Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

As we start the second half of 2019 . . . (Updated: manufacturing almost exactly flat in June)

As we start the second half of 2019 . . . (Updated: manufacturing almost exactly flat in June)

First of all, I forgot to post a link to my post at Seeking Alpha on how a near-term recession is not likely to be centered on either the consumer and financial sectors of the economy, which are doing OK at the moment, but the producer sector – manufacturing – which is getting pretty shaky. We’ll find out more later this morning when ISM manufacturing for June gets reported.

As usual, clicking over and reading puts a penny or two in my pocket to reward me for my efforts.

Now that we are in the second half of the year, I expect the slowdown that we’ve seen over the past few months to become more entrenched. I remain on “recession watch” because risks are elevated (see, for example, this post by Menzie Chinn), but despite the inverted yield curve, my base case remains slowdown only because the Fed can lower rates substantially without being worried about inflation. The main wild card is that Trump probably simply cannot control his urge to roil producers with chaotic tariff and trade policies.

UPDATE: The ISM manufacturing index remained slightly positive in June, at 51.7. The leading new orders subindex was precisely flat, at 50.0:

There is no manufacturing recession. There is the barest of manufacturing expansion.

Same Scams, Different Countries

Via Diane Ravitch’s blog is a link to this paper Great Britain school priveatization run amok.

In the course of the last quarter century, governmental entities in both the United States and England have sought to encourage educational innovation by creating publicly funded schools that are independent from many rules that apply to locally controlled schools. These schools are called charter schools in the United States and academy schools (academies) in England.

1 Private companies run a high percentage of these charter schools and academies. In the United States, these companies are commonly referred to as educational management organizations (EMOs).

2 In England, these organizations are called academy trusts (ATs).

3 EMOs and ATs frequently engage in related-party transactions for a number of services including educational technology, real estate, and consulting.

4 Related-party transactions are business deals between companies with special, pre-existing relationships.

5 These arrangements can occur, for example, between affiliated companies or a parent company and its subsidiaries.

6 Although related-party transactions are legal, they can create harmful conflicts of interest.

7 As a result, in both the charter and academy sectors, governmental entities have created monitoring systems to protect against wasteful and fraudulent related-party transactions.

8  However, despite the existence of these monitoring systems, numerous instances of problematic related-party transactions have occurred in charter schools and academies. Using comparative legal research methodologies, this article attempts to explain why the monitoring systems of each domain are having such a difficult time regulating related-party transactions.

The Parting of Ways: The U.S. and China

by Joseph Joyce

The Parting of Ways: The U.S. and China

The agreement of U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jingping to restart trade talks put offs planned increases of tariffs on Chinese exports. But there is little doubt that the U.S. intends to move ahead with its intention to undo the economic integration that has been underway since the 1990s. Even when it proves impossible to reverse history, the consequences of such a move will have long-lasting consequences for the global economy.

To understand what is at stake, think of the following simple guide to the status of the world’s nations in the aftermath of World War II. Countries separated into three groups, each anchored on its own tectonic plate. The “first world” consisted of the advanced economies of the U.S., Canada, the West European nations, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. These economies enjoyed rapid growth in the 1950s and 1960s, due in part to the expansion of trade amongst them. The formation of the European Community (now Union) eventually led to a single market in goods and services, capital and labor for its members. The largest of the advanced economies exerted their control through the “Group of Seven,” i.e., France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S. Their leaders met periodically to discuss economic and other types of policies and issued communiques that listed their agreements. Their predominance extended to their control of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The “second world” included the Communist nations: the Soviet Union and the countries it controlled in Eastern Europe, as well as China and North Korea. These were command economies, run by government ministers. There was some commerce between the Soviet Union and its East European satellites, but all trade was managed. There were virtually no commercial or financial interactions with the first world.