Brits May Have to Work Until 75, Thanks to China

Stupid taken to new heights.

Retirement is about no longer producing real goods and services and instead living off of the real output of others, incuding China’s exports to you.

The only way this could make any sense is if China somehow was going to force the UK to net export at some time in the future, sort of like war reparations.

Not that the UK might not lose a war to China and be forced to export, but if history is any guide, China and the rest will still be pressing on with net export strategies, like Japan has done for the last 65 years and going strong.

And, of course, keeping millions who want to work from working (unemployment) is entirely counterproductive with regards to real output as well.

Brits May Have to Work Until 75, Thanks to China

By Katie Holliday

Feb 27 (CNBC) — A colossal savings glut in China, the world’s second largest economy, means British workers in their twenties will only be able to retire at 75, a report by the Center for Economic and Business Research (Cebr) showed on Thursday.

According to the report, excessive savings in emerging economies, especially in China, and the country’s growing share of the global economy will keep yields and interest rates down for many years. This will leave pension funds underfunded keeping annuity rates low.

“To retire at close to the standard of living that they (U.K. workers) have previously enjoyed, they will have to extend their working life and cut their number of years of retirement by working till they are much older than the present retirement age,” said Douglas McWilliams, executive chairman of economics consultancy Cebr.

The state pension age in the U.K. is 65 for men and 60 for women currently, but it is set to steadily rise to 66 for both by 2020, as set by the government’s Pensions Bill in October 2012.

McWilliams pinpointed China’s savings glut as a key driver behind this trend.

China’s population holds a staggering 25 percent of the world’s savings, the report found, rising from $153 billion in 1990 to a likely $4.5 trillion this year – a figure Cebr expects to grow further.

Austerity

Weak state finances following austerity measures will also make it difficult for British workers to retire before the age of 75, the report said.

The U.K. economy was stripped of its Triple-A rating by credit ratings agency Moody’s this week on concerns over its subdued growth prospects and rising debt burden.

The British government is currently undergoing vigorous austerity, but the cuts have come at the expense of growth. The economy emerged from a nine-month recession in the third quarter of last year with 0.9 percent growth, however , it then contracted more than expected by 0.3 percent in the final quarter of last year.

According to Cebr, the long-term cost of the austerity measures will outweigh the cost of bailing out banks during the financial crisis.

It estimates that the cost of bailing out the banks will have cost the British taxpayer about 120 billion pounds ($181 billion) eventually, while the problems of excess deficits built up since 2000 will have cost the economy 1.5 trillion pounds by 2025.

“It will be well in the late 2020s at the earliest before austerity policies can be eased up,” said McWilliams.

Interest rates in the U.K. meanwhile are likely to stay low for at least 20 years, the report from Cebr said.

“Even the [U.K.] Pensions Regulator admits that most pension schemes are underfunded and many will never be able to be fully funded while low yields persist without bankrupting their guarantors,” McWilliams said.

“And for those on direct contribution pension schemes, the annuity yields that they are able to buy are unlikely to rise much from today’s very depressed levels. Workers could save more. But they are unlikely to do so and if they did so around the world, they would only add to the glut of savings that is a fundamental cause of the problem,’ he added.

Direct contribution pension schemes are retirement plans where an employer matches its employee’s contribution of his or her earnings each year.

Time to Learn Mandarin?

The tendency towards saving in China means the Chinese will eventually own a quarter of the world’s assets, as they invest heavily abroad to use up their savings, said Cebr.

“So far the Chinese have invested heavily in areas like Africa and South America which the West has neglected as well as in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will have to turn increasingly to other assets like companies and properties in the West including U.K. companies,” he said.

“Better start learning Mandarin – your next boss may be Chinese,” said McWilliams.

the sequester

Thanks!
Change ‘stipulated’ to ‘stupulated’…
;)

If they only knew ‘the debt’ was just a reserve drain…
:(

The sequester is a group of cuts to federal spending set to take effect March 1, barring further congressional action.

President Obama signs the Budget Control Act into law. (Pete Souza/White House)

The sequester was originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), better known as the debt ceiling compromise.

It was intended to serve as incentive for the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the “Supercommittee”) to come to a deal to cut $1.5 trillion over 10 years. If the committee had done so, and Congress had passed it by Dec. 23, 2011, then the sequester would have been averted.

