Connect with us

Government

This ONE Chart Shows Why Wall Street and Washington are Worried

“And renouncing illusions, find peace and content, In that simplest, sublimest of truths — six percent!” —Nicholas Biddle (“Maxims of Wall Street,”…

Published

on

“And renouncing illusions, find peace and content,
In that simplest, sublimest of truths — six percent!”

Nicholas Biddle (“Maxims of Wall Street,” p. 186)

The first half of 2023 showed a strong recovery in the stock market, especially in technology.

But since July, it’s been a different story. Wall Street has struggled, and may even have entered a new bear market that might continue into the holiday season and 2024, an important election year.

Analysts blame higher energy prices, a strong dollar and persistently high inflation.

But the real culprit is the bond market and sharply rising bond yields, as this singular chart demonstrates.

Long-term bonds are now yielding 4-5% and may go higher, and 30-year mortgage rates are over 7%.

You can earn 4% on tax-free municipal bonds right now.

Or to be completely safe, you can buy three-month Treasury bills or a money market fund and earn over 5% risk-free.

All of these relatively low-risk investments are now competing with growth stocks that pay little or no dividends (such as tech stocks). And very few income stocks pay more than 5-6%. (Fortunately, we recommend several in Forecasts & Strategies.)

Washington is in Big Trouble

Moreover, higher interest rates eventually take their toll in business activity and consumer spending — and most importantly, the government budget, which is already out of control.

In fact, by 2030, 3.2% of the budget will be solely to pay the national debt, more than the cost of national defense!

The Federal Reserve, under Jay Powell, is determined to fight inflation to the death (or 2%, which ever comes first), which means a long slugfest that could come to an ugly conclusion in 2024 — an election year. Normally, this would be good news for the Republicans, but unfortunately, they have their own internal problems. See my “You Blew it” column below.

My strategy at Forecasts & Strategies is to stay invested in secure high-dividend-paying stocks that will weather the financial storm of high interest rates, and build a strong cash position to take advantage of bargains along the way.

Know the signs of the times!

The Man Who Changed my Life

Last month, I announced publishing the inside story of my wise uncle, W. Cleon Skousen, in the new book “There Were Giants in the Land.”

Uncle Cleon (1913-2006) was a former FBI agent, chief of police of Salt Lake City, BYU professor of religion and author of over 25 books on communism, the Constitution and the Bible. He sold millions of copies, and gave over 10,000 speeches in his lifetime. He was like a father figure to me, since my own father passed away when I was only 16 years old.

The story is told in his own words, which my wife and I compiled over a three-year period, and includes many events that have never been published before, including the day FBI director J. Edgar Hoover shouted, “Where’s Skousen?” (p. 68) and Cleon’s encounter with “Gone with the Wind” actress Olivia de Havilland to try to convince her to break away from her Communist Party affiliation (pp. 85-87). For full details, go to Our New Book is Banned in Beijing! – Mark Skousen.

You can order a copy of the 540-page hardback (with plenty of photos) at www.skousenbooks.com.

Telling the Story of the Great Economic Thinkers

Uncle Cleon made a huge difference in my writing the book “The Making of Modern Economics,” the history of the great economic thinkers, including Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman. Many of you have ordered copies, and know that it has received high praise from scholars and laymen alike.

But it could have been a disaster.

My first chapter was entitled “It All Started With Adam” (Adam Smith, that is, the father of economics who favored free trade and a “system of natural liberty.”)

As I started writing the book, I was still heavily under the influence of economist Murray Rothbard, who turned out to be highly critical of Adam Smith.

Rothbard held the unconventional view that Smith’s contributions were “dubious” at best, that “he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong” and that “The Wealth of Nations” was “rife with vagueness, ambiguity and deep inner contradictions.”

At the time, my assessment of Adam Smith followed similar lines. I was critical of the founder of economics. However, I didn’t feel completely comfortable with this disagreeable chapter. Even so, I was on my way.

‘Inspired of God’

I printed out the chapter, and took it with me on a trip to Utah and Uncle Cleon to review it.

Uncle Cleon and me in the late 1980s.

I considered him as a wise old man I respected and as a towering figure in law, politics and religion.

When I handed him the first chapter, he did something that changed my life.

He put his hand on my shoulder, and, without looking at the pages, said with considerable feeling, “You know, Mark, the Adam Smith doctrine of the invisible hand is inspired of God.”

Those three words “inspired of God” shocked me. I thought to myself, “If my uncle is right, I may need to rewrite this chapter and start over.”

‘Who’s Right, Murray Rothbard or Cleon Skousen?’

So, I struggled with the question, “Who’s right? Murray Rothbard, the professional economist and my mentor, or my wise old Uncle Cleon, who is not an economist by training but is somebody I admire?”

There was only one way to find out. I decided to read Adam Smith’s magnum opus, “The Wealth of Nations”, cover to cover, and decide for myself. Day after day, I read all 975 pages of “The Wealth of Nations”. (I still have that well-marked Modern Library Edition on my bookshelf.)

