Categories: Uncategorized

Good Housekeeing? – An Op-Ed

Published on: 10/17/2011
Categories: Uncategorized
Comments: No Comments

I am writing this article not as an economic or financial analyst, which is my normal mode of operation. This article has nothing to do with economic, financial markets, or any related topics. What it has to do with is the undeniable reality that we as a nation are failing miserably in one of the most basic precepts of civilization and that is to leave things better than we found them. When you think about it that is how true advancement takes place. If every civilization had done as we have, it is more than likely that 99% of you would never be able to read this article. Sure the technology might be there, but you wouldn’t be able to afford it. Or be literate enough to read the piece. So I am writing this week as just a regular old vanilla American – one that is very concerned about the future – and how we leave things. In my opinion, there are two major areas where we are failing that are well beyond the auspices of economics in their origins, but certainly have economic implications.

Technology – A Knife that Cuts Both Ways

One of the biggest misdirections we have witnessed in the past 20 years or so, and the last decade in particular, is that because we can come up with new and better technologies that somehow we are advancing society and/or civilization. It has been quite remarkable to watch the development of computers that fit in the palm of your hand. They can make phone calls, take pictures, play music and do a raft of other useful functions. But have they truly advanced society? I would argue that they have actually caused society to regress. People have become more compartmentalized. Despite the ‘social media’, people are less sociable, preferring to send computerized messages into the ether, rather than shaking hands, sitting down over a cup of coffee and actually having a real discussion. There is certainly a fine line between advancement and decay, and it is truly in the eye of the beholder.

From a purely economic perspective, such developments have made us more ‘productive’ in our work – at least that is the assertion. But have they? Not a month goes by where there isn’t some study performed that shows people are wasting more and more time at work on the Internet, social media sites, and texting with their cell phones. The losses to firms are estimated in the billions if not hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Companies are spending more resources than ever trying to combat this decay on productivity, so to call technology a drag on productivity is likely an understatement of epic proportions. Technology has truly demonstrated itself to be a knife that cuts both ways.

From the standpoint of pure innovation, this generation has certainly made more breakthroughs than the last. This process goes almost uninterrupted back to the Dark Ages. However, we must now address the aggregate effects of this technology on society as a whole. And the quantifying of these effects is going to be very subjective in nature. Permit me a brief example. When I was a kid growing up in the mid 1970s, we didn’t have many of the developments we have today (obviously). The first Ataris were still several years away and most homes still had the old style rotary phones. Microwave ovens were a ‘new’ development. I spent a lot of time outdoors, and as an only child, my imagination bloomed as I discovered new and improved ways to occupy myself. When other kids were around, it was all about interaction, conversation, and normal, healthy development. Contrast that with today. Many kids stay inside most of the time, either on their computers or playing video games. They don’t talk, they text. There is a massive obesity problem among children in this country. There are many reasons for this, but one of this for sure is the sedentary lifestyle most of us lead – enabled by technology. Understand I am not bashing innovation, but merely pointing out that it doesn’t always make the contributions to the advancement of society that we might think.

And as a society, are we better off merely because we’ve seen an era of unprecedented technological innovation? Have we left things better than we found them simply because we’ve innovated? I’d argue not necessarily. The dystopian novel ’1984′ also featured a clearly superior technological landscape surrounding a societal fabric that was in a state of ruin. Sure, ’1984′ was a work of fiction, but many fictions parallel reality in one way or another and certainly ’1984′ is no exception. On the continuum between the unattainable ‘perfect’ society, and that portrayed in ’1984′, I would contend we are much closer to the latter than the former.

A Loss of National Identity

This is the obvious second pillar of where we are failing and I will warn you up front, this is going to be a very hard pill to swallow for some. It is going to challenge your way of thinking and leave you with the distinct sense that you’ve been played like a two-dollar fiddle. Why? Because you have. Let me start by asking you how you’d define ‘America’. Most people would probably cite a quote from one of the founders or perhaps a refrain from one of our ‘patriotic’ songs. Many folks really struggled with the concept as well.

In recent years, there have been many ‘movements’ in this country. The stated intention of nearly all of them has been to restore America to her proper position. Perhaps to ‘restore freedom’, or some other nebulous concept. The outside impression given is that these movements are spontaneous and organic, meaning they originated much in the way a vacuum is filled. There was a perceived need or void, and the movement came into existence to fill that void. However, most of these movements have not been organic, but rather have served to act as lightning rods for growing outrage and discontent. We clearly have a void of leadership and have had one for decades now. I would not even try to determine when we last had effective leadership across the board, but it has been a LONG time.

We have had the current structure of leadership – the two party system – for nearly as long as we have had a nation. Opposing forces, battling over how the country should be run. Interestingly, all 50 states ratified a Constitution that was supposed to do exactly that. What we have today is two groups fighting for the most part about how best to go about subverting that Constitution. That document is our national identity. It says who we are, what we are about, and how we are to do things. It is for our country, what the Bible is for the Christian. It is the instruction manual for how to run a country. Surely it was not perfect, and the framers recognized that, providing a process for changing it. The process itself was designed so that change couldn’t happen reflexively, but would take time. Clearly the intent here was that during that time, reflection and contemplation would take place.

The identity of America has been lost. School kids don’t know their Constitution, most adults couldn’t even tell you when the first state (Delaware) ratified it (1787), and our leaders pay lip service to it out of one side of their mouth while supporting legislation that mocks or debases it out of the other.

The two political parties, working towards the common good of the banking elite around the world have turned our political process into a WWF production. The election has become like the Super Bowl. Better be on the side of the winning team. The left condemns the right and vice versa, yet the problems continue to worsen – for generations. Getting back to my original thesis, have we left things better than we’ve found them in this regard? Most of you will likely agree with me on that one, but when some pollster puts you up against the wall, you’ll sigh, and pick one of the establishment candidates as your ‘choice’ to lead us. Perhaps you’ll quietly utter the phrase that he/she is the ‘lesser of two evils’. Insanity is defined as repeating the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Enough said.

The media is more than willing to help you maintain your sense of learned helplessness too. The media is perhaps the biggest reason why the people of this country haven’t thrown off the shackles of convoluted political ideologies, dependence on government, and moral equivalence. And think of these ‘organic’ movements referenced earlier. Each of them have in some way been initiated by members of the media, then immediately co-opted by one side or the other of the establishment. The paradigm must continue at all costs. All protest must be quickly controlled and the fury directed in the establishment’s preferred direction, but never at the establishment itself. Get people outside on a Saturday afternoon, they wave their signs and yell slogans for a couple of hours, then get on a bus, go home and go right back to what they were doing before. Their anger is spent, their desire to be a dissident quenched. Then the next election comes and the media plays up one candidate or another as the one who can save us from the evils of the other half of the establishment – and the charade goes on. Think that won’t happen next year? I certainly hope not, but based on our history and our lack of awareness, it would seem a near certainty.

We have clearly lost our national identity. It has resulted in a great deal of economic, political, and moral dissonance. Perhaps the only thing worse than 15 trillion in debt have been the nearly 50 million voices snuffed out in a country where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are supposedly the cornerstones of who we are as a nation.

Uncle Sam Tops the Goods-Producing Sector

Published on: 01/07/2010
Categories: Uncategorized
Comments: No Comments

Yes, you read it right. I’ve been railing on this point for years now. We’ve needed to rebuild our crumbling manufacturing and goods-producing sector, yet it is Big Government who is doing all the hiring. So much so that there are now more people working for Big Government than there are in all goods-producing industries – COMBINED.

What does this mean? It means more reliance on foreigners for everything from food to fuel, to consumer trinkets. It means larger trade deficits (since you can’t export government – although it would really be nice to export the whole doggone thing right now!), and further pressure on the US Dollar.

" A Contrarian's Viewpoint Of Technical Analysis In Today's world"

When I broke into the stock market in 1961 if you wanted to learn technical analysis you were immediately pointed to Edwards & Magee’s book,” Technical Analysis Of Stock Trends” which was the bible of the industry from its first edition in 1948 until its last edition in the 1970s. Of course technical analysis really got its formal start with the publication of the famous “Dow Theory” in a series of articles written by Charles Dow in the Wall Street Journal between 1900 and 1902.

However, until the 1970s technical analysis was frowned on by the street as being somewhat akin to astrology. Then for reasons that I don’t pretend to understand it suddenly became respectable. This respectability has come at a high cost. As a contrarian I regard today’s popularity of technical analysis as a curse and not a blessing. The founders of technical analysis regarded it as a tool for an elite minority in a world in which fundamental anlaysis reined supreme. They regarded themselves as savvy predators who would hide in the weeds and knock off the big game fundamentaltists as they came thundering by with their high powered technical rifles.

