stock_creeper's  Instablog

It bears repeating that trying to predict the future based on history is fruitless, and doesn't apply to things like stocks and economics. The overused quote 'if you don't learn from the past, you will repeat it' is best to be discarded in the context of macroeconomics because while history does tend to rhyme a lot but it very seldom repeats. Why is this? Because here are very subtle differences between the past and present, and these tiny differences result in huge differences in outcomes. The most common historical analogue is that America is Rome, America is in a state of decline, or America is hyper-inflating. None of these will happen, even if there are many similarities.

Globalization lessens the importance of the US consumer, and the majority of historical models fail to take this into accounts. That's one reason why stocks are doing so well despite record low labor participation and stagnant wages. The conventional historical model says that the consumer is supposed be tapped out and the market should fall, but that's not happening. Second, unlike in the past you have massive demand for near 0% yielding US debt, whereas in the past such demand didn't exist making the deficit , until only recently, an important issue. The treasury has the freedom to spend with immunity without the hyperinflation traditionally associated with it. Politicians may appear so incompetent as to conjure up comparisons to slothful Roman senators dithering as their capital burns away, but really is that happening? Not a chance. The global economy is booming, with the US markets and economy outperforming any non-BRIC country. Politicians do act when necessary like after the September 11th attack or in 2008 when Lehman collapsed. The multinational corporate structure is overtaking the government, and this is desirable because corperations are, for the most part, better run than governments.

The final problem with using history to predict the future is the lack of data points.

------------

Is Obama using the overblown 'secret service scandal' to divert attention away from the Ann Romney debacle and weakening labor market? The secret service have become chess pieces in Obama's game of deception against the American people. Yesterday Obama called for a full investigation, but was is really necessary to make a huge public statement? Or is Obama is trying to drum up public sympathy for himself? The opposite seem to be happening; Americans have more sympathy with the secret service having to be dragged though the mud than Obama.

The Obama administration may have known for many years that the secret service were engaging in misconduct, but have only recently escalated the issue to get Ann Romney off the headlines.

Secret Service Scandal: President Obama Calls for 'Thorough, Rigorous' Investigation

President Obama said today that he expects a "thorough" and "rigorous" investigation of allegations of misconduct involving members of the Secret Service and military assigned to a security detail ahead of his visit to Cartagena, Colombia.

"If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I'll be angry," Obama said during a press conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos following a bi-lateral meeting.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-s...