Two months later, I finished the book and had made up my mind: Murray Rothbard was wrong and my Uncle Cleon was right!

Adam Smith’s “system of natural liberty,” despite his occasional significant errors, is an inspiring and profound classic that deserves to be the central message of the book.

That decision changed my entire outlook regarding the book.

For the first time, the history of economics could be told as a bona fide story, a bold plot with Adam Smith and his “system of natural liberty” as the heroic figure, and all economists could be judged as either for or against the invisible hand doctrine of Adam Smith. Smith was often attacked viciously by the Marxists, Keynesians and socialists, and sometimes left for dead… Only to be resuscitated by his followers, the French Laissez-Faire School, the Austrians and the Chicagoans.

It even had a good ending, with the collapse of the socialist central planning model in the early 1990s and the triumph of free-market capitalism.

The Rest of the Story

The first edition turned out to be published on March 9, 2001 — the exact anniversary of the date (March 9, 1776) that Adam Smith’s first edition of “The Wealth of Nations” was published in London!

It was with pleasure that I dedicated the book, “The Making of Modern Economics,” to W. Cleon Skousen.

I sent him a copy of the first edition with the inscription, “You changed my mind on Adam Smith, and that made all the difference. Lux in tenebris!”

After my uncle passed away in January 2006, his family returned Cleon’s copy to me. My uncle had marked up the entire book in red.

Cleon’s marked-up copy of “Making of Modern Economics”.

‘The Making of Modern Economics’ Makes a Difference

“The Making of Modern Economics” is now in its 4th edition and published by the prestigious publisher Routledge (the same publisher of the works of Friedrich Hayek).

It is now one of the most popular textbooks of the great economic thinkers used in the classroom. Move over, Heilbroner!

As Roger Garrison, a professor at Auburn University, states, “My students love it. Skousen makes the history of economics come alive like no other textbook.”

I wrote the book to be both entertaining and educational.

It includes over 100 illustrations, portraits, photographs and “tell all” biographies.

The book is award-winning. It has won the Choice Book Award for Academic Excellence, and it was ranked #2 Best Libertarian Books in Economics by the Ayn Rand Institute (behind Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson”).

‘Single Best Book in Economics’

Over the years, I’ve received numerous testimonials of the book. Here’s the latest by columnist Richard Rahn in the Washington Times:

“Mark Skousen has produced the single best book on virtually all of those who have had a significant impact in economics — for good or bad — regardless of their political leanings. Despite being an economist with a definite political viewpoint, he treats the many figures he covers with considerable fairness — even the bad actors. It’s a delight to read cover-to-cover.”

Of course, not everyone agrees. My book has been banned, censored and blacklisted by Marxists, Keynesians and even some Austrians. It was also called “both fascinating and infuriating” by Foreign Affairs magazine.

Order the book and decide for yourself.

Get 50% Off by Ordering it from the Author

Routledge charges $54.95 plus shipping, but you can buy it directly from the author for only $35. Each copy is autographed, dated and mailed for no extra charge if mailed inside the United States.

And why not buy both books, “There Were Giants in the Land” and “The Making of Modern Economics?” Go to www.skousenbooks.com.

Upcoming Appearance

On my birthday, Thursday, Oct. 19, my wife Jo Ann and I will be headed to The Villages, the huge retirement community in Central Florida, where I will be speaking on “My Favorite Way to Choose Winning Stocks.” The meeting will take place from 8:30 — 10:00 am in the morning at The Villages on Oct. 19. It is co-sponsored by Raymond James, the brokerage firm. After my talk, I will be autographing copies of “The Maxims of Wall Street” and “There Were Giants in the Land” (available at www.skousenbooks.com). To learn more about my appearance, including the location of the meeting, contact Vince Czajkoski at vincentcz@hotmail.com. See you there!

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: We are hosting Eagle’s Live Event on Wednesday, October 18. If you haven’t signed up for this yet, there’s still time. Just click here now to sign up for free. Believe me, you won’t want to miss this online event — as we bring together all of Eagle’s investment experts for our LIVE event titled Profit in the 4th Quarter With the World’s Most Trusted Experts… Reserve your seat now by clicking here.

Good investing, AEIOU,

Mark Skousen

You Blew It!

Why Kevin McCarthy Had to Go

By Mark Skousen

When Senator Orrin Hatch retired from the Senate in 2019, he had only one regret in terms of passing historic bills through Congress. According to a recent study, Hatch was the most successful senator in history for pushing through legislation. Yet, he complained he was unable to pass a balanced budget amendment.

And yet, a balanced budget law is already in place on Capitol Hill. It’s called the Debt Limit Statute. It’s not in the Constitution, or any of the amendments. Rather, it’s a law that was enacted to issue bonds to finance the United States’ involvement in World War I in 1917.

