US Stocks on a Record Melt Up on Yellenomics and ECB’s QE!

US stocks are on a “Wile E Coyote running off the cliff” momentum.

Here is media’s narrative of last night's record setting run by US stocks. From Bloomberg

U.S. stocks rose, sending benchmark indexes to records, as Macy’s Inc. led a rally among retailers and investors speculated the Federal Reserve’s Janet Yellen will continue the central bank’s stimulus policy as chairman….

The melt up frenzy mode in US stock markets has been broad based. All four major benchmarks from the S&P 500, Dow Jones, Nasdaq and the Russell 2000 have performed strongly.

And here is what has spurred the fantastic run… (bold mine)

Yellen, nominated to be the next chairman of the Fed, said the economy and labor market are performing “far short of their potential” and must improve before the central bank can begin reducing monetary stimulus

“A strong recovery will ultimately enable the Fed to reduce its monetary accommodation and reliance on unconventional policy tools such as asset purchases,” Yellen, the Fed’s current vice chairman, said in testimony prepared for her nomination hearing tomorrow before the Senate Banking Committee. “I believe that supporting the recovery today is the surest path to returning to a more normal approach to monetary policy.”

The remarks show Yellen is committed to the central bank’s strategy of attempting to boost the economy and lower 7.3 percent unemployment, more than four years after the economy began to recover from the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Today’s stock market guidance: Bad news is good news. Bad news means more policies to implicitly redirect or to transfer resources from the real economy to the stock markets. Therefore, US stocks have nowhere to go but up

And it’s not just about Yellonomics. The European Central Bank hinted that Europe’s version of QE may be on the way,  from Reuters:

European Central Bank Executive Board member Peter Praet on Wednesday raised the prospect of the central bank starting to buy assets to bring inflation closer to its target, one of the central bank's most divisive tools.

He also suggested that the ECB could still create negative deposit rates, essentially charging banks to place their money with it.

Zero bound rates, QE, negative deposit rates: central bankers want to eviscerate everyone’s savings in the name of “growth”.

But obviously ballooning central bank balance sheets have hardly translated to “growth”, even the statistical ones. 

"Far short of their potential" has been the dynamic since 2008. It never ends. It seems like endlessly "Waiting for Godot"

The other reason central bankers are supposedly conducting even more easing has been to “combat deflation”.

Bizarrely, by selectively focusing on the CPI index, the mainstream ignores the frenetic stock market melt up yet declares “deflation”. It is as if stock markets operate on different dimensions from the real world.

Such equivocations has been media's du jour feature.

Today’s headlines from the Guardian on Spain’s supposed deflation “Deflation fears stalk eurozone as Spain reports fall in prices” is a good example 

Spain became the latest European country to report sliding prices, underlining fears that with inflation already at 0.7% across the 17 country single currency area in October, sky-high unemployment and a prolonged economic malaise may be dragging the eurozone towards a Japanese-style deflationary slump.

Madrid said prices in the crisis-hit country declined by 0.1% in the year to October, adding Spain to a list of countries – including Ireland, Greece and Cyprus – that are already mired in deflation.

The above is Spain’s stock market benchmark the Madrid General Index. Deflation in stocks?

Falling yields from Spain’s 10 year bonds means a rally in Spain’s bonds. Deflation on bonds?

So while it may be half true where CPI indices for crisis affected countries may have been in a decline, whatever loss in CPI has been offset by rallying financial markets.

Again such phenomena have been indicative of an ongoing shift of resources from main street to the banks, the financial industry, to the government and to relative fewer market participants occurring throughout the world, but mostly led by the US.

Yet the widespread engagement by media of doublespeak to justify these central bank interventions.

Ironically there has even recently been an “inflation” spike in the search for the term “deflation” in Google trends! Deflation, where?

Novelist George Orwell Power warned of such manipulation of information or "doublespeak" in his prescient classic 1984  

Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.

Cognitive Dissonance and the US Stock Markets

Media, politicians and the US stock market operates in a cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the confusion arising from the state of holding (Wikipedia.org) “two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions”

First the record run in US stocks has been been attributed to “growing confidence in the U.S. recovery” Good news is read as good for stocks, that's as of the other day.

