“Recovery Shows a Soft Spot,” declared a banner headline of a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal. “Soft spot” pretty much sums up the Journal’s explanation for a reported 0.1% contraction in gross domestic product (GDP) in the fourth quarter of 2012.
Viewing things from further west on 8th Avenue and 41st Street, The New York Times spun the same story differently, toward its chronic, Krugman-esque view of trickle-down government. The Times encapsulated the tale of a 0.1% GDP decline in a front-page headline, declaring that “Growth Halted in 4th Quarter on U.S. Cuts.”
Which angle should you trust? How about neither! Instead, let’s take our own look behind the curtain…
U.S. cuts? Huh? What cuts? Has Congress cut spending and not told anyone? Are fewer people receiving lower entitlement payouts? Do we have fewer people on Social Security? Fewer on food stamps? Less Medicare? Are government agencies laying off personnel down in Washington? Are we shutting off military aid to, say, Egypt?
Cuts? What is The New York Times talking about? Has U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron secretly been advising President Obama and setting U.S. spending policy? Nope.
Digging into details of the Q4 contraction, the key component is a 22.5% decline in military spending at the end of last year. Other than that, business spending, consumer spending and housing were all slightly positive. In other words, the civilian economy muddled along and did OK — but not great — during the last three months of 2012.
The Department of Defense (DOD), however, tightened the screws. Procurement officers and defense contractors, up and down the supply chain, cut back outlays, anticipating the fiscal cliff originally scheduled to kick in on Jan. 1, but now rescheduled to March 1. (In this sense, el precipicio still looms for DOD.)
The bottom line is that the private U.S. economy is holding its own. Businesses and consumers are writing checks. Autos are doing OK. Technology is holding up well — Apple’s loss is Samsung’s gain. Housing is moving — depending on location, location and location, of course.
Economywise across the U.S., things are not super-hot, by any means. There’s plenty of room for things to get better. (Or not, perhaps. Taxes are up this month. Obamacare looms.) Still, the private economy is not evidently throttling back.
But down at the Pentagon? Times are tough. Purse strings are tight. Here’s an example. In mid-January, the French government requested U.S. aerial tankers to assist with that nation’s military expedition into Mali. The first reaction from the U.S. side was to ask who was going to pay for the fuel. In the olden days, in case you don’t know, the tankers would fly first and the accountants would settle up for the gas later on. No longer, apparently.
Don’t Be Fooled by Raw Numbers
Why dwell on the New York Times “U.S. Cuts” headline? It’s part of the run-of-the-mill, Times style of journalism, right? (Yes, right! It’s their headline, not mine.)
Well, I don’t want you to get suckered into the “austerity” argument that we frequently see in the Times, in both the news and opinion sections. That austerity idea is geared to championing government spending as a creator of domestic prosperity.
Indeed, according to the logic embodied in the Times’ analysis, the American economy is now contracting — despite the business, consumer, auto, tech and housing sectors — because we’re not shoveling enough money into our big, gray military machine.
The counterargument is that this isn’t the 1930s, when the feds spent immense sums to pump the economy. Back then, massive projects built, say, the Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam or Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dams. And at least when these capital projects were completed, the country had a bunch of dams, impounding water and generating electric power.
So in the 1930s, the feds spent big money on concrete and steel. That’s unlike today, when the bulk of federal spending, and its seemingly endless growth, goes for income redistribution, entitlements like Medicare and salaries to bureaucrats — none of whom are building dams.
The takeaway point is don’t confuse raw GDP numbers with the “real” economy. GDP is simply a metric that people use to gauge the size of the U.S. economy. But GDP is NOT the actual U.S. economy. If GDP really contracted by 0.1% in Q4, did the “real” economy decline too?
For example, what if we moved the GDP numbers around? What if the government were spending immense sums on military procurement, while, say, private investment were totally stalled? By cooking the macro-books just a little bit, government spending could appear to show that GDP is strong, and growing. Yet in reality, lacking private investment, the overall economy would be much worse.
Back in the USSR
An example of these fake economics would be the former Soviet Union, with its massive, government-directed capital investment, year after year, in heavy industry and military production. Sure, Soviet capex numbers looked strong, but the economy was hollow.
When I was in Moscow a while back, I had a long talk with a Russian economist trained in the Soviet era. Her view was that basically, Communism was a system of false bookkeeping.
Soviet planners made countless bad investments, which never paid off to the nation. But politics within the Soviet system prevented the overall economy from ever truly booking the loss, because every expenditure showed up in the books as a positive element to the economy.
Now looking back, the landscape of Russia and former Soviet states is littered with white-elephant projects that never had any economic justification — roads to nowhere, bridges to nowhere, factories in the middle of nowhere.
The Russian economist summed up 75 years of history by saying, “Communism died in the USSR by the early 1970s, but political inertia kept it going. Communism outlived itself, until everything collapsed suddenly in 1991.”
A Different Story (For Some)
Today, though, the story has changed. “Putin Turns Black Gold to Bullion as Russia Outbuys World” cries a headline from Bloomberg. In a way only history can, the storyline is changing. Russia’s economy is gearing up as Vladimir Putin stresses the need for energy and hard currency.
Russia is stocking up on gold? At a time when the U.S. is cooking the GDP numbers one way or another? What does Vlad know that Obama, Biden, Geithner, Bernanke, Reid, Pelosi…And most politicians don’t? Probably, a lot.
Indeed, don’t be fooled by the U.S. austerity talk. So far nothing behind the government curtain has changed.
Likewise, let’s not change our thesis on holding hard assets. Keep an eye on gold, silver, oil and all the other “stuff” that can hold more value than government paper.
Thanks for reading.
Original article posted on Daily Resource Hunter
Byron King is the editor of Outstanding Investments, Byron King's Military-Tech Alert, and Real Wealth Trader. He is a Harvard-trained geologist who has traveled to every U.S. state and territory and six of the seven continents. He has conducted site visits to mineral deposits in 26 countries and deep-water oil fields in five oceans. This provides him with a unique perspective on the myriad of investment opportunities in energy and mineral exploration. He has been interviewed by dozens of major print and broadcast media outlets including The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, MSN Money, MarketWatch, Fox Business News, and PBS Newshour.
One of the most heated political battles raging across the western world is debt versus austerity. In the U.S. this debate reached it's apex in 2011 when the U.S. credit rating was downgraded by Standard and Poor's. In today's essay, however, Chris Mayer throws the debate out the window, explaining why he thinks a U.S. debt crisis will never happen...
Believe it or not, more capital for a company doesn't necessarily mean better returns for investors. In fact, in a recent study that dug through data from more than 200 acquisitions going back to 2006, they found a "sweet spot" for the most likely acquisition targets. And it's lower than you think. Matthew Milner explains...
The Affordable Care Act dumped 2,000 pages of regulations into the health care sector, stifling any innovation that could have brought about real cost savings. But even with these obstacles, there are still people looking for ways to do things better and at a lower cost. These new technologies could be the key to fixing health care in America...
While many of the newer social media stocks struggle for gains this year, old-school tech stocks have become some of the best trades on the market. With the rare exception (Facebook is doing well—shares are up 26% year-to-date) the social stocks are in the gutter. They got off to a fast start in January and Februray, but ran out of steam in the spring. Aside from a few feeble attempts, few have posted anything close to a noteworthy comeback. Twitter, LinkedIn, and Groupon are all down double-digits year-to-date. Groupon—the worst performer on this short list—is down 47%. On the other had, the biggest of the big tech stocks on the market are helping traders pile up even larger gains right now. Greg Guenthner explains…
In the 1960s, total credit in the U.S. broke the one trillion dollar mark...and since then, it has expanded over 50 times. But now, as Richard Duncan explains, the explosion of credit that's made America prosperous, threatens to take the entire economy down. And that could mean the return of another depression...