INVESTORS, ECONOMISTS & FINANCIALS -- BREAKING NEWS

[skyreach]

INDECISIONS

Lets look at the following statement first:

'In the consideration of that consideration we consider what needs to be considered'.

If you understood the word concept 'consideration' fully then you will see that the sentence structure is correct and meaningful. However, did I really say ANYTHING WITH CLARITY, SIGNIFICANCE, WITH A DESCIVE AND WITH SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS? NO.

Lets look at the next illustration:

'We believe that the climate is dire and that action may be needed urgently. But looking at the near term future it will be calmer and things should equalise. As to the markets we believe they are frothy, and behaving in an exuberant manner. As regards the rates, If we hike the rates too high the economy may suffer and keeping them fixed as now then high rising costs could be incurred to the detriment of some areas, etc...'

Granted the above is a small sample statement but it has the hallmark of some 100-pages or more type report's line of reasoning. The words make sense. But you end up reading between the lines to get some conclusions where none are really stated clearly. Naughty you, reading between the lines. You must be desperate or want a decisive answer from it. NO CERTAINTIES!

So, how much clarity and definite but decisive conclusions were made in that statement?

Any actions to take immediately to handle factor xyz, or to correct a poor economic condition, or that it will?

Also, are the reported statement above considering just a few tools to “solve” the issues, i.e. macro tools only to derive a “solution” ?

What about micro-economic tools and business fundamentals?

Do you just ignore them and let the 'wind' or 'god' take care of it all?

Do we let the businesses go out of control from their empirical-prudent practices, replaced by bad unruly practices?

A friend once said that he and colleges designed and made an aircraft starting with a concept on a back of an envelope!!! They designed it, proved a working model, then a real working experimental model until it worked well. This took subject know-how, and good technical skills, and the correct tools to create a workable craft.

Well, I realised that it is no different in any other profession. Of course you have to translate that battle plan with relevant data / applications in the other professions.

Businesses and investors need good workable models and precise tools to give indicators that will allow us to identify where it is going wrong. Then the solution IS CLEAR AND DECISIVE.

But in every profession there is ONE PAREMOUNT FACTOR THAT COMES IN THE WAY ALSO. Human psychology. We have fixed ideas, we maybe acting on false ideas, we assume incorrectly, we use theories that result in destructive chaos yet continue to use it, we may not like to change our habits or behaviour, greed rules our emotions, etc, etc, etc...

How can you conquer that?

You may now see why I rant about central bankers, and bankers plus economists. It is NOT THEM PERSONALLY, but the the other facts no one is making them aware of and highlight significant points.

Maybe, just maybe, we CAN CHANGE for the better, down the future road.

I will leave you here to ponder over that. Have a good day.

 

[skyreach]

INVESTORS, ECONOMISTS & FINANCIALS -- BREAKING NEWS--2

In my previous report, last week, the main theme was about indecisions.

Indecision is a killer, in getting things done or solved due to the uncertainties in it. Many reports and commentators are using it but not realising it as it has become so commonplace that it is just accepted as it is, perhaps unconsciously. It usually goes in this way: 'On the one hand it is 'xxx' BUT, on the other hand it is 'yyy' so 'bla, bla, bla'. No definite conclusion comes out of it even with technical data backing it up as it applies here and now, for the current condition.

Examples

The recession is thought to be here, technically, but the figures do not have the hallmark of a 'recession'! So has a recession began or not? Not definite. You should note that the early part of the recession is not usually recognised as the symptoms are mild and not all fundamentals align for it (do they ever?). It is once it has come and finished that hindsight tells us: 'Oh, it began on.....'

The rates should be increased by X but that would impact on a few other sectors. So, should we or should we not have X increase? Debatable! No certainty on what is happening!

It gets worse as in a large group where a consensus is required. If the technicals are clear then how come most cannot have come to a similar conclusion? They often pull in different directions yet all are evaluating the same data!! Oh, that has nothing to do with personality.

The agreed upon definition of a recession is 20% of major market fall. From the market perspective (historical data).

Two quarters of US GDP falls, based on economic basics.

Basic 2-yr and 10-yr US treasuries show inversion, this metric indicates a recession ( a major well known indicator).

IMF assessment says recession going forward.

Congress agrees this too.

Global GDP is on vulnerable recession grounds too.

US Politicians want to change the definition of recession as mid-term elections coming up.

The financial chief, US government, says there is no recession, at end of July 2022.

So what have we here? Well, for one, there may be some confusion. Two, the weighing of the importance of certain data is differently evaluated by some. And thirdly, different groups have different vested interests bias. Mix the three and you have quite a stew of information going in different directions!

Vested Interest Examples.

Oil Industry has a major spill at sea or at ashore. They are charged what can be considered as a 'minor charge' for this, not the full cost of the clean up. Particular in the USA where there is a law (aided by vested interest groups) to limit the charges despite the cost being a lot more. So the financial burden is put onto the government and hence for tax payers to pay off

Many good health break through improvements are made by research using nutrition, particularly in the USA, yet the findings are suppressed from a broad big media announcements. Big Pharmas are the opposing group as they want to have the “solution” based on a drug formula and use these findings to create their own costlier drug based one. If they can come up with an alternative (not as effective as the nutritionally based original) then they have a 20-year exclusive rights to sell it to health establishments – that means big fat profits, and a big monopoly. You may ask why do western countries have mostly a drug based therapies used only in hospitals? Vested Interest biases have had great influences over a long time.

The gambling industry loves to take peoples money (you want a bet!). It puts a lot of people into financial trouble because gambling is addictive for many. But governments loves it currently as people are employed! You'd think they would come up with better constructive ways to get people into good types of employment. No moral concerns exhibited here. Not an optimum solution?

That is why the word vested interest has got associated with dirty tricks and bad specialist interests. All industries have their own Vested interest, i.e. the purpose with they function or exist. But functioning purely for the exclusive benefit of a select group or few groups or acting against the opposition ( overtly or covertly ) in a harmful or destructive way can be detrimental, e.g. like the competition. Biases are part of the human psychology make up. So that can be negative, harmful or destructive depending on how the bias is used and how many it affects. So long as it does not cause damage to others, or other industries, or to the general population, or throw any financial burden onto others who are not responsible for it then they are playing the “game” with proper ethical basis.

Life has a symbiotic relationship. Both need each other. Ruin of one can damage the other. Big industry slowly destroys the environment then we ALL SUFFER, EVEN THE CAUSERS. You do not have to look any further then the history of past civilisations. Their destruction had failed economics under currents and vested interest groups triggered political and warfare troubles. Our modern “civilised” world faces similar problems. During or after recessions we have political troubles, warfare, and negative moods or behaviour and that increases, along with violence and crime.

Current example is the Russia--Ukraine war. After the Soviet Block collapse the Warsaw pact reduced in numbers and a general agreement with the western countries for NATO not to increase. Bur the EU being EU, wanting expansion by engulfing more countries, including ex-soviet countries, then it began to alarm the Russians. The Western countries like the UK and Europe were happen to take the trillions of Russian money and have these, often, ex-KGB, in government circles and the high society. Until that is, the last decade of differences and disagreements that triggered the current war.

Hence any industry or government optimising it needs with those of society at large and working with society at different levels will only better the survival of all, and bring about the long term stability and flourishing of businesses. And resolving differences or disputes of any kind around the table would bring about lasting peace, trust and cooperation. Who would like that? And who wouldn't?