Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
Manufacturing ISM Rebounds Slightly but Employment Drops; ISM at a Glance Posted: 01 Jul 2013 12:04 PM PDT US Manufacturing as measured by the June 2013 Manufacturing ISM Report On Business® is treading water barely above contraction. Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in June following one month of contraction, and the overall economy grew for the 49th consecutive month, say the nation's supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business®.ISM at a Glance
Synopsis In my June 3 Manufacturing PMI Synopsis I stated "The consensus estimate was for slower growth, but here we are. Manufacturing is in contraction and the economy continues to weaken. Given the plunge in new orders and backlog of orders, jobs and the overall economy will likely weaken as well. Expect that trend of 48 months of economic growth to break next month." The trend of overall economic growth did not break as the economy purportedly grew for the 49th month (confusing as the PMI was in contraction last month but the ISM's estimate of growth was not). However, the 44 month history of manufacturing employment growth is now history. Expect the rest of the economy to soon follow. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Paul Walks Fine Line to Prove He is Not His Dad; Reflections on Pragmatic Pandering Posted: 01 Jul 2013 10:12 AM PDT To win the 2016 election, Rand Paul has to prove he is not his dad, that he is still a libertarian, and most importantly that he is not "weak on defense", a phrase that has different meanings to different people. It's a tough line to follow but Paul is handling himself very well as noted by the Daily Beast in Rand Paul: I'm Not My Dad. With 2016 in his sights, Rand Paul is distancing himself from some of his father's more extreme views. David Catanese on why the apple must fall just far enough from the tree.Reflections on Pandering Any candidate, from either political party, must pander to some extent to win the nomination. Then to win the presidency, the nominees must pander in different directions to prove they are not who they said they were during the nomination process. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the game. The winning approach is to pander as little as possible in both phases of the campaign. So far, Rand Paul is doing and saying the right things, while still maintaining his overall libertarian stance. Paul is doing enough to maintain his and his father's core (and very fervent) libertarian constituency. Unless he strays too far from that line, and he hasn't, where else is the libertarian core going? Cautious Libertarian Philosophically, I would rather Paul not have to give in at all on some of these issues, especially defense spending. Pragmatically speaking, however, I would rather he bend a little and win the nomination, than not bend at all and lose it. Kowtowing to the extreme right-wing, as Mitt Romney did with his "teach Iran a lesson" war-mongering talk, then attempting to back out of it in the general election was a losing approach in 2012 and will be a losing approach in 2016. And Kowtowing to the extreme right-wing is wrong on any issue, not just defense. After all, the extreme right is never going to vote Democratic. It's the independents and moderates that hold the key to winning the election. So upsetting moderates to appease the fervent far-right core is simply bad politics. Rand Paul is what the country needs, and I like his cautious libertarian approach. And if Paul wins the nomination, I think he can deliver the right platform that will win over the independents and the Reagan Democrats (and thus the election). Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |