Tags: government

Pump Prices Rattle Drivers, Businesses

NEW YORK (AP) — High fuel prices are putting the squeeze on drivers’ wallets just as they are starting to feel better about the economy. They’re also forcing tough choices on small-business owners who are loathe to charge more for fear of losing cost-conscious customers.

Gasoline prices rose 4 percent last week to a national average of $3.29 per gallon. That’s the highest level ever for this time of year, when prices are typically low. And with unrest in the Middle East and North Africa lifting the price of oil to the $100-a-barrel range, analysts say pump prices are likely headed higher.

Bryon Gongaware, an owner of The Floral Trunk and Gifts in White Bear Lake, Minn., didn’t raise his $7 flower delivery charge when gas prices spiked in 2008, and he doesn’t plan to do so this time, either.

“I don’t think the economy is solid enough that you can be careless about raising prices,” he said, standing among the flower clippings on the floor of the shop he has run for 21 years.

That means the extra costs that come from driving the store’s delivery van 70,000 miles a year come from only one place: “right out of the bottom line,” he said.

For drivers such as Robert Wagner, 51, a high school teacher from Thornton, Colo., the higher fuel costs mean cutting back on movies and dinners out for him, his wife and their two children. “We’re very, very frugal right now,” he said as he trickled enough $3.09-per-gallon gasoline into his Chevrolet Suburban to get him to his next pay day.

Analysts and economists worry that by lowering profits for businesses and reducing disposable income for drivers, high gasoline prices could slow the recovering economy.

Over a year, analysts estimate, oil at $100 a barrel would reduce U.S. economic growth by 0.2 or 0.3 of a percentage point. Rather than grow an estimated 3.7 percent this year, the economy would expand 3.4 percent or 3.5 percent. That would likely mean less hiring and higher unemployment.

Americans are less prepared to absorb the spike in gasoline prices than they were the last time prices rose this high, in 2008, because unemployment is higher and real estate values are lower, says David Portalatin, an analyst for the market research firm NPD Group.

It has been four months since gasoline rose beyond $3 per gallon. During that time, drivers have spent $14 billion more on gasoline than they did a year ago, Portalatin says.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago, says this year’s cut in payroll taxes offers consumers a buffer against higher fuel prices. Still, she expects all but the wealthiest Americans to cut back on discretionary spending. And the longer prices stay high, the more damage they do.

Gasoline prices rose throughout last fall as the developing nations of Asia and the recovering economies of the West began using more oil.

In recent weeks, upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa stoked fears that oil supplies would be disrupted, and oil prices exceeded $100 per barrel for only the second time in history.

Much of the most dramatic unrest took place in countries that are not big producers of oil. But when Libya plunged into chaos, there were disruptions in shipments of its high-quality crude, which is well-suited to making gasoline. That sent refiners scrambling to find other sources of high-quality oil. Gasoline prices rose further.

Gasoline prices typically fall in the winter and rise in the spring as refiners switch to more expensive summer blends of gasoline. Since 2000, prices in May have been 52 cents per gallon on average higher than in February, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, believes that the normal seasonal rise in prices has been pulled ahead by events in the Middle East, but he still expects prices to rise further. He predicts prices will reach $3.50 to $3.75 per gallon, barring more chaos in the Middle East.

“When we get over $3.75 we are looking at very serious consequences for the economy,” he says.

For every 25-cent increase in the price of gasoline, the nation spends an extra $3 billion filling up its cars and trucks, Kloza says.

For Jay Ricker, who owns 51 convenience stores in Indiana that sell gasoline under BP and Marathon brands, that’s less money for the “affordable luxuries” he offers — cappuccinos and candy bars that people enjoy, but can do without. “I hate these high prices,” he says. “People don’t want to come in and buy something I make money off.”

Drivers often get angry when gasoline prices spike for reasons that aren’t apparent, such as refinery problems or overseas demand for oil.

This time, though, the dramatic news reports from the Middle East are making customers more understanding, says Scott Hartman, CEO of Rutter’s Farm Stores, which owns 56 convenience stores and gas stations near Harrisburg, York and Lancaster, Pa.

“Whenever you see chaos in the Middle East, people expect higher prices, and this has been more widespread than most of us have seen in our lifetimes,” he says. “It’s quite clear our customers know what’s going on.”

That doesn’t mean they like it.

When asked about fuel prices at a RaceTrac service station in Dallas, Shaun DuFresne tapped the screen on the pump, showing he had just spent $90.14 for diesel — at $3.50 a gallon — to fill his 2006 Ford F-250 pickup truck. Then he said something unprintable.

What Economics is NOT

It is starting again. It is a phenomenon that occurs more regularly now, especially with daily talk of massive imbalances right along with a massive boost in activity. More and more people are scratching their heads wondering what gives. Once again, economics has become a debating society. There are Keynesians, Austrians, the Classic folks, and those who will use ridiculous rationale and textbook, but not applicable accounting definitions to try to assert that we’re really getting rich every time the government borrows another dollar. It is no wonder people are confused. Like so many other areas of our society, particularly morality, the definitions have been skewed, the lines, blurred, and the waters made muddy.

I am not going to sit here and explain the difference between the schools of economic thought because it isn’t necessary. I’m not going to sit here and tell you what you already know, because you already know it. What I am going to do is spend a few minutes giving you some good reasons why you should follow the laws of economics and tune out the nonsense from politicians, the pundits, and the bank-financed media.

Economics is not a debating society. There are laws. These laws are immutable. This is not just my opinion; rather, it is a fact that has been borne out time and time again throughout history. Obey the laws of economics and you will fare well; cross them and you’re in trouble. The biggest caveat in all of this is that the punishments are often not immediate. If you put your hand on a hot stove you’ll know instantly the consequences of your actions. The same goes for jumping in a cold lake in the middle of January. However, when it comes to money and economics, it is often possible, and very normal, to get away with bad behavior for a time. This is dangerous because people often forget that their proverbial hand is an inch above the hot stove.

Econ 101

This is precisely the point we are at in the progression of America and most of the world. Our hand is an inch above the stove and we’re clueless because we’ve gotten away with breaking the laws of economics long enough that we are convinced that we have a free pass and can continue our behavior in perpetuity. We look at our television sets and the massive social unrest in other parts of the world and feel insulated because we live in America. We’re watching others partake in the negative consequences of violating the laws of economics yet we’re secure in the naïve notion that it can’t happen here.

It is a simple law of economics that if you consume more than you produce that you’re going to become poor, not rich. Our government and media would have you believe the exact opposite and so many of you have tried it their way and lost badly. Think of the family who month after month consumes beyond their production. They go into debt and become a slave to the creditor. They become destitute, insolvent, and eventually go bankrupt. It is happening all the time. Why is a nation any different? It isn’t. Sure, a nation has more resources than the individual to kick the can down the road a little longer, but in the end, the result is the same. The law has been violated and the consequence awaits.

Bankruptcies

Wealth doesn’t come from a printing press or a credit card. This is another intellectual fraud that has been perpetrated on people the globe over. Wealth is a result of work, foregoing of consumption, and investment of the resultant savings. Notice it starts with work, not Bernanke’s printing press or VISA. We earn a living from the sweat of our brow, not by being wards of the government printing press. We have been told the exact opposite though. We’ve been told that we’re prosperous even while our debts balloon. We’ve been told we have a healthy economic recovery without putting the unemployed back to work. These claims are fraudulent and should be ignored.

We’ve also been conditioned to believe that we are exempt from the consequences of economic malfeasance because we issue the world’s reserve currency. This is another prevarication. First of all, the Dollar is not issued by the US government, the people of America, or any other American institution. The Dollar is issued by a privately owned, privately held corporation that has its own best interests in mind, not America’s. And even if the US Treasury did issue the Dollar and there was no Fed, it still would not cloak us in immunity from a sound economic beating for over issuing currency and spreading inflation around the world.

