If It Ain't Broken, Don't Fix It: Religious Freedom Act Take II

Religious Freedom Act Take II

I received a number of emails in response to Indiana Legalizes Discrimination on Grounds of "Religious Freedom".

The bill, signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence openly encourages discrimination based on sexual preference although Pence incredulously denies that claim. Pence now recognizes the need to "clarify" the legislation.

One of the better email responses came from reader Mark who wrote ...

The Constitution plainly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is sacrosanct. The only restrictions placed on religious freedom are those religious practices that harm others.

And I would say “Yes” if you wanted to post a “No Catholics” or “No Jews” sign on the front door of your business. I would also warn, in the same breath, that you may find your business surrounded by protestors and boycotted the very next day. That is the market forces at work. Even though I am neither a Catholic nor a Jew, I would not do business with someone that had that sign on their front door. That is my choice, too.

Mark

If It Ain't Broken, Don't Fix It

I replied ...

"Why was there a need then to pass any bill? Pence now says the bill needs to be 'clarified'. If the bill needs 'clarification' then something in it is wrong. At best, the law was political stupidity. At worst, the legislation provides explicit and open encouragement of discrimination."

By the way, the problem with allowing a sign "Blacks Not Welcome" or "Jews Not Welcome" would be the massive protests that would undoubtedly disrupt neighboring establishments, all of which whose business would suffer while the sign was up.

In fact, it is likely the entire neighborhood of an establishment posting such as sign would be torched, with considerable and perhaps permanent damage to the property owner.

For similar reasons, freedom of speech does not allow someone to yell "fire" in a movie theater.

Otherwise, Mark is totally on target with the constitutional idea.

Acting Man Chimes In

I bounced my response off Pater Tenebrarum, a confirmed Libertarian, to see what he thought. Pater replied ...

In principle, the libertarian stance would be that I can decide on my private property, and if my body, time, equipment, etc. are concerned, who I want to let on my premises, and whom I wish to serve in some commercial capacity, or talk to, or otherwise interact with.

So if the law means something like "if you (for whatever reason) dislike gays or any other group of people, you cannot be forced by law to e.g. act as a photographer at their wedding", then it would be consistent with libertarian views - since obviously government coercion would otherwise be involved (saying "no" to someone is not tantamount to coercion, but not being allowed to say so is).

I personally think religious zealots of this sort are detestable, but as you can see, most businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminating conduct and social pressure (boycotts etc.) is already exerted as well (which again is perfectly legitimate).

Thus, there should be no need for the state to intervene at all. Anyway, it seems rather selective if it is introduced solely on "religious grounds". Any other reason than religious conviction should be just as admissible. For instance, it should suffice if one is merely a racist or homophobic jerk. I really don't get why it requires a law.

Real Purpose of the Bill

Pater is precisely correct. There is no need for the state to act.

It follows that the only conceivable purpose of the law is to make it clear that discrimination against gays on "religious" grounds is perfectly acceptable.

Actually there was one other purpose: Pence kowtowed to the extreme right wing for political purposes. Fortunately it blew up in Pence's face.

Text of the Bill

Inquiring minds may wish to dive into the complete Text of Indiana's ‘Religious Freedom’ Law.

Differences Between Indiana and Federal Legislation

Many people emailed the bill is exactly the same as the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993 under Clinton.

They are wrong as explained in What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

The Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA and most state RFRAs do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.”

The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

If It Ain't Broken, Don't Fix It Part II

Curiously, one has to wonder if the absurd ruling in New Mexico happened precisely because New Mexico had an RFRA law in the first place.

So how is Indiana supposed to fix the law?

Then again, If Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Isn't Discriminatory, Why Change It?

Mike Pence Responds

In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed called Ensuring Religious Freedom in Indiana, Governor Pence says "Our new law has been grossly misconstrued as a ‘license to discriminate.’ That isn’t true, and here’s why."

Last week I signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known as RFRA, which ensures that Indiana law will respect religious freedom and apply the highest level of scrutiny to any state or local governmental action that infringes on people’s religious liberty. Unfortunately, the law has stirred a controversy and in recent days has been grossly misconstrued as a “license to discriminate.”

I want to make clear to Hoosiers and every American that despite what critics and many in the national media have asserted, the law is not a “license to discriminate,” either in Indiana or elsewhere. 

Some express concern that Indiana’s RFRA law would lead to discrimination, but RFRA only provides a mechanism to address claims, not a license for private parties to deny services. Even a claim involving private individuals under RFRA must show that one’s religious beliefs were “substantially burdened” and not in service to a broader government interest—which preventing discrimination certainly is. The government has the explicit power under the law to step in and defend such interests.

Pence's Pack of Lies

Pence's defense reads like a pack of lies.

Here is the amusing part "Even a claim involving private individuals under RFRA must show that one’s religious beliefs were 'substantially burdened' and not in service to a broader government interest—which preventing discrimination certainly is. The government has the explicit power under the law to step in and defend such interests," states Pence.

Good Grief!

According to Pence, the government has an "explicit power" to defend gays against private individuals, requiring the individuals to prove they were "substantially burdened, and not in service to a broader government interest," in service denials.

Wow.

If that is really the intent of the law (of course it isn't), no Libertarian in his right mind could ever support such nonsense.

What the Legislation is Really About

Several readers emailed that I should read the comments to my first post on this subject.

I did, and I also read every email response as well. I have to say, the volume against me was probably 8-1. One reader got the message.

Reader Daniel replied ....

Hi Mish,

First I'd like to commend you for stating your fair and reasonable opinions about this matter!

Unfortunately it is not a big surprise that wherever there is a large concentration of conservative republicans you still get a whole lot of of bigots as clearly evident by the comments to your article.  Hopefully the future of the republican party will be different than what these guys represent.

I want to make a few points that I believe you share as well. If you do not, I would still like to read your response.

The problem with Mike Pence is not that he signed a bad law.  The problem is that he signed a law that will be used selectively against a specific group of people while other people will enjoy protections already enforced by the Federal government.

The religionists behind this law do not believe in freedom. They use libertarianism selectively when it's convenient to achieve their own version of theocracy which is the polar opposite of freedom.

By signing this law and having the Republican party associated with it, many fair minded individuals who would normally support republican and libertarian policies will no doubt decide to disassociate themselves from such a party.

Anyway, thank you for providing great articles which I read almost daily. 

Daniel

Bingo!

Reader Daniel, like Pater Tenebrarum gets it. There was no reason for this law other than what I stated above.

1. To make it clear that discrimination against gays on "religious" grounds is perfectly acceptable.
2. To kowtow to the extreme right wing for political purposes

Reader Mark slightly missed the mark but nicely raised an important constitutional question. Many emails were hateful.

Right to Be an Ass

I fully support the right of everyone to be a complete ass. Take for example this Email from Damon who wrote ...

"I have read your blog for years but no longer will. I also will not recommend it to others. I support Indiana over the sodomites that are destroying this country. I support Indiana over people like you."

To that I responded "good riddance".

I have no tolerance for bigots, hate-mongers, fake patriots who wrap themselves in the flag, and anyone who pretends their religion is better than all the rest, even if that stance hurts my blog traffic.

That is a stand I make by choice. I do not say things for "political expediency" or to win "popularity points" for this blog.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Downside Data Surprises in Canada; Bad Weather Up North? How About Recession?

The string of bad data reports not only applies to the US, economists up North appear to be no better at predicting the weather than US economists.

Variant Perception reports Downside Data Surprises Continue in Canada.

For the past 6 months, we have been alerting clients to the persistent decline in our Canada leading indicator. This is now showing up in numerous Canadian coincident data releases, with retail sales being the latest to miss expectations last Friday.  The economic surprise index is now declining sharply and there is little sign of immediate improvement ahead.



PMIs continue to fall whilst building permits and housing starts (some of the best leading indicators to watch), remain negative yoy (top chart). However one of our main themes this year has been that of cognitive dissonance, whereby growth disappoints, but higher excess liquidity supports asset prices.

