Yes, they have created millions of manufacturing jobs, but China is losing some of those jobs to Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and other rising Asian powers (see Bloomberg, April 29, 2015: “China is Set to Lose Manufacturing Crown”). This is the natural growth of an economy from low-paid manufacturing to higher-paid more creative jobs. Among the top 10, six are American, two are based in China, one in South Korea and one in Japan. share has grown sharply since the Great Recession – rising from 42 out of 100 in 2009 to 53 of 100 in 2015 – while China’s total has stayed at 11. They nearly doubled their annual income in nine years of low inflation. These long-term studies of specific individuals require lots of dollars and 10 or 20 years.
However, the two flagging Chinese firms have recently fallen out of the top 10 list. The same is true of a Canadian longitudinal study from 1990 to 2009, in which “Canadians who were initially in the bottom 20% in income had their incomes increase at both a higher rate, and in a higher absolute amount, than those whose incomes were initially in higher brackets” (Sowell, p, 180). It’s far easier to look at a snapshot of census data or IRS returns and say the poor are getting poorer, but it’s just not so.
“We don’t win in trade.” On August 25, according to The Economist (December 19, page 36), Trump said: “They have taken our money and our jobs, our manufacturing. It’s one of the greatest thefts in the history of the world.” China has not “taken” our money. Our markets are the most liquid, and we have the lion’s share of the world’s top corporations. Fortune’s list of the most admired companies is dominated by familiar American brand names, which captured the top 14 spots in 2015. China), how can Trump say that America “doesn’t win”? Judging from all the “Bernie” buttons I’m seeing around town, Senator Bernie Sanders may be right when he says that his gloomy vision “is shared by the vast majority of the American people,” but his “premise” is wrong. This week, I want to update my previous critique with new information from a study released December 9, 2015 by the Pew Research Center. households making 0,000 a year (inflation-adjusted) rose from 8.1% in 1967 to 24.7% in 2014, while the number earning less than ,000 slipped from 58.2% to 46.8% in the same time. Specifically, a University of Michigan study followed 17,000 individuals from 1975 to 1991 and found that “95% of those people who were initially in the bottom quintile in 1975 were no longer there in 1991: 29% of the people who were initially in the bottom quintile rose all the way to the top quintile, while just 5% remained behind in the bottom quintile where they began.
We willingly bought their products and they deposited our dollars in their central bank. We have lower unemployment and higher growth rates than Europe. When it comes to corporate profits, four of the five most profitable companies in the world are based in the U. (the exception is #3, a South Korean electronics company), according to mid-2015 data compiled by 24/7 Wall St. – Bernie “Scrooge” Sanders, at the start of a speech on the floor of the U. The middle class may be shrinking, but most of that shrinkage comes from a promotion to upper middle class or even “rich.” Between 19, the middle class dropped (not disappeared) from 61% to 50%, but the percent in the richest class more than doubled (from 4% to 9%), while the lowest class rose four points, so . The number of families making an inflation-adjusted 0,000 per year has more than tripled since 1967 – the year I graduated from college. The numbers become more dramatic when you consider the smaller size of households today vs. Meanwhile, over that same span of time, those people who were initially in the top quintile in 1975 had the smallest increase in real income by 1991” (“Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective” by Thomas Sowell, 2015, p. A later study by the IRS found those in the bottom 20% of incomes in 1995 saw their incomes rise 91% by 2005.
In This Issue Ivan Martchev begins will dissect two major fear-laden campaign claims by two of our more Scrooge-like Presidential candidates.
However, the Fed’s past inflation forecasts are notoriously poor, so the Fed may not raise rates in 2016 if they are as “data dependent” as they claim.
At her press conference, Fed Chairman Janet Yellen said that the FOMC was “reasonably confident” that inflation would rise, despite flat prices now. Furthermore, the fact that our respective central banks are on divergent paths essentially insures that the U. dollar will remain strong; especially as long as Treasury yields remain well above equivalent European yields.
I was in Milan, Italy this past week, preselling my management company’s risk-adjusted portfolios, since foreign capital continues to pour into the U. As I had suspected, the view from Northern Italy was that the euro and the U. Overall, Europe’s fascination with the Fed, a strong U. dollar, and falling crude oil prices dominated my conversations.
by Louis Navellier *All content in the Marketmail Introduction is the opinion of Louis Navellier of Navellier & Associates, Inc.* Naturally, the big news last week was not just the Fed’s widely anticipated 0.25% interest rate hike, but the statement made after the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting last Wednesday.
In summary, the FOMC statement said the Fed “expects economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the fed funds rate.” The big surprise was that the FOMC statement anticipated “gradual adjustments” in key interest rates as inflation materializes.
I think that the CRB Index is a better representation of the situation in China than the Shanghai Composite or Chinese economic data, which do not rhyme well with what the CRB Index is showing.