#ian mauldin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

eddiemauldin · 8 months

Text

I drew a portrait of my favorite X-Men, Steely Dan.

0 notes

johnmauldin · 5 years

Text

Here’s Why Trump Could Soon Turn on Europe

Last month’s Buenos Aires G20 summit was a chance for world leaders to forge common ground on important global issues.

That’s not exactly what happened. But President Trump’s trade discussion with Chinese president Xi Jinping looked initially like a bright spot.

They agreed to stop making things worse for a few months, at least. Markets were more skeptical after digesting the news. And rightly so.

There are real issues with China on intellectual property and more. It is not unreasonable to ask for an open and fair playing field.

China is no longer an emerging market nation. It has emerged, at least the eastern half. Beijing should play by the same rules as the rest of the developed world.

But getting agreement with China is going to be a hard slog.

One encouraging but little-reported G20 event: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin gathered their peers from the smaller G7 group for an unscheduled dinner.

According to political expert Ian Bremmer, they made significant progress on working together to solve the China issues. This should be positive if it continues.

Bad News for Europe

Meanwhile, Louis Gave, Founding Partner and CEO of Gavekal Research, explains why problems with China may be bad news for Europe at a time when Europe doesn’t need any more challenges (bold is mine).

It is no secret that Trump is surrounded by men who want to “take China down,” who have argued at length that China is a house of cards built on unsustainable credit, and that all the US needs to do is give a gentle nudge for the whole edifice to come crashing down. So far, this talk of China’s vulnerability has proved way off-target. For all of the dire predictions of an imminent debt crisis and financial meltdown, China is still standing very much upright.

So, if Trump wants a win, where should he look? If a long cold war of attrition with China doesn’t look promising, perhaps bashing Europe—specifically Europe’s auto industry and lack of defense spending—could prove more attractive, especially as Europe is now politically rudderless and economically slowing. My bet would be that in the coming weeks, Trump stops speaking about China, and instead starts bashing Europe. And doubtless his favorite targets will be France and Germany, perhaps as payback for the slights he endured at last month’s commemoration of the World War I armistice. If nothing else, Trump has shown that he is a firm believer in the old adage that revenge is a dish best served cold.

I pay attention when Louis speaks. He often sees events that happen “around the curve.”

His premise is simple: The automotive industry drives the German economy. Germany, in turn, drives the European economy.

So if Trump decides to follow through on the car tariffs he’s threatened, it could be a serious blow. German auto executives met with him in Washington this week but the threat is still alive.

Perfect Storm

At the same time, Europe could soon face monetary tightening, hard Brexit, an Italian breakdown, popular unrest not just in France but all over, a trade war, and a German/Italian bank crisis all at the same time.

And this is not a far-off possibility. It could all be happening in the next three or four months.

If some combination of these crises develops into a perfect storm, the pain won’t stay in Europe.

US, Canadian, Latin American, and Asian companies that do business with Europe will lose sales and have to lay off workers. Lenders everywhere who own euro debt will face losses.

Highly leveraged derivatives could blow up, forcing bailouts and currency interventions. We don’t know where it would lead but certainly nowhere good.

And it will end up being played out in the equity markets all over the world.

Join hundreds of thousands of other readers of Thoughts from the Frontline

Sharp macroeconomic analysis, big market calls, and shrewd predictions are all in a week’s work for visionary thinker and acclaimed financial expert John Mauldin. Since 2001, investors have turned to his Thoughts from the Frontline to be informed about what’s really going on in the economy. Join hundreds of thousands of readers, and get it free in your inbox every week.

1 note · View note

patrick-watson · 7 years

Text

Ian Bremmer: Trump Faces a Far More Dangerous Risk Than Impeachment

by Patrick W. Watson, Mauldin Economics

The words "Trump" and "impeachment" are often seen in the same sentence now. Few think it would happen. But there's no question another presidential impeachment attempt would be a wrenching experience for the nation.

Geopolitics expert and Eurasia Group founder Ian Bremmer doesn't worry about impeachment. Speaking at the Mauldin Economics Strategic Investment Conference on Tuesday, Bremmer said he sees a different and more worrisome risk.

What If Trump's Generals Leave?

When Trump won the election, he knew that he lacked military and foreign policy experience. To that end, he brought in widely respected retired General James Mattis as secretary of defense and Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his national security advisor.

Flynn didn't work out, obviously, but Trump replaced him with Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster.

Defense hawks breathed a sigh of relief with these appointments. At least someone with military sense would be at the table, they reasoned.

But would Trump listen to them?

Most accounts say yes. Mattis, in particular, has strong influence on military and foreign policy decisions. This proved invaluable as the Pentagon mounted attacks on Syria and geared up for a possible response to North Korean missile launches.

So, as long as the generals are there, Bremmer is confident Trump won't do anything crazy. But will they stick around? That is not at all clear.

Mattis or McMaster Could Resign Within a Year

Working for Donald Trump isn't easy. He vacillates, changes his mind, thinks out loud, and publicly blames subordinates when things go wrong. Not everyone can handle it, and plenty don't want to.

This may be one reason the administration has been slow to fill the hundreds of sub-cabinet positions that require Senate confirmation.

Last week, Trump sent McMaster to face the media in defense of disclosing sensitive information during his Oval Office meeting with Russian visitors. McMaster was clearly uncomfortable in the role. Many observers thought his answers misleading or worse. That's a tough accusation for a military man whose word has long been solid as a rock.

Bremmer's concern is that we will continue to see more incidents that are unpleasant for Mattis and McMaster. There may be others behind closed doors, too. At some point, one or both could decide he's had enough.

In that scenario, replacing them with equally respected figures might be difficult. So, then what? Who will get Trump's ear?

Bremmer doesn't know, but suspects the answer wouldn't be good. He sees a significant chance either Mattis, McMaster, or both will leave their posts within a year. This is a much higher probability than impeachment—and potentially far more dangerous.

Get Live Updates from the Sold-Out 2017 Strategic Investment Conference

Don’t miss out as some of the world’s leading asset managers, geopolitical experts, and Federal Reserve insiders, including John Mauldin, George Friedman and Ian Bremmer, discuss how to assemble a winning portfolio for the Paradigm Shifts now destabilizing the world. Click here to tune in.

#trump #generals #economy #politics #military

2 notes · View notes

chinablu-blog · 11 years

Video

youtube

I know it's been forever and a day since I've posted a song, but this one is by me and called "Darkest Dawn"

#darkest dawn #ian mauldin #china blue #acoustic #guitar #folk #new music #original song #original lyrics #beard

4 notes · View notes

tylerapocalypse · 12 years

Video

Ian Mauldin (by X351)

www.TylerCapehart.com Apocalypse Productions

#Ian Mauldin #Live #Acoustic #Atlanta #Music #Artist #Solo #Independent

0 notes

patrick-watson · 7 years

Text

ROSENBERG: REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS ALWAYS COME IN NEAR THE TOP

GOP presidents have terrible luck. The last three before Trump took office near economic and market peaks, and Trump may have done the same.

That's what Gluskin Sheff economist David Rosenberg said at the Mauldin Economics Strategic Investment Conference today. In a sweeping presentation he called "The Trials and Tribulations of Trumponomics," Rosenberg noted the odd pattern dating back almost 40 years.

Stocks Have Crashed under Ronal Reagan, George H.W. Bush

1981: Ronald Reagan came into office under a weak economy—one reason voters tossed out Jimmy Carter—but it would get much worse. Then-Fed chair Paul Volcker tightened interest rates to all-time highs, sending stocks down 30% and the economy into a recession. It stamped out inflation but didn't win Reagan much good will.

1989: George H.W. Bush came in on Reagan's coattails as the economy bounced back from the 1987 crash. He rode high to victory in the first Gulf War but then recession struck. Bush lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton.

