
Here’s a pretty good piece on how the Democrat’s future is tied to the future of the public service unions. As you can imagine, that’s not where I’d want to be if I were them. As I’ve said a thousand times, the purpose of a union is to increase costs and lower accountability in spite of any economic realities. They also increase unemployment and lower productivity, and through it… GDP.
If you’re a political party and your stated agenda is to "put people back to work" that is not the agenda that you want your closest partner to have. I say partner – but "owner" would probably be a better adjective since the Democrat party costs the labor unions hundreds of millions every year – far more in a presidential election year. They spent 85 Million alone getting Obama elected, and for that kind of money, they have to be considered an owner.
And since the unions have come up, I’ve been thinking a lot about what the state collapse will look like. It isn’t a question of avoiding collapse anymore. Even the things that the most responsible politicians are doing are all stop-gap and won't prevent an ugly ending.
Across the scope of reactions, on the more delusional side you have Illinois, where they expect a 66% tax increase for businesses to inspire them to rush out and hire people. This isn't paying your mortgage with your credit card, it's paying your crack dealer with it, and leaving the mortgage (and for that matter the grocery bill) unpaid. A plan like that will decimate economic and job growth in the state, and won’t actually raise the money they need in their projections. It will also miss by more for every year as companies flee to more tax friendly environments.
On the other more "correct and ambitious but unlikely" end of the spectrum, we have our own Chris Christie. The path he's taking looks terrifying to politicians, but it's actually a better bet than the alternative. He’s trying to make meaningful reforms to the way government works in NJ across all segments - he's even going after tenure for teachers. But I’m beginning to think he’s doomed to failure. I’m a supporter, have no doubt. But he’s made so many enemies, and the voter demographics in NJ are such that a non-union candidate starts with a 17 point disadvantage at the polls.
He’s popular with taxpayers, but the unions so despise his that when it comes time for his reelection they’ll send mobs of pipe wielding thugs out to batter geriatrics before they let him remain in office. I expect obviously photo shopped pictures of him sodomizing horses on the front page of the Newark Star Ledger. As Election Day approaches there will be unexplained fires at polling places forcing them to be relocated to unannounced locations. And boxes full of votes will be disappearing (in Republican districts) and reappearing (in Democrat districts) with such speed and regularity that you’ll think the election is being held in a Harry Potter movie.
The upshot of all this is that Christie will have only one term to reform the state, and that’s a mean feat even for a miracle worker.
Then between the Scylla of NJ style reform and the Charybdis of the higher taxes we're seeing in Illinois, are the boy king of New York Andrew Cuomo, and the antiquarian hippie of California, Jerry Brown. I don’t think much of either man personally, and they both seem to be living up to my low expectations. Neither of them seems to be taking on the long term challenges in any way. Instead, they’re making stop gap measures that will hold the house of cards together a little longer in the hope that an opportunity to fix things will present itself somewhere down the road.
But things aren’t going to get better, they’re going to get worse, and the road is a dead end... with a cliff just past the barrier. So even with slashing current compensation and future benefits, the demographics of their unfunded pension liability is still going to put the states into receivership. Real reform enacted today might prevent the total collapse, but that's the direction Christie is trying to take, and there is no reason to believe the political situation in NY and CA will yield better results. In reality, the longer they wait the smaller the chances it can be resolved.
Eventually those pensions run out of money. When it does, the unions will insist that the issue goes to the courts and the state is presented with a bill to make up the gap in benefit outlays. That's the point at which Cuomo and Brown will say ‘we have no money to give you’. Then the fireworks begin.
The more I think about it, the more I think the issue of the default resolution will be settled politically. The Feds aren’t going to let some judge somewhere decide an issue with such long term consequences for the country. And I don’t think it will go well for the unions overall. To give them what they will want we’ll have to suspend reality. You cannot tax a free people at the levels that will be required in order for government to meet their demands. We'll be in full out financial crisis by then, complete with rioting and teargas. So I don't believe the pols will simply let a judge call all the shots.
2015 or so is the absolute drop dead date. There is no reason to believe the kind of tepid economic growth we're seeing will be nearly enough to avoid disaster. And that disaster will be all but certain sometime between now and then.

