Business Cycle Indicators, November 17

With October industrial production  reported today, we have this picture of the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee‘s key indicators:

Figure 1: Nonfarm payroll employment (dark blue), Bloomberg consensus for employment as of 11/17 (light blue square), industrial production (red),  personal income excluding transfers in Ch.2012$ (green), manufacturing and trade sales in Ch.2012$ (black), and monthly GDP in Ch.2012$ (pink), all log normalized to 2020M02=0. Source: BLS, Federal Reserve, BEA, via FRED, Macroeconomic Advisers (11/2 release), NBER, Bloomberg, and author’s calculations.

Industrial production rose 1.1% (not annualized) much in line with Bloomberg’s consensus 1.0%. Hence for data through October (September for monthly GDP, and August for sales), we have evidence of continued growth.

Retail sales, also reported today, were under consensus. Figure 2 shows retail sales and food services, as well as retail sales, both in nominal terms. Both have slowed their growth, to 3.0% and 3.5% respectively (log terms).

Figure 2: Retail sales and foods services (blue), and retail sales ex. food services (brown), both in millions $, not annualized. Source: BEA via FRED.

Food service sales have slowed to essentially zero growth (-1.5% annualized) far below peak: 16% (log terms). Adjusting by the CPI-food away from home index, the decline is 19% (and declining at an annualized 4.8%).

Figure 3: Food services sales (blue), “real” food service sales (brown), both in logs, 2020M02=0. Food service sales deflated by CPI index for urban food away from home. Source: BEA, BLS, author’s calculations.

I expect the food services sector to decelerate in the next monthly employment report, if not actually decline.

 

 

 

 

53 thoughts on “Business Cycle Indicators, November 17

  1. Willie

    So, really slow growth then? Are the wealthy spending enough to make up for those who are being frozen out?

    Washington is back into a shutdown. It is unpleasant at best, but necessary. Other states are in worse shape for Covid reasons. We will survive, but at an economic cost.

    Reply
    1. The Rage

      Maybe, but as the pandemic ends, I think you under estimate the snapback. This has been noted by the quicker than expected recovery and calling them lockdown s is incorrect.

      Reply
    2. macroduck

      Lockdown imposes a short-term economic cost in order to avoid a lasting human cost. History suggests that the economy benefits in the long-term from aggressive action to end epidemics. Personally, I’ll take reduced human cost and improved long-term economic prospects over short-term economic gain without hesitation. How ’bout you?

      Reply
      1. Willie

        Absolutely. My comment was not worded very well. I meant that I was surprised that the economy is growing, however slowly, what with a sizeable portion of the working population struggling at best.

        Living people are a whole lot more economically viable than dead ones, so I also expect much stronger growth sometime next year. And based on historic evidence, it will probably be stronger in places that shut down hardest.

        Reply
  2. ltr

    November 17, 2020

    Coronavirus

    US

    Cases   ( 11,695,711)
    Deaths   ( 254,255)

    India

    Cases   ( 8,912,704)
    Deaths   ( 131,031)

    France

    Cases   ( 2,036,755)
    Deaths   ( 46,273)

    UK

    Cases   ( 1,410,732)
    Deaths   ( 52,745)

    Mexico

    Cases   ( 1,009,396)
    Deaths   ( 98,861)

    Germany

    Cases   ( 833,732)
    Deaths   ( 13,248)

    Canada

    Cases   ( 306,468)
    Deaths   ( 11,086)

    China

    Cases   ( 86,361)
    Deaths   ( 4,634)

    Reply
  3. ltr

    November 17, 2020

    Coronavirus   (Deaths per million)

    UK   ( 775)
    US   ( 766)
    Mexico   ( 764)
    France   ( 708)

    Canada   ( 293)
    Germany   ( 158)
    India   ( 95)
    China   ( 3)

    Notice the ratios of deaths to coronavirus cases are 9.8%, 3.7% and 2.3% for Mexico, the United Kingdom and France respectively.  These ratios are high, but have been significantly higher, while falling recently as new cases are being rapidly recorded.