Obviously, that didn’t happen.

A deal was reached to avert the cliff, in which the sequester was delayed to March 1.

The cuts are evenly split between domestic and defense programs, with half affecting defense discretionary spending (weapons purchases, base operations, construction work, etc.) and the rest affecting both mandatory (which generally means regular payouts like Social Security or Medicaid) and discretionary domestic spending. Only a few mandatory programs, like the unemployment trust fund and, most notably, Medicare (more specifically its provider payments) are affected. The bulk of cuts are borne by discretionary spending for either defense or domestic functions.

Food stamps are exempt from the sequester. (For The Washington Post)

Most mandatory programs, like Medicaid and Social Security, and in particular low-income programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) were exempt from the sequester.

The 2013 sequester includes:

  • $42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut).
  • $28.7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut).
  • $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts (a 2 percent cut).
  • $4 billion in other mandatory cuts (a 5.8 percent cut to nondefense programs, and a 7.8 percent cut to mandatory defense programs).

That makes for a total of $85.4 billion in cuts. Note: numbers here updated to latest CBO figures; thanks to Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for noting the difference from initial OMB numbers.

More will be cut in 2014 and later; from 2014 to 2021, the sequester will cut $87 to $92 billion from the discretionary budget every year, and $109 billion total.

The sequester cuts discretionary spending across-the-board by 9.4 percent for defense and 8.2 percent for everything else. But no programs are actually eliminated. The effect is to reduce the scale and scope of existing programs rather than to zero out any of them.

The National Institutes of Health will see budget cuts in the billions if the sequester goes through. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Here are just a few. Update: Note that these are rough estimates based on numbers put out by OMB before the fiscal cliff deal:

  • Aircraft purchases by the Air Force and Navy are cut by $3.5 billion.
  • Military operations across the services are cut by about $13.5 billion.
  • Military research is cut by $6.3 billion.
  • The National Institutes of Health get cut by $1.6 billion.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are cut by about $323 million.
  • Border security is cut by about $581 million.
  • Immigration enforcement is cut by about $323 million.
  • Airport security is cut by about $323 million.
  • Head Start gets cut by $406 million, kicking 70,000 kids out of the program.
  • FEMA’s disaster relief budget is cut by $375 million.
  • Public housing support is cut by about $1.94 billion.
  • The FDA is cut by $206 million.
  • NASA gets cut by $970 million.
  • Special education is cut by $840 million.
  • The Energy Department’s program for securing our nukes is cut by $650 million.
  • The National Science Foundation gets cut by about $388 million.
  • The FBI gets cut by $480 million.
  • The federal prison system gets cut by $355 million.
  • State Department diplomatic functions are cut by $650 million.
  • Global health programs are cut by $433 million; the Millenium Challenge Corp. sees a $46 million cut, and USAID a cut of about $291 million.
  • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is cut by $55 million.
  • The SEC is cut by $75.6 million.
  • The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is cut by $2.6 million.
  • The Library of Congress is cut by $31 million.
  • The Patent and Trademark office is cut by $156 million.

While military salaries are exempt from the sequester, benefits like tuition assistance and the TRICARE program (which provides health care to personnel and their families, among others) are not.

The Congressional Research Service has written that a sequester may not “reduce or have the effect of reducing the rate of pay an employee is entitled to” under their federal pay scale. However, the sequester is likely to cause furloughs, which amount to unpaid time off, or, basically, a pay cut.

Stephen Fuller, an economist at the libertarian-minded George Mason University, puts the number at 2.14 million jobs lost. That includes the direct loss of 325,693 jobs from defense cuts (including 48,147 civilian employees at the DoD) and 420,529 jobs from non-defense cuts (including 229,116 federal workers — the rest, by and large, are contractors). The rest of the jobs losses are indirect, resulting in a 1.5 point increase in the unemployment rate. However, Fuller’s estimates predate the delay in the sequester passed in December, and other analysts are more measured. Macroeconomic Advisers estimates the sequester will add only 0.25 points to the unemployment rate, a sixth of the impact Fuller predicts.

The CBO estimates that the combined federal fiscal tightening taking place in 2013 is knocking 1.5 points off GDP growth for the year. Of that, about 5/8 of a percent (or 0.565%) is due to the sequester. Macroeconomic Advisers similarly estimates that the sequester will shave off 0.6 points from the year’s growth rate. George Mason economist Stephen Fuller’s estimates are more dramatic, putting the loss of 2013 GDP at $215 billion, reducing the growth rate of GDP by two thirds. However, Fuller’s estimates precede the shrinking of the sequester.

President Obama has been vague on how he’d replace the sequester. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

President Obama has been less specific than his colleagues in Congress on how he wants to see the sequester replaced, but he has suggested that, in lieu of a bigger deficit reduction deal, he wants to see the 2013 sequester replaced with a package of tax increases (including loophole closures and increases on the wealthy) and spending cuts.

Sens. Patty Murray (seated, left) released Senate Democrats’ sequester plan. (Mike Theiler/Reuters)

House Democrats, led by Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen, proposed replacing the $85 billion in 2013 sequester cuts with a mix of tax increases — including a “Buffett rule”-style minimum tax on income above $1 million and repeal of tax subsidies for oil companies — and spending cuts, notably including a reduction in farm subsidy payments to farmers and an increase in flood insurance premiums.

Most of these policies would be spread over a decade rather than falling entirely in 2013.

Senate Democrats, led by Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, introduced the American Family Economic Protection Act, which replaces the 2013 sequester with $110 billion in spending cuts and tax increases, spread out over the course of a decade. Like the House plan, these policies include a “Buffett rule,” the closure of tax loopholes for oil companies and cuts to farm subsidies. Additionally, the Senate bill cuts military spending in excess of the sequester’s cuts.

Both the Senate and House Democrats’ plans allow the sequester to take effect at the beginning of 2014.

House Speaker John Boehner, right, has laid out the Republican position on replacing the sequester. (Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg)

As part of John Boehner’s “plan B” approach to avoiding the fiscal cliff (embarked upon after initial talks with the White House broke down), the House on Dec. 20, 2012, passed the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. The plan would have replaced the 2013 defense sequester with a variety of spending cuts, including cuts to food stamps, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank (including eliminating the “orderly liquidation authority” at the center of the legislation). It would have reduced the size of the domestic sequester in proportion to the $19 billion in discretionary savings included in the bill.

Republicans have conceded that they won’t be able to pass the bill again, even in the House, but it provides a model for what Republicans want in a temporary replacement: no tax increases, no defense cuts and considerable domestic spending reductions.

The AARP (whose activists are pictured here) is among many groups resisting the sequester’s domestic cuts. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Just about every interest group wants to stop the sequester and just about none wants to see it take effect. Aerospace and defense companies, along with universities reliant on defense research funding, have launched Second to None, a coalition battling the defense cuts. A group of almost three thousand organizations, including the NAACP, AARP, Children’s Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, Greenpeace, Human Rights Campaign, the Innocence Project, and many, many more, have warned about the impact of the non-defense discretionary cuts in the sequester. Physicians and medical research organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Pediatrics Association and many others, are resisting the discretionary cuts to medical research, and in particular the National Institutes of Health. Liberal groups like MoveOn and the Working Families Party are also getting in on the action.

The Tea Party-affiliated FreedomWorks has put out a letter calling for ObamaCare to be defunded so as to match the expected post-sequester spending level without letting the sequester take effect.

Lombard says unemployment could go over 8%

If I recall correctly this was/is a ‘monetarist’ shop? Nice to see them recognizing the role of fiscal policy to this extent.

Why Over 8% Unemployment Could Lie Ahead

By Matt Clinch

Feb 18 (CNBC) — Severe fiscal tightening in the U.S. will lead to no growth or a contraction in the first two quarters of 2013 and will push unemployment over the 8 percent level, according to Lombard Street Research.

The knock-on effect will mean pain for the business sector, with corporate profits falling after a hit to consumer spending power, the firm said.

“Our view that unemployment could rise above 8 percent and that profits will be squeezed reflects a forecast of nil to negative 2013 (first quarter) growth, and further stagnation in (the second quarter),” a Lombard Street report released on Friday said.

The view contrasts sharply with that of other analysts who are considerably more bullish on the U.S. economy.

Keith McCullough, CEO of Hedgeye Risk Management told CNBC last week that he thinks employment could actually improve below 7 percent by the fourth quarter, adding that from a housing and employment perspective U.S growth is “pretty solid”.

Lombard Street does not agree.

At the start of the year, the payroll tax that funds Social Security was raised two percentage points to its 2010 level of 6.2 percent. This was the largest component of tax increases approved by Congress in the resolution to the “fiscal cliff”.

Retail sales rose 0.1 percent in January, data released by the Commerce Department showed on Wednesday. These two events together should set alarms bells ringing as tax increases suggest a slowdown in the pace of consumer spending, Lombard Street said.

“Retail sales data encouraged the idea that the payroll tax hike from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent, worth 1 percent of personal disposable incomes, would pass off with little impact. But the effect of the payroll tax was only partly in January,” it said, indicating that only a modest impact would have been expected for January.

Monetary easing by the Federal Reserve provides few offsets to this drop in demand outside of the housing sector, according to Lombard Street.

“The contribution of housing growth to GDP (gross domestic product) has been about 0.4 percent and promises to continue; that of government spending has averaged -0.4 percent for the past three years, and could easily exceed this in (the first and second quarter),” it said.

This -0.4 percent contribution that the research firm cite is set to be complicated further with extra spending cuts after the “fiscal cliff” resolution and the sequestration – a deadline for automatic government spending cuts – due to kick in on March 1.

“Our assumption is that the sequestration is canceled in favor of further cuts in a new provision. But this means the contribution from public spending to GDP growth could well be more negative than the past -0.4 percent,” Lombard said.

“In February the full effect of the payroll tax hike will be reflected in disposable income, and the initial savings “cushion” is likely to give way, so real consumer spending could be down.”

This real consumer spending could be down by more than 2 percent (annualized), it said, with little recovery in March. Thus for the first quarter a dip of 1.5 percent on an annual rate should be expected, contributing -0.1 to GDP growth.

Inventory building and capital expenditure could prove positive factors on that figure, hence its forecasts that GDP could be flat to slightly down for the first quarter and remain stagnant for the second quarter. Along with the last quarter being negative, three straight quarters of zero growth will lead to a rise in the unemployment rate, the firm said.

“Given underlying labor force growth of about 1 percent, this would add 0.7-0.8 percent to the unemployment rate, which was 7.9 percent in January. Even a less pessimistic view of (first quarter) and (second quarter) would send unemployment over 8 percent,” it said.

The chief risk to the stock market is that a reduction of the budget deficit is likely to be offset largely by cuts in the business sector’s surplus, Lombard said, meaning a hit to corporate profits.

However, this might be considered to be a contrarian view with some seeing U.S. growth stabilizing in 2013.

Fed chief Bernanke has previously said that interest rates will be kept low until the unemployment rate reaches 6.5 percent. At the current rate of 150,000 jobs created every month, and 110,000 new entrants to the labor force, that will be around January 2017.

Fiscal Devaluation in Europe

It’s a policy designed to drive exports.
A form of protectionism.
It reduces consumption of imports to the extent domestic prices are helped by lower labor costs where domestic goods a compete directly with imports, which is probably limited.

And of course without further support of fx intervention (dollar and yen buying etc.) it makes the currency go up to the point where the effects are offset/no gains in employment, etc.

And if one nation does it the currency move hurts the others who don’t so it opens up a race to the bottom.

Recap:
It hurts low income consumers
It helps corporate profits
It supports the currency
And so those are the people that support it.
:(

Am I missing something?

Harvards Gopinath Helps France Beat Euro Straitjacket

By Rina Chandran

Feb 6 (Bloomberg) — When French President Francois Hollandeunveiled a plan in November for a business tax credit and higher sales taxes as a way to revive the economy, he was implementing an idea championed by economist Gita Gopinath.

Gopinath, 41, a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has pushed for tax intervention as a way forward for euro-area countries that cannot devalue their exchange rates. Fiscal devaluation is helping France turn the corner during a period of extreme budget constraints, former Airbus SAS chief Louis Gallois said in a business- competitiveness report Hollande commissioned.

She advocated fiscal devaluation for Europes currency union in a 2011 paper she co-authored with her colleague Emmanuel Farhi and former student Oleg Itskhoki, an assistant professor at Princeton in New Jersey.

Despite discussions in policy circles, there is little formal analysis of the equivalence between fiscal devaluations and exchange-rate devaluations, they wrote. This paper is intended to bridge this gap.