The debt ceiling statute can be a successful way to cut back government spending and get it back on the path to sound fiscal policy.

In 1995, when the Republicans took control of the House, Newt Gingrich, the speaker, refused to raise the debt ceiling in a fight with President Bill Clinton. His “Contract with America” included a provision for a balanced budget amendment. The fight continued when the federal government was forced to shut down for a few weeks. Eventually, Gingrich gave in, and passed the Clinton budget and raised the debt ceiling, but his defiance set the tone for balancing the budget, which was achieved briefly in 1999-2000.

But Kevin McCarthy, the controversial Speaker of the House who was just deposed, is no Newt Gingrich, and he showed little guts in fighting big government.

Moreover, former Congressman Justin Amash gives a strong reason why McCarthy was not a good speaker:

“Kevin McCarthy promised to open up the House, but he never made good on that promise. In this entire term, there has been only ONE legislative item that had an open amendment process — a very narrow, relatively inconsequential bill passed in January. Spending bills, by rule and tradition going back over 200 years, are supposed to be freely amendable from the floor by any member of the House able to garner the votes, yet ZERO of the spending bills McCarthy has brought to the floor have been considered under an open rule.”

Let’s hope the Republicans can get their act together by next November.

The post This ONE Chart Shows Why Wall Street and Washington are Worried appeared first on Stock Investor.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.

Published

on

It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source: Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…

Published

on

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The…

Published

on

Veterans Affairs Kept COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate In Place Without Evidence

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed no data when deciding in 2023 to keep its COVID-19 vaccine mandate in place.

Doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in Washington in a file image. (Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)

VA Secretary Denis McDonough said on May 1, 2023, that the end of many other federal mandates “will not impact current policies at the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

He said the mandate was remaining for VA health care personnel “to ensure the safety of veterans and our colleagues.”

Mr. McDonough did not cite any studies or other data. A VA spokesperson declined to provide any data that was reviewed when deciding not to rescind the mandate. The Epoch Times submitted a Freedom of Information Act for “all documents outlining which data was relied upon when establishing the mandate when deciding to keep the mandate in place.”

The agency searched for such data and did not find any.

The VA does not even attempt to justify its policies with science, because it can’t,” Leslie Manookian, president and founder of the Health Freedom Defense Fund, told The Epoch Times.

“The VA just trusts that the process and cost of challenging its unfounded policies is so onerous, most people are dissuaded from even trying,” she added.

The VA’s mandate remains in place to this day.

The VA’s website claims that vaccines “help protect you from getting severe illness” and “offer good protection against most COVID-19 variants,” pointing in part to observational data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that estimate the vaccines provide poor protection against symptomatic infection and transient shielding against hospitalization.

There have also been increasing concerns among outside scientists about confirmed side effects like heart inflammation—the VA hid a safety signal it detected for the inflammation—and possible side effects such as tinnitus, which shift the benefit-risk calculus.

President Joe Biden imposed a slate of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in 2021. The VA was the first federal agency to implement a mandate.

President Biden rescinded the mandates in May 2023, citing a drop in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. His administration maintains the choice to require vaccines was the right one and saved lives.

“Our administration’s vaccination requirements helped ensure the safety of workers in critical workforces including those in the healthcare and education sectors, protecting themselves and the populations they serve, and strengthening their ability to provide services without disruptions to operations,” the White House said.

Some experts said requiring vaccination meant many younger people were forced to get a vaccine despite the risks potentially outweighing the benefits, leaving fewer doses for older adults.

By mandating the vaccines to younger people and those with natural immunity from having had COVID, older people in the U.S. and other countries did not have access to them, and many people might have died because of that,” Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine on leave from Harvard Medical School, told The Epoch Times previously.

The VA was one of just a handful of agencies to keep its mandate in place following the removal of many federal mandates.

“At this time, the vaccine requirement will remain in effect for VA health care personnel, including VA psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, nursing assistants, physical therapists, respiratory therapists, peer specialists, medical support assistants, engineers, housekeepers, and other clinical, administrative, and infrastructure support employees,” Mr. McDonough wrote to VA employees at the time.

This also includes VA volunteers and contractors. Effectively, this means that any Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employee, volunteer, or contractor who works in VHA facilities, visits VHA facilities, or provides direct care to those we serve will still be subject to the vaccine requirement at this time,” he said. “We continue to monitor and discuss this requirement, and we will provide more information about the vaccination requirements for VA health care employees soon. As always, we will process requests for vaccination exceptions in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.”

The version of the shots cleared in the fall of 2022, and available through the fall of 2023, did not have any clinical trial data supporting them.

A new version was approved in the fall of 2023 because there were indications that the shots not only offered temporary protection but also that the level of protection was lower than what was observed during earlier stages of the pandemic.

Ms. Manookian, whose group has challenged several of the federal mandates, said that the mandate “illustrates the dangers of the administrative state and how these federal agencies have become a law unto themselves.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending