The globalized economy is a colossal Ponzi Scheme in which the vast majority survive on the bread crumbs falling off the table. The possibility of 7 billion people achieving a consumption-oriented lifestyle is zero, so the World Bank conveniently set the poverty line at $1.25/day to legalize global slavery. As long as someone else's children are doing the suffering, it's "all good". Post-2008, this illusion was extended merely by plundering all future generations.
McDonald's and Merck combined are going to kill more people than ISIS can even fathom...
Is it any surprise that these two stocks are now "leading" the recessionary market? And contrary to popular belief it's not because of automated burger dispensers.
What it all comes down to is that the healthcare system can't afford to continue to subsidize junk lifestyles:
First off, back when Obamacare was under discussion, there was constant Idiocratic anxiety over "death panels", meaning panels of doctors who would decide who lived and who died based upon ability to pay. Never mind that fucktard dystopia, because with or without Obamacare, spiraling healthcare costs and an aging society are a recipe for mass "euthanasia". In other words, death panels are already built into the insolvent system. Or put another way, few people who are over-indulging in the "good life" are going to be able to afford the downstream consequences of their own actions.
GOP efforts so far have pointed to drastic cuts in the number of insured Americans and steep costs for older and sicker people
The only real control Americans can exert over their health-care costs is to work hard at staying in good health
In a perfect world, your retirement savings would be for travel and recreation, not brute survival
Hawley, a Republican, filed suit St. Louis Circuit Court, naming Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharmaceuticals and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Hawley said at a news conference that the suit will seek "hundreds of millions of dollars" in both damages and civil penalties.
Hawley said the three companies over several years misrepresented the addictive risks of opioids, often using fraudulent science to back their claims. As a result, thousands of Missourians dealing with chronic pain were given unnecessary opioid prescriptions.
These lawsuits are not going to make drug costs go down. In other words, doctors are the REAL drug dealers
The Fed, Wall Street, and Trump are all lying constantly. Then again, why stop now?
This week, Skynet did everything possible to keep the casino levitated at all time highs, while the entire rest of the world disintegrated in broadly ignored daylight. By sheer coincidence, the second largest IPO of 2017 priced this week, as risk was coincidentally "on" for growth stocks...
The S&P has gone nowhere for three weeks:
The healthcare sector led this week on hopes for Obamacare repeal which in the event did not come to pass. Minor detail:
Outside of the imploding reflation trade, risk was firmly "on" in the growth side of the 'barbell' trade, led by Biotech:
The yield end of the dumbbell trade was firmly "off" this week as consumer staples imploded
Oil implosion was the big markets story of the week; however we learned today that speculative longs would enjoy more pain:
Depressed energy prices are stoking worries that the recent raft of weak inflation numbers may be more than “transitory,” which, analysts say, could derail the Fed’s timetable for future interest rate increases.
Optimism about the economy has faded since March with economic data surprising to the downside, he noted:
Let's see, what happened in early March: Trump blew smoke up everyone's ass and the Fed believed him:
Now we know which end of the yield curve is right:
It's called misallocation of poverty capital at the end of the cycle, driven by corporate Mad Men and cheered on by 12 year old bloggers. You see automation only works if every company doesn't do it at the same time. "This gives us confidence to raise our 2018 U.S. same store sales forecast from 2% to 3%, in excess of Consensus Metrix’s 2.5%" Don't be overly surprised when that doesn't happen...
"The stock market is luvin' McDonalds stock, which has continued its recent relentless rise to all time highs, up 26% YTD, oblivious to the carnage among the broader restaurant and fast-food sector"
2 + 2 = 5 I'm lovin' it
But let's let the dullards figure that out for themselves
According to Supply Side *free trade* orthodoxy, the Idiocracy has secured competitive advantage in cappuccino production. Unfortunately it's not a sustainable advantage, because $5 lattes are now competing with Maxwell House and tequila on the linoleum:
"First, in historical fact, deflation has had no clear negative impact on aggregate production. Long-term decreases of the price level did not systematically correlate with lower growth rates than those that prevailed in comparable periods and/or countries with increasing price levels" My answer: See 1929-1939 when GDP fell by -25% in three years amid unparalleled deflation "Second, it is true that unexpectedly strong deflation can incite people to postpone purchase decisions. However, this does not by any sort of necessity slow down aggregate production" A: Is this fake news? I've heard about this kind of thing before whereby people make assertions and then contradict themselves immediately afterward "the great majority of the population—will by and large buy just as many consumers’ goods as they would have bought in a nondeflationary environment" A: See next paragraph whereby he asserts that mass bankruptcy is not a problem. And then jump back to this section and pretend that it's not a hindrance on buying consumer goods. In actual fact, then, consumption will slow down only marginally in a deflationary environment A: It slowed down by -25% of GDP by 1933 And this marginal reduction of consumer spending, far from impairing aggregate production, will rather tend to increase it A: Of course Third, it is correct that deflation—especially unanticipated deflation—makes it more difficult to service debts contracted at a higher price level in the past. In the case of a massive deflation shock, widespread bankruptcy might result. Such consequences are certainly deplorable from the standpoint of the individual entrepreneurs and capitalists who own the firms, factories, and other productive assets when the deflationary shock hits. However, from the aggregate (social) point of view it does not matter A: We'll see you in the riots Fourth, it is true that deflation more or less directly threatens the banking industry, because deflation makes it more difficult for bank customers to repay their debts and because widespread business failures are likely to have a direct negative impact on the liquidity of banks. However, for the same reasons that we just discussed, while this might be devastating for some banks, it is not so for society as a whole. A: We'll see you in the riots In the light of the preceding considerations it appears that the problems entailed by deflation are much less formidable than they are in the opinion of present-day monetary authorities.
By my calculation, all sectors have now peaked. The only thing holding this market up now is non-stop bullshit...
But don't take my word for it:
The Citi Economic U.S. Surprise Index, which measures data surprises relative to market expectations has gone from mildly curious to a real concern. The Treasury market has been most closely correlated to this index as bond yields have declined along with the disappointing data. Equities have been able to ignore this data, but the question is for how long?
Citigroup's Economic Surprise-You're-a-Fucktard Index