    Reply
  4. ltr

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-18/Chinese-mainland-reports-8-new-COVID-19-cases-VvIvUHhnbi/index.html

    November 18, 2020

    Chinese mainland reports 8 new COVID-19 cases

    The Chinese mainland registered 8 new COVID-19 cases on Tuesday – 1 locally transmitted in northern Tianjin Municipality and 7 from overseas, the National Health Commission announced on Wednesday.

    A total of 5 new asymptomatic COVID-19 cases were recorded – 1 also from Tianjin and 4 from overseas – while 456 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation. No COVID-19-related deaths were reported on Monday, and 37 patients were discharged from hospitals.

    As of Tuesday, the total confirmed COVID-19 cases reached 86,369, with 4,634 fatalities.

    Chinese mainland new imported cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-18/Chinese-mainland-reports-8-new-COVID-19-cases-VvIvUHhnbi/img/d53e5fba23d94b9ba1110df8ed767c86/d53e5fba23d94b9ba1110df8ed767c86.jpeg

    Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases

    https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-18/Chinese-mainland-reports-8-new-COVID-19-cases-VvIvUHhnbi/img/fae1f81d3c6a4d59a14548472309ae1f/fae1f81d3c6a4d59a14548472309ae1f.jpeg

    [ There has been no coronavirus death on the Chinese mainland since May 17.  Since June began there have been 5 limited community clusters of infections, each of which was contained with mass testing, contact tracing and quarantine, with each outbreak ending in a few weeks.

    Imported coronavirus cases are caught at entry points with required testing and immediate quarantine.  Asymptomatic cases are all quarantined.  The flow of imported cases to China is low, but has been persistent.

    There are now 324 active coronavirus cases in all on the Chinese mainland, 3 of which cases are classed as serious or critical. ]

    Reply
  5. ltr

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/health/pfizer-covid-vaccine.html

    November 18, 2020

    New Pfizer Results: Coronavirus Vaccine Is Safe and 95% Effective
    The company said it planned to apply for emergency approval from the Food and Drug Administration “within days.”
    By Katie Thomas

    The drug maker Pfizer said on Wednesday that its coronavirus vaccine was 95 percent effective and had no serious side effects — the first set of complete results from a late-stage vaccine trial as Covid-19 cases skyrocket around the globe.

    The data showed that the vaccine prevented mild and severe forms of Covid-19, the company said. And it was 94 percent effective in older adults, who are more vulnerable to developing severe Covid-19 and who do not respond strongly to some types of vaccines.

    Pfizer, which developed the vaccine with its partner BioNTech, said the companies planned to apply to the Food and Drug Administration for emergency authorization “within days,” raising hopes that a working vaccine could soon become a reality.

    The trial results — less than a year after researchers began working on the vaccine — shattered all speed records for vaccine development, a process that usually takes years.

    “The study results mark an important step in this historic eight-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive, said in a statement.

    If the F.D.A. authorizes the two-dose vaccine, Pfizer has said that it could have up to 50 million doses available by the end of the year, and up to 1.3 billion by the end of next year.

    However, only about half of its supply will go to the United States this year, or enough for about 12.5 million people — a sliver of the American population of 330 million. Americans will receive the vaccine for free, under a $1.95 billion deal the federal government reached with Pfizer for 100 million doses….

    Reply
  6. ltr

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/amazon-new-york.html

    February 14, 2019

    New York Returns 25,000 Jobs to Amazon
    As the company cancels its plans for a major Queens campus, anti-corporate activists got what they wanted at a great cost.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/nyregion/amazon-long-island-city.html

    February 14, 2019

    ‘Wrong Side of History’: In Queens, Amazon Deal’s Demise Reveals Deep Divisions
    By Corey Kilgannon and Sean Piccoli

    Reply
  7. not_really

    Are the wealthy spending enough

    This is physically impossible. This comment highlights of the dirtier lies in the whole Capitalism as sold to the American masses. There is no “trickle down.”

    The wealthy aren’t going to buy the food tens of thousands of unemployed people bought. They aren’t going to take the place of the entire Friday night rush at most local Red Robin/diner/fast food places.

    A lucky recipient of the 2% of American wealth won’t ever replace millions of consumers.

    Reply
      1. not_really

        Are the wealthy spending enough

        Sounds like raw numbers to me. And the answer is the same. There is no such thing.

        You may as well ask “how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.”

        Reply
  8. JohnH

    After their dismal record of being repeat losers, why is the House leadership still there?

    David Dayan, American Prospect: “the top three leaders, all of them over 80 years of age, who have been entrenched in their positions for 14 years, will run unopposed for another two-year term. The quick-strike leadership election, just a couple days after House members returned to Washington, is designed to frustrate any opportunity for opposition to form. But the fact that there are no challengers at all to Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn is still quite amazing, given what happened on Election Day.” https://prospect.org/politics/house-leadership-keeps-inexplicably-rolling-along/

    Their survival must be a direct result of their being totally incapable of crafting any kind of coherent, convincing economic message for a whole decade! Meanwhile, Trump got the economy to grow faster than Obama ever did. Plus, by 2019 Trump increased middle Income Americans’ real household income by 7.5% while it had risen by only 2% over the previous ten years, according to the Census Bureau.

    And so, that despicable huckster almost won the election. It’s the economy, stupid…something the clueless Democratic leadership is simply incapable of understanding.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “Trump got the economy to grow faster than Obama ever did.”

      Our host has commented on this canard before. It will be a joy when he selects you for his next factual take down. Be of good cheer – you new buddies (Bruce Hall, Sammy, and CoRev) have been through these take downs before.

      Reply
      1. pgl

        JohnH has a long history of making claims that are factually not true. He literally ran Mark Thoma away from blogging with all of his lies the most famous being how real wages in the UK were doing well because of Cameron’s fiscal austerity. I know that sounds weird but he did manage to cherry pick short periods where the dramatic decline reversed itself partially and only temporarily. Check out the graph here:

        https://fullfact.org/economy/how-have-wages-changed

        “Following the recession in 2008, average wages fell almost consistently in real terms until mid-2014. From 2014 to 2016, inflation was low and wages increased, though they’re still not back to their pre-recession levels. Now, inflation has caught up again, and real wages are levelling off.”

        Also note the authors used ONS data. It is funny that JohnH kept claiming he was the expert on ONS data but he kept getting this so wrong. Now Simon Wren Lewis is an expert and we kept showing this troll what Simon was saying in contrast. But he never admitted he got this so very wrong. And we pick on Bruce Hall!

        Reply
      2. JohnH

        I stand by my numbers. During the Obama years real GDP grew 2% per year. During Trump’s first three years it grew at 2.5% per year.
        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

        More importantly, real household income for average Americans (middle quintile) grew only 2% in total from 2007-2016. For the first three Trump years it grew 9.3% in total, not 7.5% as I wrote earlier.
        https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h03ar.xlsx

        Trump upped his share ofBlack and Latino voters precisely because those voters were better off economically…a bitter pill for diehard Democrats to swallow! Maybe they should develop and economic strategy that resonates among average Americans?

        Reply
          1. JihnH

            The problem is 1) I don’t have 2020 Census data and 2) many of Those who voted for Trump based on the economy tended to cite the pre-COVID economic performance and, based on that, concluded that Trump could be trusted with the economy more than Democrats.

            Personally, I voted for neither of the two evils. I’m elated that Trump will soon be gone. But I am wary, very wary of Biden, because he and Pelosi are notorious deficit hawks, which Mitch McConnell will only aid and abet to pave the way for Trump 2.0.

            “A crucial but overlooked detail in our nation’s recent political history is that Biden was chosen as Barack Obama’s running-mate in 2008 in order to placate affluent voters and donors by softening Obama’s (largely erroneous and undeserved) progressive image. Biden was able to serve this function because he had a reputation as a fiscal conservative, a deficit hawk who was not just willing but eager to knock down the pillars of the US welfare state.

            As vice president, Biden lived up to his reputation. He responded to the Great Recession by continuing to hand-wring about deficits, welfare “fraud,” and government “waste.” “ https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/joe-biden-austerity-coronavirus-fiscal-conservatism-deficit-reduction

            Just as bad, Democrats have been unable to communicate any coherent economic message for at least a decade. Their economic behavior is likely to be characterized as seat of the pants and inscrutable. McConnell will surely take full advantage.

        1. pgl

          “Trump got the economy to grow faster than Obama ever did.”

          I checked with FRED too and the best year under Trump saw 2.7% growth while the best year under Obama saw 2.9% growth. Now if you want to tell us 2.7 > 2.9- fine. But beware troll – facts matter here. So find another blog to run your serial BS.

          Reply
        2. pgl

          “For the first three Trump years it grew 9.3% in total, not 7.5% as I wrote earlier.”

          Someone flunked compound growth. Yea an average annual growth rate = 2.5% does not translate into only 7.5% overall growth if this growth rate is rather stable. But the proper calculation gives one less than 7.7% even under the best condition. 9.3%? You either are using Judy Shelton statistics or you are really really bad at using Excel.

          JohnH – completely incompetent at even the simple things.

          Reply
          1. JohnH

            Pgl: for once try looking at thedata I provided, in this case Census data:

            Real household income for average Americans (middle quintile) was $68, 938. In 2016 it was $63,015. The difference is 9.3%.

            Ergo, average Americans’ real income grew 9.3% under Trump, while it had stagnated over the previous ten years.

            pgl just can’t accept the fact that millions of Americans, including Some Blacks and Latinos, may have voted for Trump because they were better off economically. Pgl just can’t accept any data that doesn’t validate his preconceived notions.

            Now pgl will most likely try to move the goalposts or distort what I wrote in some other way.

          2. Menzie Chinn Post author

            JohnH: I think you said unequivocally growth was faster in first 3 yrs of Trump than under Obama, where you did not say “average real income” grew faster. In fact that was a separate clause where you made your point. pgl is merely pointing out your statement was factually incorrect (and he is correct on that point).

          3. pgl

            “JohnH
            November 19, 2020 at 7:45 am
            Pgl: for once try looking at the data I provided, in this case Census data:

            Real household income for average Americans (middle quintile)”

            Oh my Lord – you actually think looking at change in the median income for household income is a proper proxy for measuring the change in GDP? There are so many reasons that this is beyond insane any person with a brain could list for hours what is missing in your “analysis”.

            Come on dude – we have seen so many really stupid things here from the likes of CoRev, Sammy, and Bruce Hall. We do not need another village idiot.

          4. JohnH

            I am really not sure why there is such confusion. There are two data sets.

            One is real GDP:
            4Q2008 – $15328 (begin Obama)
            4Q2016 – $17876 (end Obama, begin Trump)
            4Q2019 – $19254 (end Trump pre-COVID)

            Total growth Obama: 16.6%, annualized 2.0%
            Total growth Trump pre-COVID, annualized 2.5%

            More importantly is the PERCEPTION of many who felt that they were better off economically under Trump than under Obama. The reality of this perception is borne out by census data which shows that middle quintile Americans’ real household income rose by a total of 9.3% in the Trump pre-COVID years ($68,938/ $63,015) but basically stagnated over the previous decade ($61,763) in 2007, or 2.0% .

            Please tell me where I’m wrong.

            It would be very much characteristic of pgl to try and create confusion and misrepresent my comment by inaccurately quoting me, misrepresenting the data series of intermingling them.

          5. Menzie Chinn Post author

            JohnH: 3 years growth, calculated as q/q annualized 2014Q1-2016Q4 = 2.5% (std error 0.5); 2017Q1-2019Q4 = 2.4% (std error 0.4). Now, if you want to do all 8 years of Obama against all available years of Trump (through 20Q3)…you already know what the answer is.

          6. JohnH

            Yes, I know what the answer is if we calculate through 2Q20.

            But those who believe that Trump managed the economy better tend to disregard his COVID economic performance as a force maneuver…

            Plus Democrats had no coherent economic message, offer no redress to the Rust Belt, and have preached austerity for the last thirty years…Bill Clinton got saved by the unforeseen Tech Boom.

    2. 2slugbaits

      JohnH My concern with the octogenarian House leadership isn’t their competence. I suspect that Democratic losses would have been a lot worse were it not for someone as skillful as Pelosi restraining the Squad’s worst instincts. What concerns me is the risk that Democrats aren’t deepening their bench. Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn are all very effective; but just as with professional ball clubs sometimes you need to trade away a fading but still productive star in order to bring along a future star. As a lifelong Cubs fan I grew up adoring Ernie Banks and Ron Santo, but by the late 1960s it was clear that it was time to ease them out of the line-up even though they were still productive. That led to a long period of Cubs despair in the 1970s. And unfortunately I see the same thing with the Chicago Blackhawks despite my affection for Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews. At least one member of the Democratic House Triumvirate should step aside today in order to have someone else step up tomorrow. The Republicans have done a much better job of grooming people for leadership positions. The Democrats have relied too much on a few very talented leaders.

      Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        There is also the point that JohnH refers to this admittedly old leadershipteam as “repeat losers.” Well, they did flip the House from GOP control to Dem control in 2018, definitely not losers then. And while Dems have lost some seats this time, exact number still apparently not known, it appears to be the case the Dems will retain control the House. So, maybe not a great performance in 2020, but not one accurately described as “loser.”

        I did not want to get in on this bashing of JohnH, but really, JohnH, you are making one blatently false statement after another.

        Reply
        1. pgl

          “really, JohnH, you are making one blatently false statement after another.”

          Get used to it. Ask Mark Thoma why he had to get out of blogging.

          Reply
          1. Barkley Rosser

            pgl,

            JohnH is definitely annoying. But I would suggest you keep Mark Thoma out of this. I know him personally, and his quitting bloggigf had to do with other things than any single commenter. There were others on Economists View who were plenty annoying, and I think Mark made it clear that he had major personal issues involved and hung longer than he really wanted to given all that.

        2. JohnH

          Pelosi lost every election from 2010 through 2016, winning back control only in 2018, and almost losing it again in 2020. Not exactly a record that inspires confidence.

          Midterms generally go against the ruling party, so Pelosi is almost certain to be wiped out in 2022.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            “Pelosi lost every election from 2010 through 2016”.

            Really? She remained in the House all this time. So she won her seat.

      2. pgl

        “What concerns me is the risk that Democrats aren’t deepening their bench.”

        Maybe but pay attention to who Biden has around him as advisers. It is sort of like what Bobby Cox did for the Braves farm system back in the late 1980’s. And I’m sure you are aware of the Braves record for the next 20 years. Lots of division wins but yea only one World Series. Next year? Our new kids on the block are knocking off those old LA Dodgers!

        Reply
        1. 2slugbaits

          The Democrats have always had a deep bench on the Executive Department side, but it’s kind of a different skill set. The Executive Department requires technical expertise and good executive skills. You can find those skills in academia and various think tanks. But running Congress requires a different skill set. The Democrat’s current Triumvirate has those skills; e.g., running committees, parliamentary maneuvering, vote counting, herding cats, handing out pork, etc. But it takes a while to hone those skills. My concern is that Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn will exit the scene all at once, and that invites a bloodbath for leadership. Better to groom their successors ahead of the inevitable.

          Reply
      3. JohnH

        The Octogenarians are still there because they are prodigious fund raisers, which reflects the confidence of the donor class.

        A big problem with them is that they were there when Bill Clinton reduced deficits and the economy grew fast. Rather than attribute the growth to the Tech Boom, they concluded that fiscal conservatism was the sure path to rapid growth. Hence, Biden and Pelosi were rabid deficit hawks under Obama.

        Do Octogenarians change their stripes?

        Reply
        1. Barkley Rosser

          JohnH,

          Who has pushed deficit hawkishness during this past year of serious recession: McConnell or Pelosi? McConnell, with Trump flopping back and forth.

          I think it is ridiculous to blame Pelosi or Schumer for 2010, when the racist Tea Party spread scary lies about Obamacare and swept to power on those lies, which it has taken the public a long time to figure out and change their minds about. The bad timing of 2010, which also went down ballot into state legislature elections. Was Pelosi responsible for those outcomes? That led to increased gerrymandering, making it much harder for Dems to get the House back.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Remember the slogan “don’t feed the trolls”. The more we rebut the intellectual junk from this lying troll, the more he will make garbage up. JohnH is a lot like a Trump twitter rage.

          2. JohnH

            “ As the economist Stephanie Kelton explains in her forthcoming, zeitgeist-capturing book The Deficit Myth, this “future generations” riff, meant to imply prudence and providence, generally sounds sensible to people who naturally think of budgets in household terms. This is why this particular rhetorical feint has been echoed across decades by not only Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, but even at one time by Biden’s recent electoral opponent, Bernie Sanders, who said years ago, “I am concerned about the debt. It’s not something we should be leaving to our children and grandchildren.” It’s why as recently as 2013 Pelosi insisted that “the deficit and debt are at immoral levels,” and why in 2019 she passed PAYGO, a House rule that allows the administration to make cuts to some mandatory spending to offset any net annual deficit increase caused by congressional legislation, with few Democratic party defections….

            The problem for Democrats, whose brand relies upon helping the wage-earning masses, is that the entire country is depending upon them to avoid a depression for the second time in a dozen years and that, once again, to meet the moment, they will have to beat back harmful yet effective rhetoric on deficits that their own party leaders, backed by many of their cocktail party peers in the elite press, help to legitimize.“
            https://newrepublic.com/article/157700/deficit-hawks-circling-old-roosts

            Given their history as deficit hawks, I don’t trust the Democratic leadership to do the right thing without plenty of pressure from the base, something that was totally missing during the Obama years.

        2. pgl

          “Rather than attribute the growth to the Tech Boom, they concluded that fiscal conservatism was the sure path to rapid growth. Hence, Biden and Pelosi were rabid deficit hawks under Obama.”

          This is a stupid statement even for you.

          Reply
  9. pgl

    My goodness – the Republicans just love how you consistently trash leaders in the Democratic Party. I bet Roger Stone pays you well!

    Reply
  10. pgl

    Trump’s recount strategy is really strange:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-to-seek-partial-recount-in-wisconsin/ar-BB1b8ytD?ocid=uxbndlbing

    ‘The Trump campaign filed for a limited recount of two Wisconsin counties on Wednesday in a long-shot bid to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Wisconsin election officials confirmed on Wednesday that they received a partial payment of $3 million from the Trump campaign. These officials said last week that the price tag for a statewide recount would be approximately $7.9 million…The Trump campaign is limiting its Wisconsin recount requests to Milwaukee County and Dane County, according to a press release from the campaign. The money paid by the Trump campaign would be enough to pay for recounts in these counties, which are Democratic strongholds.’

    OK he saves $5 million but this recount will only add to Biden’s already 20 thousand vote lead. Then again what do you expect from someone dumb enough to hire Rudy Giuliani as his election attorney? Can you say opacity?

    Reply
    1. Barkley Rosser

      An irony of Trump’s recount strategy in Wisconsin is that if what is the situation there is like what it is in Georgia, they are aiming at the wrong counties. It now looks like Biden’s positive margin will shrink in Georgia, but it will not be due to the pro-Dem counties but due to finding some uncounted votes in three pro-GOP counties.

      Maybe what is involved here is trying to set up what they tried to pull in Wayne County, Michigan, try to get some GOP members of the county level canassing boards, or whatever they are called in Wisconsin, to refuse to certify local results on bogus claims of problems there, with this probably more possible in Milwaukee County than in resolutely progressive Dane County.

