The Stock Market's Dumbest Rally of All Time
Stock-Markets / Stocks Bear Market Aug 25, 2011 - 09:06 AM GMTBy: Mike_Whitney
 "Without the destructive power of the banks,   hedge funds and other investment companies, the world would not be where it is   today — at the edge of an abyss." Der Spiegel, "The Destructive Power of the   Financial Markets"
"Without the destructive power of the banks,   hedge funds and other investment companies, the world would not be where it is   today — at the edge of an abyss." Der Spiegel, "The Destructive Power of the   Financial Markets" 
Tuesday's 322 point surge on the Dow Jones must rank among the dumbest rallies of all time. The proximate trigger for the triple-digit moonshot was the feint hope that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke might pull another rabbit out of his hat at his Jackson Hole confab and announce another round of his bond purchasing program called Quantitative Easing.
Keep in mind, that at the same time   high-frequency computers were juicing the market with an ocean of liquidity   sending near-dead equities into the stratosphere, skittish investors with hard   cash were headed for the exits. 2-year Treasuries hit a record low yield of 0.22   percent as the flight-to-safety continued apace a full 3 years after Lehman   Brothers crashed. Plunging Treasuries confirm that the economy is still in the   throes of a multi-year Depression that hasn't been mitigated by any of   interest-hacking strategies of the Fed or by the blinkered budget-cutting antics   of our vacationing executive, Barack Hoover Obama. 
  
  Is it any wonder why   confidence in the markets and the country's main institutions is at an all-time   low? 
  
  Look; Unemployment is tipping 9 percent, GDP has slipped below 1   percent for the last 6 months, the fiscal jet fuel that kept the economy in the   black is gone, the credit markets are beginning to refreeze, and Europe's in the   shitter. Is there any reason to load up on stocks expecting brighter returns in   the future? 
  
  No. 
  
  The bond market is blinking "Depression". The   benchmark 10-year is hovering around 2 percent as terrified investors load up on   risk-free assets that actually lose money when adjusted for inflation. Does that   sound like a ringing endorsement of current policy? 
  
  So what does Obama   do? He pushes through a structural adjustment program (The "debt ceiling"   agreement) that stuffs the stimulus-starved economy into a fiscal   straightjacket, and then crows about how mush he "cares about jobs". 
  
  Right. How can the government create jobs when the new law forbids   expansion of the deficits? It can't be done. So, unemployment will stay   unnecessarily high for the foreseeable future, all because of Obama. Is that why   the markets are so happy? 
  
  Here's a clip from an article by Michael   Spence at Project Syndicate:
  
  "The world is witnessing is a correlated   growth slowdown across the advanced countries, ...and across all of the   systemically important parts of the global economy, possibly including the   emerging economies. And equity values’ decline toward a more realistic   reflection of economic fundamentals will further weaken aggregate demand and   growth. Hence the rising risk of a major downturn – and additional fiscal   distress." Michael Spence, "Stagnant and Paralyzed", Project   Syndicate
  
  Great summary. Not only is demand flagging across the   industrial world, but political gridlock in the EU and the US has increased the   likelihood of another slump. Austerity-obsessed policymakers have slashed   spending and implemented belt-tightening measures that are dimming the prospects   for future growth. Add to that the fact the EU is in the midst of a credit   crunch, and you have all the ingredients for another stomach-churning stock   market crash followed by years of vicious contraction. Needless to say,   policymakers in the US and EU have no idea of how to put the economy back on   track. They remain committed to a flawed ideology that's pushing the world to   the brink of disaster.
  
  Let's look at the eurozone for a minute. It's   generally accepted now that saving the 17-member monetary union will require   some kind of financial transfer from the rich countries to the poor. Eurobonds   provide the easiest way of achieving that objective. But how much would that   cost a country like Germany? If we can figure that out; then we can determine   whether the plan will be acceptable or not to German policymakers. Here's an   excerpt from an article titled "The Future of the Eurozone" by Max-Planck   Gesellschaft:
  
  "A transfer mechanism that simply equalizes 50 percent of   the difference from average, based on 2007 figures, sums up to 445 billion euros   per year. For Germany, for instance, this would be a contribution of almost 74   billion euros per year, on the basis of the 2007 figures....
  
  These rough   calculations show: a transfer mechanism that achieves little more than half the   amount of equalization in governmental revenues would have transfers that are   magnitudes larger than the total current EU budget. ...
  
  It is hard to   believe that Europe could survive the political antagonisms that would be   created by transfers of this magnitude...." ("The Future of the Eurozone",   Max-Planck Gesellschaft)
  
  This plan is never going to fly in Germany, so   we can assume that the eurozone will eventually break up, although it could take   a year or so. That means the panic in the credit markets will intensify,   widening the spreads on bond yields and putting more pressure on the EU banking   system which is chock-full of garbage bonds that are set to take hefty haircuts   when the sh** hits the fan. 
  
  Is that why the markets are surging, because   traders just love the idea on another credit meltdown? 
  
  And, while the   credit-noose is tightening in the EU, what's going on in the US? 
  
  Nothing. No jobs programs, no extension of unemployment benefits, the   payroll tax break ends on December 30, and Obama refuses to stump for second   round of stimulus. How's that for a "pro growth" strategy? 
  
  The economy   needs more stimulus and it needs it fast. Take a look at this chart on Paul   Krugman's blogsite that shows how the depletion in government stimulus coincides   with the decline in growth.   http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/09/anti-stimulus-2/
  
  Now, take a   look at GDP, which peaked in late 2009 and early 2010, and has slipped ever   since: (4Q 2009-3.8%; 1Q 2010--3.9%; 2Q 2010--3.8%; 3Q 2010--2.5%; 4Q   2010--2.3%; 1Q 2011--0.4%, "revised" 2Q 2011---0.9%)
  
  Get the picture? The   recovery WAS stimulus. Absent the stimulus, there is no recovery. Credit is not   expanding, households are still deleveraging, business investment is way off,   and aggregate demand is weak. In other words, the economy is dead-in-the-water.   Without sustained government spending to shore up the flagging economy,   recession is inevitable. But policymakers---led by Obama--refuse to budge. They   remain fully committed to their bad ideas. 
  
  Why? 
  
  Economist Peter   Dorman answers this question in his essay titled "It’s the Political Economy,   Stupid!" Here's a short excerpt: 
  
  "....We are not living through an epoch   of intellectual failure, but one in which there is no available mechanism to   oust a political-economic elite whose interests have become incompatible with   ours. This is not some sudden development, much less a coup d’etat as is   sometimes claimed. No, the accretion of power by the rentiers has been   systematic, structural and the outcome of a decades-long process. It is deeply   rooted in modern capitalist economies due to the transformation of corporations   into tradable, recombinant portfolios of assets, increasing concentration of and   returns to ownership, and the failure of regulation to keep pace with technology   and transnational scale. Those who sit at the pinnacle of wealth for the most   part no longer think about production, nor do they worry very much about who the   ultimate consumers will be; they take financial positions and demand policies   that will see to it that these positions are profitable....
  
  The real   problem is political, and it is profound. Unless we can unseat the class that   sees the world only through its portfolios, they may well take us all the way   down. Unfortunately, no one seems to have a clue how such a revolution can be   engineered in a modern, complex, transnational economy. ("It’s the Political   Economy, Stupid!", Peter Dorman, Econospeak)
  
  So, when does discontent   turn to open rebellion? 
  
The sooner the better.
By Mike Whitney
Email: fergiewhitney@msn.com
Mike is a well respected freelance writer living in Washington state, interested in politics and economics from a libertarian perspective.
© 2011 Copyright Mike Whitney - All Rights Reserved 
  Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors. 
|  Mike Whitney Archive | 
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
	

 
  
 
	