Showing posts with label Economic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economic. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

What WikiLeaks Tells You About China’s Economic Numbers

Dec. 7 2010 - 5:42 pm | 2,653 views | 0 recommendations |
Beijing Financial Street - overall

Beijing

We’re starting to like this Julian Assange character, trumped-up rape charges in Sweden notwithstanding. Thanks to the diplomatic cables made public by Assange’s WikiLeaks, we’re getting a better look at GDP numbers published by China.

One of the cables tells of a dinner between the U.S. ambassador to China and the head of the Communist Party. Li Keqiang is his name, and he’s widely expected to become the new premier in a little over two years.Li says if he really wants the pulse of the economy, he needs to know just three things.

Special Offer: Next Inning?subscribers tripled their money in Isilon Systems which EMC just bought, and they did the same in 3Par which was acquired earlier this year by Hewlett-Packard. Don’t miss out again. Click here for instant access to continuously updated analysis and stock recommendations from Paul McWilliams in?Next Inning Technology Research.

Li Keqiang's Real World Economic Indicator

Li must be reading from our playbook: We check in from time to time on rail volume and other real-world economic indicators that can’t be massaged by government statisticians.

“By looking at these three figures,” the cable says, “Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are ‘for reference only,’ he said smiling,”

Just like the Bureau of Labor Statistics!

Three Things You Need to Know About the Chinese Economy by Addison Wiggin originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning.


Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your Forbes account

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

How Gamblers, Smokers And The Obese Are Economic Positives

Central Obesity 011

Obesity is certainly a health concern but not an economic worry

By Tim Parker

There are certain groups of people in our society that just can’t catch a break. Report after report?shows new ways that these people are a drain on the economy, but are they really nothing more than a money pit? (For a related reading, see The Evolution Of Sinful Investing.)

The Obese
Obesity affects an estimated 34% of adults in the United States. Those who are obese have increased instances of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease and many more health concerns. One study reports that in 2008, the costs to treat obesity hit $147 billion. To look at all of the statistics that go with obesity, it’s easy to see why those who are overweight get a bad rap.

The dramatic rise in obesity can be traced to various factors, but one of those is our bad eating habits and that is one of places where these unhealthy habits are helping our economy.

Special Offer: Why bother with stocks when you can beat the pants off of them with fixed-income while taking less risk? Earn 8% yields on top of chunky capital gains. Click here for recommended buys in Forbes-Lehmann Income Securities Investor.

In 1970, Americans spent about $6 billion on fast food. By 2000, that figure had grown to $110 billion. The nation is also spending a record amount trying to lose weight. Health club and gym revenues topped $19.1 billion in 2008, and the amount spent on weight loss products and services hit an estimated $40 billion. (For more, see 5 Ways To Get Healthy And Save Thousands A Year.)

Smokers
It’s getting increasingly difficult to smoke anywhere these days. Americans are?loudly protesting?secondhand smoke, but? 23% of men and 20% of women still light up on a regular basis. Smoking leads to a higher risk of heart attack and stroke as well as lung cancer. The amount of money spent on medical care for smokers has reached an estimated $75 billion. Is it really as bad as it appears?

Maybe not. Cigarette smokers pay a hefty tax. The Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 raised federal cigarette tax from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack. Next, if you believe the cigarette manufacturers, smokers actually don’t cost the economy any money at all. In fact, there’s a net gain. A study commissioned by Philip Morris found that because smokers die earlier than non-smokers, they are saving the economy money by requiring less medical care, less pension benefits and less retirement care.

You might find this to be a little uncaring and cold hearted. Others did as well. When a spokesman for Phillip Morris was asked about this, he said, “This is an economic impact study, no more, no less.” (But they might not want to build an advertising campaign out of it.)

IN PICTURES: 8 Great Companies With Top-Notch Healthcare Benefits

Gamblers
“Know when to hold ‘em. Know when to fold ‘em”, right? Gambling is one of those lifestyles that doesn’t seem to be as much on activists’ radar screens as in the past, but gambling still costs the economy a pretty penny. Gambler’s Anonymous estimates that there are over?12 million compulsive gamblers in the United States with each compulsive gambler having an average debt of $80,000. Note, these figures come from sources that are over 20 years old, so these numbers may be even higher now.

A 2002 study published in the Journal of Socio-Economics found that higher bankruptcy rates existed in communities where casinos were located.?Additionally, compulsive gamblers have a higher incidence of divorce and other social impacts that lead to an economic drain on the economy.

We’re nothing if not fair here, so let’s not necessarily roll snake eyes on the gambling industry just yet. One study found that in a community where a casino was located, there was a 12% to 17% drop in welfare payments and another study commissioned by the National Research Council found a net economic gain to some of these same communities. This same study found that jobs are created in communities where casinos are built. (For more, see Going All-In: Comparing Investing And Gambling.)

