Last weekend, I spent several hours combing through some recent editorial on the economy coming out of the mainstream press. I want my time back. What was until recently a debate on the likelihood of a coming recession has now become a debate on what a recession even is. Essentially, the goal post has shifted. Here's why that irks me... Just a year ago, the Federal Reserve and its parrots denied that then-rising inflation would be this bad, and remain this uncontrolled, for this long. Then, more recently, many analysts were in denial that a bear market - you know, the thing that we've been in over the past seven months - was, in fact, already here. Now not only are many still vigorously downplaying the likelihood of a recession, but they're saying that even if a recession is coming, it won't really be a recession. I don't know about you, but I see an unsettling pattern here. That's not "optimism." It's a clear pattern of denial of reality. And I'm inclined to think it's intended to give the powers that be the appearance of having things under control. And I don't know about you, but I'm much more interested in reality. In fact, let's take a closer look at this idea that we're experiencing just a slowdown and that it's not anything worth being too anxious about. By definition, all recessions involve slowdowns. But not all slowdowns amount to a recession. So calling this a slowdown may be accurate, but it's not very precise. So the question is this: Are we headed for - or are we already in - a recession? You'd think the answer would be straightforward. But it reminds me of the old joke "How many economists does it take to change a lightbulb?" There seem to be as many answers as there are economists. Especially when many seem inclined to focus on whether the dimming light actually means the bulb's going out or whether it's just a transitory problem. So let's define our terms. What do people mean when they say "recession"? Here's a definition provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research: "A significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months." Conventionally, a recession has been identified following two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. But the White House is now downplaying this rule of thumb. For one, the folks over there don't think the first quarter drop in real GDP is significant. Nor do they think the second quarter drop, which was just reported on Thursday, is significant either. I'm wondering whether the term "significant" really means "unmanageable." As in, "Sure, the economy might be contracting. But rest assured, not by an unmanageable amount." Well, if the Fed's handling of inflation, or this administration's reluctance to call a spade a spade, is any indication of the Fed's ability to prevent this "slowdown" from worsening into something "unmanageable," then I must confess that I'm not very impressed. Here's the deal. I don't quite care how we label this economy. I care about what the facts are as they stand at this moment. And splitting hairs over terms doesn't change facts. Instead, the key to resting better at night isn't word choice. It's focusing on better risk management and leaning into time-tested strategies that can protect your wealth and carry you through anything the market throws at you. In fact, I would advise readers to review our Pillars of Wealth. They cover the basic principles and strategies that The Oxford Club has strongly advocated in both bear and bull, scary and exciting, markets. Looking the Pillars over won't take very long. But it'll be more helpful to you than most of what you'll read in the news. Invest wisely, Anthony | 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.