There have been some positive developments: The functioning of financial markets and the banking system in the United States has improved significantly. Manufacturing production in the United States has risen nearly 15 percent since its trough, driven substantially by growth in exports; indeed, the U.S. trade deficit has been notably lower recently than it was before the crisis, reflecting in part the improved competitiveness of U.S. goods and services. Business investment in equipment and software has continued to expand, and productivity gains in some industries have been impressive.

Nevertheless, it is clear that, overall, the recovery from the crisis has been much less robust than we had hoped. Recent revisions of government economic data show the recession as having been even deeper, and the recovery weaker, than previously estimated; indeed, by the second quarter of this year–the latest quarter for which official estimates are available–aggregate output in the United States still had not returned to the level that it had attained before the crisis. Slow economic growth has in turn led to slow rates of increase in jobs and household incomes.

The pattern of sluggish growth was particularly evident in the first half of this year, with real gross domestic product (NYSE:GDP) estimated to have increased at an average annual rate of less than 1 percent. Some of this weakness can be attributed to temporary factors. Notably, earlier this year, political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, strong growth in emerging market economies, and other developments contributed to significant increases in the prices of oil and other commodities, which damped consumer purchasing power and spending; and the disaster in Japan disrupted global supply chains and production, particularly in the automobile industry. With commodity prices having come off their highs and manufacturers’ problems with supply chains well along toward resolution, growth in the second half of the year seems likely to be more rapid than in the first half.

However, the incoming data suggest that other, more persistent factors also continue to restrain the pace of recovery. Consequently, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) now expects a somewhat slower pace of economic growth over coming quarters than it did at the time of the June meeting, when Committee participants most recently submitted economic forecasts.

Consumer behavior has both reflected and contributed to the slow pace of recovery. Households have been very cautious in their spending decisions, as declines in house prices and in the values of financial assets have reduced household wealth, and many families continue to struggle with high debt burdens or reduced access to credit.

Probably the most significant factor depressing consumer confidence, however, has been the poor performance of the job market. Over the summer, private payrolls rose by only about 100,000 jobs per month on average–half of the rate posted earlier in the year.

Meanwhile, state and local governments have continued to shed jobs, as they have been doing for more than two years. With these weak gains in employment, the unemployment rate has held close to 9 percent since early this year. Moreover, recent indicators, including new claims for unemployment insurance and surveys of hiring plans, point to the likelihood of more sluggish job growth in the period ahead.

Other sectors of the economy are also contributing to the slower-than-expected rate of expansion. The housing sector has been a significant driver of recovery from most recessions in the United States since World War II. This time, however, a number of factors–including the overhang of distressed and foreclosed properties, tight credit conditions for builders and potential homebuyers, and the large number of “underwater” mortgages (on which homeowners owe more than their homes are worth)–have left the rate of new home construction at only about one-third of its average level in recent decades.

In the financial sphere, as I noted, banking and financial conditions in the United States have improved significantly since the depths of the crisis. Nonetheless, financial stresses persist. Credit remains tight for many households, small businesses, and residential and commercial builders, in part because weaker balance sheets and income prospects have increased the perceived credit risk of many potential borrowers. We have also recently seen bouts of elevated volatility and risk aversion in financial markets, partly in reaction to fiscal concerns both here and abroad.

Domestically, the controversy during the summer regarding the raising of the federal debt ceiling and the downgrade of the U.S. long-term credit rating by one of the major rating agencies contributed to the financial turbulence that occurred around that time. Outside the United States, concerns about sovereign debt in Greece and other euro-zone countries, as well as about the sovereign debt exposures of the European banking system, have been a significant source of stress in global financial markets. European leaders are strongly committed to addressing these issues, but the need to obtain agreement among a large number of countries to put in place necessary backstops and to address the sources of the fiscal problems has slowed the process of finding solutions. It is difficult to judge how much these financial strains have affected U.S. economic activity thus far, but there seems little doubt that they have hurt household and business confidence, and that they pose ongoing risks to growth.

Another factor likely to weigh on the U.S. recovery is the increasing drag being exerted by the government sector. Notably, state and local governments continue to tighten their belts by cutting spending and employment in the face of ongoing budgetary pressures, while the future course of federal fiscal policies remains quite uncertain.