The paper examines a remarkably simple alternative that doesnt require countries to abandon the euro and devalue their currencies, Gopinath said. By increasing value-added taxes while cutting payroll taxes, a government can create very similar effects on gross domestic product, consumption, employment and inflation.

The higher VAT raises the price of imported goods as foreign companies pay the levy. The lower payroll tax helps offset the extra sales tax for domestic companies, reducing the need for them to raise prices. Since exports are VAT exempt, the payroll-cost saving allows producers to sell goods cheaper overseas, simulating the effect of a weaker currency, according to the paper.

The policy also can help on the fiscal front, as increased competitiveness can lead to higher tax revenue, Gopinath said.

Hollande is seeking to revive Frances competitive edge by offering companies a 20 billion-euro ($27 billion) tax cut on some salaries as he attempts to turn around an economy that has barely grown in more than a year. He also will lift the two highest value-added tax rates. The plan was inspired partly by Gopinaths paper, said Harvard professorPhilippe Aghion, an informal campaign adviser to Hollande, who was elected president in May.

Aghion, who co-wrote a column in Le Monde newspaper last October advocating Gopinaths theory, said Gallois proposed to Hollande that its the right strategy for France. Gallois is slated to become a member of the board at automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen this year.

We contributed to the adoption of the policy by Hollande, and Gallois called to thank me, Aghion said in a telephone interview. There is wider interest in the policy. Italy, Spain, Greece — they should all be interested. Its an idea that would work.

Email exchange on balanced budget multiplier

>   
>   (email exchange)
>   
>   Hi Warren, I’m a bit confused over one point. MEMMT says that only govt deficits (or an
>   external sector like foreign) can inject NFAs into nongovt. So if govt runs a balanced
>   budget over the years the NFAs left to nongovt will net to 0.
>   

Yes.

>   
>   Now take Keynes’ consumption function and the multiplier. Govt invests 100$ into Mr A in
>   nongovt. Mr A will spend on average 75% of that, and will save the rest.
>   

Yes.

>   
>   The next guy will spend 75% of the $ he got from A and save, and so on along an ever
>   dwindling series of consumption expenditures that will add to say 300$, ie the multiplier
>   effect.
>   

Ok. This presumes there is unemployment/unmet savings desires. And the additional 100$ of nfa will have resulted in higher levels of employment that produced the 300$ of incremental output.

>   
>   So, say that govt runs a balance budget, ie spends 1 billion and will tax 1 billion, however
>   the multiplier effect will have created in the aggregate a lot more $ out of the original
>   govt injection of 1 billion.
>   

If it all reduces savings desires unemployment will fall and output will rise. The presumption is that the 1 billion tax cuts spending by less than 1 billion, while the spending is the full 1 billion. That is, savings desires fell as those who were taxed spent from savings (or borrowed to spend, same thing).

And just as the initial govt spending is spent and respent as you describe, the tax also cuts spending which further cuts spending etc.

The presumption of the idea that an equal spending and tax will lower unemployment must be based on one of two things.

First, somehow those taxed simply reduce their savings and their savings desires. This is certainly possible.

The second is first illustrated at the extreme.

As govt employment grows the number of people left in the private sector falls, and we don’t measure unemployment as a % of the private sector work force. So if half the workforce in Italy is in the public sector, and unemployment is 10%, that means unemployment is some 20% of the available private sector labor.

So if, for example, govt employment was 90% of the labor force, it would be impossible for reported unemployment to be over 10%.

With 100% public employees there is 0 unemployment as defined.

I discussed this back in 2008 and I need to repeat it in a post thanks!

>   
>   And here is where I lose it. Will this mean that even in a balance budget regime in reality
>   govt is never able to tax as many FAs as the multiplier will have created in nongovt before
>   taxation is due? Is this disproving MEMMT and prove instead that a balance budget can
>   still create NFAs for nongovt? Thx P.
>   

Not at all.

ME MMT fully explains the workings of the condition described.

;)

Added link to Bill Mitchell’s dissertation on the subject here.

World Unemployment to Hit Record High in 2013

World Unemployment to Hit Record High in 2013: ILO

By Katy Barnato

January 22 (CNBC) — World unemployment could top record levels this year and continue rising until 2017, the International Labour Organization (ILO) said on Tuesday in its annual employment report.

2009 currently stands as the worst recorded year for world unemployment, with 198 million people across the globe without work.