Then today, falling stocks have been imputed to concerns over a pushback on stimulus; “will scale back its stimulus efforts if the labor market continues to improve”. 

Here good news is seen as bad news.

From the above account, one wonders whether the “growing” economy is really good or bad for stocks? Or whether “growth” has merely served as a cosmetic for the deepening addictions by the markets on the FED's steroids?

More rhetorical conflict of rhetoric from Media, Wall Street, and the US government;

On the one hand, the economy has been exhibiting strength for some of the FED officials to propose tapering of stimulus 

A number said they were willing to taper bond buying as early as the next meeting on June 18-19 if economic reports show “evidence of sufficiently strong and sustained growth,” according to the record of the April 30-May 1 gathering released today in Washington.

“Most observed that the outlook for the labor market had shown progress” since the-bond buying program began in September, according to the minutes. “But many of these participants indicated that continued progress, more confidence in the outlook, or diminished downside risks would be required before slowing the pace of purchases would become appropriate.”

On the other hand, Ben Bernanke contradicts the above by stating that the economy doesn’t seem to be strong enough for premature withdrawal of stimulus

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke defended the central bank’s record stimulus program under questioning from lawmakers, telling them that ending it prematurely would endanger a recovery hampered by high unemployment and government spending cuts.

“A premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise temporarily but would also carry a substantial risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further,” Bernanke said today in testimony to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in Washington.

From Mr. Bernanke’s point of view, “premature tightening of monetary policy could lead interest rates to rise” implies the exposing of the risks of the highly leverage markets and economy. And that such tightening would extrapolate to a bubble bust or in economic gobbledygook “the risk of slowing or ending the economic recovery and causing inflation to fall further”

So essentially, people at the Fed have been talking at different wavelengths. Bernanke's discourse has been premised on the entrenched bubble conditions, whereas other Fed officials have used statistics to generate economic forecasts (or reading history as the future).

Thus Fed officials seem as clueless as to the real direction of the economy or of the markets. Or are they?

And a bollixed FED has been used by the stock markets as a reason to retrace. From intraday gains, US stocks went from green into the red yesterday (stockcharts.com)

Record setting US stocks has been on fire rising for 19 straight sessions before today’s correction and whose winning streak was cut short by cognitive dissonance.

Why is this important? Because, aside from direct and indirect interventions, the state of bewilderment of the causal process of the current environment by the media and political agents has contributed immensely to the skewing of price signals and to the accumulation of imbalances in the system. This has also been used to sabotage gold prices.

Well, Philip Coggan of the Economist Buttonwood fame points to studies reinforcing the “parallel universe” or the growing disconnect between stocks and the real economy. (bold mine)

The annualised growth rate of the US economy in the first quarter was 2.5 per cent; the annual gain in earnings per share was 5.2%; the annualised gain in the market was 46%. Of course, as has been pointed out by the assiduous Marsh, Dimson and Staunton, or by Jay Ritter, there is no clear statistical link between GDP growth and equity returns at all.

The mainstream has now been recognizing this.

And as I have been pointing out this is not your daddy or your granddaddy's stock markets.

And more on why the current environment or the parallel universe is unsustainable, again from the Buttonwood… (bold mine)

The hope is that higher share prices can eventually produce a self-fulfilling cycle via a wealth effect (and on this note, the University of Michigan survey last week showed consumer confidence at a six-year high) or indeed on business investment. Mr Makin notes that real household net worth is up by about $4 trillion over the last year, helped by houses as well as stocks. He estimates the wealth effect at about 4% over a year; thus the boost to consumer spending was $160 billion, or 1% of GDP. This may indeed explain why US consumer have shaken off the effect of the rise in payroll taxes this year.

But the offset of this wealth effect is that the household savings rate fell to 2.6% in the first quarter, down from 5.1% in 2010. As Mr Makin points out, this is ominously similar to the pre-2007 pattern of high consumption based on the hope that asset prices would stay high. The potential long-term problem here is that asset prices tend to revert to the mean; people may be saving too little for their retirement on the view that markets will do all the work. As in 2007 and 2008, they may get a nasty shock later on. One could make quite a bearish case for US equities in the long run, on the grounds that share price valuations (as measured by the Shiller p/e) are higher than average and profits are at a post-1947 high as a proportion of GDP.

The lesson is whatever statistical growth seen from today is mostly a reflection of credit driven elevated prices of financial assets rather from real economic growth. The same holds true for the Philippines. 

The mirage of statistical growth. 

Hence Ben Bernanke realizes that any pullback of steroids would expose on this sham that would undermine the banking sector’s balance sheets.

Also an ‘exit’ would also mean the pulling of the proverbial rag underneath the FED’s monetization of US debts which hardly anyone talks about.

Bottom line: The protection of the banking sector and the Fed’s financing of US government debt have been the main pillars that undergirds the FED’s credit easing policies. That’s why such “exit” or “withdrawal” blarney are what I call as poker bluff. The Fed cannot afford it.

IN withholding the truth, the Fed’s communication’s strategy seems as the guileful employment of cognitive dissonance in order to confuse the public.

As English novelist Eric Arthur Blair popularly known for his pen name George Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language (italics original)

Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin where it belongs.

Richard Ebeling: How Karl Marx Brought Ruin to the World

Splendid article from Austrian economist and Northwood University professor Dr. Richard M. Ebeling on the horrific consequences from the bad ideas of Karl Max. (hat tip EPJ)

Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in the German Rhineland town of Trier, and died on March 14, 1883 in London.It is worth recalling, also, that there was a time when Marx was an anti-communist.

It is said that by its fruit you will know the tree. The last one hundred years is a clear testament to the consequences of Marx’s influence on modern history.

Accepting the “classical” labor theory of value, he concluded the workers were “exploited” by the “capitalists.” Marx claimed that “profit” was a portion of the workers’ output extracted by the property owners as the “price” the workers had to pay to have access to the privately owned physical means of production, without which they could not produce and survive.

The Austrian economist, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, in Capital and Interest (1884) and Karl Marx and the Close of His System (1896), demonstrated that Marx had confused “”profit” with “interest.” In a competitive market, profit is a temporary discrepancy between selling price and costs-prices, eventually competed away by businesses bidding up wages for workers (and other resource prices) to work for them, and those same businesses then competing for consumers to buy their output by offering their wares at better selling prices than their rivals.

What Marx had failed to fully understand was that production takes time, and that if workers would not or could not wait until the product was finished and sold to consumers to receive their wages, then someone had to “advance” those wages to them over the production period.

That, Boehm-Bawerk showed, is what the employers did, so that what workers received while working was the discounted value of their marginal product. The “gain” received by employers over their costs of production, even in long-run equilibrium, was the implicit interest for having ‘waited” for the product to be finished and sold, when they might have done other things with the “savings” they had advanced to those workers during the period of production.

If it is recognized that “time” has value, and, therefore, an intertemporal price, the notion that workers were or could be “exploited” in open, competitive markets for resources and finished goods was fundamentally wrong.

On this foundation of sand, Marx constructed his theory of the “injustice” of capitalism that has, in various forms, continued to plague the ideas and policies of countries around the world.

In the 20th century, it inspired the communist revolutions that led to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent men, women, and children. For those not aware of the magnitude of this human catastrophe, I recommend, The Black Book of Communism (1997), written by former French socialists and “fellow-travelers, that tells the horrific tale of “socialism-in-practice,” wherever those guided by Marx’s ideas came to power.

Or Paul Hollander’s edited volume, From the Gulag to the Killing Fields (2007), that brings together excerpts from the personal accounts of those who lived through the “building” of the brave new worker’s paradise, with all their tragic details about the fate of those considered “enemies of the people,” or merely expendable cogs in the wheel of socialist central planning.

Pls read the rest here

Here are the ten planks of the communist manifesto (Wikipedia.org)

About four them are prominent features in today’s supposed market economies; particularly progressive taxation, central banking, centralization of communications and transport (this is more indirect for more open economies and direct for authoritarian states) and public school.

One would wonder how the mainstream supposedly loathes communism as to embrace some of its principles, and how communist principles have been adorned as “capitalism”.