Canada December Retail Sales

On February 20, the Huffington Post reported Canadian Retail Sales Post Biggest Drop Since April, 2010.

Retail sales in Canada in December posted their largest one-month drop since April 2010, as the cost to fill your gas tank plunged and holiday shoppers spent less.

Statistics Canada said Friday retail sales fell 2.0 per cent compared with November to $42.1 billion in December. That compared with a drop of 0.4 per cent that economists had expected, according to Thomson Reuters.

The drop in sales came as sales at gasoline stations fell 7.4 per cent in December due to lower gas prices, while sales at motor vehicle and parts dealers fell one per cent. Excluding motor vehicle and parts dealers, sales were down 2.3 per cent.

Despite the larger than-expected drop in sales, Bank of Montreal senior economist Benjamin Reitzes cautioned not to jump to conclusions based on the retail sales report. Reitzes noted the rise in popularity of Black Friday sales in Canada has pulled some holiday shopping into November.

Sales were down in nine of 11 subsectors, representing 71 per cent of retail trade.

Canada January Retail Sales

On March 20, the Statistics Canada Retail Trade, January 2015 report showed sales down for a second month.

Retail sales decreased for the second consecutive month in January, declining 1.7% to $41.4 billion. Sales were lower in 7 of 11 subsectors, representing 83% of retail trade.

Lower sales at gasoline stations represented the majority of the decline. Excluding sales at gasoline stations, retail sales were down 0.8%.

Retail Sales in Volume Terms Decreased 1.2%.



Gasoline Station Sales Down Seven Months in a Row

Sales at gasoline stations fell 8.8% in January, reflecting lower prices at the pump. This was the seventh straight monthly decrease and the largest monthly decline since November 2008.

Receipts at motor vehicle and parts dealers (-1.4%) decreased for the fourth consecutive month. The overall subsector decline was a result of weaker sales at new car dealers (-1.8%). Used car dealers (-0.9%) and other motor vehicle dealers (-0.5%) also registered declines. Sales at automotive parts, accessories and tire stores (+2.2%) advanced for the fourth time in five months.

Sales Down in Nine Provinces

Retail sales were down in nine provinces in January. Lower sales in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta accounted for most of the decrease.

Quebec (-2.4%) reported the largest decrease in dollar terms, with widespread declines across most store types.

The decline in Ontario (-1.4%) was mainly attributable to lower sales at gasoline stations.

Retail sales in Alberta (-2.8%) declined for the fourth consecutive month in January, reaching their lowest level since December 2013. The decline was largely a result of lower sales at gasoline stations and new car dealers.

Receipts in Nova Scotia fell to their lowest level since March 2013, decreasing for the sixth consecutive month.

Prince Edward Island (+0.5%) was the only province to register an increase in January.

Seasonally Adjusted Numbers



Economist's Theories on Gasoline

Hey wait a second. Didn't economists tell us consumers would take savings on gasoline and spend it elsewhere?

Yes they did. So there is only one possible explanation: Just as in the US, Canadian weather was much worse than economists initially thought.

GDP Decline in January

Please consider Canada's GDP Probably Down In January, CIBC Says After Disappointing Retail Data.

Canada’s economy likely shrank in January, CIBC said Friday following an unexpectedly negative reading on retail sales from Statistics Canada.

Retail sales fell 1.7 per cent in January, StatsCan reported, the second consecutive monthly decline. Analysts had been expecting a slowdown due to lower gas prices, but they weren’t expecting the broad-based declines that were actually seen: Seven of 11 retail sectors shrank in January, including autos, furniture and food and beverages.

Canada’s GDP for January “now looks set for a modest drop,” CIBC economist Andrew Grantham wrote in a client note.

Economists had been expecting that lower gas prices would mean Canadians would spend more on other things, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

"The latest figures suggest that households are becoming more cautious in their spending habits," Grantham wrote, adding he doesn't think Canada will meet the modest 1.5-per-cent growth rate that the Bank of Canada is predicting for the first quarter of the year.

Consumers are showing signs of exhaustion, with household debt levels reaching yet another record high in the last months of 2014, up to 163.3 per cent of disposable income.

Canada in Recession

Flashback, January 31, 2015: Canada in Recession, US Will Follow in 2015

On January 21 when the Canadian Central Bank unexpected slashed interest rates, I wrote Canadian Recession Coming Up.

Following the rate cut, the yield curve in Canada inverted out to three years. Inversion means near-term interest rates are higher than long-term rates.

I saw no other person mention the inversion at the time. An inverted yield curve generally portends recession.

Nine days later, the Canadian yield curve is still inverted. Let's compare what I posted about the curve on January 21 vs. January 30.

Canadian Yield Curve January 21

• 30-year: 2.044% (Today's Low 1.998%)
• 10-Year: 1.426% (Today's Low 1.366%)
• 05-Year: 0.791% (Down 19 basis points, an 18% decline)
• 03-Year: 0.590% (Down 27 basis points, a 31% decline)
• 02-Year: 0.560% (Down 29 basis points, a 34% decline)
• 01-Year: 0.580% (Down 34 basis points, a 37% decline)
• 01-Month: 0.640% (Down 22 basis points, a 26% decline)

Canadian Yield Curve January 30

• 30-year: 1.834% (Down 21.0 basis points)
• 10-Year: 1.250% (Down 17.6 basis points)
• 05-Year: 0.603% (Down 18.8 basis points)
• 03-Year: 0.386% (Down 20.4 basis points)
• 02-Year: 0.392% (Down 16.8 basis points)
• 01-Year: 0.490% (Down 9.0 basis points)
• 01-Month: 0.580% (Down 6.0 basis points)

Not only did yields plunge across the board since then, the yield curve is still inverted all the way out to three years.

Recession Has Arrived

There is no point in waiting for further data. The Canadian recession has already arrived.

Canadian Yield Curve March 31

• 30-year: 1.99%
• 10-Year: 1.37%
• 05-Year: 0.78%
• 03-Year: 0.51%
• 02-Year: 0.51%
• 01-Year: 0.58%
• 03-Month: 0.56%
• 01-Month: 0.53%

The Canadian yield curve is still inverted albeit very slightly. Instead of attempting to predict the weather, something that is very difficult for economists to do (even in arrears!), perhaps they should watch the yield curve.

Isn't that what they should be doing?

Weather Predicting US Style

For more on weather predicting in the US, please see Economists Fail to Predict Weather Once Again: Chicago PMI Disappoints.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Economists Fail to Predict Weather Once Again: Chicago PMI Disappoints

Chicago PMI Disappoints

Economists expected a rebound in the Chicago PMI index this month following its collapse last month. Alas, once again the weather was much worse in Chicago than economists thought.

The Bloomberg Consensus was for a rebound from last month's dismal print of 45.8 back into positive territory of 50.2

"Companies sampled in the Chicago PMI report continue to report a lull in activity, at a sub-50 March index of 46.3 following 45.8 in February. On a quarterly basis, the index averaged only 50.5 in the first quarter, down steeply from 61.3 in the fourth quarter for the weakest reading since the third quarter of 2009. Respondents are citing bad weather and fallout from the West Coast port slowdown as temporary negatives, and they see orders picking up during the second quarter."



Failure to Predict Weather

That the Chicago PMI index remained in contraction for the second month at 46.3 while economists expected a rebound into positive territory proves once again how difficult it is for economists to predict the weather in Chicago for February, even though it's now March.

Don't worry, economists tell us this unfortunate string of bad weather is "temporary" and will improve in the second quarter.

On the dark side, I fail to see how economists can predict the weather in advance when they cannot do so in arrears.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Historical Perspective on CPI Deflations: How Damaging are They?

Yet another central bank has announced a warning about the perils of deflation. Please consider China Central Bank Calls for Vigilance on Deflation.

China's central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan warned on Sunday that the country needs to be vigilant for signs of deflation and said policymakers were closely watching slowing global economic growth and declining commodity prices.

Zhou's comments are likely to add to concerns that China is in danger of slipping into deflation and underline increasing nervousness among policymakers as the economy continues to lose momentum despite a raft of stimulus measures.

"Inflation in China is also declining. We need to have vigilance if this can go further to reach some sort of deflation or not," Zhou said at a high-level forum in Boao, on the southern Chinese island of Hainan.

Zhou added that the speed with which inflation was slowing was a "little too quick", though this was part of China's ongoing market readjustment and reforms.

Historical Perspective On CPI Deflations

In its March report, the BIS took a look at the Costs of Deflations: A Historical Perspective. Here are the key findings.

Concerns about deflation – falling prices of goods and services – are rooted in the view that it is very costly. We test the historical link bet ween output growth and deflation in a sample covering 140 years for up to 38 economies. The evidence suggests that this link is weak and derives largely from the Great Depression. But we find a stronger link between output growth and asset price deflations, particularly during postwar property price deflations. We fail to uncover evidence that high debt has so far raised the cost of goods and services price deflations, in so-called debt deflations. The most damaging interaction appears to be between property price deflations and private debt. 

Deflation may actually boost output. Lower prices increase real incomes and wealth. And
they may also make export goods more competitive.

Once we control for persistent asset price deflations and country-specific average changes in growth rates over the sample periods, persistent goods and services (CPI ) deflations do not appear to be linked in a statistically significant way with slower growth even in the interwar period. They are uniformly statistically insignificant except for the first post-peak year during the postwar era – where, however, deflation appears to usher in stronger output growth. By contrast, the link of both property and equity price deflations with output growth is always the expected one, and is consistently statistically significant.

Conclusions

The evidence from our long historical data set sheds new light on the costs of deflations. It raises questions about the prevailing view that goods and services price deflations, even if persistent, are always pernicious. It suggests that asset price deflations, and particularly house price deflations in the postwar era, have been more damaging. And it cautions against presuming that the interaction between debt and goods and services price deflation , as opposed to debt’s interaction with property price deflations, has played a significant role in past episodes of economic weakness.

The exception to the general rule was the Great Depression but, that was also an asset bubble deflation coupled with consumer price deflation.

Meanwhile central banks on every continent are worried about something they should welcome.

Economic Challenge to Keynesians

Of all the widely believed but patently false economic beliefs is the absurd notion that falling consumer prices are bad for the economy and something must be done about them.

I have commented on this many times and have been vindicated not only by sound economic theory but also by actual historical examples.

My January 20, post Deflation Bonanza! (And the Fool's Mission to Stop It) has a good synopsis.

And my Challenge to Keynesians "Prove Rising Prices Provide an Overall Economic Benefit" has gone unanswered.

There is no answer because history and logic both show that concerns over consumer price deflation are seriously misplaced.

Worse yet, in their attempts to fight routine consumer price deflation, central bankers create very destructive asset bubbles that eventually collapse, setting off what they should fear - asset bubble deflations following a buildup of bank credit on inflated assets.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Indiana Legalizes Discrimination on Grounds of "Religious Freedom"

Can you refuse service to gays and lesbians? You can in Indiana thanks to the "Religious Freedom" Bill.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence has signed a bill that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian patrons on the grounds of “religious freedom”, even as some of the state’s largest business interests oppose the measure.

Mr Pence, a potential 2016 presidential contender, said he signed the bill because “many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action”.

Proving that he cannot think, Pence quipped "If I thought it legalised discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it."

And what about religious freedom for atheists, Muslims, ISIS? Can they do whatever they want too, or is this just religious freedom for Christians and Jews?



Where does one draw the line? Can I post a sign Catholics not welcome? Jews go home?

Greg Ballard, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, has said that the Indiana law sends the “wrong signal”. “Indianapolis strives to be a welcoming place that attracts businesses, conventions, visitors and residents,” he said in a statement Wednesday.

In recent days, three major conventions have threatened to pull out of the state because of the bill. The organisers of Gen Con, the city’s largest convention, said the law “will have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy, and will factor into our decision-making on hosting the convention in the state of Indiana in future years”.

History Lesson for Pence

The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence states as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

"Many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," said Pence. Actually, people of all races, creeds, and religions are under attack by this ludicrous bill.

Backlash

Backlash is mounting. The Guardian reports Indiana Republicans to amend 'religious freedom' law in face of backlash.

The next day, the social media campaign #BoycottIndiana took over Twitter, and on Saturday hundreds gathered at the statehouse in Indianapolis to rally against the bill.

By Monday night, protesters were gathering again, this time in front of the Indianapolis City-County building. Protesters recited the pledge of allegiance, shouting the “for all” at the end of the oath.

Local businesses across the state capital have posted signs bearing the message that Indiana citizens, known as Hoosiers, will “not serve hate”.

The band Wilco canceled a performance in Indiana in protest to the law, and major Indiana-based businesses such as Angie’s List have put expansion plans on hold and other companies, like Salesforce.com, have stopped sending employees there for business.

“This is not just a gay issue, this is a Hoosier issue,” said city councilman Zach Adamson, the first openly gay elected councilman in Indianapolis. “We are, as a people, incensed about it.”

On Sunday, Pence defended the bill in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s The Week.

The appearance inflamed opponents as Pence danced around questions about the law’s discriminatory implications and refused to directly answer questions about whether it gives businesses the right to deny service to LGBT people – six times.

“This is not about discrimination, this is about empowering people to confront government overreach,” he said. Asked again, he said: “Look, the issue here is still: is tolerance a two-way street, or not? … We’re not going to change the law.”

Message of Inclusion?!

State legislators say law is not anti-gay and blame the reaction on a ‘mischaracterisation’. ‘What we had hoped for was a message of inclusion’.

This has nothing to do with "inclusion". This has everything to do with a hopeless candidate foolishly appealing to the ultraright extremists and it backfired big time.

To Pence, you are equal unless your religion says otherwise. He is exactly the kind of fake-conservative jackass the Republican party needs to get rid of.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Ben Bernanke, Confused as Ever, Starts His Own Blog to Prove It

Ben Bernanke just started his own blog at the Brookings Institute. His first post, from today, Inaugurating a New Blog is the announcement.

Let's dive into Bernanke's second post of the day: Why are Interest Rates So Low?

Bernanke: Low interest rates are not a short-term aberration, but part of a long-term trend. As the figure below shows, ten-year government bond yields in the United States were relatively low in the 1960s, rose to a peak above 15 percent in 1981, and have been declining ever since. That pattern is partly explained by the rise and fall of inflation, also shown in the figure.

Mish: Inflation is only low if one ignores asset bubbles. The CPI does not factor in bubbles induced by monetary policy. The Bernanake and Greenspan Fed ignored the biggest bubble ever in housing for which the Fed has never apologized nor admitted any wrong doing. The effects of inflation are visible everywhere, except of course where the Fed looks.

Bernanke: If you asked the person in the street, “Why are interest rates so low?”, he or she would likely answer that the Fed is keeping them low. That’s true only in a very narrow sense. But what matters most for the economy is the real, or inflation-adjusted, interest rate (the market, or nominal, interest rate minus the inflation rate). The real interest rate is most relevant for capital investment decisions, for example. The Fed’s ability to affect real rates of return, especially longer-term real rates, is transitory and limited. Except in the short run, real interest rates are determined by a wide range of economic factors, including prospects for economic growth—not by the Fed.

Mish: It is difficult to say precisely where interest rates would be in the absence of the Fed, but the answer is likely, surprisingly low. The reason is the Fed (central banks in general) coupled with government deficit spending and fractional reserve lending are the very source of inflation. Amusingly, the Fed bills itself as an "inflation fighting force" but it is a key determinant of inflation. Worse yet, and since the Fed is totally clueless about asset bubbles, it fails to see inflation in front of its nose.

Bernanke: To understand why [the Fed’s ability to affect real rates is transitory and limited], it helps to introduce the concept of the equilibrium real interest rate (sometimes called the Wicksellian interest rate, after the late-nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Swedish economist Knut Wicksell). The equilibrium interest rate is the real interest rate consistent with full employment of labor and capital resources, perhaps after some period of adjustment. Many factors affect the equilibrium rate, which can and does change over time. If the Fed wants to see full employment of capital and labor resources (which, of course, it does), then its task amounts to using its influence over market interest rates to push those rates toward levels consistent with the equilibrium rate, or—more realistically—its best estimate of the equilibrium rate, which is not directly observable.

