Q3 2024 5.2% GDP: Consumers Struggle Amid Financial Loosening, PSEi 30 Deviates from the GDP’s Trajectory

 

it is important to recognize that real GDP is an analytic concept. Despite the name, real GDP is not “real” in the sense that it can, even in principle, be observed or collected directly, in the same sense that current-dollar GDP cannot in principle be observed or collected as the sum of actual spending on final goods and services in the economy. Quantities of apples and oranges can in principle be collected, but they cannot be added to obtain the total quantity of ‘fruit’ output in the economy—Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1995

In this issue 

Q3 2024 5.2% GDP: Consumers Struggle Amid Financial Loosening, PSEi 30 Deviates from the GDP’s Trajectory

I. The PSEi 30 Deviated from GDP’s Trajectory

II. The Treasury Markets as a Harbinger of the Economic Slowdown

III. Lessons from the 2024 US Elections: Markets Overwhelm Surveys

IV. GDP: A Tool for Political Narrative

V. The GDP Trend Line in Context: Insights from SWS Self-Poverty and Hunger Surveys

VI. Q3’s GDP Story: Consumer Spending Rebounds on Declining Inflation and Lower Rates

VII. Consumers Struggle Amid Rising Employment and Vigorous Bank Credit Expansion

VIII. Lethargic Q3 2024 Sales of Wilcon and Robinsons Retail Challenge the Consumer Rebound Narrative

IX. Public Spending Segment of the Marcos-nomics Stimulus: Are Authorities Pulling Back?

Q3 2024 5.2% GDP: Consumers Struggle Amid Financial Loosening, PSEi 30 Deviates from the GDP’s Trajectory

Despite declining inflation rates and lower interest rates, Philippine consumers face tremendous obstacles, as shown by the 5.2% Q3 GDP growth. The PSEi 30 has mispriced the GDP's trajectory 

Reuters, November 7, 2024: The Philippine economy grew in the third quarter at its slowest annual pace in more than a year as severe weather disrupted government spending and dampened farm output, to strengthen the case for further policy easing. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew 5.2% in the July-September on the year, government data showed on Thursday, below a Reuters poll forecast of 5.7%, for the most tepid rise since expansion of 4.3% in the second quarter of 2023.

I. The PSEi 30 Deviated from GDP’s Trajectory 

Stock markets are often considered discounting mechanisms for future economic activity. But are they? 

The PSEi 30’s impressive 13.4% return in Q3 2024—the best since 2010—was largely based on expectations that low interest rates would stimulate economic activity. 

However, despite the BSP’s rate cut in August 2024 and the tacit Marcos-nomics stimulus, Q3 GDP fell to its lowest level since the 4.3% recorded in Q2 2023.

Figure 1

Viewed in the context of the 15% year-over-year returns at the end of last Q3, the PSEi 30 has moved in the opposite direction to the GDP. (Figure 1, topmost graph) 

Faced with this inconvenient reality, the PSEi plunged 2.32% this week, marking its third consecutive weekly decline and dipping below the 7,000 level—a 7.6% drop from the October 7th peak of 7,554.7. 

Interestingly, a local media outlet, still grappling with "Trump Derangement Syndrome," attributed this decline to Trump's electoral victory, suggesting that local stocks "price in the risks of a second Donald Trump presidency and an economic slowdown."  

If the "Trump trade" holds any truth, not only did US stocks soar to new records, but Asian equities also saw significant boosts this week. Among the region's 19 national benchmarks, 14 recorded positive returns with an average gain of 1.33%!

The exceptions were Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, and Sri Lanka. How does this fit into the narrative of the "Trump trade"?

Moreover, it's not just the PSEi 30 that should raise our concerns. Given that the financial sector has been a market leader, the financial index also warrants close attention.

The financial index posted a remarkable 23.4% year-on-year return at the end of Q3 2024, despite a notable deceleration in the sector's GDP since its peak in Q4 2023. The sector recorded an 8.8% real GDP growth in Q3, up from 8% in Q2, but lower than the 12% and 10.3% growth in Q4 2023 and Q1 2024, respectively. Bank-led financials have been a critical source of gains, as evidenced by their increasing share of the sector's GDP, despite the 2022-2023 rate hikes. (Figure 1, middle and lowest images)

Led by banks, the financial sector is the most interconnected with the local economy.  Its health is contingent or dependent upon the activities of its non-financial counterparties.

Alternatively, the sector’s outgrowth relies on political subsidies and is subject to diminishing returns.

Yet ultimately, this should reflect on its core operational fundamentals of lending and investing.

This week, the financial index fell by 2.9%.  As previously mentioned, trading activities in the PSE have been heavily skewed toward this sector.

In essence, the divergence between the PSEi 30 and GDP illustrates the significant market dislocations caused by the allure and regime of easy money—a quest for something for nothing.

II. The Treasury Markets as a Harbinger of the Economic Slowdown

Figure 2

As we have repeatedly pointed out, the Philippine Treasury markets have long been signaling an economic slowdown. The steep slope observed in Q1 has shifted to a bearish flattening and, subsequently, an inversion of the "belly," suggesting a further deceleration in inflation and a downshift in economic activity. (Figure 2, topmost diagram) 

Experts have rarely discussed how the declining inflation reflects a downturn in demand. However, this scenario was evident across the entire Treasury curve in 2024, which explains the sharp plunge in T-bill rates and increased expectations that the BSP would cut rates. The BSP responded by implementing cuts in both August and October. 

III. Lessons from the 2024 US Elections: Markets Overwhelm Surveys

The 2024 U.S. elections provided a striking illustration of the comparative efficiency between markets and surveys. 

As pointed out above, markets are imperfect, but most of their vulnerabilities stem from underlying interventions that enhance them. However, when people place bets to prove their beliefs or convictions, they demonstrate "skin in the game""—a vested interest in success through real-world actions or "having a shared risk when taking a major decision."

In contrast, individuals can express opinions they do not genuinely believe. Numerous factors—such as assumptions, coverage, inputs, delivery, and measurement—contribute to errors in surveys. Worse still, surveys can be designed to achieve specific outcomes rather than accurately estimate reality.

Using the last week’s elections, the average betting odds from several prediction markets, led by the largest platform, Polymarket, indicated that Trump would win by a landslide going into the election. (Figure 2, lowest chart)

This was contrary to the average polls, which showed a razor-thin edge for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.  Interestingly, similar to the 2016 elections, these polling discrepancies were exposed only after Trump’s victory. (Figure 2, middle table)

By sweeping all the battleground or swing states, Trump secured an electoral landslide winning 301 to 226 (according to The New York Times) and also became the first Republican to win the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004.

This experience reaffirmed that markets have proven to be more reliable than surveys. And this reliability extends beyond elections to broader economic metrics, exposing vulnerabilities even in government data (such as inflation, labor statistics, and GDP).

Although designed to be objective and systematic—where hard and verifiable transactional records form part of the government’s comprehensive data—a significant portion still relies on self-reported or opinion-based data.

These components introduce the potential for bias and inaccuracies.

More importantly, as a political institution, government data is not only susceptible to errors but can also be engineered to advance the agenda of the incumbent government.

One way to countercheck the reliability of these data points is through the logic of entwined data—the idea that when multiple, independent data sets or sources are connected, discrepancies or patterns can be identified. By cross-referencing market data, surveys, and government statistics, we can better assess the accuracy of any single dataset. The entwinement of data from diverse sources can serve as a powerful validation tool, especially when inconsistencies or contradictions emerge. 

Thus, comprehensiveness, large scale, and systematic nature of government data collection do not make it foolproof from errors caused by either interventions or design. 

IV. GDP: A Tool for Political Narrative 

The establishment has promoted GDP as an estimation of economic well-being, but that’s only a segment of the entire spectrum.  

Unknown to the public, GDP is primarily a political tool.

In the 1660s, William Petty conceived GDP as a means to estimate war financing during the Second Anglo-Dutch War.

Under the influence of John Maynard Keynes, it was further used to promote wartime planning during World War II, which eventually evolved into—or became the foundation of—modern macroeconomic policy (Coyle, 2014).

Simon Kuznets, a pivotal figure in the development of modern GDP, famously cautioned that "economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known… The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above." (bold added) [Wikipedia, GDP]

This statement underscores the limitations of GDP as a comprehensive measure of economic well-being.

In 1962, Kuznets further emphasized the need for clarity in economic growth metrics, stating: "Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and returns, and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what."

This highlights his belief that economic indicators should reflect not just output but also the broader implications of growth on society.

Applied to the current developments…

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), citing the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs as the source for their adaptation of the System of National Accounts (SNA), noted that "GDP is used to evaluate the overall performance of the economy and, hence, to judge the relative success or failure of economic policies pursued by governments." (bold added) [unstats, 2009]

The embedded assumption is that a factory GDP—or a top-down model—drives the economy.

But if that’s the case, then some questions arise: 

-Why doesn’t the Soviet Union still exist? 

-Why do black markets or informal economies emerge or thrive in heavily regulated economies? 

-Does the government dictate to Jollibee or SM who they should sell to? 

Yet, aside from gaining popular approval for election purposes, the contemporaneous implicit goal of GDP growth could be related to ease of accessing public savings to fund government expenditures.

V. The GDP Trend Line in Context: Insights from SWS Self-Poverty and Hunger Surveys

Still, there are many ways to "skin"—or analyze—the GDP "cat."

Although GDP is presented as a year-over-year (YoY) change predicated on a base effect, a very significant but largely ignored fact is its trendline. 

Figure 3

Fundamentally, despite all the media and establishment cheerleading—particularly with the emphasis on achieving an upper-middle-income economy—both nominal and real GDP have been performing below their pre-pandemic trendlines. (Figure 3, topmost diagram)

Worse, the Q3 GDP growth of 5.2% is sitting precariously on the support level of a subsidiary trendline, suggesting it may be testing this support. What happens if it breaks?

Additionally, what about the recent SWS Q3 2024 surveys exhibiting self-poverty ratings at 2008 highs, and hunger incidence reaching its second highest level since September 2020, during the pandemic recession? (see our previous discussion here)

Has the SWS survey been validated?

As a side note, the left-leaning OCTA Research group's Q3 survey results were starkly different from those of the SWS.

Have the authorities made a partial concession to the SWS findings by revising down the GDP growth estimates?

As a reminder, polls or surveys—whether conducted by the private sector or the government—are opinion-based or self-reported data and are inherently prone to errors. 

VI. Q3’s GDP Story: Consumer Spending Rebounds on Declining Inflation and Lower Rates 

GDP is not just about the numbers; it has been crafted to tell a story. 

Essentially, it follows the mainstream’s logic: slowing inflation and lower interest rates would boost consumption and, consequently, GDP. 

Well, that is how the Q3 5.2% GDP played out.  

From the expenditure side of GDP, real household consumption increased from 4.7% in Q2 to 5.1% in Q3, thereby boosting its share from 67.7% to 72.8%. (Figure 3, middle image) 

In contrast, government spending on GDP dropped significantly, from 11.9% in Q2 to 5% in Q3, reducing its share from 17% to 14.7% during the same period. 

Meanwhile, due a slump in government activities, construction GDP growth nearly halved from 16.2% to 8.9%, diminishing its share from 19.4% to 14.1%. Government construction GDP tumbled from 21.7% to 3.7%. 

Thanks to increases in machinery, transport, and miscellaneous equipment, durable equipment GDP surged from a contraction of 4.5% in Q2 to growth of 8.1% in Q3. (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

Nevertheless, exports plummeted from 4.2% in Q2 to a shrinkage of 1% in Q3, while imports increased from 5.3% to 6.4%. The widened gap in favor of imports—net exports—contributed to the slowdown of GDP. 

This summarizes the expenditure-based GDP analysis.

VII. Consumers Struggle Amid Rising Employment and Vigorous Bank Credit Expansion

Circling back to consumers: considering that the Philippine economy has allegedly reached near-record employment levels (close to full employment), why does consumer per capita growth continue to struggle?

Figure 4 

The employment rate hit 96.3% in September, yet Q3 household per capita growth increased only slightly, from 3.8% to 4.2%—the third lowest growth rate since Q2 2021. (Figure 4, topmost window)

Additionally, what explains the consumers' ongoing challenges in light of Universal-commercial bank lending, which reached a record high in nominal terms and grew by 11.33% in Q3—the highest rate since Q4 2022? This growth was notably powered by household credit, which also surged by 23.44%, although it was down from its peak of 25.4% in Q1 2024. (Figure 4, middle graph)

On a related note, even though the money supply (M3) hit a record of Php 17.58 trillion in Q3, its growth rate of 5.4% was the lowest since Q3 2022.

Despite the crescendoing systemic leverage (public debt plus bank credit expansion), which grew by 11.4%—the highest since Q4 2024—to a record Php 27.97 trillion, why has the money supply been trending downward?

Moreover, as evidence of the redistribution effects of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) policies favoring banks amidst the thrust towards financialization, various money supply metrics (M1, M2, and M3) relative to GDP remain at pre-pandemic levels in Q3 2024, despite having clawed back some gains from the 2021 milestone. (Figure 4, lowest chart)

Despite all this, the persistent challenges of consumers continue.

Yet, this raises a crucial point: the GDP appears increasingly dependent on money supply growth and credit expansion.

VIII. Lethargic Q3 2024 Sales of Wilcon and Robinsons Retail Challenge the Consumer Rebound Narrative

There’s more.

Figure 5

In the face of a slow recovery in consumption, retail GDP dropped from 5.8% in Q2 to 5.2% in Q3 2024. (Figure 5, topmost image)

Oddly, bank lending to the sector has been soaring; it was up 12% in September from 9.3% last June.

Where is the money being borrowed by the sector being spent?

Meanwhile, Household GDP figures might be inflated.

Two major retail chains operating in different sectors have reported stagnation in topline performance.

Despite expanding its stores by 12% year-over-year (YoY), the largest downstream real estate consumer chain, Wilcon Depot [PSE: WLCON], experienced a 3.35% YoY contraction in sales and a 4.35% decline quarter-over-quarter (QoQ). (Figure 5, middle graph)

The company's worsening sales conditions have partially reflected the plunge in the sector’s Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Similarly, Robinsons Retail [PSE: RRHI], one of the largest multi-format retailers, reported another lethargic topline performance. (Figure 5, lowest chart)

In Q3, the firm’s sales increased by 3.13%, primarily driven by its food segment (supermarkets and convenience stores), which grew by 4.8%, along with drug stores, which increased by 9%. 

However, three of its other five segments—including department stores, DIY, and specialty—suffered sales contractions. 

Taking into account that the sales from these two retail chains constitute a portion of nominal GDP, applying the GDP deflator would indicate a deeper decline in WLCON's sales and flat sales growth for RRHI. 

Despite the slowdown in inflation and the rapid growth in consumer bank borrowings, consumer spending has gravitated toward essentials (food and drugs) while reducing purchases of non-essentials. 

This observation lends credence to the recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) self-poverty ratings. 

So far, despite loose financial conditions, the performance of these two retail chains contradicts the notion embedded in GDP that consumers have partly opened their wallets in Q3. 

For a clearer picture of consumer health, we await the financial reports of the largest retail chain, SM, and other major goods and food retail chains. 

Imagine the potential impact of real tightening conditions on consumer spending and GDP! 

IX. Public Spending Segment of the Marcos-nomics Stimulus: Are Authorities Pulling Back? 

Recent GDP data suggests a slowdown in public spending, but a closer look reveals a different narrative. 

While overall public spending growth has declined, sectors heavily influenced by the government are seeing gains. 

Specifically, public administration and defense GDP rose from 1.8% in Q2 to 3.7% in Q3. Similarly, sectors with significant government involvement, such as education and health, reported growths from 1.9% to 2.6% and 9.4% to 11.9%, respectively. 

Despite the appearance of a slowdown, the bureaucracy and government-exposed sectors continued to show growth. 

That’s not all.

Figure 6

According to the Bureau of Treasury’s cash operations report, the Q3 expenditure-to-GDP ratio remains at a pandemic-level rate of 24%. 

Additionally, although tax revenues improved, the Q3 deficit-to-GDP increased from 5.3% to 5.7%, again reflecting pandemic-level deficits. 

It’s essential to note that the treasury data and the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) GDP figures—which include their calculation of public spending—represent an apples-to-oranges comparison. 

However, we can still glean insights from a historical perspective of the Treasury’s activities. 

So, why do current data sets indicate sustained increases despite the perceived temperance in government spending? 

While authorities may embellish their deficit data, the consequences are likely to manifest elsewhere. 

Aside from the counterparties that provide financing via debt, it will manifest in the trade balance and eventually impact the private economy—via consumers: the crowding-out effect. 

Q3 Public debt stands at 61.3% of the sum of the last 4 quarters (Q4 2023 to Q3 2024) 

Thus, it’s not surprising that Q3’s fiscal deficit coincided with a notable spike in the trade deficit, which ranks as the fourth highest on record. 

The existence of "twin deficits" points to excessive spending and reveals a historic savings-investment gap that necessitates record borrowing through debt issuance and central bank interventions. 

Adding to this context, the massive RRR cut and BSP’s second round cut of 25 basis points all took effect this October or in the fourth quarter.

We can also expect the government to aim to accomplish its end-of-year spending targets in December, adding to this period’s fiscal activity.

This implies that the full impact of the 2024 "Marcos-nomics" stimulus implemented in Q4 could result in a short-term GDP boost but at a substantial cost to the private sector economy. 

___

references

Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker, Preview of the Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts: BEA’s New Featured Measures of Output and Prices, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1995

Diana Coyle, Warfare and the Invention of GDP, the Globalist, April 6, 2014 

Wikipedia, Gross Domestic Product, Limitations at introduction 

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, System of National Accounts 2008, 2009, p. 4-5 https://unstats.un.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fear the ‟Trump Trade‟ or a Pushback on Fed Policies? Trump or Harris: The Era of the Bond Vigilantes is Upon us

An election is a moral horror, as bad as a battle except for blood; a mud bath for every soul concerned in it—George Bernard Shaw

In this issue

Fear the ‟Trump Trade‟ or a Pushback on Fed Policies? Trump or Harris: The Era of the Bond Vigilantes is Upon us

I. US Election Narrative: Fear the Trump Trade!

II. Market Chaos Erupts after Fed’s September Rate Cut

III. Global Economic War and the Inflation Scorecard: Trump versus Biden-Harris; Trump’s Tariffs as Negotiation Card

IV. Emerging Market and ASEAN Stocks, the PSEi 30 Hit a Record High in Trump’s Term, Philippine Peso Flourished Under Trump!

V. The Biden-Harris Legacy of "Proxy Wars"

VI. Trends in Motion Tend to Stay in Motion: World War III’s Multifaceted Aspects

VII. Global Kinetic Warfare and the Cold War as Products of the Fed’s and Global Central Bank’s Easy Money Regime

VIII. Conclusion: Trump or Harris: The Era of the Bond Vigilantes is Upon Us 

Fear the Trump Trade or a Pushback on Fed Policies? Trump or Harris: The Era of the Bond Vigilantes is Upon us 

Is the "Trump Trade" responsible for recent market convulsions, or does this represent a pushback against the Fed’s actions? Why political-economic trends in motion tend to stay in motion. 

I. US Election Narrative: Fear the Trump Trade!

Trump's Rising Election Odds Sends Emerging Markets Into Tailspin, Causes Biggest Stock Drop In 10 Months (Yahoo, October 27) 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) might have to do more to support the Philippine economy if former US President Donald Trump returns to power and starts a global trade war, which can hurt the entire world and, in turn, dim local growth prospects. (Inquirer.net, October 28, 2024) 

THE RETURN of Donald J. Trump to the US presidency could cause Asian currencies such as the Philippine peso to weaken, analysts said. (Businessworld, October 29, 2024) 

At first glance, it may seem that the following headlines or excerpts were conveyed for Halloween. 

Then, I realized that the U.S. elections are coming up this week. 

Mainstream media has painted an impression that the recent setbacks in the marketplace mean that a Trump win/presidency, or the "Trump Trade," could be detrimental to the markets. 

Let us examine what led to this perspective. 

In October, the Bloomberg spot U.S. dollar index surged by nearly 3% compared to the previous month. The S&P 500 slipped by 0.99%, the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM) dived by 3.07%, and the Global X FTSE ASEAN ETF (ASEA) tanked by 3.9%. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield surged by 48 basis points (12.7%). 

Meanwhile, at home, the Philippine peso plunged by 3.6%, and the PSEi 30 plummeted by 1.78%. 

The prevailing sentiment in the speculative marketplace has shifted from excessive optimism to risk aversion.

Who else to blame but the leading contender in the prediction markets, Trump!

II. Market Chaos Erupts after Fed’s September Rate Cut 

But does this widely accepted perception accurately reflect causation, or is it intended to shift the Overton Window in favor of the opposing contender, Kamala Harris?

Figure 1 

The rising 10-year yield actually started just after the US Federal Reserve initiated its 50-basis-point rate cut on September 18th. (Figure 1, topmost chart)

It is rare to witness such a combination of powerful forces ripple through other market indicators.

Figure 2

Rising Treasury yields have been accompanied by an appreciating U.S. dollar index, which has also contributed to increased volatility in the bond market (MOVE Index) and volatility premiums across asset markets—including equities, oil, and foreign exchange—as well as a spike in U.S. Credit Default Swaps (CDS). (Figure 1, middle and lower graphs, Figure 2 topmost and lower images)

Figure 3

This dynamic coincided with a spike in the Economic Surprise Index and gold's widening outperformance against the TLT iShares 20-Year U.S. Treasury bond prices. (Figure 3, middle topmost and middle visuals) 

Incredible. 

The most striking indicator of the impact of the Fed's rate-cutting cycle that began in September is that it occurred under the loosest financial conditions since at least December 2022. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

In other words, global financial markets have significantly pushed back against the Fed’s easing policy by effectively re-tightening conditions! 

Of course, one could interpret this as "buy the rumor, sell the news." 

Still, other factors are at play—such as unrestrained public spending, surging debt levels, escalating debt servicing costs, geopolitics and more!

Nevertheless, resonating with the "Overton Window" during the pandemic in support of lockdowns and vaccines, the Gramsci-cult elite-controlled media shifted the rhetoric to blame Trump’s predilection for tariffs.

III. Global Economic War and the Inflation Scorecard: Trump versus Biden-Harris; Trump’s Tariffs as Negotiation Card 

First and foremost, yes, while it is true that global trade restrictions did rise in during Trump 1.0 (2017-2021) regime, his successors, the Biden-Harris tandem, pushed for MORE trade barriers, which hit a record high in at least 2022! 

Figure 4

As the IMF chart reveals, the global economic conflict spans both parties, with both candidates appearing inclined toward de-globalization. 

(Note this shouldn’t be seen in a simplistic lens but related to geopolitical developments) 

Second, financial easing amidst the loosest monetary conditions translates to a potential comeback of inflation, which aligns with the perspective that Trump’s trade war results in higher inflation. 

However, that shouldn’t hold water; inflation under Trump’s administration was milder than the inflation epidemic during the Biden-Harris administration. 

Consequently, with higher inflation came higher interest rates as well. 

Third, Trump’s push for tariffs represents a carryover from his 2016 campaign trail. 

He used tariffs as leverage for negotiation but eased up on strict currency regulations, as noted in this Yahoo article. 

Trump has likened his tariff plan to a new "ring around the collar" of the US, with tariffs often described not as part of negotiations but with those high duties as an end goal in themselves to protect US industry… 

He promised during that campaign to impose tariffs, renegotiate NAFTA, and withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. "Promise kept," PolitiFact said of all three. 

Trump also took action on a fourth promise to declare China a currency manipulator but ended up compromising, according to the group. 

IV. Emerging Market and ASEAN Stocks, the PSEi 30 Hit a Record High in Trump’s Term, Philippine Peso Flourished Under Trump!

Figure 5

Fourth, stock markets haven’t been exactly hostile to Trump.

The ASEAN ETF (ASEA) reached an all-time high in 2018 or during the early phase of his administration, and the Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) also hit a milestone that year and also surged to a fresh record toward the close of Trump’s term. Both markets, however, eventually succumbed to the pandemic recession.

Similarly, the Philippine PSEi 30 hit a significant peak in January 2018, also coinciding with Trump’s administration.

On the currency front, the Philippine peso rallied from October 2018 to the end of 2021.

In fact, contrary to contemporary analysis, the USDPHP fell by 3.7% from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021 (Trump’s tenure).

In contrast, under the Biden-Harris administration, the USDPHP has increased by an astounding 21% from January 20, 2021, to the present (October 31, 2024)!

While past performance does not guarantee future outcomes, the scorecard between the contending parties shows a stark difference in the accuracy of the current predominating narratives. 

In a word, propaganda. 

Nota Bene: Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Our purpose is to highlight inaccuracies in media claims. We don’t endorse any candidates. 

V. The Biden-Harris Legacy of "Proxy Wars"

Fifth, the world is on the brink of, or already embroiled in, a form of World War III, fought across multiple spheres. 

The U.S. suffered a humiliating defeat in the 20-year Afghanistan War, ultimately withdrawing in the face of a relentless war of attrition led by the Taliban’s guerilla tactics. Both the Trump and Biden administrations negotiated withdrawal terms, but the Biden-Harris administration oversaw a controversial chaotic exit in August 2021. 

That aside, a series of conflicts has marked the Biden-Harris administration’s legacy. 

The kinetic conflict began with the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, spread to the Israel-Palestine/Hamas war in 2023, and has since escalated to include confrontations involving Israel-Hezbollah or the "Third Lebanon War," and even the precursory phase of Israel-Iran Conflict in 2024. 

Simultaneously, following Obama’s failed "Pivot to Asia," geopolitical tensions have been mounting in the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea, Central Asia, and other parts of the world. 

Notably, these ongoing and emerging conflicts are interconnected.

For example, the U.S. has been supplying not only aid but also arms to its allies to counter hegemonic rivals.

Figure 6

Aside from supplying 70% of conventional weapons, U.S. military aid/grants to Israel soared to all-time highs in 2024! (Figure 6, topmost chart)

That is to say, the current conflicts represent "proxy wars" where the U.S. led NATO forces engage indirectly to pursue hegemonic objectives.

VI. Trends in Motion Tend to Stay in Motion: World War III’s Multifaceted Aspects

The Global Warfare has also entered the economic and financial spheres—seen in the weaponization of the U.S. dollar through asset confiscations targeting so-called "axis of evil" nations, and in the reinforcement of a modern-day "Iron Curtain" marked by significant restrictions on trade, investments, capital flows, and social mobility.

Mounting trade imbalances, which helped fuel the rise in trade barriers from the Trump administration to Biden-Harris, have also laid the groundwork for today’s outbreak of kinetic conflicts.

Geopolitical tensions have surfaced as a growing cold war in other regions as well.

This hegemonic competition to expand sphere of influences has percolated to Africa, Latin America, the South Pacific, and the Global South (BRICs), some of which channeled through mercenary or gang wars and local civil wars. (Dr. Malmgren, 2024)

Ironically, four of the five ASEAN majors, specifically, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam recently signed up for the BRICs membership.

The implicit cold war has also extended into previously uncharted areas: underwater territories, space, the Arctic, the Pacific, mineral resources (like rare earth elements), and technological domains such as DNA research, cyberspace, and microchips (Malmgren, 2023).

The point is that these evolving conflicts underscore the interconnectedness of U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

Given the powerful forces behind this trajectory or the "deep state"—including the Military-Industrial Complex, the National Security State, Straussian neoconservatives promoting the "Wolfowitz Doctrine," the energy industrial complex, Big Tech, and Wall Street—it is unlikely these developments will cease, whether under a Trump 2.0 administration or (Biden carryover through) a Harris regime.

Put simply, while media narratives may further lobotomize or impair the public’s critical thinking, potentially deepening societal division, a meaningful change in the U.S. and global sociopolitical and economic landscape remains unlikely if elections continue to focus on what I call as "personality-based politics."

As investor-philosopher Doug Casey rightly observed, "Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a crisis."