We did get a little bit of truth from Mr. Ben a few weeks back when he was asked about near record high global food prices and what affects quantitative easing (another fraud) was having in the commodities markets. Ben answered, essentially admitting that QE has been holding up our financial markets. QE is just another tool being used to kick the can down the road and push the consequences of our poor decisions another day into the future when another Congress and another generation will have to deal with it. And guess what? They won’t be any better equipped to handle it than we are today. They won’t be any smarter. The only real thing we’ve learned from history is that we don’t learn from history. Our best hope at dealing with our economic problems is now, on both a personal level and in the aggregate.

Economics is not some Pandora’s black box of evil-looking equations, charts, and terms that are not meant to be understood. On the surface all you really need to know is what has been stated in the past two pages. The laws of economics are common sense. Sure, we can get detailed in trying to explain and analyze that common sense, but the explanations are not economics, the common sense is. Keep that in mind as you follow what is going on and make decisions in your own life.

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

Published on: 02/12/2011
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: Ron Paul had a huge impact in 2008, awakening people to the plight of liberty in this country. Hopefully in 2012, he’ll be able to continue his fine work. Congratulations Dr. Paul!

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2012 presidential preference straw poll of 3,742 activists, the chairman of the huge annual gathering of conservative activists announced on Saturday.

The poll, sponsored this year for the first time by The Washington Times, is seen as one of the earliest tests of grassroots popularity among the party’s dominant conservative wing, and Mr. Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the nomination in 2008, has traditionally done well in the CPAC voting.

The Republican lawmaker, long a favorite of the party’s libertarian wing, took 30 percent of the votes cast, followed by Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 23 percent. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has said he will not be a candidate in 2012, and New Mexico former Gov. Gary Johnson tied for third, with 6 percent of the vote.

Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich followed with 5 percent.

Tied at 4 percent were Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Trailing them was former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who garnered just 3 percent of the vote.

Asked in the survey if they were generally happy with the field of GOP contenders lining up to challenge President Obama next year, 56 percent of CPAC voters said they were generally satisfied with the current crop of candidates, while 43 percent said they were not.

The announcement of the vote came at the end of the third and final day of the CPAC gathering in Washington.

This year’s event attracted a record attendance of over 11,000, and more than 3,700 attendees participated in this year’s straw poll — up more than 1,300 from a year ago.

Behind the Numbers – Labor Participation

Published on: 02/04/2011
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: This explains in totality the lower unemployment rate. People are not finding jobs like the media would have you believe, rather, they are falling off the wagon and are no longer being counted in the labor force. This is an awful prognostic indicator, one we’ve been warning about for over two years now.

From ZeroHedge..

At 64.2%, the labor force participation rate (as a percentage of the total civilian noninstitutional population) is now at a fresh 26 year low, the lowest since March 1984, and is the only reason why the unemployment rate dropped to 9% (labor force declined from 153,690 to 153,186). Those not in the Labor Force has increased from 83.9 million to 86.2 million, or 2.2 million in one year! As for the numerator in the fraction, the number of unemployed, it has plunged from 15 million to 13.9 million in two months! The only reason for this is due to the increasing disenchantment of those who completely fall off the BLS rolls and no longer even try to look for a job. Lastly, we won’t even show what the labor force is as a percentage of total population. It is a vertical plunge.

World Food Prices Reach Record High – AFP

Published on: 02/03/2011
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

World food prices reached their highest level ever recorded in January and are set to keep rising for months, the UN food agency said on Thursday, warning that the hardest-hit countries could face turmoil.

Rising food prices have been cited among the driving forces behind recent popular revolts in north Africa, including the uprising in Egypt and the toppling of Tunisia’s long-time president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

And in its latest survey, the Food and Agriculture Organisation said its index which monitors monthly price changes for a variety of staples averaged 231 points in January — the highest level since records began in 1990.

“The new figures clearly show that the upward pressure on world food prices is not abating. These high prices are likely to persist in the months to come,” FAO economist and grains expert Abdolreza Abbassian said in a statement.

