The archive is catalogued by 'Politics', 'Economics', 'Mockery', 'In other news' and 'On other things' 


"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world" - Henry Kissinger

and yet...

"Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences" – Robert Louis Stevenson

The Fed's data is 'bull'. Their targets are the other thing

In response to an FT article by Gillian Tett on 20th August 2015, entitled 'Productivity paradox deepens Fed's rate rise dilemma'

"Fed officials are at pains to stress that any final decision will depend on the macroeconomic data; and thus be “data dependent”.

Even CNBC is beginning to mock this, whilst the Fed's spinner in chief at the WSJ, Jon Hilsenrath, doesn't seem to be glowing with confidence any longer…for good reason:

Every time the top-line statistics have approached the Fed's targets, the targets have moved. E.G. The unemployment target was 6.5%, moved south by stages, and as of now 5.3% is not quite good enough. 

Look underneath the surface of these figures and the picture looks very different. E.G. Four x 10 hour a week minimum wage jobs gained plus 1 x 40 hour $60k job lost is counted as a net gain of three jobs. Wait a few months until the 60k guy drops off the register to join the highest non-participation list since the seventies and hey presto the gain is 4 jobs.

Even basic US economic figures are as bent as a nine dollar note.  By the time the Fed has finished spinning them they are barely more honest or more useful than the fantasy figures that emerge from Beijing.

The Fed is not data dependent - the data is Fed dependent.

China must be in a bad way - even economists are noticing

'Corbyn loves commies, can't get enough of terrorists, and wears a funny hat'. The FT are not keen