7 comments:
You seem to have taken a far more pessimistic view with the above post (vs. previous posts on the subject). Do you still think the Fed will come to the 'rescue' by attempting to bail out the public pension funds?
I have heard of more talk of providing a bankruptcy statute for States. It seems more and more of the political class are facing reality: The bills are not going to get paid.
I don't really have a one dimensional view on it.
I'm less optimistic that it will be resolved politically in advance of the actual crisis. those guys won't do anything until they absolutely have to. Until then they'll keep pretending Obamacare saves jobs and improves the deficit without dramatically raising taxes.
At the same time, for reasons that I'll get into tomorrow, I'm more optimistic that we'll manage to avoid a run on Treasuries. But if we do end up getting a run on Treasuries in spite of my optimism, then I'm less optimistic that we'll keep that from turning into a run on the dollar.
And if that happens, I'm pessimistic that it will end without bloodshed.
So in other words, we become the North American version of Argentina. Maybe I should re-read a book a bought a while back:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/9870563457?tag=surviinargen-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=9870563457&adid=0YS947GSKAMG2T1ARMC6&
Well maybe - but remember, by then Argentina will have it's own problems. They'll be longing for the days when they had it as good as they do today - just like we will.
Tom,
As usual, I love the stuff you write here daily (sometimes more, sometimes less). I've been following you since Derb posted your "How to Buy A First Shotgun" post on the Corner. I've been a reader since.
Anyway, I know you would never consider providing any insight into your financial plays that are consequential to your hedge fund model (best description I can give it, given my understanding) your employment - and I would never ask you to, but I was wondering what financial plays a commoner (a 32-year old engineer, with a strong interest in economics and politics) like myself could consider given the scenario you envision in this post?
Obviously, the reader of your response would be free to determine his own path forward, but looking at how this plays out with the same (lack of) optomism you show in your post, what are some of the less exotic moves you would suggest? Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Steven,
First of all thanks for lending me your time. I hope you got something out of it and that you continue to. That shotgun piece is still my most read piece (although it’s been outpaced by others in the short term) and total reads on it are something in the 1 million range. I’ve been thinking I should write a little more gun stuff – but I’ve been a little busy and it hasn’t been on my mind.
As it happens, I had lunch this past weekend with “The Derb” and two other friends, and this very subject came up. So although I normally would refer you to someone who knows retail investment advice a little better than me, I’m probably a little more inclined to discuss it right now than I normally would be.
First of all, let me tell you what my ‘model’ actually does. What I’ve done is I’ve developed a mechanism for deriving the value of ‘new information; to the financial markets. So when a new piece of data becomes known, the system I’ve developed derives what it’s probably value to the markets will be and it execute trades to profit from that.
This may sound like the kind of thing that’s not much help to you, but in fact, it provides a unique perspective into the efficient decision making of various participants in the financial markets. And since that’s so I think I can give you some general ideas.
First of all – whatever you do, don’t ‘trade’ the market. Whatever investments you make should be planned for a minimum of 180 days. That doesn’t mean that if you think the British market would be a good play on Tuesday and there is a general strike announced on Thursday you stay in you position. But as far as your targets are concerned, you should aim for 6 months out or so.
Secondly, at 32 I’d stay away from the bond market. You can handle more risk than that. I would put an appropriate amount of money in precious metals (enough to hedge your printed currency exposure – ask a professional advisor for more precise advice). As for the next few years, I’d say the best bet are big multinationals who are going to be able to make the most of regulatory arbitrage.
With that said, if you believe (as I do) that some inflation is inevitable globally, then the companies who have a short product cycle will be best. ADM can pass through its costs to its customer immediately. Caterpillar has a little more trouble. Boeing passes through input costs even worse.
Thirdly, if you’re looking for a flier, I’d put a little something in foods. Rice I think would be best – followed by wheat or corn. But the volatility in those markets can be breathtaking so only bet what you can lose. Food is absolutely essential in every market – unlike oil or copper. And I think we’ve all underbid the degree to which food price inflation will affect global stability. I’m working on something for tomorrow which will go into this further.
Make sure you stop back tomorrow as I’ll go into this a little more. It was already on my mind from the weekend, and I’m still trying to get the ideas to harden in their mold.
Thanks again.
Posted at FR
Post a Comment