Ivan Andrianov’s Post

Will Kamala Harris bury the American economy? Or not? The state of the economy will be a central issue in her debate with Trump on September 10. Full text: https://lnkd.in/ePNjUNKe #news #politics #economics #business #foreignpolicy #internationalrelations

The neoliberal order was built on a belief in free markets, free trade, limited government intervention, and the inevitable spread of democracy. It promised rising living standards for all, even as inequality increased. However, the 2008 crash and its aftermath deeply eroded faith in this model, as the recovery primarily benefited the wealthy while average people struggled. The pandemic and the Ukraine war further exposed the vulnerabilities of globally integrated 'just-in-time' supply chains and markets. Governments were forced to intervene aggressively to stabilize their economies and ensure access to critical goods. Even strong libertarian and free market voices began calling for more state involvement in the economy on national security grounds. As a result, the previous neoliberal consensus has shattered. The political spectrum has widened, with more radical proposals on both left and right gaining traction. Even centrists like President Biden have embraced industrial policy and aggressive government action to an extent not seen in decades in the U.S. There is growing bipartisan interest in taming the power of dominant corporations, especially giant tech firms. While a new political order has not yet cohered, Gerstle sees three emerging visions: 1. Progressives favor an expanded role for government in the economy to pursue greater equality and address issues like climate change. The state would shape markets to achieve social goals. 2. Libertarians and free market advocates want a return to neoliberal principles and to constrain government intervention. However, even they increasingly accept a role for the state on national security grounds. 3. Authoritarian state capitalist models, as exemplified by China, use markets but keep them subordinate to centralized political control. Other authoritarian-leaning leaders find this model appealing. How these visions are reconciled will shape the next political order. But the era when free markets were seen as the solution to all problems has passed. More government intervention in the economy is likely here to stay, even if its exact form remains undetermined. Making this shift without losing the dynamism that markets can provide will be a key challenge in the years ahead. The 2024 U.S. presidential election will be pivotal in this process, but structural forces beyond any one leader are driving this transformation. We are living through a political-economic paradigm shift. The only certainty is that the next era will look quite different than the last 40 years.

History does not repeat, but it sure can rhyme. We are heading into the prime of the political election season, and with the various speeches and pontifications from our leading candidates come statements that end up having meaningful market consequences. The latest example came this week, but it’s not the first time we’ve seen such market swaying events. What, if anything, can we take away from recent episodes? Read this week's Great Valley Advisor Group Economic & Market Report from Eric Parnell, CFA, here: https://lnkd.in/eHX8SeTu

In our experience over three decades, economists have almost perfect records! AFTER the event has already happened… In the last few weeks, there has been much talk about a little-known indicator called the “Sahm” rule. We discuss it in today's HX Daily and give our view on what it might signal for the economy. Check out our thoughts below…

The terms “economics” and “rules” should be used carefully. Unlike the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry, economics attempts to make predictions about complex human systems. This is much less precise. Recently, one of the Federal Reserve’s economic signals was triggered – the “Sahm” rule. In this issue of HX Daily, we discuss this rule and what it may be saying about the state of the US economy. Read about it here… https://lnkd.in/eRGzgwVv

Terms of Trade: The economics behind the demise of ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ Full Article Link >>> https://lnkd.in/gwBGGdBn Welcome To Latest IND >> Fastest World News Almost the entire world is watching whether or not the US will re-elect Donald Trump as its president. Many commentators agree that the good old polling models might not be of use anymore to capture the state of play in what is anyway a polity with extremely […] . . Latest IND . . . . #trendingnews #newstrending #trendingtopicnews #lifestyle #business #news #healthylifestyle #smallbusiness #supportsmallbusiness #lifestyleblogger #luxurylifestyle #businessowner #businesswoman #smallbusinessowner #businessnews

EXCERPTS: [Y]ou never know the direction of politics, but Trump has, I think, falsely sold the notion that America’s political economic problems were due to China. There was evidence that the rapid increase of imports from China after the accession of China to the [World Trade Organization] did have a very negative effect on the American economy. There is evidence that those places in the country where there was a surge of imports have lower wages, more unemployment and lower property values. So that view is pretty well established now. The question is, do you blame China, or do you blame the US government for not having provided education and help for adjustment to that? We said globalisation was good, but rapid globalisation was a shock. And we didn’t help the people who were hurt by the shock to adjust. It is always much easier to blame others than to accept your responsibility for not having done what you could have done to help adjust to the changing global economic situation. COMMENTS: Say what you want about Stiglitz and his position(s) but his reference about providing (the right) education reminds me of Peter G. Peterson as in the Peterson Institute (https://lnkd.in/gCi9ByTB). When Peterson was U.S. Secretary of Commerce under Nixon, while only for one year, he greatly emphasized he need to re-educate, retool Americans in the face of German and Japanese competition. Unfortunately, while it caught Nixon's attention, it was pushed aside to focus on China and something called Watergate...the rest is history. https://lnkd.in/g9U-BNv7

Terms of Trade: The economics behind the demise of ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ Full Article Link >>> https://lnkd.in/gbdhyfQ3 Welcome To Latest IND >> Fastest World News Almost the entire world is watching whether or not the US will re-elect Donald Trump as its president. Many commentators agree that the good old polling models might not be of use anymore to capture the state of play in what is anyway a polity with extremely […] . . Latest IND . . . . #trendingnews #newstrending #trendingtopicnews #lifestyle #business #news #healthylifestyle #smallbusiness #supportsmallbusiness #lifestyleblogger #luxurylifestyle #businessowner #businesswoman #smallbusinessowner #businessnews

Coined by famous British economist John Maynard Keynes in his influential work, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" (1936), “Animal Spirits” describes how people arrive at financial decisions based on emotional and psychological factors, in times of economic stress or uncertainty. While much of today’s market analysis is data-driven, supported by advanced stock-tracking tools and research, many investment decisions are, still in one way or another, swayed by emotions. The current market is a prime example of this delicate balance between data and emotions. With worries about inflation, fluctuating interest rates, and geopolitical tensions, the financial world is not only reacting to hard numbers but also to the collective mindset of investors. Confidence, fear, and speculation all contribute to the volatility today, making it challenging to discern whether data or emotions play a larger role. As we navigate current market fluctuations, can we truly separate rational data from the instinctive reactions of investors, or do both equally shape the market’s trajectory? https://lnkd.in/gHBJt-ME

While pace and magnitude of rate cuts remain an open question, we do have some insight into what was expected of Fed Funds Rates through the end of the year. Read our Viewpoint for details.