      Reply
  11. macroduck

    Adding to the list of recent indicators, California ports report stronger imports, weaker exports in October. This suggests a drag on growth from trade early in Q4. Housing starts offer a lift. Yesterday, retail trade and industrial blew the roof off the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow estimate. Housing starts have added a bit to the estimate today. Risk of a Q4 contraction is now substantially lower.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      In other words, Americans continue to consume while Chinese production is back to normal. Maybe Trump’s theme should have been Make China Great Again!

      Reply
  12. pgl

    “JohnH
    November 19, 2020 at 7:57 am
    As the economist Stephanie Kelton explains”

    An MMT type here? Lord help us that whatever standards Menzie has tried to uphold here are going down the drain quickly with our new troll.

    Of course what would one expect from someone who equates the increase in median household income with the increase in GDP.

    My apologies to Bruce Hall – he may be stoooopid but not this stupid!

    Reply
  13. SAMIR SARDANA

    This is the Time for the China-Africa Revolution – with these 9 steps

    The USA and Russia do not have Africa,on their Radar – no time and no funds.The EU has no cash,and PRC
    has recovered from COVID,and has abundant cash.This is the time for the China-Africa Reinassance.The
    aim has to be to control Africa trade and finance,and thus,the shipping routes and the Horn of Africa.If some Indian clown chokes Malacca,PRC can choke The Horn of Africa. Simple !

    COVID has made manufacturing obsolete in EU,and PRC has to lower its cost of production.The Solution is to
    shift PRC manufacturing to Africa,with a mix of Chinese and African staff,to avail of LDC benefits, to export to EU and PRC.Exports from Africa to EU,will be HAVE MUCH LOWER COST OF PRODUCTION, AND ALSO, VERY LOW FREIGHT COSTS,AND WILL BE ENTITLED TO EU GRANTS,SUBSIDIES AND SOFT LOANS. This will WIPE OUT ALL the EXPORTS FROM INDIA,TO THE EU.India has neither the funds nor the resolve and intellect,to replicate the abovesaid model.dindooohindoo

    PRC companies in the mainland,can go up the value chain of manufacturing,with AI and Robotics,and outsource all “other manufacturing” to Africa,in Chinese companies,who have JVs with Africans.These companies will be funded by Chinese Banks,and their banking gains in Africa,will offset the NPAs of Chinese Banks,in the PRC.In the 1st step, the manufacturing in Africa,is for PRC,and then the same factory,is to be used ,for exports to EU,with LDC gains.

    Each African nation has 1 VOTE IN THE UN,and ROTATE SEATS ON THE UNHRC – and will be a strategic counter, to the USA and the Indians.

    PRC also has to ramp Defense exports to the African region,via JVs with Pakistani Ordinance factories – again
    to wipe out the Indian Defense exports – which are in any case,pure trash.With Chinese technology in African defense,it will become an extension of the PLA.

    The African Banking sector is bankrupt,and the Insurance companies are costly and expensive.This is the time,for the Chinese to swoop in,and also,INCLUDE MICRO CREDIT AND HEALTH INSURANCE.Africans have a natural immunity to diseases – and universal health care in Africa – with funding from WB,IMF and WHO and EU,could be the game changer for PRC,alongwith Micro Credit – which will connect PRC,with the African populace.

    The Chinese have NOT invested in AFRICAN EDUCATION.PRC has to invest in HIGHER AND SPECIALISED EDUCATION,AND NOT PRIMARY EDUCATION.The strategy is akin to the methods used by the Americans and The EU,who brainwash the overseas students in their universities -who are studying free of cost.These students will 1 day,be the political leaders of Africa.

    The Chinese has to invest in the Chinese language education from the Primary Education stage in Africa,and then,in Afican tourism,using Chinese Infra and Entertainment companies,EXCLUSIVELY FOR CHINESE TOURISTS.

    Lastly the PRC has to educate the good Africans,about the worth of the Indians.It was Idi Amin who assessed the worth of the Indians – a man who saw the future.Indians are the bania shopkeepers,money lenders and counterfeiters.They doomed the entire South African economy (The Gupta vermin scum and Zuma).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.