VII. Global Kinetic Warfare and the Cold War as Products of the Fed’s and Global Central Bank’s Easy Money Regime

Lastly, the public tends to overlook that current trends are merely symptoms of deeper issues or mounting disorders stemming from the decadent U.S. dollar standard.

As investor Doug Noland astutely wrote 

Bubbles are mechanisms of wealth redistribution and destruction – with detrimental consequences for social and geopolitical stability. Boom periods engender perceptions of an expanding global pie. Cooperation, integration, and alliances are viewed as mutually beneficial. But late in the cycle, perceptions shift. Many see the pie stagnant or shrinking. A zero-sum game mentality dominates. Insecurity, animosity, disintegration, fraught alliances, and conflict take hold. It bears repeating: Things turn crazy at the end of cycles. (bold mine) [Noland, 2024] 

Easy money has long fueled, or been instrumental in financing, the global war machine, leading to today's bellicose conditions.

Easy money has also powered the growth of big government and contributed to economic bubbles and their eventual backlash, as evidenced by China’s unparalleled panicked bailout policies to prevent a confidence crisis from imploding. 

The push for easy money is likely to persist, whether under a Trump 2.0 or a Harris administration. 

As Professor William Anderson noted, 

The unhappy truth is that both platforms will need the Federal Reserve System to expand its easy money policies, despite the massive damage the Fed has already done by bringing back inflation. While Harris claims to defer to the “experts” at the Fed, Trump wants the president to have more power to set interest rates. Obviously, neither candidate is acknowledging the economically perilous situation in which the government ramps up spending, which distorts the markets, and then depends upon the Fed to monetize the resulting federal deficits. As the debt grows and the economy becomes progressively less responsive to financial stimulus, the threat of stagflation grows. The present path of government borrowing and spending all but guarantees this outcome, and the candidates have neither the political will nor the economic understanding to do what needs to be done. (Anderson, 2024) 

U.S. debt is fast approaching $36 trillion, while global debt reached $315 trillion in Q2 2024 and counting. (Figure 6, middle and lower charts) 

"Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until they reach a crisis."

VIII. Conclusion: Trump or Harris: The Era of the Bond Vigilantes is Upon Us 

While the "Trump trade" provides a convenient pretext for the current tremors in the global financial market, this narrative relies on inaccurate premises and misleading speculative claims that are unsupported by empirical evidence. Instead, these assertions aim to sway the voting audience ahead of this week’s elections. 

In contrast, the current financial market convulsions reflect a significant pushback against the Fed’s and global central banks’ prolonged easy-money policies. As investor Louis Gave of Gavekal recently noted, "Zero rates were a historical aberration that need not be repeated." 

Needless to say, regardless of who wins the U.S. presidency, political agendas will continue to advocate for easy money and various forms of social entropy and conflict. 

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as free lunch forever. 

Although trends in motion tend to stay in motion, the era of the bond vigilantes is upon us.  

Things have been turning a whole lot crazy. 

___

References 

Yahoo Finance, What Trump promised in 2016 on tariffs. And what he delivered (a lot). October 28, 2024, 

Dr. Pippa Malmgren The Cold War in Hot Places, March 12, 2024 

Dr. Pippa Malmgren WWIII: Winning the Peace, October 28, 2023 drpippa.substack.com 

Doug Noland, Vigilantes Mobilizing, Credit Bubble Bulletin, November 1,2024 

William L. Anderson  The Great Retreat: How Trump and Harris Are Looking Backward, August 30, 2024 Mises.org 

Louis-Vincent Gave, Behind The Bond Sell-Off, Evergreen Gavekal October 31, 2024

Chart: How to Trade the US Elections

 

Why US Elections Highlights a Decisive Turning Point in the Era of Inflationism

In this issue

Why US Elections Highlights a Decisive Turning Point in the Era of Inflationism

-Inflationism’s Major Roles: Bubble Blowing, Increased Social Conflicts and Heightened Risks of War

-Inflationism’s Role in the Destruction of Social Fiber

-Inflationism’s Role in Global Conflict

-US Elections: Political Turmoil as Post-Election Legacy?

___ 

Decisive history has been unfolding here and abroad.

In the Philippines, the effects of record asset bubbles have spread to the socio-political dimensions.

First, record asset bubbles.

Nominal housing prices have surged past 1997 highs.

Despite the PSE’s whitewashing, stock market valuations have equally soared past 1997 levels this year. Several market internals has vaulted beyond the April 2015 highs even when the Phisix has failed to breach the said levels.

Despite rising government’s measure of CPI and the faltering peso, yields of Philippine 10 year sovereign fell to record lows post-election last July. Or differently put, Philippine 10 year treasury prices soared to a record high!

Next, socio-economic impact of bubbles.

Near record stocks in July, which has failed to reach April 2015 landmark, have surged out of increasingly brazen accounts of market manipulations.

The Philippine government represented by the BSP and the PSA, as well as, the PSE and several listed firms have resorted to massaging of economic and financial statistics intended to exhibit G-R-O-W-T-H and to camouflage deterioration in the real economy.

Not only market manipulations in stock markets, manipulations and fraud have surfaced in the DBP’s whitewashing of bond market losses and the involvement of several officials of RCBC in a cyber heist.

Fraud, manipulations and swindle emerge during the later stages of a bubble

Third, bubbles have spread to politics.

This massive embrace of short term thinking has diffused into Philippine politics where the election of a strong man has now been perceived as a Holy Grail to socio economic ills.

Such populist delusions have been anchored on a strong man rule based on the substitution of legal and institutional recourse with that of violence and the repression of property rights.

Since all actions have consequences, actions that deal with short solutions will come with nasty and wretched longer term effects. The problem is, the day of reckoning has arrived.

Yet unfolding events in the Philippines represents just a symptom of the dynamics occurring abroad.