George Orwell in 1984 would call such opaqueness and blatant contradiction as Blackwhite newspeak: (bold original)

...this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

Video: George Carlin on Politically Correct Terminlogies

The inimitable comedian the late George Carlin on politically correct terminologies.  (hat tip Lew Rockwell Blog)

Loved that punchline at 3: 42 

This poor people have been bullshited by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition somehow you change the condition...

  

Mr. Carline's much missed stint reminds me of a gem of a quote from author individualist feminist anarchist and senior associate of Laissez Faire Books, Ms. Wendy McElroy: (bold emphasis mine)

The deepest form of social control is to govern what a human being believes is true and false, right and wrong. When you short-circuit a person’s critical faculty and moral sense, he will obey authority with no need for force because authority has defined who he is. 

Such control requires the monopolization of information. That is why totalitarian states establish compulsory state schools, throttle freedom of speech and the press, broadcast propaganda, legislate the Internet, and obsessively monitor what people say to each other. They need to eliminate any competition in the ‘truth business’. And, so, those who know the “Emperor has no clothes” are silenced by various means. 

The control of what is true and false can be called the democratization of reality. ‘Facts’ are manufactured by those who control information and, then, they are broadcast widely to unquestioning people who believe them because the ‘facts’ spew from authorities or the media. If enough people believe the heavily gerrymandered stats on unemployment and inflation, then the economy is not so bad. If the media is upbeat about the economy, then consumer confidence will turn things around. If enough people believe the police “serve and protect,” then those who cry ‘brutality!’ become troublemakers. If politicians are viewed as “public servants,” then they cease to be masters. Thus, what is reality becomes established by consensus.

What is reality becomes established by the consensus is exactly the message imparted by by Mr. Carlin

Quote of the Day: Newspapers as Polluted Vehicles

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false. 

This excerpt is from America’s founding father, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Norvell, June 11, 1807 (Source: The Library of Congress)

Quote of the Day: Real Deleveraging

No stock market commentary for today.

Here is a brilliant objective analysis of the current bubble conditions from Doug Noland of the Credit Bubble Bulletin at the PrudentBear.com (bold emphasis mine)

Our economic structure certainly enjoys unmatched capacity to absorb Credit excess without engendering traditional consumer price inflation.  Yet there is indeed a huge problem that no one seems to want to recognize:  Our system also has an unprecedented capacity to expand Credit that is backed by little in the way of wealth-creating capacity.  Our government literally injects Trillions into the economy – Credit that inflates incomes and sustains consumption and elevates asset prices.  The downside of this economic miracle is that, at the end of the day, there’s little left to show for the whole exercise except for an ever-expanding mountain of suspect financial claims.  Moreover, market values of these claims are sustained only by the unrelenting expansion of additional claims/Credit concurrent with increasingly radical monetary management.  This is Minsky’s “Ponzi Finance” at a systemic level.

A real deleveraging would see the economy and financial markets weaned off of rampant Credit growth.  Non-financial Credit growth averaged about $700bn annually during the nineties.  This inflated to about $2.4 TN at the Mortgage Finance Bubble pinnacle in 2007.  As I noted above, we’re currently running at an annualized Credit growth rate of nearly $2.0 TN.  This is posing great unappreciated risk to system stability.

A real deleveraging would see price levels (and market-based incentives) adjust throughout the economy in a manner that would spur business investment – in the process incentivizing sound investment-based lending and resulting job growth.  Real deleveraging would see a shift in the economic structure from Credit-fueled consumption to savings and productive investment.  Real deleveraging would give rise to our endemic trade deficits shifting to surplus.  Real deleveraging would see a meaningful reduction in non-productive debt.  Real deleveraging would see market prices dictated by fundamentals rather than governmental intervention, manipulation and inflationism.

The “raging” debate is whether recent elevated unemployment is a “cyclical” or “structural” phenomenon.  Academic “white papers” not required.  After all, find a system that doubles mortgage Credit in about six years and then proceeds to double federal debt in four - and you'll no doubt locate a deeply maladjusted economic structure.  Such gross financial imbalance ensures economic imbalance.  And, importantly, the longer such imbalances are accommodated/incentivized by loose fiscal and monetary policies the deeper the structural impairment.  Throw massive fiscal stimulus and monetize Trillions and such a structure will surely demonstrate historic deficiencies and fragilities.

