Up is down and down is up.

Today's employment numbers were just bad. And markets barely react. Why?

Barry Ritholtz: "Markets face opposite risks from the Employment data than does the economy. The risk of a strong number is that it removes the incentives for the Fed to keep applying QE2 at full strength. If the economy shows a consistent strength over the next 3 months, the Fed may feel that additional liquidity and quantitative easing is no longer necessary. At a certain point, they may lift their foot off the gas pedal. Perversely, a mildly disappointing NFP number might be a positive, as it suggests the full QE2 will be applied."

In other words, it's flat-out explicit now:

Bad economic data causes the stock market to go UP on expectations that real-world awfulness will cause greater amounts of money printing by the Federal Reserve.

I fear that this is not going to end well.

Finally, one bit of truly good news.

Downward.

Feeling a little sad this evening.

A pox on both their houses?

Every once in a while, you read something so good you wish you'd written it:

"Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: 'Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.'"

And he does not conclude with a happy ending:

"'Things will get worse gradually,' Mr. Auerbach predicts, 'unless they get worse quickly.'"

Friedman, I'm tired of this shit.

In today's New York Times, the august Sir Thomas Friedman blathers on about how "complicated" the current financial crisis is.

In fact, he goes so far as to assert that "This problem is more complicated than anything you can imagine."

That is complete and utter horseshit. In fact, the financial crisis is simple, breathtakingly simple. And that is exactly what makes it so scary.

What is the problem? It is that America and Europe --- the governments, the corporations, and the people therein --- are drowning in debt. An amount of debt that they can never hope to repay.

And so, there are only two "solutions." (Really they are "paths forward," as opposed to solutions.)

(1) Western Civilization can default on its debts, or (2) Western Civilization can hyperinflate its currencies, such that the debts can be "paid off" in now-worthless currencies.

There are no other options.

And either option leads to extremely pissed-off creditors (Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, et al.).

World War III is a distinct possibility.

For he is The One

Well, the Christian Era has come to end, and the Obama Era must officially be recognized.

Many of us may have failed to mark the event's significance at the time, but the Obama Era actually began on August 4, 1961, C.E.

More specifically, we now know that 08/04/1961 C.E. translates to 01/01/00 O.E.

And the enlightened among us today acknowledge that 01/23/2009 C.E. is properly written as 06/22/0047 O.E.

From today's New York Times:

Yep.  These folks will surely Save us.

False Analogies

The historical analogies are flying fast and furious these days. Our cratering economy: It's like the the 80-81 recession; no, it's like the Great Depression...

Personally, I think it's like Japan's "lost decade," which is actually at least two lost decades and counting, because it's not over yet: The Nikkei peaked in December 1989 at 38,916 and closed yesterday at 7,901, for a cumulative 20-year return of minus 80 percent.

Not only do I think that that could happen here, I think it could well be much worse here, because we are a nation of profligate debtors, whereas Japan was at the time a nation of scrupulous savers. To say it differently, let us just pray that the Chinese are willing to lend us the money to pay for all of Obama's "bold" and "ambitious" new programs.

Which brings us to the Presidential analogies. People (mostly Democrats) compare Obama to...Lincoln. And to FDR. And to Kennedy. Wow, those are some hallowed names.

I think no Presidential analogy of this sort can be 100% accurate, because each president is his own person in his own time. But if I had to pick one, the CLEAR Obama analogy would be to Carter.

Yes, Carter. Elected on a tide of anger at Nixon, amidst turmoil in the Middle East. Booted out four years later because he couldn't meet people's (mostly Democrats') lofty and unrealistic expectations.

And check out this rhetoric from Carter's 1977 inaugural address:

"Our Nation can be strong abroad only if it is strong at home. And we know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation.

To be true to ourselves, we must be true to others. We will not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards here at home, for we know that the trust which our Nation earns is essential to our strength.

The world itself is now dominated by a new spirit. Peoples more numerous and more politically aware are craving and now demanding their place in the sun—not just for the benefit of their own physical condition, but for basic human rights.

The passion for freedom is on the rise. Tapping this new spirit, there can be no nobler nor more ambitious task for America to undertake on this day of a new beginning than to help shape a just and peaceful world that is truly humane.

We are a strong nation, and we will maintain strength so sufficient that it need not be proven in combat—a quiet strength based not merely on the size of an arsenal, but on the nobility of ideas."

Gosh but that sounds sadly familiar.