To be sure, fiscal policymakers face a complex situation. I would submit that, in setting tax and spending policies for now and the future, policymakers should consider at least four key objectives. One crucial objective is to achieve long-run fiscal sustainability. The federal budget is clearly not on a sustainable path at present. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, formed as part of the Budget Control Act, is charged with achieving $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction over the next 10 years on top of the spending caps enacted this summer. Accomplishing that goal would be a substantial step; however, more will be needed to achieve fiscal sustainability.

A second important objective is to avoid fiscal actions that could impede the ongoing economic recovery. These first two objectives are certainly not incompatible, as putting in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits over the longer term does not preclude attending to the implications of fiscal choices for the recovery in the near term. Third, fiscal policy should aim to promote long-term growth and economic opportunity. As a nation, we need to think carefully about how federal spending priorities and the design of the tax code affect the productivity and vitality of our economy in the longer term. Fourth, there is evident need to improve the process for making long-term budget decisions, to create greater predictability and clarity, while avoiding disruptions to the financial markets and the economy. In sum, the nation faces difficult and fundamental fiscal choices, which cannot be safely or responsibly postponed.

Returning to the discussion of the economic outlook, let me turn now to the prospects for inflation. Prices of many commodities, notably oil, increased sharply earlier this year, as I noted, leading to higher retail gasoline and food prices. In addition, producers of other goods and services were able to pass through some of their higher input costs to their customers. Separately, the global supply disruptions associated with the disaster in Japan put upward pressure on prices of motor vehicles. As a result of these influences, inflation picked up during the first half of this year; over that period, the price index for personal consumption expenditures rose at an annual rate of about 3-1/2 percent, compared with an average of less than 1-1/2 percent over the preceding two years.

As the FOMC anticipated, however, inflation has begun to moderate as these transitory influences wane. In particular, the prices of oil and many other commodities have either leveled off or have come down from their highs, and the step-up in automobile production has started to reduce pressures on the prices of cars and light trucks. Importantly, the higher rate of inflation experienced so far this year does not appear to have become ingrained in the economy. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable according to surveys of households and economic forecasters, and the five-year-forward measure of inflation compensation derived from yields on nominal and inflation-protected Treasury securities suggests that inflation expectations among investors may have moved lower recently. In addition to the stability of longer-term inflation expectations, the substantial amount of resource slack in U.S. labor and product markets should continue to restrain inflationary pressures.

In view of the deterioration in the economic outlook over the summer and the subdued inflation picture over the medium run, the FOMC has taken several steps recently to provide additional policy accommodation. At the August meeting, the Committee provided greater clarity about its outlook for the level of short-term interest rates by noting that economic conditions were likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through mid-2013. And at our meeting in September, the Committee announced that it intends to increase the average maturity of the securities in the Federal Reserve’s portfolio. Specifically, it intends to purchase, by the end of June 2012, $400 billion of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 6 years to 30 years and to sell an equal amount of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less, leaving the size of our balance sheet approximately unchanged. This maturity extension program should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates and help make broader financial conditions more supportive of economic growth than they would otherwise have been.

The Committee also announced in September that it will begin reinvesting principal payments on its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities rather than in longer-term Treasury securities. By helping to support mortgage markets, this action too should contribute to a stronger economic recovery. The Committee will continue to closely monitor economic developments and is prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery in a context of price stability.

Monetary policy can be a powerful tool, but it is not a panacea for the problems currently faced by the U.S. economy. Fostering healthy growth and job creation is a shared responsibility of all economic policymakers, in close cooperation with the private sector. Fiscal policy is of critical importance, as I have noted today, but a wide range of other policies–pertaining to labor markets, housing, trade, taxation, and regulation, for example–also have important roles to play. For our part, we at the Federal Reserve will continue to work to help create an environment that provides the greatest possible economic opportunity for all Americans.

Health care employment rose by 31,000 in July, as both
hospitals and ambulatory care services added jobs. Retail trade
employment increased by 26,000. In the manufacturing sector,
employment expanded by 24,000, with gains in motor vehicles and
semiconductors. Mining employment grew by 9,000 over the month
and was up by 140,000 since the most recent low in October 2009.
Employment in professional and technical services continued to
trend up in July; this industry has added 246,000 jobs since a
recent low in March 2010. Employment in temporary help services
was flat over the month and on net has changed little in 2011.
Other private-sector industries showed little or no change in July.

