REMINDER: All investment, economics, and finance related material now appears at the new IaconoResearch.com. For the time being at least, this has become a personal blog covering a variety of mostly unrelated topics.

The Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls in the U.S. rose by 227,000 in February, paced by big gains in the professional and businesses services sector as well as in health care, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.3 percent.

Labor Report

There were also some big upward revisions to previously reported payrolls data as the December job gain total of 203,000 was raised to 223,000 and January’s total of 243,000 now stands at 284,000.

The number of Americans the Labor Department counts as unemployed held steady at 12.8 million, though a broader measure of underemployment that includes discouraged workers and those settling for part-time work now stands at 23.5 million as the U-6 measure of underutilization fell from 15.1 percent to 14.9 percent.

(more…)

Tagged with:  






In this story at the New York Post, economic/financial market skeptic John Crudele suggests that you lower your expectations for tomorrow’s labor report for the following reasons:

As I’ve reported before, the 2.689 million job loss turned into a gain of 243,000 only because Labor’s seasonal adjustment programs expected the job losses to be bigger. The warm winter weather probably kept some people from being put out of work, and this threw off Washington’s calculations.

New York PostWill that same thing happen with tomorrow’s number?

That isn’t likely. Yes, the weather has remained warm. But Labor’s computers are expecting undoctored, not seasonally adjusted growth of more than 800,000 jobs in February.

So there’s less chance that the seasonal adjustments will be pleasantly surprising.

And February isn’t one of those months in which Washington includes a huge guesstimate for jobs added by companies it thinks, but can’t prove, were just started. This so-called Birth/Death Model has been the biggest contributor to job growth — bogus job growth — over the past few years.

Also, John has spotted a link between Tuesday’s stock market dive and Wednesday’s story about the Fed’s latest thinking on the next round of money printing:

Even though one Fed official last week told investors to stop depending on “morphine” from the central bank, the cry for another version of quantitative easing went out less than 24 hours after the Dow Jones industrial average fell 203 points on Tuesday.

Why not give Wall Street what it wants?

Because the Fed’s money-printing operation is leading to higher commodities prices. And as thrilled as I would be to bail Wall Street out again, can’t we at least wait until it really needs our help?

That’s a good question (the second one, that is).

Jim Grant on Fed Money Printing

Jim Grant of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer talks to Maria Bartiromo and Kelly Evans of CNBC about yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve is considering “sterilized” asset purchases, what now appears to be the leading candidate for the Fed’s next round of “quantitative easing”, otherwise known as money printing.

While the quip “Capitalism is an alternative for what we have now – I highly recommend it” has been highly cited, his comments about the 1920-1921 recession were also of interest as that appears to have been the last time that an economic slowdown has been left to run its own course without massive intervention by the government and central bank.

On “Flexible Inflation Targeting”

In the years ahead we’ll probably hear a lot more about the Federal Reserve’s new “flexible inflation targeting” approach as it relates to their deliberations on monetary policy and this Bloomberg story by Fed watcher Craig Torres gives us a preview of what we’re likely to hear this spring, that is, if gasoline prices wind up where nearly every analyst thinks they’ll be.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke spent six years pushing for an inflation goal. Now that he has it, some investors are betting he’ll breach the 2 percent target in the short run to lower unemployment.

The Fed chairman told lawmakers last week that an increase in energy costs will boost inflation “temporarily while reducing consumers’ purchasing power.” He also said the central bank will adopt a “balanced approach” as it pursues its twin goals of price stability and full employment, which it defines as a jobless rate of between 5.2 percent and 6 percent.

“The chairman seemed to suggest they will tolerate a misdemeanor on inflation as unemployment continues to fall toward their goal” over several years, said Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital, a hedge fund that manages $250 million in Washington.

Policy makers at a March 13 meeting probably won’t deviate from their commitment to hold interest rates close to zero at least through late 2014, even if their forecast shows a burst of energy-driven inflation, said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP LLC in Jersey City, New Jersey. They’ll probably be more concerned that rising prices will hold back real spending, impeding growth and improvement in the job market, he said.

“The chairman said, ‘We think it is transitory, we are sticking to our guns, we are going to focus on the drag on income,’” Crandall said. Bernanke explained how under a strategy of flexible inflation targeting, “a temporary spike in the price indexes can be a reason for the central bank to be more generous rather than less,” Crandall said.

What’s funny – well, that is, unless you happen to be a senior living on a fixed income – is that the Fed’s own projections for unemployment paint a pretty grim picture of what the U.S. labor market will look like going forward, meaning that, this “flexible approach” to balancing their stable prices/low unemployment mandate is likely to result in higher inflation, perhaps much higher inflation.

Unsustainable Consumption

Every time I read a story like this one today in which “leading economists” talk about the importance of the American consumer in powering economic growth or when talking heads on TV casually note that consumption accounts for 70 percent of all economic activity here in the U.S., I think back to this data series:

I don’t know what would make anyone think that the 70 percent figure is anything but worrisome, especially with government spending accounting for another 20 percent or more. That leaves the combination of domestic investment and net exports contributing less than 10 percent (net exports being negative for quite some time), yet, economists and news anchors repeat this “consumers account for 70 percent of the economy” over and over as if it were some kind of economic law which it is certainly not.

Future historians will no doubt look back someday while scratching their heads and say, “I don’t know why on earth they would have thought that was sustainable”.

Tagged with:  

Can Consumer Confidence Go Any Higher?

The final February data on consumer confidence is now in over at Gallup and they report that, after the American mood darkened slightly a few weeks ago, economic confidence ended with its sixth straight monthly gain as depicted below.

What’s interesting about the graphic (as well as with other similar surveys) is that we’ve been here before but have never been able to move higher.

In a separate, less frequently conducted survey at Gallup, the percentage of Americans who think the U.S. economy is growing has reached a new recovery high at 40 percent. While this is good news, it’s worth pointing out that some 46 percent of those polled say the economy is still either in recession or depression.

Tagged with:  
Page 2 of 10612345102030...Last »
© 2010-2011 The Mess That Greenspan Made