BloggeRhythms

In the second week of a presidential election year, there seems to be a timely reckoning of the disastrous U.S. economy, which has suffered enormously under the current POTUS.   

The last bastion, regarding the appearance of successful economic performance has been the securities marketplace, where the Dow Jones average closed at 17,148.94 on Jan 4, 2016. However, today at 11AM that number has dropped to 15,951.31 (-1,197.63,) after losing  75.74 points so far this morning. 

Some research to confirm the reasons for the nation’s weakening economic status, led to an article by  Anthony B. Kim at a website kommonsentsjane.com, which recapped the past seven years briefly and accurately.  

Mr. Kim writes: “The U.S. has fallen from the 6th freest economy in the world, when President Barack Obama took office, to 11th place in 2016. America’s declining score in the index is closely related to rapidly rising government spending, subsidies, and bailouts. 

"Since early 2009:

•Government spending has exploded, amounting to $29,867 per household in 2015.
•The national debt has risen to $125,000 for every tax-filing household in America—a total over $18 trillion.
•The government takeover of health care is raising prices and disrupting markets.
•Bailouts and new government regulations have increased uncertainty, stifling investment and job creation. 

Mr. Kim then goes on to opine that: “Not surprisingly, our economic dynamism and innovative capacity have been measurably reduced. Self-inflicted wounds include:

“The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and has meant fewer jobs and lower wages for Americans.

“The overall annual cost of meeting regulatory requirements has increased by over $80 billion since 2009, with more than 180 new regulations in place. 

“In terms of ease of starting a new business, analyzed by a recently published World Bank report, the U.S. is ranked shockingly low at 49th, trailing countries such as Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Lithuania, and Malaysia.

And then, Mr. Kim quotes the The Wall Street Journal’s recently summing the situation up succinctly: “Obama is “a champion when it comes to limiting economic freedom, and American workers have the slow growth in jobs and wages to prove it.” 

Thus, despite the speeches, soundbites and data adjustments to present a more favorable picture, it seems the real world is now catching up to the fiction. And, as stated at the outset today, for American voters who seek employment, better futures and true change, the opportunity to help themselves will occur in only nine months. Election day 2016.   

On another aspect of the coming election, Oliver Ralph in London, Demetri Sevastopulo in New Hampshire and Matthew Garrahan in New York @ft.com, write about Michael Bloomberg, as follows: 

“The billionaire media owner and former New York mayor, has stated for the first time that he is considering a run for US president, a move that would dramatically reshape the 2016 race for the White House. 

“Speaking to the Financial Times, the founder of the eponymous financial information group criticised the quality of the debate in the ​presidential ​race. He said ​that ​he was “looking at all the options” when asked whether he was considering putting his name forward.” 

In this case, what’s most interesting is the former mayor’s rationale for a possible run, because he echo’s a point made here quite often over the past year or more. The mayor said: “I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters.” Adding that, “[T]he US public deserved “a lot better.”

While the mayor’s analysis is certainly accurate in general, it only applies to those who’ve never governed. However, there are three former governors still in the race on the Republican side, all of whom have been successful in jobs considerably larger than Bloomberg’s and in a general election would bury him alive.   

On another recurring topic, the oncoming automation revolution being stimulated by rising wages for minimal tasks, Andrew Hill @ft.com writes: “Robots will force experts to find other routes to the top.” 

According to Mr. Hill, organizers claimed a lecture last week by Richard and Daniel Susskind, “was the largest ever gathering of senior managers in UK professional services firms.” 

The father-and-son authors of The Future of the Professions predicted radical change in the sector, believing that if “grunt work of professions is automated, an important way that juniors hone skills will be lost.” 

While the gist of the article concerned the replacement of people in the “professions,” even futurists concede that a few expert lawyers, consultants or accountants will still be needed, even after cheaper, more efficient computer systems have taken over many of their juniors’ tasks.” 

However, what made the discourse more interesting was a comment from a reader who wrote: “AI replacing humans seems to be a bit of a red herring to me. We have currently lost sight of it but the purpose of any economy is to provide a living for humans.  AI and robots are not final consumers. If there are too few final human consumers then automation loses its purpose.  The ultimate result of pervasive automation is either economic collapse or comprehensive redistribution.” 

In this case, the reader is completely off the mark, showing no understanding of “economic purpose” whatsoever. Because economic activity results from fulfillment of need, and such concepts as supply and demand. 

Therefore, providing a “living for humans,” derives from creating solutions that have tradable value, which in turn produces income, not the reverse. Which clearly illustrates that those believing it’s the economy’s role to support them, accept the fact they themselves are worthless.  

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.   

While Bernie Sanders has high hopes for a major win in New Hampshire today, FoxNews.com reports: “If polls are to be believed, Hillary Clinton's once commanding national lead over Bernie Sanders appears to have evaporated in a matter of days -- pointing to trouble ahead for the former secretary of state as voters cast their ballots Tuesday in Sanders-friendly New Hampshire. 

“Two recent national polls show Sanders closing the gap against Clinton. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows Clinton leading Sanders 48-45 percent.And a Quinnipiac University poll from Friday showed Clinton leading 44-42 percent. 

“Both polls were taken since the Iowa caucuses.” 

One of the reasons commonly cited for dislike of the Clinton’s in general, is their continual evasiveness and tendencies to shade the truth, regardless of the topic at hand. 

That propensity arose again today, when Bill’s wife was questioned about rumors mentioned by Politico, that her campaign was considering personnel changes.

   

In that regard, a Clinton official told Fox News: “No shakeup coming."   

“But while Clinton also said Monday she has “no idea what they’re talking about or who they are talking to” regarding the Politico piece, she did acknowledge her campaign is “going to take stock." 

And then, furthering the inconsistency: “While defending her campaign, the former secretary of state and New York senator did acknowledge she will be assessing what works and what doesn’t ahead of the South Carolina primary later this month. 

"We’re moving into a different phase of the campaign. We’re moving into a more diverse electorate. We’re moving into different geographic areas. So, of course it would be malpractice not to say, 'OK, what worked? What can we do better? What do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out?,'" Clinton said on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” 

However, aside from basic distrust, there are now other indications that the public’s tiring of the Clinton’s altogether whereas, aside from Sander's catching up in the voter polls, in January, Sanders raised $20 million while Clinton raised $15 million, also according to FoxNews.com. 

Leading to the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

  

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios