Tuesday, 1 May 2018

Larry Summers and the Lack of History

Larry Summers talking today about an 'unsustainable' period of growth (GDP) for the rest of the Trump era:

“Yes, we are growing at a reasonably rapid rate, but it’s taking unsustainable fiscal deficits to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in credit to drive us to that point. It’s taking unsustainable increases in asset prices. You can always generate a sugar high. The real problem for us is not achieving growth, but achieving sustained, healthy growth with a financial environment that’s sustainable.”

Here's the thing....the US has a history when GDP growth existed....well over 30 years:

Year, CD-rate, GDP-rate

1965, 4.88-percent, 6.5-percent
1966, 6.14-percent, 6.6-percent
1967, 5.95-percent, 2.7-percent
1968, 6.39-percent, 4.9-percent
1969, 8.95-percent, 3.1-percent
1970, 9.06-percent, .2-percent
1971, 6.06-percent, 3.3-percent
1972, 5.65-percent, 5.2-percent
1973, 10.71-percent, 5.6-percent
1974, 12.06-percent, minus .5-percent
1975, 7.89-percent, minus .2-percent
1976, 6.31-percent, 5.4-percent
1977, 6.96-percent, 4.6-percent
1978, 11.28-percent, 5.6-percent
1979, 13.97-percent, 3.2-percent
1980, 17.74-percent, minus .2-percent
1981, 17.98-percent, 2.6-percent
1982, 15.12-percent, minus 1.9 percent
1983, 10.17-percent, 4.6-percent
1984, 12.08-percent, 7.3-percent
1985, 9.6-percent, 4.2-percent
1986, 7.83-percent, 3.5-percent
1987, 8.19-percent, 3.5-percent (Black Friday Year)
1988, 9.28-percent, 4.2-percent
1989, 10.40-percent, 3.7-percent
1990, 8.57-percent, 1.9-percent
1991, 7.17-percent, minus .1-percent
1992, 4.42-percent, 3.6-percent
1993, 3.39-percent, 2.7-percent
1994, 6.78-percent, 4.0-percent
1995, 6.71-percent, 2.7-percent
1996, 5.75-percent, 3.8-percent,
1997, 5.90-percent, 4.5-percent
1998, 5.67-percent, 4.5-percent
1999, 6.07-percent, 4.7-percent
2000, 6.94-percent, 4.1-percent
2001, 5.45-percent, 1.0-percent
2002, 2.16-percent, 1.8-percent
2003, 1.30-percent, 2.8-percent
2004, 2.66-percent, 3.8-percent
2005, 4.62-percent, 3.3-percent

As you can tell....the Bush era was the point where numbers were starting to decline, and continued on into the Obama era.

Not that I really cast doubts on Larry Summers....but he has not real concept of what the US did prior to the Bush era.  Part of this blame?  Going naturally back to CD rates and all the 'free' money of the Fed.

Women in Positions of Authority





I've sat and watched this 30-minute video at least three times over the past month.  Jordan Peterson, about three months ago, was invited over to the UK, and did a interview with a Channel 4 journalist over women's pay and the unbalanced nature.

The interview probably is one of the best opportunities you will ever have to see a journalist actually stumble badly, and lose a one-sided conversation.

The topic here is the unfair nature of women's salaries, and how they aren't given a leadership opportunity in the business world.  I do tend to agree....up until the 1980s....this notion probably deserved attention and public attention.  Over the past twenty years, much less so.

With over thirty-odd years associated with the US military, I've had numerous chances to observe leadership dynamics with both men and women in charge.

Dynamic leaders (no matter what the sex is)....tend to have five successful tendencies.

1.  They lay the game plan of the organization, and explain your part in the success ahead.  In doing so, they share that success. The folks who had always a secret game plan?  They tend to get less support because no one really understands anything.

2.  They aren't exactly the nicest people in the world.  You don't get ahead by pretending to be nice, or being always agreeable.

3.  Risks are part of the plan ahead.  If you are unwilling to take risks....you won't be put into positions of authority.

4.  You go and find the right people to fill positions....based on qualifications, history, and demonstrated tendency to take on tough tasks.  The matter of their sex, their university degree....matters to a lesser extent. If you picked a number of losers to be in key positions, then it says something about your desire to get ahead.

5.  These people will always have a goal, a plan, and a path.  If you have none of the three....then it's doubtful that you will be invited to take charge.

Dynamic women chiefs and bosses?  I've had a couple.  I've had a couple who were utter failures at leadership.  The same can be said for gentlemen in positions of authority above me.  Some were utter failures as well.