2001: Like Reagan, George W. Bush took office (after the Florida recount) after the decline had already started. The Nasdaq Composite had peaked almost a year earlier, but the Tech Crash was only beginning. Recession followed.

2017: Donald Trump takes office eight years into the weakest growth cycle in history… but a strong stock market. Like Reagan, Trump also has a Fed chair determined to tighten rates.

Chances of a US Recession During Trump’s First Term Are High

Rosenberg thinks the inflation Yellen wants to fight is mostly an illusion. He pointed out that CPI Core Goods (basically anything tangible) has been deflating for months. Unemployment might be 8% or more if we included robots in the labor force. Demographics factors are aggravating all the other problems as Boomers reach retirement age but don't retire… often because they can't afford to.

Can Trump avoid recession in his first and perhaps only term? Rosenberg is doubtful. It will reduce Trump's already-low public approval and maybe drive him from office. But it really won't be his fault.

Get Live Updates from the Sold-Out 2017 Strategic Investment Conference

Don’t miss out as some of the world’s leading asset managers, geopolitical experts, and Federal Reserve insiders, including John Mauldin, George Friedman, and Ian Bremmer, discuss how to assemble a winning portfolio for the Paradigm Shifts now destabilizing the world. Click here to tune in.

#trump #economy

2 notes · View notes

patrick-watson · 7 years

Text

David Zervos: Deregulation Will Have a Profound Effect on the Market

With prospects fading for much of the Trump legislative agenda, the post-election rally looks to be on shaky ground. Yet hope remains. And it doesn't depend on the House or the Senate.

Trump still runs the executive branch, and that gives him control over the government's many regulatory agencies.

Speaking at the Mauldin Economics’ Strategic Investment Conference, hedge fund manager Mark Hart and investment strategist David Zervos both think deregulation is the key that can lift the US economy out of slow-growth mode.

Gridlock Grips Washington

Other reforms like tax cuts and infrastructure spending would help, too. However, with Washington still gripped by gridlock, implementation of those policies is a tough ask.

To what extent deregulation would help depends on the degree to which excess regulation has held back growth.

Zervos, the chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., estimates the combination of uncertainty and unnecessary regulation could be as much as 10% of GDP.

Hart, founder and CIO of Corriente Advisors, said deregulation was the most underfollowed and misunderstood factor in markets today.

Regulation Strangulation

While some regulation is necessary, both experts said it has grown beyond reason over the last decade.

The Dodd-Frank Act spawned a proliferation of new regulations intended to prevent another 2008-style financial crisis. Climate change concerns led the Obama administration to impose a multitude of costly new environmental rules.

The key reason both believe deregulation reform will be passed is that most of it doesn't require legislation.

Agencies can often interpret rules in stricter or more relaxed fashion. Which way they go depends on the politically-appointed leaders… and it's a safe bet that Trump appointees will be more business-friendly than those who held the same roles in the Obama years.

The main question is timing.

The Trump team still hasn't filled many of the openings in the regulatory bodies. According to a database maintained by the Washington Post and the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, some 445 of 554 key positions requiring Senate confirmation still had no nominee as of May 24.

These positions include senior posts such as the deputy secretaries, commissioners, and other sub-cabinet level positions. Many of those 445 still have Obama appointees acting as temporary administrators.

The Trump administration's slow start has delayed regulatory reform, but Hart and Zervos think it will come eventually. When it does, they believe it will unleash "animal spirits" and lead businesses to resume taking risks and investing in new capacity.

As such, the market impact could be significant.

Get Live Updates from the Sold-Out 2017 Strategic Investment Conference

Don’t miss out as some of the world’s leading asset managers, geopolitical experts, and Federal Reserve insiders—including John Mauldin, George Friedman, and Ian Bremmer—discuss how to assemble a winning portfolio for the Paradigm Shifts now destabilizing the world. Click here to tune in.