The Bottom Line
While we’re not trying sway your opinion on any of the above issues, it might be fair to say that those often vilified corners of society that people love to hate might not be as much of an economic drain as we often think. As with most situations, there are always two sides to the story. (For a related reading, see Casino Stats: Why Gamblers Rarely Win.)

More From Investopedia

10 Ways To Budget When You’re Broke
Obscure Sports That Pay Big
8 Ways To Survive A Market Downturn

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Discounting Steroid-Enhanced Economic Performance

Uncle Sam with empty treasury, 1920, by James ...

He likes stimuli

During the 1980s and 1990s, ignorance was bliss. The global economy was growing nicely, and analyzing it (or even paying attention to market cycles) seemed like a waste of time, as the economy came in only three flavors: good, great and awesome. Even if you misread the flavor, the downside was that you’d just make a little less money. Value investors prided themselves on being bottom-up-only analysts, focused on scrutinizing individual stocks, while top-down analysis– making investment decisions by looking only at the macro picture–became unfashionable, viewed as market timing.

Prolonged and virtually uninterrupted growth brought complacency, excesses, and debt. Bottom-up-only analysis worked until it stopped working, as investors discovered during the recent crisis that the global economy can come in additional flavors: bad, horrible, and downright nasty. Today the cost of misreading the economy is much higher.

Two years ago the Great Recession waltzed in to the great surprise of homeowners, the Fed, and the banks and everyone discovered that house prices don’t always go up. The financial sector, the lifeblood of our economy, started to drown in the sea of bad debt. As the troubles in that sector began to spill into the real economy, the government felt it had no choice but to step in, and the bailouts and stimuli began.

Special Offer: The result of easy money from the Federal Reserve has always been a tsunami of inflation. Don’t let inflation destroy the purchasing power of your dollar-based assets.? Click here for time-sensitive investment information from renowned precious metals and hard asset advisor Curtis Hesler in Professional Timing Service.

Today it is hard to take a walk through our economy and not meet a friendly Uncle Sam; he is everywhere. He’s buying long-term bonds and thereby keeping long-term interest rates artificially low. Since he took over the defunct (for all practical purposes) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he is the U.S. mortgage market, because those organizations account for the bulk of mortgages originated. Of course, he is also on the hook for their losses.

Our dear Uncle Sam rolls in style; he doesn’t know how to bail out or stimulate on the cheap. U.S. government debt (at least, the debt that is on the balance sheet) leaped from about 60 percent of GDP before the Great Recession to more than 100 percent in 2010. The party of overleveraged consumers has been crashed by an over-leveraged government.

To understand the consequences of the Great Recession, consider this analogy: The U.S. economy is like a marathon runner who runs too hard and pulls a hamstring, but finds himself with another race to run. So he’s injected with some industrial-strength steroids, and away he goes. As the steroids kick in, his pace accelerates as if the injury never happened. He’s up and running, so he must be okay. This is the impression we get, judging from his speed and his progress. What we don’t see is what is behind this athlete’s terrific performance are the steroids, or, in the case of our economy, the stimulus.

Obviously, we can keep our fingers crossed and hope the runner has recovered from his injury, but there are problems with this thinking. Let’s address them one by one:

? Serious steroid intake exaggerates true performance. Economic stimulus creates an appearance of stability and growth, but a lot of it is teetering on a very weak foundation of government intervention.

? Steroids are addictive; once we get used to their effects, it is hard to give them up. When the first home-buyer tax credit expired, it was extended for anyone with the patriotic ambition to buy a house. It is hard to give up stimulus, because the immediate consequences are painful, but long-term gain has to be purchased by short-term discomfort.

? The longer we use steroids, the less effective they are. Take Japan, which was on the stimulus bandwagon for more than a decade. With the exception of tripled government debt, Japan has nothing to show for its efforts; the economy is mired in the same rut it was in when the stimulus started.

? Steroids damage the body and come with significant side effects. In the case of the economy, the side effects are higher future taxes and increased government debt, which brings on higher interest rates and thus below-average economic growth. The hopes that we’ll transition from government steroid injections back to an economy running on its own are overly optimistic.

So what does this mean for investors? When we purchase a stock, we are buying a stream of future cash flows. By doing only bottom-up analysis, investors implicitly assume that external factors (the winds and hurricanes of the global economy) have no impact on these cash flows. That is a brave and careless assumption, especially in a poststeroid world. Instead, investors should take a more holistic approach, mixing bottom-up insights with top-down analysis.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here