Mish: With that, the Fed admitted it is clueless about the alleged "equilibrium rate". Indeed it is not observable, nor is the concept of full employment known or observable. Government interference in the free markets, especially minimum wage laws grossly distort the level of full employment. Factor in changing consumer preferences and demographics, and it's a fool's mission to believe the Fed (any central bank), can come up with a realistic estimate to something Bernanke correctly admits is not directly observable.

Bernanke: When I was chairman, more than one legislator accused me and my colleagues on the Fed’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee of “throwing seniors under the bus” (to use the words of one senator) by keeping interest rates low. The legislators were concerned about retirees living off their savings and able to obtain only very low rates of return on those savings. I was concerned about those seniors as well. But if the goal was for retirees to enjoy sustainably higher real returns, then the Fed’s raising interest rates prematurely would have been exactly the wrong thing to do.

Mish: It's not the interest rate policy directly that threw seniors under the bus. Rather, it's the Fed's inflation policy while ignoring the consequences of asset bubbles that threw everyone but those with first access to money under the bus. The Fed ignored an enormous housing bubble (Bernanke did not see it at all), then when housing crashed, the Fed lowered rates to save the banks. The overall action was as "necessary" as it was to  have a Fed sponsored housing bubble in the first place.

Bernanke: A similarly confused criticism often heard is that the Fed is somehow distorting financial markets and investment decisions by keeping interest rates “artificially low.” Contrary to what sometimes seems to be alleged, the Fed cannot somehow withdraw and leave interest rates to be determined by “the markets.” The Fed’s actions determine the money supply and thus short-term interest rates; it has no choice but to set the short-term interest rate somewhere.

Mish: Bernanke's comment is preposterous. There was not always a Fed. And the market once set interest rates on its own accord. Moreover, there does not need to be a Fed any more than we need government central planners to determine steel production or the price of orange juice. The Fed certainly does have a choice.

Bernanke: So where should that be? The best strategy for the Fed I can think of is to set rates at a level consistent with the healthy operation of the economy over the medium term, that is, at the (today, low) equilibrium rate. There is absolutely nothing artificial about that!

Mish: It's as artificial as the Fed determining how much steel the mills should produce! In other words it's totally artificial. Besides, Bernanke even admitted the Fed does not know what the equilibrium rate is, and it ignores asset bubble when attempting to land on the unknowable and unobservable.

Is it any wonder the Fed has blown asset bubble after asset bubble with increasing amplitude over time?

OER vs Home Prices

I have made several posts on the consequences of ignoring asset prices while attempting to measure "inflation. Here are two charts from my September 2014 post Housing Prices, "Real" Interest Rates, and the "Real" CPI.

In the following charts and commentary, I substitute actual home prices as measured by the Home Price Index (HPI), for Owners' Equivalent Rent (OER), in the CPI.

Comparative Growth in HPI vs. OER



From 1994 until 1999 there was little difference in the rate of change of rent vs. housing prices. That changed in 2000 with the dot.com crash and accelerated when Greenspan started cutting rates.

The bubble is clearly visible but neither the Greenspan nor the Bernanke Fed spotted it. The Fed was more concerned with rents as a measure of inflation rather than speculative housing prices.

Two Inflation Indexes Year-over-Year



The above chart shows the effect when housing prices replace OER in the CPI. In mid-2004, the CPI was 3.27%, the HPI-CPI was 5.93% and the Fed Funds Rate was a mere 1%. By my preferred measure of price inflation, real interest rates were -4.93%. Speculation in the housing bubble was rampant.

In mid-2008 when everyone was concerned about "inflation" because oil prices had soared over $140, I suggested record low interest rates across the entire yield curve. At that time the CPI was close to 6% but the HPI-CPI was close to 0% (and plunging fast).

I would specifically like to see Ben Bernanke comment on those charts and how and why he thinks asset bubbles can be excluded from measures of inflation.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Wishful Thinking: "Strong Growth" to Propel Housing

CoreLogic chief economist Dr. Frank Nothaft says Strong Economic Growth To Propel US Housing Market in 2015.

The U.S. economy is poised to grow by close to 3 percent in 2015, generating a 3- to 3.5-million-person gain in employment. This job growth, coupled with very low mortgage interest rates and some easing in credit access, is expected to propel both owner-occupant and rental housing activity this year. This heightened level of housing demand should translate to the best home sales market in eight years, a projected rise of about 5-6 percent in the national CoreLogic Home Price Index (HPI) and mortgage originations that will likely rise in 2015 compared to last year.

Economic growth near 3 percent

U.S. economic growth will be buoyed by three forces in 2015. One is the halving of energy prices since last summer, with prices unlikely to jump back up this year. This price drop has the similar beneficial effect on aggregate economic performance that a tax cut would have: Both consumers and business owners have more cash left each month to spend on other goods or invest in new equipment and financial assets. Lower energy prices could boost growth by as much as 0.5 percent, even though regions of the U.S. with jobs tied to energy production will face a slowdown.

A second force at work is the rise in consumer and business manager confidence in the economic recovery. This rise has been pronounced over the past year, coinciding with the pickup in economic growth (better than 4 percent annualized growth over the last three quarters of 2014) and the drop in energy costs. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index and the National Federation of Independent Business’ Small Business Optimism Index have both risen to the highest levels since before the Great Recession. Consumers who feel more financially secure are more likely to form new households and more likely to transition from rental to ownership; and businesses that are more optimistic that demand will be there for their products are more likely to hire staff.

The third factor at work is a significant improvement in the budget outlook for state and local governments. With tax receipts stronger than expected, state and local governments will likely spend more, providing further stimulus to aggregate demand. With these three forces working in concert, 2015 economic growth could hit 3 percent, making this year only the second calendar year over the past decade with growth of 3 percent or better.

Head in the Sand

Nothaft has his head in the sand. He ignores a massive string of bad economic reports, while focusing on the lagging influence of jobs.

Having followed confidence numbers for years, the numbers are volatile and pretty much useless.



Where are confidence numbers going from here?

I actually suggest down because I expect a recession based on firmer data.

Manufacturing Business Confidence



There are all kinds of confidence indicators but how people feel at the moment is fleeting, and how confident they feel in six months is typically useless.

Small Business Optimism



Is NFIB confidence poised to soar, plunge, or go nowhere?

The latest month was a dip. Although the index is back at pre-recession levels, is the level in 2007 much of anything to brag about?

Global Economy

China is slowing along with the global economy. The dollar has hurt US corporate profits, and productivity is declining.

Local Government Spending to the Rescue?

Locally, all one has to do to see the silliness of the idea that government spending will come to the rescue is look at dire state of places like Illinois and countless cities that still have not recovered from the recession (and won't).

Is Chicago about ready to spend or does it want to raise taxes to make ends meet?

For the answer, please see Chicago's Fiscal Freefall: Moody's Cuts Chicago Credit Rating to Two Steps Above Junk; Snake Oil and Swaps; It's All Junk Now.

Also see Proposed Illinois Tax Hikes: Financial Transactions, Millionaires, Guns, Sweetened Beverages, Satellite Providers, Fireworks, Progressive Income.

Wishful Thinking

There is absolutely no measure of strong growth currently other than the lagging effect of jobs. (See Jobs and Employment: How Much Recession Warning Can One Expect?)

In short, Nothaft parrots the wisdom of the vast majority of economists who have never once in history predicted a recession.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

UBS on the Driver for Gold: What is Gold About to Tell Us?

An interesting article came my way from UBS analyst Julien Garran on the driver for gold. I do not have a link to share so excerpts will have to do.

Garran's article is one of the better ones I have seen. Unlike others, Garran does not cite jewelry, mining capacity, central bank purchases or sales or other similar (and wrong) notions that unfortunately are widespread among most analysts.

Commodities & Mining Q&A (by Julien Garran)

Q1. What drives gold?
A1. In the past, we’ve argued that international US$ liquidity is fundamental to calling first gold and then the industrial miners. In this note, we go a step deeper, arguing that gold is a call on excess returns in the US economy, the policy response and finally the impact on that policy on international US$ liquidity.

Q2. What is gold about to tell us?
A2. The key issues facing gold; excess returns in the US are under pressure as the strong US$ and falling energy squeezes cashflow. As wages pressures rise, weak productivity means that cashflows could be squeezed further. Both undermine credit conditions and threaten the longevity of the cycle. We believe the prospect of deteriorating liquidity magnifies the threat. That in turn is limiting the Fed’s ability to tighten policy and may induce it to ease in the future. We think the Fed has started to recognise that pressure with its dovish backtracking at the March meeting last week.

A1&2. In commodity strategy, we believe that a forthcoming rally in gold may warn us that declining returns could ultimately force the Fed into a new round of international reflation. We think the first step was likely the Fed’s dovish backtracking at the March meeting.

In the past, we’ve argued that gold behaves as a probability indicator of whether international US$ liquidity will be improving or deteriorating in six months’ time. Industrial commodities are a call on whether international US$ liquidity is rising now.

So to call gold, and then the industrial miners, we have analysed the key drivers of those flows;

• The Fed
• The US current account deficit
• Bank’s asset buying/accumulation

In this note we go a step deeper – arguing that gold is a call on excess returns in the US economy, the policy response and then finally the impact of that response on international US$ liquidity. We contend that the state of economy wide excess returns ultimately determine the longevity of the cycle, and so it is the progress of excess returns, above the intermediate targets on inflation & unemployment, that ultimately drive monetary policy.

Right now, excess returns are under pressure from four main areas; The rest of the world is exporting deflation to the US.

• The combination of rising wage pressure and low productivity/secular stagnation.
• A potential deterioration in liquidity.
• Deteriorating credit conditions and a rising Wicksell spread.
• Recent papers by Shin and McAuley hint at the reason.

The impact is visible in the deterioration in cashflow & EPS momentum, as well as in low trend US growth.

S&P Cashflow Momentum



S&P EPS Momentum



Rest of World exporting deflation to the US

As we’ve highlighted in our last note, international US$ liquidity has collapsed.



Secular stagnation, weak productivity & wage pressure

The second key threat to US returns comes from low productivity & the dearth of investment, itself induced by the high level of debt and the subsequent low rate of growth (See Buttiglioni – Deleveraging, What deleveraging? 2014).

The UBS house view, consensus and the Fed are all arguing that wages are due to accelerate. The Fed is watching several signs suggesting that labour markets are tightening and that wages are on the cusp of picking-up. Unemployment has fallen, the workweek has risen. Quits, a sign that the jobs market is tight enough to get people quitting work for better opportunities, are trending up.

And the Fed is watching professional wages trend-up. Its mental model is that median wages are attached by elastic to professional wages. When professional wages rise enough, median wages follow. There are clear anecdotal signs this is happening. Walmart and McDonalds have both announced a buck increase in basic wages in recent weeks. The impact is that labour costs are rising.

In the 90s rising wages promoted an extended cycle. Wages started accelerating in 1994. They accelerated from 1995-8. But cashflow held up. That was because of productivity. Robert Gordon, the godfather of the secular stagnation debate (see ‘Secular Stagnation, 2014 – available free on the Vox website), highlights that total factor productivity rose at a 2.5% rate over the mid-90s. That was partly due to the burgeoning adoption and networking of PCs. And partly it was their increased use managing just in time inventories in a globalising, and lower cost, supply chain.

Of course, conditions are very different today. In ‘Disinflation or deflation?’ January 2015, we argued that deteriorating government productivity, something not measured in the GDP stats, was bringing down productivity for the economy as a whole. The combination of negative net investment and weaker productivity from tech applications means that corporates will struggle to offset rising wages.

US Productivity



So, in contrast to the extended 90s boom, weak productivity means that, as labour costs rise, cashflow gets squeezed, and credit fundamentals deteriorate further.

Liquidity & Credit Conditions

The most important support for US liquidity is corporate debt issuance for buybacks & M&A. So corporate debt issuance is also a key driver of EPS momentum. From 2010-14, corporates were able to issue large quantities of low quality debt.

In part, this was because there was a huge bid from mutual funds. Persistent Fed, foreign central bank and Investment bank treasury buying over the past five years induced mutual funds to reach for yield. But now that those sources of treasury buying have evaporated, mutual funds have much less incentive to reach for yield – so high yield appetite has deteriorated. Just as the fundamentals of debt, cashflows, are under pressure from the deflationary forces highlighted above.

Transmission Mechanism

The Wicksell spread The combination of low growth, weak productivity and deteriorating credit conditions put the cycle under increasing pressure. The Wicksell spread is the difference between corporate bond yields and nominal growth. Knutt Wicksell argued that a negative spread (with corporate yields below nominal growth) was like a subsidy to investment. A negative spread was increasingly a tax.



Late Cycle Signals

We have combined both cashflow and separately EPS momentum (giving them a negative sign so deteriorating momentum triggers a rise in the chart) and high yield spreads in our two ‘late cycle’ indicators below. The signals have spiked – suggesting that we are late in the cycle.



On each previous occasion that we have seen a spike of this magnitude in the indicators, we saw a significant market correction.

Our UBS proprietary Fed action model works on the basis that, over the past 20 years, the Fed has always reflated within two weeks if

• The S&P fell 20% from peak.
• High yield became stressed (HYG at 85 or below).

So, even though the Fed may focus on the intermediate targets of unemployment and inflation, it is ultimately the underlying sustainability of economy-wide excess returns that forces its hand.

The prospect of a more dovish Fed would set up the potential for a return of international US$ flows. A couple of recent academic papers by Shin & McAuley support the analysis.

Excellent Commentary

Garran's commentary was excellent, and gratefully devoid of the typical focus on jewelry, mining, central bank purchases, and also manipulation theories.

There is much more in the report, 24 charts in all, of which I posted six. Without explicit permission that is all I am comfortable posting. If I get a link I will add it as an addendum. There were no links in the article to things that Garran referenced, so I cannot provide those either.

Fed Tightening Cycle Won't Go Far

Reading between the lines, it seems that Garran, like I, does not think the Fed will get very far with the tightening cycle that most think is coming.

One and done would not surprise me. Heck, no hikes at all would not surprise me. About the only thing that would surprise me is more than three hikes.

US economic data other than jobs has generally been miserable. Don't expect a warning from the labor markets (See my article Jobs and Employment: How Much Recession Warning Can One Expect?)

Indeed, data has been so bad that I think a recession is on the way.  

Negative Data Pours In

• Durable Goods: On March 25 Durable Goods Orders Unexpectedly Decline, Business Spending Declines 6th Month
• Retail Sales Declined Third Month: On March 12, the Commerce Department announced retail sales were down for the third consecutive month. Economists blamed the weather. I knocked that assessment in Weather Unexpectedly Much Worse Than Economists Previously Thought.
• Wholesale Trade: On March 10, the Commerce Department reported sales were down while inventories rose. I used that report to say "I Stick With My Recession Call".
• Factory Orders: On March 5, US Factory Orders Unexpectedly Decline 6th Month.

Equities, Junk Bonds in for a Rough Ride

I don't know Garran's views on overall equities, but mine is the next round of liquidity will not have the same magic as the last two rounds, and in fact may even spook the markets.

Add to that the fact that earnings have peaked this cycle and the potential for a huge downturn in equities and junk bonds is far greater than most think.

Misunderstanding Gold

In case you missed it, please consider my March 27 article Misunderstanding "Peak Gold"; Gold About to Run Out? in which I debunked widely held notions that central bank asset purchases and sales, jewelry, and mining productions as drivers for the price of gold.

Garran's analysis was a welcome refresher from the typical (and wrong) commentary we see about gold.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Sarkozy, Le Pen Triumph Over Socialists in Second Round of Local Elections

The Socialists were routed in the second round of French elections this weekend. The centre-right UMP party led by Nicholas Sarkozy was the clear winner but Marine Le Pen's National Front had it best performance ever at the local level although it did not win any départements.

The Financial Times reports Nicolas Sarkozy the winner as French local polls deal blow to Socialists.

The UMP, led by the former president Nicolas Sarkozy and in an election coalition with the centrist UDI party, won between 66 and 70 départements compared with 41 previously, according to projections from polling companies.

By contrast, the Socialist party looked to have held on to between only 27 and 31 — barely half the 61 départements it controlled before.

The far-right National Front (FN), meanwhile, appeared to have made considerable ground in Sunday’s second-round vote — though it was unclear if it had done enough to win full control of any départements.

Even so, the anti-immigration, anti-euro party led by Marine Le Pen is likely to have done much to boost its national presence as it looks ahead to the 2017 presidential election. The FN has made important gains in recent years, wooing voters from both left and right, disillusioned by the lack of economic growth and high unemployment.

Following on the back of last year’s success in European elections over France’s two mainstream parties, Ms Le Pen called Sunday’s result “the foundation of tomorrow’s big victories”.

Sarkozy and Le Pen Triumph in French Local Elections

The Guardian reports Hollande Left Bruised as Sarkozy and Le Pen Triumph in French Local Elections

Front National’s strong gains mark turning point for far right in expanding grassroots presence, while win for Sarkozy prefigures likely presidential run.

 The French right has made large gains in the country’s local elections, handing President François Hollande’s ruling Socialist party its third electoral drubbing in a year and raising fears for the future of the left.

Nicolas Sarkozy’s rightwing UMP party, in coalition with centrist allies, took the largest share of seats, wresting control of many traditional leftwing bastions from the Socialists.

But key to the changing political landscape in France was the strong showing for the far-right Front National, which marked a major turning-point as the party established a new grassroots presence across the country.

After winning only two local council seats at the last election in 2011, Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration and anti-Europe party was on track to win as many as 90 councillors, cementing the Front National’s transformation from what was once a simple national protest vote to a locally anchored movement that Le Pen hopes to use as a springboard for her presidential bid in 2017.

Although the Front National did not win outright control of any département local council, its percentage score rose sharply from the last local elections.

Le Pen hailed her party’s best result in a local election as a “magnificent success”.

The Socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, said: “The very high – too high – score of the far-right represents, more than ever, a challenge to all republicans.”

He said the Front National’s success marked a “lasting upheaval” of the French political landscape and all political parties had to learn lessons from it.

The local elections, followed by the regional elections in December, have been seen as a barometer for 2017’s presidential race. Several polls have shown that Le Pen could make into the second-round presidential runoff vote in 2017, knocking out either the left or right.

Most pollsters agree that Le Pen could never gain enough votes in the final round to win the presidency. But her potential presence in a runoff has worried the mainstream left and right. Socialists are keen to avoid their candidate being knocked out, as happened when Jean-Marie Le Pen knocked out Lionel Jospin in 2002.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Time to Eliminate Pilots in Aircrafts: Post Pilot Era Coming Up

Instead of new rules making sure two people are in the cockpit at all times, how about a rule that says no one at all is allowed in the cockpit? This is precisely how I felt after 911 and even more so after the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 on March 8.

The tragedy of Germanwings Flight 9525 in which a mentally ill co-pilot deliberately flew the plane into a mountain killing all 150 on board is icing on the cake.

And it's not just two deliberate crashes either. Please consider The Mystery of Flight 9525: a Locked Door, a Silent Pilot and a Secret History of Illness.

Just under 40 minutes into their journey, the plane’s 27-year-old co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, turned the Airbus A320 into a missile, guiding it into the southern Alps after locking its captain, Patrick Sonderheimer, out of the cockpit.

In the doomed flight’s final minutes, Sonderheimer attempted to force his way through the security door that separates the passengers from the pilots. At one stage he reportedly tried to use an axe. Recordings obtained by crash investigators capture him attempting to remonstrate with Lubitz – whose breathing, according to the microphones in the cockpit, remained sure and steady as the plane made its rapid descent. It was only in the final seconds that there was the sound of screams. Experts said death would have been instant.

As the New York Times revealed early on Thursday, French time, the voice recorder confirmed that Lubitz had locked the captain out of the flight deck and set the plane on its descent.

In November 2013, a flight between Mozambique and Angola crashed in Namibia, killing 33 people. Initial investigations suggested the accident was deliberately caused by the captain shortly after his co-pilot had left the flight deck.

In October 1999, an EgyptAir Boeing 767 went into a rapid descent 30 minutes after taking off from New York, killing 217 people. An investigation suggested that the crash was caused deliberately by the relief first officer, although the evidence was not conclusive.

And in December 1997, more than 100 people were killed when a Boeing 737 flying from Indonesia to Singapore crashed; the pilot, who was said to be suffering from “multiple work-related difficulties”, was suspected of switching off the flight recorders and intentionally putting the plane into a dive.

In an interview with the bestselling German tabloid Bild, the 26-year-old flight attendant, known only as Maria W, said that they had separated “because it became increasingly clear that he had a problem”. She said that he was plagued by nightmares and would wake up and scream “we’re going down”.

Last year he told her: “One day I’m going to do something that will change the whole system, and everyone will know my name and remember.”

A debate now rages about the extent to which companies and regulators can monitor a person’s mental health, especially if they perform a job that carries responsibility for the lives of others. The UN world aviation body has stressed that all pilots must have regular mental and physical checkups. But psychological assessments can be fallible. “If someone dissimulates – that is, they don’t want other people to notice – it’s very, very difficult,” Reiner Kemmler, a psychologist who specialises in training pilots, told Deutschlandfunk public radio.

Debate over Mental Illness

The debate over mental illness, locked doors, emergency overrides etc., is the wrong debate.

The debate should quickly turn to whether there should be pilots in the plane at all.

Post Pilot-Era

The Globe and Mail hits the nail on the head with its report Aviation is Fast Approaching the Post-Pilot Era.

Every day, dozens of unmanned jet aircraft as big as private business jets take off from airports scattered around the globe. They fly for thousands of kilometres, staying aloft for as long as 36 hours, often changing course to cope with unexpected developments, before returning to land.

To call them drones grossly understates the sophistication, safety and cost-effectiveness of autonomous and remotely piloted aircraft.

Global Hawks, for instance – long-range, sophisticated surveillance jets, controlled from Beale Air Force Base in California but flying from at least six air bases in Japan, Guam and the Middle East – range around the world. They have been flying for 15 years. They have flown to Australia and back from the United States. They fly daily over Afghanistan and Iraq but also over heavily trafficked airspace where they fly high above commercial airliners. They can be programmed to take off, fly a 32-hour mission and land, all without direct human control. Alternatively, pilots half a world away, linked by multiple, secure and redundant satellite data links can “fly” them remotely. And there are thousands of other unmanned aerial vehicles already flying daily – mostly in military service.

Pilotless aircraft aren’t a distant sci-fi concept nor the wishful dreams of bean-counters at big airlines where the nattily-uniformed flight crew is a big cost just waiting to be cut.

And, as many pilots inside cockpits lament, most of the time they do little, if any, “hand flying.” Courses, heights, waypoints, rates of descent are all programmed into flight management computers which then “fly” modern aircraft far more smoothly and achieving far better fuel consumption, than even the most suave of airline captains.

Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot suspected of deliberately crashing the Germanwings Airbus A320, didn’t seize a control stick and frantically dive the jet into oblivion. Rather, he simply dialled in 100 feet, in place of the assigned 36,000 feet cruising altitude, and the Airbus dipped the nose of the 70-tonne, twin-engined jet and flew it smoothly at a steady 800 kilometres per hour for eight more minutes until it slammed into a mountain. Mr. Lubitz didn’t need to touch anything further, except the lock override switch by his left hand that kept the captain out of the cockpit and doomed everyone on board.

