WaPo - IMF finally admits that austerity is buttfuck stupid. Too bad for all the third-world countries that they already assraped over the last 40 years, eh? But I guess the suffering of poor people isn't a significant or important kind of suffering.
The interesting part is, I've had a sneaking suspicion (for maybe the last 20 years) that the fiscal multiplier is far greater for the poor than it is for the rich. I.e., if you tax the rich more (or give them bigger tax breaks), the impact on GDP should be far less than 1, since rich people's money sits either in bonds, or in stocks, or in luxury goods or real estate, none of which actually adds much to the productive economy. On the other hand, if you tax the poor more (or give them more income), the GDP impact is far greater than 1, since every poor person's penny goes out the door as fast as they earn it; as well, the discretionary (non-rent) part of that money is usually spent on labour-intensive low-margin goods (cheap food, cheap clothes, home supplies etc), so that money spent also achieves a higher velocity in the economy. Heck, even rent money is probably higher-velocity, since the profit margin on rental housing is so tiny - most rent money seems to go toward building maintenance and municipal taxes.
Now, the point of the above is that if the plutocrats like the IMF realize that their theoretical GDP multiplier models are so wrong, how long does it take the thinker class to get from there to the further realization that the best way to boost GDP is to help the poor, not the rich?
Of course the kleptocratic elite will never admit that. But maybe some left-leaning economists of Krugman's ilk might point it out someday.
And then you get a shift in the class war.
But you'll also get a shift toward easier economic growth.
BC Lund - Will the big moves in 2013 come from these stocks? I'm not interested in his particular stock picks as much, but this caught my eye:
So for the first time in Fidelity’s history, equities are LESS than 50% of their holdings. To me this is a major contrary indicator and implies that there are a few trillion dollars (give or take a trillion) just sitting on the sidelines.
That money has to find return, and where will that return come from? Bank CD’s? Money market funds? Bonds? Real Estate? Justin Bieber collectibles? No, it’s going to come from the stock market.
A long-term view, but still an interesting one. Too bad the junior miners already shot their wad and proved they suck bad, otherwise people might want to buy their shares again one day, eh?
Bloomberg - Almost all of Wall Street got 2012 wrong. And y'know, related to this, ZeroHedge does engage in a lot of hero-worship (you could almost call it "cock sucking"). So why? I mean, the odd guy gets a call right once in a while; but who the fuck cares about what Paulson, Morgan Stanley, Buiter, Buffett and so on have to say if they're almost always getting it famously wrong?
And most of the time, these rich assholes get it wrong because they're letting their politics get in the way of their perception. Other times, they're simply putting blind like any retail hayseed.
Anyway, this Bloomie article is funny, mainly because the authors purposefully include the fact that they asked for comment from all the market smart-alecks, and got rebuffed every time.
Meanwhile, here's ZeroHedge's enemy number one, Lloyd Blankfein (strange, isn't it, how ZH always hates the Jews?) with the best quote:
“I tend to be a little more positive than what I’m hearing from other people,” the 58-year- old CEO told Bloomberg Television in an April 25 interview at Goldman Sachs’s New York headquarters. “One of the big risks that people have to contemplate is that things go right.”
Always remember that.
NFTRH - Long-term t-bonds are signaling inflation is on the way! Hurray! This chart is a variant of Gary's "most important chart in the world". Now, importantly, one day that 30-year trend channel shown by the blue lines has to break. But it doesn't have to be imminent. If $USB has begun dropping, it'll move to 125, and that move will be the chance to yet again play the inflation game (China, EMs, base metals, silver, fuck maybe even gold, and so on).
I can't stress enough that NFTRH's "most important chart in the world" is, truly and without a doubt, the most important chart in the world. It's why I stayed subscribed to his newsletter for the first 2 years even though I couldn't understand a fucking thing the cryptic loony was saying; I saw early on that that chart was important, and so I stuck with him. Now I vaguely comprehend almost a quarter of what he says.
Speaking of which... I suddenly realize that I should expect his writing to be that of a cryptic loony, considering he listens to a band with lyrics like "Money spines paper lung kidney bingos organ fun". I mean, seriously, these guys gave REM the idea of being incomprehensible.
Beyond Brics - what does the end of QE mean for EMs? What I think is significant here is this comment from Mike Riddell, a no-name clown from some tiny little investment house whose opinion is not even worth noting, so god knows why they give this guy a podium on FT:
“People ask whether this is a repeat of 1994, where the Fed hiked rates and all hell broke loose. I’m positioned defensively. We’re now in a situation where the dollar is very cheap. If the Fed starts hiking rates, it makes much less sense to invest overseas. The huge wave of money going into EMs could come to a halt or worse reverse.”
So that's why everyone's scared about the Fed ending QE? Despite the fact that they have explicitly stated that they're not taking away the crack pipe unless it's because the US economy is healthy enough to grow on its own? They're all saying "OMG 1994"? Is that it?
Fuckhead. You go and position yourself defensively, you no-name loser. You've just told me what the wrong positioning is! Now it'll be easy to find the right one.
PS, buy Calibre Mining! To da moon Alice!