Morning Report: Manufacturing disappoints 10/17/16

Posted on October 17, 2016 by Brent Nyitray

Vital Statistics:

Last Change
S&P Futures 2126.5 -0.5
Eurostoxx Index 338.0 -2.0
Oil (WTI) 40.4 0.0
US dollar index 88.3 -0.2
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.78%
Current Coupon Fannie Mae TBA 103.3
Current Coupon Ginnie Mae TBA 104.2
30 Year Fixed Rate Mortgage 3.58

Stocks are lower this morning on overseas weakness. Bonds and MBS are down.

Manufacturing in the US rose slightly in September, but came in lower than expected. August’s numbers were revised downward. Industrial Production rose 0.1%, while manufacturing production rose 0.2%. Capacity Utilization rose to 75.4%. The strength in the dollar is probably driving the weakness.

Manufacturing dropped in New York last month, according to the Empire State Manufacturing Index. The index fell for the third month in a row.

The black swan event for the financial markets? A democratic party sweep in November. If so, buy infrastructure stocks, sell pharma and financials.

Meanwhile, turnout is looking to be low this year as voters dislike both candidates and are tuning out all the rhetoric.

Elizabeth Warren fired a shot across the bow of the SS Hillary, directing her to demote SEC Chair Mary Jo White. Her sin? Not going along with the left who wants more disclosure of political activities and donations for corporations. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with investor protection: it is more about using the regulatory power of the SEC to silence opinions that she doesn’t approve of (mainly businesses that donate to the Chamber of Commerce or other groups that argue for lighter regulation or lower taxes).

Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |

« »

32 Responses

  1. markinaustin, on October 17, 2016 at 9:47 am said:

    Warren continues her ridiculous targeting of Mary Jo White. She is an opportunist and a demagogue, always looking for a self-serving headline.

    Like

    Reply
    • Brent Nyitray, on October 17, 2016 at 9:52 am said:

      Aside from abortion, gay marriage, and letting drag queens use the women’s john, the progressive left has absolutely no use for freedom..

      Like

      Reply
      • ScottC, on October 17, 2016 at 9:59 am said:

        I’d argue that their position on at least two of those isn’t really driven by a desire for freedom, either.

        Like

        Reply
      • Kevin S. Willis, on October 17, 2016 at 10:42 am said:

        I think that mistakes how they (and many people) conceptualize freedom: freedom is (often implicitly) exclusively their right (and the right of those like them) to live life how they want, and on their terms, irrespective of the opinions, preferences, desires, or individual wants and needs of anybody else. Thus, what you term oppressive isn’t oppressive, it’s a way of ensuring true freedom for them, to live in a society with no constrains on their narrow, vertical way of living and thinking.

        These other things aren’t “freedom”, they are tools of oppression. And it is a perversion to refer to tools of oppression as “freedom”. You do not have the so-called “freedom” to oppress them, if your so-called “freedom” involves doing something that does not conform to how they believe things should be.

        Ultimately, it’s not a principled battle for freedom, it’s is an ancient and selfish battle for primacy, control, power, and exclusive access to scarce resources.

        Like

        Reply
        • ScottC, on October 17, 2016 at 10:57 am said:

          KW:

          I think that mistakes how they (and many people) conceptualize freedom…

          I disagree. The way that they “conceptualize” freedom simply proves Brent’s point. As matter of political principle, they have no interest in actual freedom.

          Like

      • Michigoose, on October 17, 2016 at 11:11 am said:

        No–we think that you righties should be perfectly free to say whatever gibberish you want to, wherever you want to.

        Like

        Reply
        • ScottC, on October 17, 2016 at 11:34 am said:

          Mich:

          No–we think that you righties should be perfectly free to say whatever gibberish you want to, wherever you want to.

          Freedom is not only, or even primarily, applicable simply to what people say.

          But even on your narrow speech terms, the left routinely finds itself opposed to freedom.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.33b53655e68b

          Like

        • Brent Nyitray, on October 17, 2016 at 12:01 pm said:

          The screaming about Citizens United, Eric Schneiderman’s jihad against Exxon, and Warren’s behavior here indicate the left isn’t with you on this…

          Like

        • Michigoose, on October 17, 2016 at 12:01 pm said:

          I was joking.

          Like

        • Kevin S. Willis, on October 17, 2016 at 12:14 pm said:

          “As matter of political principle, they have no interest in actual freedom.”

          My point being, perspective on what freedom means definitionally is important, as “freedom to make my own way” and “freedom from want or hunger” or “freedom from being unable to access education or employment” are different things, but all things different people make consider as being emblematic or even definitionally the core of “freedom”. Ergo, “I am not free if I cannot shop for my gay wedding anywhere people can shop for their straight wedding” at, vs. “I am not free if I have to sell my services to anyone who wants them”. And so on.

          I think a lot of it is applicable definition. Should people be free to marry their sisters? Should people be free to make their own currency? Should people be free to hunt without regard to season or animal population, should people be free to dig wherever they want without thought to underground cabling? Should I be free to drive whatever speed I want without fear of harassment? Should I be free to run a business out of my own home?

          Freedom ultimately tends to be personal, primarily conform to the definitions of our political group, and fall within a range of options we feel are fair and beneficial to ourselves. I’m not sure there is a good, universal definition of “freedom”.

          Put another way, what is “actual” freedom? When someone wants the freedom to use whichever restroom they want, is that “freedom”? I dunno. It feels like one of those concepts where everybody is talking about something else, something less absolute and immutable than they think they are when discussing it.

          Like

        • ScottC, on October 17, 2016 at 1:00 pm said:

          KW:

          My point being, perspective on what freedom means definitionally is important…

          What it means and how it is used are two different things.

          In a political context, freedom means the absence of coercion initiated by the government. The left has no principled interest in this at all. And that is demonstrated by the left’s routine use of the word to mean the absence of any kind of limitation (including even natural limitations) that it doesn’t like in order to defend the existence of government initiated coercion, ie the absence of freedom.

          I think a lot of it is applicable definition.

          I think most of it is equivocating between different contexts.

          I’m not sure there is a good, universal definition of “freedom”.

          I am. The absence of physical force or fraud.

          When someone wants the freedom to use whichever restroom they want, is that “freedom”?

          In a political context, if they mean they want the absence of government laws preventing them from using the restroom they want, yes it is. If they mean they want the existence of government laws forcing the owners of a bathroom to allow use of it against the owner’s will, then no it isn’t. In that case it is the opposite of freedom.

          It feels like one of those concepts where everybody is talking about something else, something less absolute and immutable than they think they are when discussing it.

          I’m not. In a political context, when I speak of freedom, I mean the absence of government initiated coercion. In the rare circumstance in which I might actually favor government initiated coercion, I would not try to sell it as a defense of freedom by equivocating on the meaning of the word. I will straight up say that I oppose freedom in this particular circumstance for these particular reasons.

          Like

        • Kevin S. Willis, on October 17, 2016 at 12:20 pm said:

          “I was joking.”

          You didn’t add the corresponding emoji. Get into the 21st century!

          🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    • jnc4p, on October 17, 2016 at 9:57 am said:

      Did she do something recently? The link is to a piece from June 2015.

      Like

      Reply
  2. jnc4p, on October 17, 2016 at 11:05 am said:

    Looks like Trump is going full Keynesian. It’s a lot of cowbell.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/candidate-plans-national-debt

    Like

    Reply
  3. jnc4p, on October 17, 2016 at 1:12 pm said:

    Interesting case.

    Like

    Reply
    • novahockey, on October 17, 2016 at 4:31 pm said:

      HHS can do the same thing with poverty. move the line to suit your needs.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Brent Nyitray, on October 17, 2016 at 4:56 pm said:

        yep…that is why i always laugh at the people who say we are “subsidizing WalMart” because they don’t pay a “living wage.”

        It isn’t WalMart’s fault that the government pulled a number out of its ass and said “below this level you get food stamps, medicaid or whatever.”

        Like

        Reply
        • ScottC, on October 18, 2016 at 6:15 am said:

          Brent:

          yep…that is why i always laugh at the people who say we are “subsidizing WalMart” because they don’t pay a “living wage.”

          I always propose that Walmart have a policy of refusing to hire anyone who is on any kind of welfare. Oddly, that never seems to be a good solution to the “subsidizing Walmart” crowd.

          Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.