In its 2013 Global Employment Trends report, the ILO forecasts unemployment numbers will rise by 5.1 million in 2013 to reach 202 million, topping 2009’s record.

The report also predicts unemployment will rise further in 2014 to reach 205 million.

Payroll Recap


Karim writes:

Overall trend improvement continues in payrolls, with the 155k gain (with +14k in net revisions) in line with the average gain over the past 6mths. The Unemployment rate rose from 7.753% to 7.849% as the household survey gained only 28k jobs while the labor force grew by 192k.

Other Notable Positives

  • Diffusion index rises from 56.6 to 63.2
  • Average hourly earnings +0.3% for second straight month
  • Index of aggregate hours +0.4% for second straight month (major plus for personal income)
  • Median duration of unemployment fell from 18.9 weeks to 18.0

post cliff notes

So the main thing that happened was my payroll tax holiday expired (I read that this was the only bipartisan bill passed into law in the last 4 years), which will reduce the average family’s take home pay (both working) by over $200/month.

That’s a lot, and its highly regressive. And about as high multiple as you can get, with a lot of that income is leveraged into car payments
and mtgs. and other debt service.

It all brings us back to very modest GDP growth, maybe a bit of (population adjusted) employment growth, and a bit of top line revenue growth for corporations.

Ok for stocks, not so ok for people trying to work for a living.

And more deficit reduction to come.

quick look ahead for the euro zone

After describing since inception how the euro zone was going to get to where it is, here’s my guess on what’s coming next.  

First, to recap, it took them long enough and it got bad enough before they did it, but they did decide to ‘do what it takes’ to end the solvency issues and, after the Greek PSI thing, make sure the markets stopped discounting defaults as subsequently evidenced by falling interest rates for member nation debt.

But it’s solvency with conditionality, and so while they solved the solvency and interest rate issue, the ongoing austerity requirements have served to make sure the output gap stays politically too wide.  The deficits are high enough, however, for an uneasy ‘equilibrium’ of
near/just below 0% overall GDP growth and about 11% unemployment.

However, all of this is very strong euro stuff, where the euro appreciates at least until the (small) trade surplus turns to deficit.  This could easily mean 1.50+ vs the dollar (and worse vs the yen) for example. This process at the same time further weakens domestic demand which supports a need for higher member govt deficits just to keep GDP near 0.

So at some point next year I can see deficits that refuse to fall resulting in more demands for austerity, while the strong euro results in demands for ‘monetary easing’ from the ECB.  Of course with what they think is monetary easing actually being monetary tightening (lower rates, bond buying, everything except direct dollar buying, etc.) the fiscal and monetary just works to further support the too strong euro stronger.  

All this gets me back to the idea that the path towards deficit reduction in this hopelessly out of paradigm region keep coming back to the unmentionable PSI/bond tax.  Seems to me we are relentlessly approaching the point where further taxing a decimated population or cutting what remains of public services becomes a whole lot less attractive than taxing the bond holders.  And the process of getting to that point, as in the case of Greece, works to cause all to agree there’s no alternative.  With the far more attractive alternative of proactive increases in deficits that would restore output and employment not even making it into polite discussion, I see the walls closing in around the bond holders, along with the argument over whether the ECB writes down it’s positions back on page 1. And just the mention of PSI in polite company throws a massive wrench (spanner) into the gears.  For example, if bonds go to a discount, they’ll look towards ECB supported buy backs to reduce debt, again, Greek like.  And if prices don’t fall sufficiently, they’ll talk about a forced restructure of one kind or another, all the while arguing about what constitutes default, etc.

The caveats can change the numbers, but seems will just make matters worse.  

The US going full cliff is highly dollar friendly, much like austerity supports the euro.  In fact, the expiration of my FICA cut- the only bipartisan thing Obama has done- which apparently both sides have agreed to let happen, will alone add quite a bit of fiscal drag.  This means less euro appreciation, but also lower US demand for euro zone exports.  So the cliff does nothing good for the euro zone output gap.  

And Japan seems to be targeting the euro zone for exports with it’s euro and dollar buying weakening the yen, as evidenced by Japan’s growing fx reserves (where else can they come from?).

The price of oil could spike, which also makes matters worse.

In general, I don’t see anything good coming out of the current global political leadership.

Please let me know if I’m missing anything!