As many Wall Street professionals are only too well aware of, the more popular a market indicator becomes the more useless it becomes as a profit making indicator as every Tom, Dick and Harry jumps on the hitherto sucessful indicator and beats it to death. To put it simply what everybody knows isn’t worth knowing. It is what everybody doesn’t know that is of decisive importance.

Regretably, the current overpopularity of technical analysis is not its only problem from the contrarian viewpoint. Other very ugly problems exist. The worst of these problems is today’s overwhelming domination of moving average charts. This domination is recent. The final edition of Edwards & Magee’s book contained a remarkable 324 charts of which only 49 charts were moving average charts. These were stuck on at the end of the book as a sop to the growing power of the moving averages crowd. The earlier works contained far fewer moving avearge charts. Technical analysis was regarded by the old masters as an art that had to be mastered. In those days before the triumph of moving averages swept everything before it a technician was an expert in “pattern recognition analysis.” He was someone who had a hard earned ability to analyze bullish or bearish chart patterns. Among the more common types of patterns that technicians had to be able to master were head and shoulders, tops and bottoms, W patterns,triangles,rectangles,wedges, fans and gaps.

The trouble with moving averages is that they are way too popular and even worse way too easy to analyze. Let’s be honest! How much talent does it take to analyze a moving average? Not much. And everyone who looks at a moving average sees the same thing. The stock is either above the moving average or below the moving average. The triumph of technical analysis and moving averages has resulted in the worst of all worlds. A world in which everyone sees the same thing and what is truly ugly acts on it. If you are technician who uses moving averages what is your edge?

The edge that the founders of technical analysis once had is now gone. Even worse there is reason to believe that technicians are now the prey of choice for a new group of predators who are hiding in the weeds and who’s favorite big game animal is the technicians who are now kind enough to show the world their poker hand. Or is it just my imagination that stocks are no longer breaking through their moving averages with the power and authority that they used to? Those long decisive runs which are the bread and butter of technical analysis seem to occur less and less. Could the reason be unseen predators? How difficult is it today for savvy predators with enough capital behind them to lie in wait until the final minutes of trading and then “paint the tape” with their concentrated action creating a false breakthrough. Knowing full well that many technicians will fall into the trap like plump pigeons. After the trap is sprung of course the stock reverts back to its old mean.

What is to be done? I have two answers and you are not going to like either of them. As a contrarian I am obsessed with seeking out and finding valid metrics that are either ignored or unknown by the public. If you see what everyone else sees you have no edge. At all costs you must find an edge. You must find metrics or indicators that are valid and don’t appear on everyone’s radar scope. My first suggestion is to use Point & Figure charts. I know what you are going to tell me. Point & Figure charts went out with the horse and buggy. They are way too simple. Why they don’t even have Bollinger Bands or MACD. No serious technician would consider using something that pathetically simple in today’s modern world. Exactly! That’s the whole point. I would like to remind the reader that technicians were using Point & Figure charts with success for generations until moving averages swept away all the alternatives. To the best of my knowledge the most recognized proponet of Point & Figure charts today is Jim Dines of the highly regarded Dines Letter. The dean of investment letters Richard Russell also uses Point & Figure charts on a fairly regular basis. If you thought my first suggestion was horrifying. You are going to love my last suggestion. As I am writing these words I have a comical image of a hardcore technician blasting out of his chair in outrage and doing a triple summersault and bouncing on his head three times.

My last suggestion is that when a stock drops below its 200 day moving average it should be regarded as a bullish rather than a bearish event. There I said it. Before going nuts I challenge the reader to pick at random a dozen 5 year, 200 day moving average charts and too see them for the very first time. Ask yourself a revolutionary question. Why isn’t it better to buy a stock when its selling below its 200 day moving average rather than above its 200 day moving average. Study the charts and see them for the very first time. I told you I was a contrarian. We are always told that we should buy low and sell high. Now is your chance. Wen we buy above the 200 day moving average we are buying high in the hopes of selling to an even greater fool. Think about it!

Fred Carach is the author of the book “Forty Years A Speculator.” To view his blog, Click Here

page 1 of 1

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012