Aviation experts envision an end to the era of pilots – at least pilots in cockpits – just as inevitably as elevator operators became redundant, expensive and far less precise in the operation than computerized systems.

As just as some high-end department stores kept on uniformed elevator operators who did nothing except offer reassurance by their presence to nervous shoppers, the transition to remotely-guided or autonomous aircraft may include a period of pilots present but not required on board airliners.

In many ways, autonomous operation of aircraft is far less of a technological challenge than autonomous or driverless cars – which major manufacturers expect will be sharing the roads with more dangerous human drivers within a few years. For instance, across North America, there are only about 5,000 commercial and military aircraft flying in controlled airspace at one time. That’s far fewer than the number of cars in a small city and they don’t need to dodge pedestrians, other drivers unexpectedly doing stupid things or a host of other variables that make driving far more complex. And aircraft fly pre-determined routes, at heights and speeds that can be far more easily adjusted to avoid collisions between a few hundred well-defined destinations.

David Learmount, an operations and safety expert at Flightglobal and a veteran aviation expert who has flown dozens of aircraft types, predicts pilots won’t be in cockpits in 15 years but in an airline’s operations room, rather like the U.S. Air Force pilots flying Global Hawks from Beale.

“Imagine an airline crew room in 2030,” he says. “The airline has, say, 300 airplanes, but only about 50 pilots. About ten of these will be on duty in the crew room at any one time [with secure links] to any of the fleet that’s airborne. On the rare occasion that something anomalous occurs on an airplane, … they can intervene as effectively as they could have done in the aircraft.”

Cargo flying and transoceanic routes, with no nervous passengers to persuade will likely be the first to make the change. United Parcel Service, the global package and freight giant operates 238 large cargo jet aircraft . In a decade, it expects to be flying pilotless freighter aircraft across the Pacific Ocean.

Transition Period


People feel safer with a pilot in the aircraft. They shouldn't. 911, Malaysia 370, Germanwings Airbus A320, EgyptAir 767, and deliberate crashes in Namibia and Indonesia are proof enough.

15 years is too long to wait. There should have been a transition to pilotless aircraft long ago. It's a tragedy that someone on the ground or the aircraft itself could not override these deliberate crashes.

Such fatal tragedies are very rare, but why have them at all? Self-driving cars and trucks will be safer than human-driven ones. So will automated ships and planes. If anything, ships and planes should be easier to implement than cars.

So why the delay?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Can the Eurozone Survive? Not in Its Current Form Says PIMCO; Mish Response

Echoing statements I have made many times, PIMCO says the single currency area must become a "United States of Europe" in order to secure its future.

Please consider Eurozone can't survive in current form, says PIMCO.

The eurozone is "untenable" in its current form and cannot survive unless countries are prepared to cede sovereignty and become a "United States of Europe", the manager of the world's biggest bond fund has warned.

The Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) said that while the bloc was likely to stay together in the medium term, with Greece remaining in the eurozone, the single currency could not survive if countries did not move closer together.

Persistently weak growth in the eurozone had led to voter unrest and the rise of populist parties such as Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece, and Front National in France, said PIMCO managing directors Andrew Bosomworth and Mike Amey.

"The lesson from history is that the status quo we have now is not a tenable structure," said Mr Bosomworth. "There's no historical precedent that this sort of structure, which is centralised monetary policy, decentralised fiscal policy, can last over multiple decades."

PIMCO said the rise of populist parties demonstrated how uneasy some people had become about the euro.

"[Persistently low growth] manifests itself in a lack of support in the common currency, so then it leads to the rise to power of political parties that want to end it," said Mr Bosomworth.

PIMCO said the rise of populist parties demonstrated how uneasy some people had become about the euro.

"[Persistently low growth] manifests itself in a lack of support in the common currency, so then it leads to the rise to power of political parties that want to end it," said Mr Bosomworth.

Nothing New 

I certainly agree the eurozone cannot survive unless it becomes the "United States of Europe".

There is absolutely nothing new in this announcement other than who said it. I have been talking about this for years.

Can the Eurozone Survive? 

It won't because it cannot. Germany's constitution prohibits a fiscal union and transfer mechanism. If that changes, I will change my tune.

And that's also something I have said before.

In addition to Germany's constitution, I believe Finland and other states would object. Heck, look at all the animosity over Greece. Look at work rules and retirement ages in France.

For a "United States of Europe" to work, countless issues would need to be worked out. And to top it off, eurozone rules are such that every nation would have to ratify the changes. What's the likelihood of that?

Bottom Line

If the Eurozone cannot survive without becoming the "United States of Europe", it cannot survive at all.

For detailed discussion on this topic, please see From ZIRP to NIRP: Virtues of Germany vs. the Vices of Greece; What About "Speece" and Gold? 

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Wally Becomes Chief Economist for Dilbert, Predicts "Bubble in Monetary Policy"

On the lighter side, in the March 28, 2015 Dilbert, Wally becomes the new chief economist.



Wally: "The exchange rate on derivatives will trigger a bubble in monetary policy and deflate the Yen."

I like the phrase "bubble in monetary policy". It aptly expresses precisely what has been happening globally.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Patriot Act Vote Coming Up: Google joins Apple, Others Requesting Spying Controls

The Patriot act expires in June, and anyone in their right mind would wish the entire concept to go away entirely. NSA Spying has a 100% perfect track record of failure.

Sadly, the answer to the question Would NSA Data Surveillance End With Patriot Act? is a resounding "No".

The National Security Agency would lose its legal justification for collecting data on Americans' phone and email activity if Congress does not reauthorize the Patriot Act by June 1, but privacy advocates are skeptical about whether that would mean the end of the controversial surveillance program.

President Barack Obama has called on Congress to pass a bill that would end the bulk surveillance program while keeping certain spying powers intact for national security reasons. The clock is ticking, however, as the NSA loses its legal authority for domestic surveillance provided by Section 215 of the Patriot Act in June. If Congress does not renew that provision then the Obama administration will not push to continue the program, although its absence would damage America’s national security, says Ned Price, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

“If Section 215 sunsets, we will not continue the bulk telephony metadata program,” Price tells U.S. News. “Allowing Section 215 to sunset would result in the loss, going forward, of a critical national security tool that is used in a variety of additional contexts that do not involve the collection of bulk data.”

 The NSA, however, could invoke other legal powers to continue the data collection program without Section 215 of the Patriot Act, says Harley Geiger, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology advocacy group. The government has also conducted bulk collection of email metadata in the past using Section 214 of the Patriot Act, for instance, which is also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “pen trap statute,” Geiger says.

“The FISA pen trap statute does not have a sunset and would not be affected by a sunset of Section 215,” he says. “For these and other reasons, we believe that legislation to end bulk collection would be more effective than merely letting Section 215 sunset. However, we believe Congress should sunset Section 215 if effective reform is not possible.”

Passing surveillance reform may be difficult in a Congress controlled by Republicans, considering it failed last year while Democrats controlled the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is among the Republicans who say the NSA powers are necessary to ensure national security.

“I will vote for the Freedom Act as long as it doesn’t include reauthorization of the Patriot Act,” Paul told U.S. News recently, adding that he will not vote to reauthorize Section 215.

Paul told U.S. News he will also partner with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., on a bill to amend the Patriot Act when it comes up for reauthorization.

A bill introduced on Tuesday by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Mark Pocan, D-Wis., would abolish legal powers for surveillance programs, including the entire Patriot Act and the FISA Amendment Act of 2008.

Google joins Apple, Others Requesting Spying Controls

CNET reports Google joins Apple, others in calling for spying controls, as Patriot Act vote nears.

With an important surveillance-related section of the USA Patriot Act up for reauthorization this year, Google has teamed with other tech firms in sending a letter to lawmakers and others that spells out needed changes to US spy policies.

On Wednesday, Google revealed in a blog post that it has joined the Reform Government Surveillance coalition, civil rights groups and trade associations in sending the letter, which promotes transparency, accountability and an end to the bulk collection of data.

