourneyMr Slipperynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-92156247521751200542013-08-10T13:32:07.219-07:002013-08-10T13:32:07.219-07:00^ story of the baby boom, really. Aging into adult...^ story of the baby boom, really. Aging into adulthood in the 1970s, entering retirement now.<br /><br />Though their support costs as kids in the 60s and 70s was a lot less than their support costs as 70 and 80 yos this decade and next!<br /><br />But I think it's important to consider the Keynesian nature of this spending. Yes, it is entirely broken-window-parable spending, but this economy can use any middle-class stimulus it can get . . .<br /><br />Plus all the SSA checks going on *will* be spent right back into the economy.<br /><br />We don't have any supply-side problems (other than oil, LOL) we have demand-side problems, not enough work.<br /><br />We've got plenty of money, too. Problem is all the "savers" have it . . .Troynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-61861300377563851542013-08-10T13:27:20.846-07:002013-08-10T13:27:20.846-07:00http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=llY
...<a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=llY" rel="nofollow">http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=llY</a><br /><br />same as above, as a ratio of maker/takerTroynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-61484503060669570812013-08-10T13:21:56.964-07:002013-08-10T13:21:56.964-07:00There's also wonky timing issues with the baby...There's also wonky timing issues with the baby boom and its echo, however.<br /><br />The baby boom peaked in 1957 at 4M, and its centroid is at 1955. We hit a demographic minimum in the mid 1970s, before Gen Y started arriving in 1980.<br /><br />So the population of 30 yos is going to increase from here.<br /><br />For some reason, statisticians consider people 80+ as working age, the closest I can get with FRED numbers is the 54 cutoff, which itself is interesting:<br /><br /><a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=llW" rel="nofollow">http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=llW</a><br /><br />Red is total population less the non institutional population age 25-54.<br /><br />25-54 is the peak net productivity age (output less health costs) so it's a pretty good population for the 'makers'.<br /><br />The 'takers' -- kids, old people, inmates, and military, are all in that red series I think.<br /><br />The baby boom is just starting to leave the blue line and enter the red line, too -- they're age 49 to 67 right now.Troynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-74606535692832397722013-08-10T08:28:04.080-07:002013-08-10T08:28:04.080-07:00One more thought from the link on the baby bust.
...One more thought from the link on the baby bust.<br /><br /><i>Researchers say that during times of recession, the birthrate goes down, but as the economy picks up, women begin to have babies.</i><br /><br />We haven't been in a recession for 4+ years! We're in the supposed expansion right now. You know, when the economy supposedly picks up.<br /><br />I suppose researchers also say that during times of recession, the driving rate goes down, but as the economy picks up, people start to drive more.<br /><br />Still waiting! Guess this isn't your garden variety expansion. It's still got recession written all over it. Big shocker.<br /><br />Forehead. Desk. Whack. Whack. Whack.Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-78162017093375149752013-08-10T08:12:01.716-07:002013-08-10T08:12:01.716-07:00Technically speaking, the formula came out to 0.93...Technically speaking, the formula came out to 0.93. It's late. I did the math in my head without even really thinking to get to -7%. I should have shown my work better though.Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8515247115132134144.post-1271673098421324702013-08-10T08:10:01.956-07:002013-08-10T08:10:01.956-07:00Here's a bit of back of envelope math.
Accord...Here's a bit of back of envelope math.<br /><br /><i>According to a recent analysis by the Pew Institute, since 2007 when there were a record 4,316,233 births, the number of births has been steadily declining, with 4,007,000 births in 2012 - the lowest number since 1998.</i><br /><br />4,007,000/4,316,233 = -7%<br /><br />That's 7% fewer Americans being born than many would have expected back in 2007.<br /><br />On the one hand, they can't help pay for my social security in 20 years or so if they don't exist.<br /><br />On the other hand, I'm not exactly counting on great job creation over the next 20 years or so. I won't have to help pay their unemployment if they don't exist.<br /><br />Brace for the sarcasm. Here it comes.<br /><br />Win, win!Stagflationary Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04568993350246477976noreply@blogger.com