#trump #markets #deregulation

1 note · View note

johnmauldin · 4 years

Text

Let’s Make Sure This Crisis Doesn’t Go to Waste

A stock market crash wasn’t 1929’s only big event. Coca-Cola (KO) launched a new slogan: “The Pause That Refreshes.”

Coke’s marketers sensed the economy was headed down. How do you sell a completely unnecessary beverage to a struggling country? It’s simple, really: You remind consumers that treating themselves is important, too.

Now, in 2020, the entire world is paused. COVID-19 is horrible in more ways than I can count: lost lives, suffering, job destruction, shattered dreams and more.

None of it is refreshing. But the word has other meanings.

For instance, if you are working on a spreadsheet and refresh your screen, you see new, and possibly better, numbers.

Could this crisis, as bad as it is, “refresh” the world and solve some of our problems? Maybe.

Speaking at Mauldin Economics’ first-ever virtual Strategic Investment Conference in May, Eurasia Group and G-Zero Media’s Ian Bremmer said it’s possible.

Long before this pandemic, Ian was saying the world is in a “geopolitical recession.” The old order has been breaking down without a clear replacement, leaving what he calls a “G-Zero World.”

Part of the problem relates to a Milton Friedman quote: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Think of the global institutions that arose from World War II and its aftermath: NATO, the UN, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the EU, etc.

Some have outlived their usefulness. Other need major reforms. But all still exist because over time they developed constituencies that fight hard to preserve them.

The same is true within national governments. In the US, we have institutions like the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare and assorted regulatory agencies.

They do some good things and could do more. But none work as originally intended.

Ian suggested the pandemic might have a silver lining if the failures it exposes let us replace failed institutions with better ones, more suited to current needs.

Which institutions to whom? Take your pick.

The Federal Reserve is trying to control market outcomes. Which means we don’t really have “markets” as such anymore. This has to stop but I see no chance the Fed will change course voluntarily.

The sudden ejection of millions from their jobs exposed huge shortcomings in the US safety net programs. A top-to-bottom overhaul might let them work better and cost less.

Our inability to provide adequate COVID-19 testing and get protective gear to medical workers revealed serious problems. Not just in the healthcare industry, but also the agencies like the CDC and FDA that govern it. The regulatory processes clearly impede progress, and it has been made manifest for all to see.

Across the pond, the EU’s prized openness and solidarity proved less so in a crisis. Members like Italy had to largely fend for themselves. The alliance needs a major overhaul if it is to survive.

Numerous emerging market states are heavily indebted and completely unprepared to handle this crisis in large part because the IMF made them so. That has to change.

Those are just a few things we could “refresh” in the coming months and years. I don’t know if it will happen but, as Rahm Emmanuel famously said, we shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste.

Heck, this one could still bring positive change.

Just ask any of the 40 economic and investing all-stars who presented at Mauldin Economics’ recent virtual Strategic Investment Conference. We have all the video footage, slides and transcripts in one easy-to-access space. You really need to hear for yourself what’s in store for our post-coronavirus world.

The Great Reset: The Collapse of the Biggest Bubble in History

New York Times best seller and renowned financial expert John Mauldin predicts an unprecedented financial crisis that could be triggered in the next five years. Most investors seem completely unaware of the relentless pressure that’s building right now. Learn more here.

0 notes

johnmauldin · 7 years

Text

Startups Will Define the Future of US Employment

Research shows that technology has net-net created far more jobs than it has destroyed. A recent study by Deloitte drew on data going back to 1871 in England and Wales and found that technology has been a job-creating machine.

Part of that is because technology increases people’s spending power, which creates a surge in the demand for hairdressers, bar staff, etc.

Going back over past jobs figures paints a more balanced picture, say authors Ian Stewart, Debapratim De and Alex Cole.

“The dominant trend is of contracting employment in agriculture and manufacturing being more than offset by rapid growth in the caring, creative, technology and business services sectors,” they write.

“Machines will take on more repetitive and laborious tasks, but seem no closer to eliminating the need for human labour than at any time in the last 150 years.”