Deleveraging – the process of unwinding the economic damage wrought from years of excess - will be a quite arduous economic process; one that will commence at some unknown date in the future.  Oh, I guess I failed to mention that total (financial and non-financial) Credit ended Q2 at a record $55.031 TN, or 353% of GDP.  And Rest of World holdings of our financial assets ended the quarter at a record $19.100 TN, a $3.860 TN increase from the end of 2008.

Deleveraging, which has been the mainstream tautology, has been promoted by cherry-picking evidences in support of this view.

Yet while it may be true that some sectors have been enduring salutary deleveraging, the big picture reveals that systemic debt has been intensifying not only in the US but on a global scale most of which has been borne by the governments.

And much like austerity, deleveraging has been a maligned and distorted term and uttered like an incantation which has been used to justify more government interventions. 

All these only adds up to have a compounding effect on systemic fragility. 

Understanding Political Terminologies 3: Frédéric Bastiat on Mercantilism

Why is it very easy to sell political crap? Because all one needs is to broach information that caters to heuristics and emotionalism.

In the case of mercantilism or protectionism, the great Frédéric Bastiat wrote of how the public can easily be swayed by falsehoods,

We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete, we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations.

This arises from the nature of things. Protection concentrates on one point the good which it produces, while the evils it inflicts are spread over the masses. The one is visible to the naked eye; the other only to the eye of the mind. In the case of liberty, it is just the reverse.

In the treatment of almost all economic questions we find it to be so.

You say: Here is a machine that has turned 30 workmen onto the street.

Or: Here is a spendthrift who encourages every branch of industry.

Or: The conquest of Algeria has doubled the trade of Marseilles.

Or: The budget secures subsistence for 100,000 families.

You are understood at once and by all. Your propositions are in themselves clear, simple, and true. What are your deductions from them?

Machinery is an evil.

Luxury, conquests, and heavy taxation are productive of good.

And your theory receives wide support in that you are in a situation to support it by reference to undoubted facts.

On our side, we must decline to confine our attention to the cause and its direct and immediate effect. We know that this very effect in its turn becomes a cause. To judge correctly of a measure, then, we must trace it through the whole chain of effects to its final result. In other words, we are forced to reason upon it.

To the unwitting public, if you tell lies that are big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

And that’s why even centuries after being debunked or being refuted by classical economics and by classical liberals, the spirit of mercantilism has remained politically popular.

This only exhibits that because many seem to have hardly been capable to think beyond their emotions, they become instruments for oppression, especially through the tyranny of mob-rule (democracy), by scheming politicians and their institutional followers.

Misrepresenting Frédéric Bastiat and the Black Swan Theory

Populist financial analyst John Mauldin seem to have misrepresented Frédéric Bastiat in his latest outlook.

Mr. Mauldin writes of Frédéric Bastiat,

He was a strong proponent of limited government and free trade, but he also advocated that subsidies (read, stimulus?) should be available for those in need, "... for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions."

Really?

Here is the complete quotation from the great Frédéric Bastiat in Justice and fraternity, in Journal des Économistes, 15 June 1848, page 313 (Wikipedia.org) [quoted from Bastiat.org, bold emphasis mine, italics as per Mr. Mauldin’s quote]

When a great number of families, all of whom, whether in isolation or in association, need to work in order to live, to prosper, and to better themselves, pool some of their forces, what can they demand of this common force save the protection of all persons, all products of labor, all property, all rights, all interests? Is this anything else than universal justice? Evidently, the right of each is limited by the absolutely similar right of all the others. The law, then, can do no more than recognize this limit and see that it is respected. If it were to permit a few to infringe this limit, this would be to the detriment of others. The law would be unjust. It would be still more so if, instead of tolerating this encroachment, it ordered it.

Suppose property is involved, for example. The principle is that what each has produced by his labor belongs to him, the more so as this labor has been comparatively more or less skillful, continuous, successful, and, consequently, more or less productive. What if two workers wish to unite their forces, to share the common product according to mutually agreed-upon terms, or to exchange their products between them, or if one should make a loan or a gift to the other? What has this to do with the law? Nothing, it seems to me, if the law has only to require the fulfillment of contracts and to prevent or punish misrepresentation, violence, and fraud.