The Index rose by 3.4 percent from December — with big increases in particular for dairy, cereal and oil prices. The rises were most significant in China, India, Indonesia and Russia, data from FAO’s monthly report showed.

“There are a lot of factors that could spark turmoil in countries and food is one of them,” Abbassian said, pointing out however that several countries have become better at managing prices after a series of riots in 2007 and 2008.

“They have learnt from previous episodes,” he said, adding however: “These are obviously not very easy times. There is now no hope that prices will return to anything we can consider normal, at least until the summer.”

The data from the Rome-based FAO showed that prices for dairy products rose by 6.2 percent from December, oils and fats gained 5.6 percent, while cereals went up by 3.0 percent because of lower global supply of wheat and maize.

“The increase in prices follows stronger export demand during the last month and concerns about tightening supplies of high quality wheat. The market was also supported by higher oil prices and a weaker US dollar,” FAO said.

Meat prices remained broadly stable due to a fall in prices in Europe caused by last month’s scare over dioxin poisoning in eggs and pork in Germany, compensated by a slight increase in export prices from Brazil and the US.

“High food prices are of major concern especially for low-income food deficit countries that may face problems in financing food imports and for poor households which spend a large share of their income on food,” Abbassian said.

Global aid agency Oxfam said: “Millions of people’s lives are at risk.”

“Poor people in developing countries spend between 50 and 80 percent of their income on food, making higher prices, as well as unpredictable prices, a serious threat to their ability to eat,” Oxfam said in a statement.

Oxfam blamed the price rises on reduced production due to bad weather, increased oil prices making fertilizer and transport more expensive, increased demand for biofuels, export restrictions and financial speculation.

It called on governments to implement social protection programmes for the people hardest hit by the price rises and to help control prices “by increasing support and investments in small scale agriculture.”

The FAO data showed the Food Price Index hit 200 points over the whole of 2008 at the height of the 2007/2008 food crisis. It breached that level for the first time in October 2010 with 205 points.

In Africa, Somalia has been particularly hard hit by a rise in prices for red sorghum and maize due to a poor 2010 crop, while Uganda has seen a rise in the price of maize because of strong demand from neighbouring countries.

Meanwhile ongoing unrest in Ivory Coast had helped push up prices in West Africa as a whole because of its status as a key transport hub, it said.

But the most dramatic rises were seen in Asia and in particular in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and China, it added.

Average Credit Card Rates Near Record

Published on: 01/28/2011
Categories: Current Events, Economics
Comments: No Comments

Editor’s Note: This is how the banksters thank the taxpayer for the bailouts. They can get money from the Fed for essentially nothing, then charge an average of 15%. How nice. Take out your credit cards, cut them up, pay off the balance, and never use them again.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Interest rates are now hovering near record highs, at an average rate of 14.72%. And if your credit is bad enough, you could even end up with a rate as high as 59.9% APR.

That’s because while the CARD Act helped crack down on certain fees and requires more disclosures, it didn’t cap every credit card holder’s worst enemy: interest rates.

Sure, the new rules prevent banks from raising most interest rates retroactively, but there’s no limit on the rates they can charge new customers.

“Rates are going up because card issuers know that once you get a card they can’t raise the rates, so they’re raising rates on the front end to ensure they get the revenue from that interest,” said Beverly Harzog, credit card expert at Credit.com.

APRs have climbed more than 20% over the past two years and hit an all-time high of an average 14.78% in mid-November, based on weekly data CreditCards.com collects from 100 of the nation’s top credit card issuers.

And there’s no end in sight. While interest rate caps have been proposed — including a proposal earlier this month from New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey that would limit rates at 15% — none have been passed into law so far.

So what do record high interest rates mean for you? If you have a terrible credit score, opening a credit card is going to be painful. Though rates vary depending on the card you apply for, with a score below 599 you’ll likely be stuck facing an APR of 24% or higher, said Harzog. If you can get a card at all.

In fact, First Premier Bank offers a Gold MasterCard with a whopping 59.9% rate for those people with “less than perfect credit”, according to its website. And that rate is actually down from the 79.9% rate it originally charged.

Even with a credit score between 600 to 649 — still considered poor, but not terrible — you’re probably looking at rates around 20%.

Harzog recommends staying away from interest rates above 20% and instead getting a secured card from a lender like Orchard Bank as a way to build up credit so that you can eventually get a card with a decent rate.

With a secured card, you deposit money into an account and can use the card like a credit card — and it impacts your credit just like a credit card does. But if you don’t make payments, the bank will just take your own money out of the account.

“I don’t suggest people ever carry a balance at such high interest rates,” Harzog said. “A secured card is like a credit card on training wheels, so it will help you get your credit back on track.”

With a credit score between 650 and 699, you’re on your way to finding better interest rates, likely ranging between 15% and 19%.

Capital One’s Classic Platinum is a good option for people with fair credit. Its rate starts at 17.9%, with a 0% introductory APR until October.

But because 17.9% is still a pretty high rate, Harzog suggests using the introductory rate as a cushion to get your balances paid off. That way, once you hit 17.9%, you’re not financing anything and you can simply use the card as a way to build your credit and look for a better rate.

If you have what is typically considered a good score — between 700 and 749 — you should be able to get rates between 13% and 15% depending where you fall in that range. Meanwhile, an excellent score — 750 and up — will qualify you for the lowest rates out there.

The Chase Sapphire card offers an ongoing APR of 13.24% for excellent or good credit, while the Citi Platinum Select MasterCard comes with a starting rate of 11.99% and a 0% APR on purchases for the first 12 months.

If your credit is squeaky clean, check out the 7.25% Simmons Visa Platinum card from Simmons First Bank, which is located in Arkansas but serves customers nationwide. Pentagon Federal Credit Union’s PenFed Promise Visa card is another good option, with an ongoing rate of 9.99% and only 7.49% for the first three years.

“If you have excellent credit, you have some really great choices,” Harzog said. “But once you get down to the bad levels you’re going to have to go with those really high levels of 24.95%.” To top of page

2011 To-Do List

Published on: 12/31/2010
Comments: 1 Comment

Many people I’ve spoken with over the past 6 months or so have expressed extreme dissatisfaction with their individual and/or collective ability to affect change in government. Sure, there have been some small victories here and there, but by and large our biggest problems continue to rage on unabated. For quite some time I shared in their frustration, and still do, but have realized that sometimes the actions of the masses need to take place on a different level to change the bigger paradigms. To use some old adages, we shouldn’t throw stones from a glass house, and we should certainly tend to our own backyard before criticizing that of our neighbor. On this last day of 2010, let’s take a look at what we can do in our own financial lives to improve our situations. Let’s call it trickle-up responsibility.

Stop Accumulating Additional Debt

Obviously, this one seems like a no-brainer, but let’s hit it from a few unconventional angles. First of all, it is important to understand that debt is one of the biggest ways the banking system creates inflation. The money multiplier, aka fractional reserve ratio, determines how much banks actually need to keep in their coffers to meet withdrawal requests by depositors. The rest can be out in the system in the form of loans, speculative investments, and the like. Let’s use an example. You to go the bank and deposit $100. The bank can create roughly $1000 in loans off that $100. In that sense, the bank has created inflation by inventing money from your deposit. Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions in this dawning age of awareness of the Federal Reserve and what it does is that the Fed is solely responsible for inflation. While the Fed does set the multiplier, the Fed itself does not create much of the inflation we experience. That is done in the banking system by creation of ~10X loans from deposits.

With this in mind, each time you take on additional debt, you are helping the banking system to create inflation, which erodes the purchasing power of the money you just borrowed plus all your other funds. This is why there has been such a big problem over the past two years and Bernanke et al are trying to scare the public about deflation. People weren’t borrowing enough to allow inflation to occur. Wonder of all wonders, we have actually undergone a period of deflation (contraction in M3), and the Fed, banks, and government just can’t have that. Why? Because they know that a fiat monetary system needs inflation like human beings need oxygen.

Who caused that period of deflation? The government and banking elite would have you believe that it was bad loans and falling home prices. WRONG. If you’d like proof of that, take a minute and read the My Two Cents from 10/10/2008. It was you – the American people – that did it by living responsibly for a time. You did it by foregoing on consumption and additional borrowing. You didn’t do it by having rallies, you didn’t do it by demonstrating, you didn’t do it by waving signs. You did it by making smart financial decisions at kitchen tables from sea to shining sea. That is the dirty secret those in charge of the banking system and the upper levels of government don’t want known.

This is another reason why the government has undertaken so much borrowing. It is not to stimulate the economy as we’ve already seen. Many of you have expressed frustration about the trillions spent on ‘stimulus’ with nearly nothing to show for it. The above facts are precisely the reason why this is the case. The government stepped in to save first the banking system, then the fiat money system itself by borrowing on your behalf. Many people have already caught on to this reality. Those are the priorities of the government. The financial system and the money system must be preserved because that is where actual political power is derived in the current paradigm. This is another reason why governments promote entitlement societies. They assist in preserving the fiat paradigm and at the same time gathering control over the citizenry.

The past two years of credit contraction and lack of additional accumulated debt by the American people have been a major thorn in the side of those who benefit from the fiat paradigm. This is why there has been a massive media and propaganda campaign to convince people that the economy is on the mend and that we should get out and spend money. It is why George Bush told the American people to go to Disney World, and it is why we continue to dump billions into continuing unemployment benefits rather than bringing jobs back home and finding ways to create sustainable employment for the unemployed. It is why banks continue to send pre-approved credit card applications to people who haven’t had jobs in 2 years. I personally know of at least two dozen situations where this is the case and I’m sure there are millions more out there.

Simply put, we’re analyzing the actions of the banks and government from a ‘good of the people’ perspective where they are acting from a ‘good of the fiat paradigm’ perspective. That is why nothing makes sense. Keep up the good work on eliminating debt accumulation; you’re doing a fantastic job!

Make Others Aware and Encourage Similar Action

On its face, the above heading may seem like the tripe that often comes out of futile movements, but as we’ve seen above, in the case of debt, what has happened has actually been working. People need to use every opportunity to make others around them aware of this reality. I understand that much of the contraction of debt accumulation has been forced on people by job loss and/or reduction in earnings. Economic realities often precipitate necessary actions and this is no exception. The key now is to continue the trend. And that will only happen if more individuals and families are recruited and encouraged to join the effort. And it costs nothing to join.

It is sad to think of the millions of Americans that have lived their entire adult lives with the burden of debt hanging like a millstone around their necks. It is even sadder when you begin to realize that much of it wasn’t necessary. I have a saying that I am quite sure someone else came up with, but it is very appropriate. It isn’t what you make, it is what you spend, and in this case what you borrow to spend. It has gotten us in trouble as individuals, as families, as counties, as states, and as a nation. While we might not be able to order Washington and Wall Street to represent us and dispense with this phony monetary paradigm, we can make it difficult if not impossible for them to continue it.

Obviously there are consequences for any course of action. Good ones and bad ones. In the case of debt, the positive consequences are freedom and peace of mind, not to mention saving all that money on interest payments. The negative consequences are that the Fed and USGovt will do their level best to pick up where you left off. Our government will borrow like it has never borrowed before and the Fed will buy more bonds. It might have to buy them all eventually. And so it will proceed until the fiat paradigm ends. It will end. It always has and always will. It is one of the immutable laws of economics given to us by God. As in all prior historical examples, it will not end well. There will be turbulence and dark times. That also is the way of things. Radical change in societies and paradigms never happens quietly. These transitions tend to follow another famous adage that those who play with fire tend to eventually get burned.

There is good news though. While all of this flux continues to transpire, you can do whatever is within your means to positively impact your situation in this regard. This much I will tell you: not only will it feel good and put more money in your pocket, you’ll sleep better at night as a result of it. Please accept my best wishes for a Happy New Year and may you be blessed in your efforts to become debt-free.

Surprise Surprise! Lower Taxes Stimulate Growth

Published on: 12/22/2010
Comments: No Comments

For those of us who are demographic buffs, Christmas came four days early when Census Bureau director Robert Groves announced on Tuesday the first results of the 2010 census and the reapportionment of House seats (and therefore electoral votes) among the states.

The resident population of the United States, he told us in a webcast, was 308,745,538. That’s an increase of 9.7 percent from the 281,421,906 in the 2000 census — the smallest proportional increase than in any decade other than the Depression 1930s but a pretty robust increase for an advanced nation. It’s hard to get a grasp on such large numbers. So let me share a few observations on what they mean.

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There’s a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation’s total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

My third observation is that immigration is slowing down and may be reversed. Immigration accelerated during the 1990s, and the 2000 census showed more immigrants than the Census Bureau had estimated.

In contrast, immigration has clearly slowed down since the housing bubble burst and the construction industry went bust in 2007. And the 2010 census showed fewer residents in several high-immigration states than the Census Bureau had estimated were there in 2009.

The drop was particularly big, 3 percent, in Arizona, where state and local governments have cracked down on illegals, notably by requiring employers to use the e-Verify system to determine immigration status (that law was signed by Janet Napolitano, then governor and now homeland security secretary).

We can’t be sure until more detailed data are reported, but it looks like we’re seeing significant reverse migration. The lesson is that states’ public policy and law enforcement practices can make a difference.

Finally, let’s get to politics. The net effect of the reapportionment was to add six House seats and electoral votes to the states John McCain carried in 2008 and to subtract six House seats and electoral votes from the states Barack Obama carried that year. Similarly, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

That’s not an enormous change. But it’s part of a long-term trend that has reshaped the nation’s politics. If you go back to the 1960 election, when the electoral votes were based on the 1950 census, you will find that John Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. But the states he carried then will have only 272 electoral votes in 2012, a bare majority. And without Texas, which he narrowly carried, the Kennedy states would have only 234 electoral votes.

The bottom line: You need a lot more than the Northeast and the industrial Midwest to get elected president these days.

And to control a majority in the House of Representatives. Thanks to unexpectedly large gains in state legislatures, Republicans stand to control the redistricting process in 18 states with 204 House districts, while Democrats will control it in only seven states with 49 districts. That doesn’t guarantee continued Republican majorities, but it’s probably worth 10 to 15 seats.

Meanwhile, I await the post-Christmas treat of more detailed census results to come.

Fudge Factor in Trade Data?

For many years now this column has been periodically dedicated to the analysis of economic reports, and the exposure of ‘fudging’ that takes place in most macroeconomic data series. Immediately upon looking at this morning’s trade data it seemed that, once again, something was amiss. It probably jumped out at me because I had just finished a crude oil analysis report for December’s Centsible Investor and the information was still fresh in my mind. However, I am quite sure that I am not the only one who noticed this.

In Exhibit 17 of this morning’s Foreign Trade Report, found on the Census Bureau’s website, the report claimed that the United States imported 9.656 million barrels per day (mbpd) in September of this year. The report goes on to assert that October’s level was 8.209 mbpd. The crude in question sold for an average cost of $72.36, and $74.18 per barrel in September and October respectively. This accounts for a $2.1 Billion decrease in our crude oil import bill from September to October.

FT900 Report - October 2010

This struck me as odd, especially considering the higher relative price and the drastic nature of the drop in imports, so I took a look at the EIA’s (Energy Information Administration) data for the same periods. The EIA reported average (derived from the weekly import numbers) daily imports of crude oil of 9.06 mbpd in September and 8.74 mpbd in October; certainly not the drastic drop purported to have existed in the Census Bureau’s data. The average prices for that oil, according to the EIA, were $71.71 and $75.84 per barrel in September and October respectively. Not a big deal, right? What’s a few cents here and there? Well, it turns out when the numbers are totaled up that, according to the EIA, our oil import bill for September 2010 was $19.49 Billion, and our bill for October was $20.55 Billion, an increase of nearly a billion dollars!

What’s the Big Deal?

Regardless of why this discrepancy exists, it important that it be exposed. We can dispute the validity of data from either group. Obviously the EIA doesn’t actually go out and dipstick every storage tank from sea to shining sea each week. I’ll readily admit that. And the Census Bureau? I’m not sure they could count much of anything at this point since they’ve laid off most of their temporary help (yes, the Census Bureau is actually the subgroup of the Commerce Department that compiles and releases FT900 – the Foreign Trade Report). Perhaps there is a difference in methodologies by the two groups. Again, the reasons aren’t as important as the results.

These discrepancies in reporting are a big deal because of the takeaway messages and bias that the media applies to the data. In this case, the message is clear: The economy is primed for growth and the lower trade deficit will provide the fuel. Here’s a brief sampling…

From Bloomberg…

“It is good news all around. The deficit is down as exports are up, oil imports are down, and nonoil imports rebounded moderately. The overall U.S. trade deficit in October shrank to $38.7 billion from a revised $44.6 billion shortfall the month before…. The decrease in goods imports was led by a $1.7 billion drop in industrial supplies with the crude oil subcomponent down $2.3 billion.”

From MarketWatch… “The U.S. trade deficit narrowed sharply in October, surprising economists and suggesting that the trade sector may make a positive contribution to growth in the fourth quarter for the first time since the final three months of 2009…. The value of U.S. crude-oil imports fell to $18.88 billion in October from $20.96 billion in September despite a rise in the price of a barrel of oil to $74.18 from $72.36 in the previous month. The quantity of crude imports fell to 254.5 million barrels from 289.7 million in September.”

So once again, the average person is confused. They’re hearing that our imported oil bill is decreasing; yet anything they buy that is made from or with oil is going up steadily. Another component in this report that I’ll leave for another time is the food component. A closer look at the data reveals that food price ‘inflation’ contributed quite a bit to the nominal dollar gain in exports in October’s data. This doesn’t purport well for growth anywhere, but is yet another (un)intended consequence of Central Bank quantitative easing.

US Treasuries Slammed in Sell-Off

(Our proprietary model identified this move more than a month ago and we dispatched our subscribers on 11/2/2010)

US Treasuries suffered their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, following a torrid month that has seen borrowing costs for western governments soar.

Germany, Japan and the US have all seen their benchmark market interest rates rise by more than a quarter in the past month while the UK’s has risen by nearly a fifth.

“You could argue that we are at a new stage where the global cost of capital goes higher and higher,” said Steven Major, global head of fixed income research at HSBC.

The yield on 10-year US Treasuries hit a six-month high of 3.33 per cent on Wednesday, up 0.39 percentage points from Monday and 1 percentage point higher than its October low. Japanese five-year yields also rose the most in two years, while Germany’s benchmark borrowing costs hit 3 per cent. “People are getting out of the market and moving to the sidelines, feeling shellshocked at the speed of the rise in yields,” said David Ader, strategist at CRT Capital.

US 10-year yields have risen by about 0.76 percentage points since November 8, those of Germany by 0.62 percentage points, the UK by 0.53 percentage points and Japan by 0.29 percentage points as the prices of the bonds has fallen.

Yields are still relatively low compared with long-term trends but investors are starting to fret that they could continue to move sharply higher. “Yields at this level are clearly unsustainable,” said Paul Marson, chief investment officer at Lombard Odier, the Swiss private bank.

The market moves came after President Barack Obama agreed with Congressional Republicans to extend Bush-era tax cuts and combine them with a $120bn payroll tax holiday. But investors and traders were divided over whether that was sufficient to explain the recent global spike in yields.

The primary explanation is that growth expectations have increased because of better economic data and the “second stimulus” provided by the US government. But others argue it could be due to fears that the US Federal Reserve will not follow through on asset purchases or because of higher government deficits. “It is probably all three,” said Mr Major.

Germany has suffered from fears it could bear a high cost for bailing out troubled eurozone countries. Stock markets in Germany, the UK and Hong Kong all fell on Wednesday.

« page 2 of 6 »

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012