The letter (PDF) -- addressed to government figures including US President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers and various House members -- underscores the need for reform that will both protect national security and preserve the right to privacy. Google also posted a page online where people can add their name in support of the reforms.

The catalyst for the letter is the USA Patriot Act -- specifically Section 215, which the NSA points to as the legal basis for its bulk collection of data. Section 215 is set to expire June 1, and lawmakers must vote before then on whether to reauthorize the section or allow it to "sunset."

The letter outlines what it says are "essential" elements to surveillance reform, mentioning Section 215, as well as Section 214 -- another part of the Patriot Act that the NSA could invoke to justify its bulk collection and one that's not set to expire this year.

The companies say it has been nearly two years since the first news stories revealed the scope of the NSA's spying, and that "now is the time to take on meaningful legislative reforms" that maintain national security but also protect privacy, transparency and accountability.

The Reform Government Surveillance coalition now counts Apple, AOL, Dropbox, Evernote, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo and Google among its members.

The group's principles are based on the idea of placing "sensible" limitations on government surveillance powers and introducing strong checks and balances when governments are granted the power to spy -- to prevent abuse and keep the concept of privacy intact. In addition, the group promotes transparency concerning government demands for data imposed on technology companies, as well as respecting the free flow of information across borders.

Congress Must Reform Our Surveillance Laws

On the Google Public Policy Blog, David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer, Google, states Congress Must Reform Our Surveillance Laws.

We have a responsibility to protect the privacy and security of our users’ data. At the same time, we want to do our part to help governments keep people safe. We have little doubt that Congress can protect both national security and privacy while taking a significant, concrete step toward restoring trust in the Internet.

Google has been working hard for the last two years to reform government surveillance laws, and we will continue to push for broader surveillance reforms in the months ahead.

We invite you to join us in asking Congress to enact surveillance reform by adding your name at google.com/takeaction.

Bill of Rights

As far as I am concerned, any law that does not pass muster with privacy restrictions in the Bill of Rights, should be done away with entirely.

Here's a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America.

Dear Congress

I find it galling that Republican hypocrites voted for the Patriot Act and any of its extensions. I believe the Patriot act should not be amended but rather abolished in entirety.

Thus, I am torn over half-measures that allegedly will do what is needed. Google says "We have little doubt that Congress can protect both national security and privacy while taking a significant, concrete step toward restoring trust in the Internet.

I have high doubts. Once rights are taken away, history suggests it is damn hard to win them back. The only question at hand is whether or not partial restoration of rights merits your consideration or not.

On the theory that half a loaf is better than none, but also with plenty of reservations, please consider  Google's Dear Congress Petition.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More

Earnings "Beat the Street" Manipulation Underway as Profit Warnings Mount

Of S&P 500 companies providing first-quarter outlooks, MarketWatch reports 84% have been negative as Profit Warnings Pile Up.

Ahead of the start of earnings reporting season, which unofficially kicks off when Alcoa Inc., reports results on April 8, about 84% of the companies that have provided first-quarter outlooks gave negative outlooks. That’s above the 81% that warned Q1 2014, and the five-year average of 68%.



I believe that yellow highlight I added should say Q3. More importantly, it would have been nice for MarketWatch to actually link to FactSet because it contains some interesting charts and analysis.

Earnings Insight

Let's dive into the FactSet Earnings Insight Report for first quarter of 2015.

Key Metrics

• Earnings Growth: For Q115, year-over-year earnings for the S&P 500 are projected to decline by 4.6%. If the index reports a year-over-year decline for the quarter, it will be the first time since Q 3 2012 (-1.0%).
• Earnings Revisions: On December 31, the estimated earnings growth rate for Q1 2015 was 4.2%. All ten sectors have lower growth rates today (compared to December 31) due to downward revisions to earnings estimates, led by the Energy sector.
• Earnings Guidance: For Q1 2015, 85 companies have issued negative EPS guidance and 16 companies have issued positive EPS guidance.
• Valuation: The current 12-month forward P/E ratio is 16.7. This P/E ratio is above the 5-year (13.7) average and the 10-year (14.1) average for the index.
• Earnings Scorecard: Of the 16 companies that have reported earnings to date for Q1 2015, 14 have reported earnings above the mean estimate and 10 have reported sales above the mean estimate.

Earnings vs. Price



Q1 2015 Earnings Season: By the Numbers Overview

Analysts and corporations continue to lower expectations for earnings for the S&P 500 for the first quarter. On a per-share basis, estimated earnings for the first quarter have fallen by 8.2% since December 31. This is the largest decline in the bottom-up EPS estimate for a quarter since Q1 2009.

Companies have also lowered the bar for earnings fo r Q1, as 85 companies in the index have issued negative EPS guidance, while just 16 companies have issued positive EPS guidance. The percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance is 84% (85 out of 101), which is well above the 5-year average of 68%. As a result of the downward revisions to earnings estimates, the estimated year-over-year earnings decline for Q1 2015 is -4.6% today, down from an expectation of growth of 4.2% at the start of the quarter (December 31).

There is much more in the report. Inquiring minds may want to take a look.

Earnings Manipulation Underway

In spite of these downgrades (rather, because of these downgrades), when actual earnings are announced, expect a huge majority of companies to "beat the street".

Every year, whether earnings are going up or down, companies guide analysts to numbers low enough they can beat.

Don't Be Fooled

Please consider this CNBC report from April of 2014: Companies are Beating Earnings Estimates But Don’t Be Fooled.

Of the 85 S&P companies that have already reported their first-quarter earnings, 67 percent have beaten analyst estimates on the earnings side, and 51 percent have beaten on the revenue side, according to FactSet. That sounds pretty good—until one considers that over the past four years, 73 percent of companies have tended to beat earnings estimates, and 58 percent have tended to beat revenue estimates.

As with MarketWatch, CNBC did not have the decency to link to FactSet either.

Failure to Beat the Street

The last time companies failed to "beat the street" was third quarter of 1998. At the earnings trough in third quarter of 2008, 58% of companies in the S&P 500 still managed to "beat the street".

Don't Worry Companies Will Still "Beat the Street"

In spite of those downgrades, history suggests corporations will still "Beat the Street".

Even in 2008 and 2009 the majority of firms beat estimates. Here is the way the process works:

• Corporations give analysts "tips" regarding profit expectations.
• Those profit expectations are purposely low.
• Wall Street analysts lower estimates, if necessary, as the quarter progresses such that corporations can "beat the street".
• If corporations are going to miss and need an extra penny, they change tax assumption or make other "one time" adjustments as necessary.
• Corporations beat the street by a penny with "pro-forma" (after adjustment) reporting.

Mind the Gap

By the way, that's one hell of a gap between earnings guidance and stock price. The 10-year smoothed PE at the end of this earnings season is set to soar. The 10-year PE is already one of the three most expensive in history.

Doug Short at Advisor Perspective takes a look at the 10-Year PE in his March 2, 2015 post Is the Stock Market Cheap?



Stock are only cheap compared to 1929, the dot-com bubble, and the housing bubble. Given the plunge in earnings estimates, this market will soon pass the housing bubble in amplitude.

The 1929 peak may even be in sight. And in many ways, this bubble is worse than the dot-com bubble, as during the tech wreck one could find many companies with good valuations. It was predominately technology with PE extremes.

Doug Short notes ...

The historic P/E10 average is 16.6. After dropping to 13.3 in March 2009, the ratio rebounded to an interim high of 23.5 in February of 2011 and then hovered in the 20-to-21 range. The latest ratio is at a new interim high -- the highest since December 2007.

A cautionary observation is that when the P/E10 has fallen from the top to the second quintile, it has eventually declined to the lowest quintile and bottomed in single digits. Based on the latest 10-year earnings average, to reach a P/E10 in the high single digits would require an S&P 500 price decline below 550. Of course, a happier alternative would be for corporate earnings to continue their strong and prolonged surge.

Equities and junk bonds globally are now in massive bubbles. Nonetheless, expect analysts to focus on the number of companies that "beat the street" because that is one of the key ways they use to convince you "stocks are cheap".

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Read More