Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktital Statistics:
| Last | Change | |
| S&P futures | 4,124 | -7.25 |
| Oil (WTI) | 80.46 | -0.15 |
| 10 year government bond yield | 3.37% | |
| 30 year fixed rate mortgage | 6.21% |
The stock market is closed today, and the bond market closes early. Bonds and MBS are down on the jobs report.
The economy added 236,000 jobs in March, according to BLS. The unemployment rate ticked down 0.1% to 3.5%. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3% MOM and 4.2% YOY. Overall, the report was more or less in line with expectations. The labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio rose, which shows that more workers are re-entering the labor market.
Bonds are selling off on the report given that unemployment ticked down again. That said, I think on balance the report should be good news for the Fed / bond market given that the employment-population ratio rose from 60.2% to 60.4%. Pre-pandemic the employment-population ratio was 61.1%, so we are still not back to normalcy, but we are getting closer. To put these numbers into perspective, the EP ratio was 57.4% at the end of 2020 and 59.5% at the end of 2021.
The Fed would like to see labor supply and demand more in balance. By raising interest rates, the Fed is trying to reduce demand for labor. If supply increases, that would accomplish the same thing, and that is much less painful than a recession-induced spike in unemployment.
As we saw in Wednesday’s ADP report, wages are rising smartly (and some of the lowest-paid jobs like leisure / hospitality) are seeing high single-digit annual gains. Wage increases are drawing workers back into the labor force, and that will go a long way towards balancing the market. Workers are not only coming back into the market, but job openings are falling as well. Ultimately the labor supply-demand situation is working itself out in the least painful way. This gives the Fed ammo to halt the tightening cycle.
The Atlanta Fed’s GDP Now Index has declined sharply over the past few weeks, with the index now seeing 1.5% growth in Q1. The index was at 3.5% just a few weeks ago. It looks like the ISM reports, along with weaker consumption numbers pulled down the index, not the banking issues.
The jobs report did put some starch in the May Fed Funds futures, which are now handicapping a 2/3 chance of another 25 basis point hike. A day ago, they saw a 50% chance.
Filed under: Economy |
All Things in Moderation 
Here’s a crazy thought:
Why wasn’t Stormy Daniels prosecuted for extortion?
LikeLike
If any state AG could pick that up, it would throw a wrench into this whole goat rodeo, no? Would make a great reality TV series.
LikeLike
I don’t think she ever actually asked Trump for money. She was just going to publish the story.
They offered her the money not to.
LikeLike
jnc:
She was just going to publish the story.
How did they find out before it got published? Every story I have seen simply says that Cohen negotiated an NDS with her lawyer. No mention of how or why the subject came up in the first place.
LikeLike
National Enquirer apparently had a deal with Trump about any stories that might impact him.
Here’s a time line:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hah, so much for turning the abortion issue back to the states!
A federal judge in Texas on Friday moved to force the Food and Drug Administration to pull its approval of a drug widely used in medication abortion, throwing its availability into doubt.
Driving the news: The judge ruled that the preliminary injunction would take effect in seven days, allowing for the Biden administration to seek emergency relief.
Meanwhile, in Washington state, another judge ruled to remove dispensing restrictions for mifepristone in 18 states and explicitly prohibited the FDA from pulling its approval of the drug.
It remains unclear how the FDA can comply with the both rulings, but increases the likelihood that the case will wind up at the Supreme Court.
Why it matters: The Texas judge’s preliminary injunction will apply to the agency’s 2000 approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used to end pregnancies and could leave even those states with abortion protections unable to access the drug. Mifepristone is also used for managing miscarriages.
Medication abortion accounts for more than half (53%) of abortions in the U.S., per the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.
Legal experts say drug manufacturers and distributors must immediately cease the sale and shipment of mifepristone for abortion use.
Abortion pills are frequently accessed online and mailed to patients, effectively working to circumvent state bans and restrictions that took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Details: In his ruling, Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk sided with a coalition of anti-abortion groups that brought the case challenging the FDA’s approval.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly. But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” Kacsmaryk wrote.
Kacsmaryk said that there is “evidence” indicating that the FDA faced “significant political pressure” to approve mifepristone to increase “‘access’ to chemical abortion.”
State of play: The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — which is comprised of several anti-abortion groups — filed a lawsuit in November alleging that the FDA did not properly approve mifepristone for terminating pregnancies.
Medical organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists consider mifepristone to be safe and effective.
LikeLike
lms:
Hah, so much for turning the abortion issue back to the states!
I am happy to eliminate the power that the FDA has over drug approvals and leave it to the states. How about you?
LikeLike
Honestly I could go either way.
LikeLike
I think since the SC sent the issue back to the states in Dobbs, then that is where is should be for now. That’s not to say I support what many of the states are doing (apparently against the tide of public opinion) but if that’s the supposed law of the land then I don’t think a judge in TX should ban the drug in all states based on some non-scientific objection.
I’m sure the drug is more safe than many others the FDA has approved (anyone else watch drug commercials, or am I alone in that?)
And BTW if conservatives want to keep shooting themselves in the foot on abortion, guns and LGBTQ issues I believe it will finally catch up with them (hopefully I live to see it). Fine with me!
LikeLike
“ I’m sure the drug is more safe than many others the FDA has approved”
I agree 100% on that.
I don’t think the right is especially shooting themselves in the foot on guns or trans issues. If people who would never vote for them continue not to so, that’s not shooting themselves in the foot. Abortion is another issue, where I think they have an opportunity to actually lose voters based on how they handle the issue.
LikeLike
lms:
I think since the SC sent the issue back to the states in Dobbs…
I think you are confused about “the issue”. The issue in Dobbs was whether or not the Constitution prohibited states from regulating abortion. The issue in the abortion drug case is whether or not the process by which the FDA approves drugs was followed. Two completely different issues.
… if that’s the supposed law of the land then I don’t think a judge in TX should ban the drug in all states based on some non-scientific objection.
He didn’t ban the drug in all states. All drugs are automatically banned in all states unless and until they go through a prescribed process to get FDA approval. Again, the issue has literally nothing whatsoever to do with the Dobbs decision. A state is perfectly capable of keeping abortion legal while, at the same time, a particular abortion-inducing drug remains illegal at the federal level. There is nothing conflicting or contradictory about those two claims.
I’m sure the drug is more safe than many others the FDA has approved
Perhaps, but unfortunately there is more to the FDA approval process than just simply asking lms whether or not she is sure about its safety.
BTW, you didn’t answer my question…are you happy to leave drug approvals to individual states?
And BTW if conservatives want to keep shooting themselves in the foot on abortion, guns and LGBTQ issues I believe it will finally catch up with them (hopefully I live to see it).
I find it interesting that you pretty much universally think that majority opinion on contentious issues is always the same as your opinion. You may need to get out of that California bubble.
LikeLike
IMO Kevin, Conservatives have taken social issues to a point where they don’t have a majority of voters who agree with them…..that includes “abortion, guns and LGBTQ issues” quoting myself…………LOL If you add in the states with “Super Majorities” in legislatures trying to shut down voices of dissent and attempting to dis-enfranchise voters, eventually it’s going to catch up with them…..IOW…..shooting themselves in the foot.
LikeLike
lms:
abortion, guns and LGBTQ issues
What “LGBTQ” issues are you talking about?
LikeLike
lms:
If you add in the states with “Super Majorities” in legislatures trying to shut down voices of dissent and attempting to dis-enfranchise voters…
Quite ironic, to see someone who championed the J6 committee and impeachment complaining about voices of dissent being shut down and disenfranchising voters. Calvinball as usual.
LikeLike
Maybe. I live in an area where the more conservative positions tend to get you elected, so it’s less of a “shooting themselves in the foot” thing here. But generally if there’s in “shooting feet” going on, it’s in letting people opposed to the right on general principal control the narrative, thus having their positions broadly mischaracterized in a way that will be unappealing to low-information voters.
LikeLike
Conservatives have taken social issues to a point where they don’t have a majority of voters who agree with them…
Yeah, because the majority of voters were dying to have Dylan Mulvaney to sell them light beer. The left pushed too far, not the right. If anything the right has become more socially liberal, and the left has gone batshit crazy.
Conservatives don’t have to care what people who put their pronouns in their linked in bio think. They aren’t ever going to vote for them in the first place, assuming they even live in their district or state.
If I represented, say a district in Iowa, why would I care what the Brooklyn office of GLAAD thinks?
LikeLike
Here’s some of the polling.
The poll found 69% of U.S. adults are dissatisfied with the country’s abortion policies, a record high since Gallup started polling on the question in 2001.
A 46% plurality think the country’s laws should be less strict, marking a 16% jump from January 2022, when only 30% said the same.
Only 15% think the laws should be more strict, and 26% are satisfied with how the laws are now.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/02/10/americans-dissatisfaction-with-abortion-policies-at-record-high-poll-finds-as-lawmakers-consider-watering-down-bans/?sh=302e523c4c93
In the first few weeks of 2023, the country experienced at least 39 mass shootings in which at least four people were injured or killed. Many days in January had more than one mass shooting. New polling from the Economist and YouGov finds some evidence that support for stricter handgun laws has increased (58% now support, up from 53% last November and 45% in April), but there remains doubt about whether stricter gun laws would have prevented any of the recent shootings: 39% believe stricter laws would have, but 41% say they would not have made a difference.
Support remains high for many gun control proposals, especially universal criminal and mental background checks (76% favor this strongly or somewhat) and the removal of guns from people who may be a danger to themselves or to others (67%). At least three in five Americans also favor each of the following: limiting concealed-carry licenses (64%), regulating gun storage within homes (61%), banning the sale of magazine clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (59%), and allowing private citizens to sue gun dealers who break the law (59%). Two other measures — allowing cities to designate gun-free zones and holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed by others with their guns — are each supported by roughly half of Americans (49%).
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/02/01/majority-americans-support-gun-control-poll
LGBTQ people are under siege by a staggering number of bills across the U.S. with a deliberate aim, a new report says: to expunge the community.
So far in 2023, lawmakers in 46 states have introduced more than 650 anti-LGBTQ bills, according to a report by the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, a think tank that researches LGBTQ issues and laws.
Young people, particularly those who are transgender, are being targeted, MAP’s research shows: More than 160 anti-LGBTQ school-specific bills were unveiled in state legislatures in just the first two months of the year.
“It’s clear that we are in a disturbing new era of attacks on our communities, and especially on transgender people,” Logan Casey, MAP’s senior policy researcher and adviser, told USA TODAY. “This dramatic rise in political attacks clearly illustrates how emboldened anti-LGBTQ activists seem to feel. Over the years we’ve seen many attacks on LGBTQ communities, but this moment is very different and frankly terrifying for many people.
…. record number of hostile bills – 315 – were introduced in state legislatures in 2022 despite nearly 80% of Americans saying they support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people. Now, in just the first few months of 2023, there have been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced than in all of 2012-2015 combined, MAP’s report says.
MAP’s analysis points to eight distinct legislative fronts that put the community in the crosshairs from school policies on transgender youths to the elimination of harassment protections to book bans. When a bill makes progress in one state, copycat language and similar bills quickly crop up in other states, the report notes, citing coordinated efforts by far-right lobbyists and extremist groups.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/31/650-anti-lgbtq-bills-introduced-us/11552357002/
Yeah I guess most folks don’t agree with me….LOL Scott
LikeLike
Just curious if you agree, as I do, with the likes of Ron Wydon, AOC and Nancy Mace, that nullification of court decisions?
LikeLike
Only the “bad” ones, undoubtedly. Calvinball.
LikeLike
lms:
The poll found 69% of U.S. adults are dissatisfied with the country’s abortion policies
They must be confused. The country has no abortion policies any more. States have abortion policies. And if voters are dissatisfied with those policies, they can change them. Thanks to Dobbs.
Support remains high for many gun control proposals…
“A national survey found two-thirds of American voters do not support repeal of the Second Amendment, which protects the “right to keep and bear arms.””
LGBTQ people are under siege by a staggering number of bills across the U.S.
This is nonsense.
More than 160 anti-LGBTQ school-specific bills were unveiled in state legislatures in just the first two months of the year.
Calling something an “anti-LGBTQ” bill doesn’t make it one. And saying that the vast majority of people support non-discrimination protections does not mean that they support teaching grade schoolers trans-ideology or giving kids puberty suppressants or medically “transitioning” teenagers or sponsoring drag shows for kids, all of which are what these “anti-LGBTQ” laws are actually about.
And if you think the majority of people across the nation agree with you that sexualizing kids with drag shows is no big deal, I think you are high.
LikeLike
LGBTQ people are under siege by a staggering number of bills across the U.S. with a deliberate aim, a new report says: to expunge the community.
under siege how? getting validated to death?
LikeLike
“ under siege how? getting validated to death?”
The ever-moving goalposts. Until they get special treatment and are allowed to be awful without consequence, everywhere all the time, and otherwise be regarded as modern royalty, they are victims.
LikeLike
Good take on the actual issues of the lawsuit:
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law
LikeLike
Joe, why isn’t this a tempest in a teapot? FDA now can gather 20 years of evidence on a home computer about the drug. They should be able to thoroughly vet the drug and approve it in a matter of months at most.
Right?
LikeLike
The problem with that argument is that there ARE life threatening illnesses when the drug is needed. My own daughter can attest to that. The FDA has 20 years of positive results so I believe the case should be resolved in a positive way for women……………..we’ll see what the JUDGES decide I guess. I have very little faith in the current SC (apparently I’m not alone based on their approval ratings) so we can expect a lot of controversy while this is ongoing and it appears young people are beginning to become politically active! The future is theirs.
LikeLike
lms:
(apparently I’m not alone based on their approval ratings)…
There’s a reason SCOTUS justices are appointed for life and not elected. Defending the Constitution can be unpopular. Especially amongst those who prefer specific results over and above following the Constitution.
LikeLike
Now this is the kind of nullification I can get behind.
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/04/08/democrats-launch-into-apoplectic-rage-over-abortion-ruling-aoc-makes-insurrectionist-call-on-cnn-n728317
Just don’t call it an insurrection or Norm Breaking.
LikeLike
No legislation needed apparently:
LikeLike
what is he going to do? ban trips of over 50 miles?
LikeLike
Force you to take the train.
LikeLike
Like I’ve said, I had my money on state nullification, not Federal.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2023/04/08/no-president-is-above-the-law-dems-urge-biden-to-ignore-judges-abortion-pill-ruling/
Wyden’s having his Jackson moment.
LikeLike
Nope!!
Who do they think supports this?!!
LikeLike
Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Samsung, all the car manufacturers.
LikeLike
I suspect you could manufacture a natsec issue out of chip manufacturing, but other than that, nobody.
LikeLike
I wish them success!
LikeLike