Inflationism’s Major Roles: Bubble Blowing, Increased Social Conflicts and Heightened Risks of War

Breakthrough history can be seen on how global central bank’s full adaption of inflationism has spawned not only asset bubbles but likewise have been inciting increasing societal strains

The IMF declares record debt household, corporate and global debt to the tune of $152 trillion or 225% of the global economy.

This has been supported by record explosion of central bank’s balance sheets (Yardeni.com November 4), as well as record streak of interest rates cuts which now exceeds 666, as of August, notes the Bank of America, since 2008 (Business Insider August 6). And central banks have moved out of Zero Interest Rates Policy (ZIRP) to deploy negative interest rates (NIRP). NIRP has been implemented by several countries led by Japan, Scandinavian and EU economies. The effect of which has been to spawn unprecedented negative yielding government bonds which has soared to $12-13 trillion (Bloomberg October 3) or about a third of total outstanding bonds (quartz July 2016)!

And because NIRP creates leakages through increased holdings of cash, many have called for an outright ban on the use of cash or eliminate high denomination notes.

Because record debt means borrowed money has to go or used somewhere, such has led to global asset bubbles.

Because part of the easing policies by central banks included bond purchases, negative yielding bonds means bond prices have soared to record highs! And bond prices have been accompanied by record pileup in bond ETFs! From the Financial Times (October 10, 2016): “Investors have piled more than $100bn into bond exchange traded funds so far this year, taking the global total to its highest ever level as fixed income investors adapt to a changing financial ecosystem”.

The IMF’s gauge of housing prices has almost reached 2008 highs! And this again has been backed by ballooning housing debt!

 

Record debt has also fueled stock market bubbles.

And because of the imbalances in relative levels of interest rates created arbitrage opportunities, along with BREXIT, US stock and bond markets rocketed to new records last July. From the Financial Times (July 11): A fundamental relationship between bonds and equities has broken down as the pressure for returns intensifies in an ever-expanding world of negative interest rates. An insatiable thirst for income has driven both US bond yields and equity prices — two areas that traditionally move in opposite directions — into record territory.

This occurred even when the index of global stocks (FAW) failed to correspond with the US which runs in contrast to 2014 and 2015.

Such curious developments have transpired even when the global economy as measured by World Bank’s GDP has been trending significantly lower since 2010!

The unequal distribution of economic gains has sown seeds to social conflicts.

Inflationism’s Role in the Destruction of Social Fiber

And because borrowed money hasn’t only been inflating bubbles which have apparently become dissonant with global economic performance, these have also been used to finance public expenditures, such as the welfare and the warfare state.

Based on OECD’s measure for member countries, social spending as % of GDP soared to 2009 record highs in 2016!

In other words, as economic conditions slowed, more people have become dependent on government’s largesse to sustain them. And with insufficient revenues, such government bounties have been funded by expansive debt.

And because of bigger funding requirements, governments intrusions on the economy has vastly increased—as evidenced by surges in regulations or mandates and by taxes (indirect and direct).

The intensifying politicization of domestic economies across the world, in the face of immensely burgeoning of dependency on the government, has prompted for a deepening polarization of society.

This comes as global bubbles amplify redistribution process favoring the financial and speculator class.

Don’t forget bubbles have varying effects on the populace. For instance, property bubbles impact society unevenly. Property bubbles subsidizes property speculators, but harms businesses through reduced profits via higher operating costs through increased rents and or higher property costs for acquisitions especially funded by debt or via reduced cash flows. It also impacts households through reduced affordability for potential or would be buyers homeowners, as well as, diminish the disposable incomes for renters.

A wonderful example: In the US, while economic conditions (meager jobs and wage growth) have been cited as main reason why more young adults are living with their parents –for the first time in 130 years (NPR, Pew Research May 24, 2016)—asset inflation or property bubbles may have likely been an important contributor to such dynamic. This has been happening as homeownership has slumped to the lowest level in more than 50 years (Bloomberg July 28) while rental markets skyrocketed (CNBC June 16). [As a side note, perhaps as signs of hissing bubbles, some major rental markets in August have started to drop. Wolf Street,September 2]

Also in the past [How Inflationism Spurred Singapore’s Labor Protectionism September 24, 2013] I have shown how Singapore’s property bubbles have sparked an outcry by residents against foreigners. This has led the government to impose labor protectionism or added restrictions on foreign hiring in the hope to reduce demand for housing.

So for the politically dependent class and for many other aggrieved segments of society, the unevenness of (the unseen politically, or to be more specific, mainly central bank induced) economic distribution has been seen as “inequality” brought about by “market forces”, hence, the aggravation of partisan politics predicated on immediate gratification or short-termism as evidence by the accession of a mélange of anti-immigration, nationalism, protectionism and anti-globalization forces, as well as, growing secession movements.

Scotland’s failed independence referendum in 2014 served as a precursor to the successful Brexit (UK’s withdrawal from the EU) referendum in 2016. The arguments for Brexit centered on immigration controls, rejection of EU bureaucrats and interests of the establishment, as well as reduced intervention on UK’s economy (Marketwatch June 23). PM Theresa May chastised the Bank of England for sowing inequality early October (Business Insider October 5). Unfortunately, Brexit hit a wall when UK’s Supreme Court ruled that invoking Article 50 required a vote by the Parliamentary. The government has appealed to reverse on this ruling. (Bloomberg November 4, 2016)

Italy’s government has been slated to hold a supposedly crucial referendum on “constitutional reform” in December 4. The referendum could represent a litmus test on the likelihood of Italy’s exit from the EU. And Italy has been experiencing a deluge of money outflows, partly due to the banking system’s problem, and perhaps partly, through increased risks of an “Italexit” (Bloomberg, October 17)

Inflationism’s Role in Global Conflict

And since the world operates in sheer complexity, years of central bank inflationism has also spillover to promote global conflict through the financing of the warfare state.