This Happened in Every Technological Revolution

The pattern has repeated in the US and much of the rest of the world.

At least 80% of US workers labored in agriculture at the beginning of the 19th century, but by the middle of that century, the number was down to 50%. Today, it is substantially less than 2%.

And yet we are 16 times more productive than we were 120 years ago.

Seriously, do we bemoan the fact that we’ve lost all those farm jobs? Only if you never had to actually do one of those jobs. And that our food is much less expensive as a percentage of our daily budget? (Unless your spouse forces you to eat everything that is simply labeled organic.)

Do we regret all the people who lost jobs from doing our laundry? Washing our restaurant dishes? Shoveling horse droppings from the street? Oh, you might miss your bank teller, but then you never go to see her/him anymore, do you?

All those jobs are gone.

Is Technology Really the Problem?

So now I am here to tell you that technology is not the problem. As I’ve written before, technology is the solution. Well, actually, I agree it’s the problem if it’s your job.

But the solution is to figure out how to get in front of the technology curve or figure out who is in front of it and get involved with them.

Because, at the end of the day, the data shows that net-net, new job creation comes from small business startups. That is, all of the net new job creation comes from small businesses less than five years old.

Well, hooray! We are still creating 450,000 new businesses a year. Well, except. Except that we are losing more enterprises every year than we are creating. And we have been since the beginning of the Great Recession.

Startups Will Define the Future of US Employment

Part of the problem, as Tyler Cowen describes in his new book, The Complacent Class, is that Americans have seemingly lost some of their entrepreneurial drive.

In the 1980s, new startups accounted for some 12–13% of all businesses. Today it’s 7–8%. If we want to create an economy that is a jobs machine, we are going to have to have more business startups.

Which means that we have to create a climate in which people feel comfortable launching risky new ventures.

Fewer new businesses means that older companies now represent the largest share of US businesses; and all the data—and I challenge you to find any data that contradicts this (seriously, I would like to see it)—shows that large businesses, as a group, are not net creators of new jobs.

They absolutely create new jobs at the front door, but at the back door they are ushering out old jobs. Large businesses are in the business of staying in business.

Large enterprises are net-net destroyers of jobs. For every Google or Apple that is growing its total number of higher-paying jobs, there is a Buggy Whip Corporation or Icebox Corporation that once dominated its industry but is now either defunct or shedding jobs in an effort to stay viable—or else scrambling to change its model and product delivery entirely.

And let’s remember, Google and Apple were once small business startups that for whatever reason (perhaps the genius of their founders) became big and dominant.

The future is not in old companies that are just getting by or fading. The jobs of the future are in new companies that have yet to be dreamed up. But they will all have to be found and financed.

Jobs Come from Blood, Sweat, and Big Money—Not a “Jobs Program”

New-business creation is an extraordinarily risky business. Michael Gerber tells us that 80% of all new businesses fail or no longer exist in their original form within the first five years, and 80% of the remaining businesses no longer exist five years after that.

And every one of those new ventures and the half a million new businesses started every year requires capital. Every $%^&$&^% one of them. Blood and sweat and tears and lots of money. And that money has to come from somewhere.

There are many politicians who think there is a new-jobs fairy. Just give the government more money, and it can create a “jobs program” that will create those new jobs.

Okay, now I’m going to be the guy who told your kids there is no Santa Claus.

There is no jobs fairy. Just call me Mr. Grinch.

Get a Bird’s-Eye View of the Economy with John Mauldin’s Thoughts from the Frontline

This wildly popular newsletter by celebrated economic commentator, John Mauldin, is a must-read for informed investors who want to go beyond the mainstream media hype and find out about the trends and traps to watch out for. Join hundreds of thousands of fans worldwide, as John uncovers macroeconomic truths in Thoughts from the Frontline. Get it free in your inbox every Monday.

#us job market #us jobs #jobs #us economy #economy #economics #global economy #trump and jobs #ai #robotics

0 notes

chinablu-blog · 12 years

Video