Does this mean that it forbids acts of self-sacrifice and generosity? Who could have such an idea? But will it go so far as to order them? This is precisely the point that divides economists from socialists. If the socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the state should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is, however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it. It is quite evident that organized charity would, in this case, do much more permanent harm than temporary good.

Bastiat was for subsidies (stimulus)? Go figure.

This is a nice example of doublespeak or the language that deliberately distorts or reverses the meaning of the words or statement—usually employed in politics. Yes just pick out an excerpt from which to stress one’s bias, even if these had been taken out of context.

Oh by the way, Mr. John Mauldin may have also misread the Black Swan Theory

He writes,

A Black Swan is a random event, something that takes us all by surprise. Economic Black Swans are actually quite rare. 9/11 and the aftermath was a true Black Swan.

This barely represents the definition of the theory

According to the book description of Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan: The Impact of Highly Improbable [bold emphasis mine]

A black swan is a highly improbable event with three principal characteristics: It is unpredictable; it carries a massive impact; and, after the fact, we concoct an explanation that makes it appear less random, and more predictable, than it was…

Why do we not acknowledge the phenomenon of black swans until after they occur? Part of the answer, according to Taleb, is that humans are hardwired to learn specifics when they should be focused on generalities. We concentrate on things we already know and time and time again fail to take into consideration what we don’t know. We are, therefore, unable to truly estimate opportunities, too vulnerable to the impulse to simplify, narrate, and categorize, and not open enough to rewarding those who can imagine the “impossible.”

For years, Taleb has studied how we fool ourselves into thinking we know more than we actually do. We restrict our thinking to the irrelevant and inconsequential, while large events continue to surprise us and shape our world.

Black swans appear to be random when they are products of OUR failure to "take into consideration what we don’t know”. In short, the knowledge problem

For instance, 9/11 was considered a black swan for the victims, but not for the terrorists.

Mr. Taleb alludes to the Turkey problem as model for the Black Swan theory: For the turkey—after months of fattening who suddenly have been put into the dinner table for Thanksgiving—would be a (surprise) black swan, but not for the butcher.

This applies to the financial markets as well.

More Brain Drain Canard: When All You Have is a Hammer, Everything is a Nail

The politically colored term “Brain drain” can be seen as an example of what George Orwell labeled as “doublespeak” or language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.

Here is the Inquirer,

The brain drain has become a bigger problem in the last 12 years, as the yearly exodus of people trained in science and technology (S&T) grew by about two and a half times from 1998 to 2009.

According to a Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics (BLES) report, the number of S&T workers who opted for overseas jobs rose from 9,877 in 1998 to 24,502 in 2009.

The numbers refer only to new hires or those leaving the country for jobs for the first time.

The BLES cited data from a study titled “International Migration of Science and Technology Manpower-OFWs,” which the Department of Science and Technology’s Science Education Institute (SEI-DOST) published in 2011.

S&T deployment

Results showed that during the 12-year period, S&T deployment grew by an average of 11 percent yearly, peaking at a 59-percent increase in 2001 when 17,756 professionals left, compared with 11,186 the previous year.

Based on the SEI-DOST study, S&T manpower includes physicists, chemists, mathematicians, statisticians, computing professionals, engineers, life science professionals, health professionals (except nurses), and nurses and midwives.

The study found that nurses and midwives represented the biggest group with an average of 9,348 deployed yearly, or 60 percent of the total S&T average of 15,555.

Brain drain is essentially OFWs in different attires.

How can migration be a “problem” when they are representative of individual choices and responses to the current political economic environment?

Have OFWs not been acclaimed as modern day heroes based on mainstream politics?

Whether it is about greener pastures or about career advancement or many other reasons, the point is that OFWs VOTED with their feet. Thus, the actions of science, math and technology graduates, simply reveals of the lack of income, if not career opportunities in the Philippines. These people are simply looking out for their welfare.

Are they not in a better state than becoming unemployed tertiary or college graduates which not only adds to political dependency and the government's fiscal problems but also dehumanizes or demoralizes the individual and their families?

So it is ok to send graduates of different courses or undergraduates, but it isn’t ok to send (S&T) graduates? So the government discriminates or plays favorite with different segments of OFWs? How moral is this?

I have dealt with this bromide lengthily here

Ah but of course, it said that when all you have is a hammer, everything else is a nail. When the government sees a problem they have the typical solution: spend, spend, spend and spend more of other people’s money

From the same article,

When the national budget for 2012 was pending in Congress last year and Malacañang was pushing for a 10-percent increase in allocations for state universities and colleges (SUCS), Budget Secretary Florencio B. Abad said the Executive supports the development of SUCs toward five priority areas that are expected to drive economic growth and employment.

So there you have it.

“Brain drain” has not been a problem when it gives the political authorities free advertisement, as “modern day heroes”, to advance on their political goals.

But “Brain drain” becomes a problem when the government has been itching to spend money other people’s money.

Doublespeak it is.

Video: Marc Faber: Cosmetic Fix for the Eurozone

Investing guru, the publisher of Gloom Boom and Doom Report, Dr. Marc Faber has a great analogy for the proposed EU banking fix

Dr. Faber as quoted by LewRockwell.com

If you put one or 100 sick banks in a union, it does not change the fact that they're sick. In my view the markets are rallying because they were grossly oversold. When markets are grossly oversold, especially markets of Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, then any news that is not disastrous news propels stocks higher. Their cosmetic fix basically forces Germans to continue to finance people in Spain and Portugal and Greece that are living beyond their means.

Indeed a foolish thing is a foolish thing. Numbers don't change the essence of the problem.

Yet the common recourse for politicians and media has been to engage in verbal manipulation, particularly the appeal to the popular, in the hope that confidence may be brought back without the required reforms.

More from Dr. Faber

Understanding Political Terminologies 2: Social Justice, Greece, Austerity and Insurance

Political language have been deliberately mangled to suit and promote the interests of political agents and their followers. I have given a few examples earlier.

More examples:

1. SOCIAL JUSTICE

Once again here is the brilliant Thomas Sowell on “Social Justice”

If there were a Hall of Fame for political rhetoric, the phrase "social justice" would deserve a prominent place there. It has the prime virtue of political catchwords: It means many different things to many different people.

In other words, if you are a politician, you can get lots of people, with different concrete ideas, to agree with you when you come out boldly for the vague generality of "social justice."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword can stop thought for 50 years. The phrase "social justice" has stopped many people from thinking, for at least a century -- and counting.

If someone told you that Country A had more "social justice" than Country B, and you had all the statistics in the world available to you, how would you go about determining whether Country A or Country B had more "social justice"? In short, what does the phrase mean in practice -- if it has any concrete meaning?

In political and ideological discussions, the issue is usually whether there is some social injustice. Even if we can agree that there is some injustice, what makes it social?

Surely most of us are repelled by the thought that some people are born into dire poverty, while others are born into extravagant luxury -- each through no fault of their own and no virtue of their own. If this is an injustice, does that make it social?

The baby born into dire poverty might belong to a family in Bangladesh, and the one born to extravagant luxury might belong to a family in America. Whose fault is this disparity or injustice? Is there some specific society that caused this? Or is it just one of those things in the world that we wish was very different?

If it is an injustice, it is unjust from some cosmic perspective, an unjust fate, rather than necessarily an unjust policy, institution or society.

Investing guru Doug Casey also shares more verbal twisting (Greece and Austerity)…

2. GREECE

it's not "Greece" we're talking about, but the Greek government. It's the Greek government that's made the laws that got people used to pensions for retirement at age 55. It's the Greek government that's built up a giant and highly paid bureaucracy that just sits around when it's not actively gumming up the economy. It's the Greek government that's saddled the country with onerous taxes and regulations that make most business more trouble than it's worth. It's the Greek government that borrowed billions that the citizens are arguably responsible for. It's the Greek government that's set the legal and moral tone for the pickle the place is in.

3. AUSTERITY

the term "austerity" is used very loosely by the talking heads on TV. It sounds bad, even though it just means living within one's means… or, for Europeans, not too insanely above them. But who knows what's actually included or excluded from what the EU leaders think of as austerity? Take the Greek pension funds, for example: exactly how are they funded? I'd expect that private companies make payments to a state fund, as Americans do via the Social Security program. I suspect there's no money in the coffers; it's all been frittered on high living and socialist boondoggles. Tough luck for pensioners. Maybe they can convince the Chinese to give them money to keep living high off the hog…

4. I would add INSURANCE as camouflage for the Welfare State

From Murray N. Rothbard,

The answer is the very existence of health-care insurance, which was established or subsidized or promoted by the government to help ease the previous burden of medical care. Medicare, Blue Cross, etc., are also very peculiar forms of "insurance."

If your house burns down and you have fire insurance, you receive (if you can pry the money loose from your friendly insurance company) a compensating fixed money benefit. For this privilege, you pay in advance a fixed annual premium. Only in our system of medical insurance, does the government or Blue Cross pay, not a fixed sum, but whatever the doctor or hospital chooses to charge.

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. In short, in a form grotesquely different from Say's Law, the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service.

In order to stanch the flow of taxes or subsidies, in recent years the government and other third party insurers have felt obliged to restrict somewhat the flow of goodies: by increasing deductibles, or by putting caps on Medicare payments. All this has been met by howls of anguish from medical customers who have come to think of unlimited third-party payments as some sort of divine right, and from physicians and hospitals who charge the government with "socialistic price controls" — for trying to stem its own largesse to the health-care industry!

In addition to artificial raising of the demand curve, there is another deep flaw in the medical insurance concept. Theft is theft, and fire is fire, so that fire or theft insurance is fairly clear-cut the only problem being the "moral hazard" of insurees succumbing to the temptation of burning down their own unprofitable store or apartment house, or staging a fake theft, in order to collect the insurance.

In the world of politics,lies, distortions and equivocations are the norm.

Don't fall for them

Understanding Political Terminologies

The following are excerpts from the splendid article of the distinguished economist Thomas Sowell. Here are the meaning of some popular political terms:

1. FAIRNESS

One of the most versatile terms in the political vocabulary is “fairness.” It has been used over a vast range of issues, from “fair trade” laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. And recently we have heard that the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Some of us may want to see a definition of what is “fair.” But a concrete definition would destroy the versatility of the word, which is what makes it so useful politically.

If you said, for example, that 46.7 percent of their income — or any other number — is the “fair share” of their income that the rich should have to pay in taxes, then once they paid that amount, there would be no basis for politicians to come back to them for more — and “more” is what “fair share” means in practice.

Life in general has never been even close to fair, so the pretense that the government can make it fair is a valuable and inexhaustible asset to politicians who want to expand government.

2. GREEDY, COMPASSION and HUNGRY

A more positive term that is likely to be heard a lot, during election years especially, is “compassion.” But what does it mean concretely? More often than not, in practice it means a willingness to spend the taxpayers’ money in ways that will increase the spender’s chances of getting reelected.

In the political language of today, people who want to keep what they have earned are said to be “greedy,” while those who wish to take their earnings from them and give it to others (who will vote for them in return) show “compassion.”

A political term that had me baffled for a long time was “the hungry.” Since we all get hungry, it was not obvious to me how you single out some particular segment of the population to refer to as “the hungry.”

Eventually, over the years, it finally dawned on me what the distinction was. People who make no provision to feed themselves, but expect others to provide food for them, are those whom politicians and the media refer to as “the hungry.”

Those who meet this definition may have money for alcohol, drugs or even various electronic devices. And many of them are overweight. But, if they look to voluntary donations, or money taken from the taxpayers, to provide them with something to eat, then they are “the hungry”.

Beware of the Orwellian doublespeak

Video: Jim Rogers says QE 3.0 could be Disguised

Legendary investor Jim Rogers says in this interview that the US Federal Reserve will engage in QE 3.0 when events get worst but will likely disguised it;

They may disguise it, they may call it cupcakes

Since governments are political entities, then they employ politics even in the way they communicate to the public.

A good example is the political language called doublespeak which Wikipedia defines as

language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs), making the truth less unpleasant, without denying its nature. It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth, producing a communication bypass.

Quantitative Easing or credit easing policies is essentially money printing which is an example of euphemism or doublespeak.

So yes we could expect another doublespeak in terminologies applied for the next round of money printing or inflationism.