While global military spending expanded materially from 1991-2010, it has been static over the past few years. However, even while the aggregate numbers have been stable since 2011-2015, the distribution of global military spending has vastly differed. The biggest growth in the arms race in 2006-2015, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI, April 2016) have been the UAE 136%, China 132%, Saudi Arabia 97%, Russia 91%, India 43%Brazil 38% and South Korea 37%.

Though expenditures fell 3.9% over the same period, US military spending accounted for 44% of the $1.35 trillion spent by the top 15 or 35% of the total world arms spending at US $1.676 trillion. US military spending accounted for 16% of 2015 budget (Heritage Foundation) and is bound to rise to $617 billion in 2017 according to USgovernmentspending.com

In short, relative growth comparisons would seem inadequate simply because of the scale of spending involved. All other nations have come from small reference numbers.

Yet, the US doesn’t spend all that humongous amount of money for nothing. Hence they have been meddling everywhere.

Former US president Dwight Eisenhower was right, in his 1961 speech he warned against the expansive influence through the domestic political and geopolitical clout of the military industrial complex: “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist”.

Today, the military industrial complex combined with the neoconservative’s embrace of the Wolfowitz Doctrine (Wikipedia) “suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status” has led to manifold US intrusions in overseas affairs and “encirclement strategies” against perceived competitors for superpower status.

Hence, this has prompted governments like China and Russia to respond with an arms race.

The US government’s interference in the Middle East affairs, in particular Syria and in Eastern Europe (Ukraine) has brought her face to face with nuclear power Russia. The US appears to be fighting a proxy war for Israel, since the Syrian leadership has been an ally of Iran and Syria supported Palestine resistance against Israel. The US government has been further involved in Libya, Yemen and, Iraq where the US seems also fighting a proxy war for Saudi Arabia [New York Times March 13, 2016].

This shows how world is faced by real risks of a nuclear confrontation between nuclear powers.

A week ago, the CNN (October 28) reported that a US and Russian war plane, “flew dangerously close to each other while flying over Syria earlier this month”.

Any possible real encounter could translate to “one thing leads to another”.

Add into this combustible cauldron are South China Sea territorial disputes, and rogue North Korea. And another potential flashpoint should include the Kashmir region (India versus Pakistan versus China) [James Hardy Asia Pacific editor of the IHS Janes Defence weekly The National Interest October 17, 2014].

Such debt financed massive arms race increases the risks of a world at war—especially once the global economy falters or a financial crisis emerge. Governments are likely to look for external bogeymen to blame their internal woes.

And wars in the Middle East have led to massive refugee flows into Europe as well. And such massive refugee flows has led to a refugee crisis that has fueled the growing anti-migration/nationalist sentiment.

In other words, trickle down central bank policies based on war on interest rates have spawned multiple social problems not limited to the economic and financial sphere.

US Elections: Political Turmoil as Post-Election Legacy?

This leads us to next week’s crucial US presidential elections.

Despite being the most unfavorable candidates today, the two major candidates appear to be products of Fed sponsored inflationism

Intense partisan politics has reduced the present election into a sham. With both proposing to solve current dilemma by focusing on short term solutions through increasing interventionism and expansive the government, there seems hardly a distinction between them. Nevertheless, the election has been projected as representing a competition between the establishment and the anti-establishment—a theme which resonates with the geopolitical milieu.

Regardless of the winner next week, the vitriol from the election campaign will likely be a legacy.

For one, investigations over the scandals that have wracked the administration’s bet will unlikely diminish.

Question is why has the FBI suddenly U-turned to reopen its investigation on the email scandals that has plagued the administration’s bet at culmination of the campaign period? Has there been a fracturing in the relationship among the establishment interests or the unelected “deep state”, for them to have abandoned the administration’s bet?

Has part of the establishment or the unelected deep state been worried that further investigations post-elections would expose them and cause prospective indictments? Will the sustained investigations, most likely to be conducted by the lower house if controlled by the rival but incumbent (Republican) party, lead to an impeachment, if the administration’s presidential bet wins?

If so, how will the administration’s bet respond to them, will she divert the public’s attention by forcing an armed confrontation with Russia and or China?

Moreover, given the unfathomable wedge that has driven many of the populace towards the populist rival, would a perceive winning by administration’s bet be calmly accepted?

Electoral violence looms especially if ballot rigging will be perceived as the cause of the underdog candidate’s loss (The Guardian November 5). Will there be civil unrest if the populist bet loses?

And what happens if the underdog anti-establishment bet wins? Will the winner eventually end up like the fate of John F. Kennedy?

Additionally, will the election of the populist leader actually lead to imposition of protectionist trade and migrant walls?

And again, regardless of next week’s winner, the imbalances from inflationism will eventually take its toll…perhaps sooner than later.

Just how will next week’s winner respond to this? Will there be more bailouts? And how will the public perceive of the leadership during the coming downturn? Will the present divide lead to a smoldering of umbrage and indignation? Will there be civil unrest?

Yet it has been pretty much a fascination to see how recent performance in the stock markets has been attributed by media to the perception of the odds of winning by the contenders for the US presidency.

When markets go up, it has been said that administration’s bet has the perceived edge. And when the markets go down this has been imputed to growing chances by the underdog. So far, the US and global markets appear to be teetering at the precipice (see FAW above).

In the case of Brexit, polls were mostly skewed towards establishment interests (Bremain) only to see an opposite outcome. At present, polls and establishment media has largely been projecting a win by administration’s protégé.  Will next week be a reprise of Brexit which may cause revulsion in the financial markets? Or will next week send a massive short covering? 

As said above, like the Philippines, persistent inflationism has only spawned societal disharmony and the risks of discord

Even in the US, decisive history is in the making.