Employment in state government decreased by 23,000 over the
month. The decline was almost entirely due to the partial
government shutdown in Minnesota. Local government employment
continued to trend down over the month. Since an employment peak
in September 2008, local government has shed 475,000 jobs.

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls were up by 10 cents in July to $23.13. Over the past 12
months, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.3 percent. From
June 2010 to June 2011, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 3.4 percent.

Turning to measures from the survey of households, the
unemployment rate was 9.1 percent in July. The jobless rate has
held in a narrow range between 9.0 and 9.2 percent since April.

Of the 13.9 million persons unemployed in July, 44.4 percent
had been out of work for 27 weeks or longer. This proportion was
unchanged over the month and essentially unchanged over the year.

Labor force participation edged down from 64.1 to 63.9
percent in July. The proportion of the population that was
employed was essentially unchanged over the month at 58.1
percent.

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment rose by 117,000 in
July, with the private sector adding 154,000 jobs. The
unemployment rate was little changed at 9.1 percent.

My colleagues and I now would be glad to answer your
questions.

Keith Hall
Commissioner
Bureau of Labor Statistics

It is estimated that Frank Quattrone now advises about 20 companies through his company Qatalyst Group, from giant Google to National Semiconductor, and smaller start ups. He was involved in the  deals, including EMC’s purchase of Data Domain. The Qatalyst Group is beleievd to be at no. 3, behind Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, on technology deals above $1 billion so far this year. That’s very going indeed by someone who was almost written off a few years ago.

In an interview with ET Now, Jim Rogers, Chairman, Rogers Holding, talks about the correction in global markets besides giving his views on commodities and India. Excerpts:

Q1: Global markets are correcting and everyone is saying it is because of Korea. Would you endorse that thought?

First of all, global markets should be correcting about this time because they have been pretty strong recently and there is always some reason to correct. This time, it looks like it might be Korea. Whenever you have threat of war, usually everything goes down at first, then you have to figure out what to invest in after the initial collapse. In my view, the thing to invest in is commodities because if there is going to be war, it is always good for commodities and if there is no war, then commodities will rally like everything else.

Q2: So what did you make of today’s sell off and the news coming out of Korea? Do you think it was just a trigger point for people to unwind positions in the market and do you think stepping into December from a near term perspective, there would still be some selling pressure that will continue?

Yes, we have had very strong markets in the past 2 or 3 months in the West anyway and whenever you have strong markets, something always comes along to call for correction. There is always some surprise and again, I have no idea what is going on in Korea, but just that nothing else is the reason for the correction, it could have been rain in Spain that could have caused the correction and the markets always find a reason to correct after they have been strong for a while and this is certainly a good reason to correct. If suddenly World War III is about to breakout, a good reason for the market to correct. I do not expect World War III to breakout by the way.

Q3: Buy on rumors and sell on news and we have seen that happening once again. Immediately after the QE2, blueprint was out, commodity has corrected and dollar actually has reversed. Do you think this is a short term phenomenon? Everyone took Mr. Bernanke for granted that he will continue to print money, there was too much of forward buying which happened before the QE2 final announcement and now the excesses are getting flushed out?

Yes. No matter what happens, America is going to continue to print money. Unfortunately that is all America knows to do, it is not the right thing to do, it is not good for the world, but that is all America knows to do.

If there is war, they are going to print money. If there is not war, they are going to print money and so whenever there has been money printing, the result has been that you should have your money in real assets. It has been a pretty clear thing throughout history. The real assets are the only way to protect yourself. Real assets are basically the only way to protect yourself in time of war.

Read the rest of the interview here.

Michael Pento, senior economist at Euro Pacific Capital, and Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist with Miller Tabak, debate the issues in this clip.

I strongly disagree with Michael Pento, who says a depression should be encouraged in America. His view that the govt. should be as impotent as possible, is one of the most funny statements in the recent months. The need is to increase the money supply, not decrease it. The asset prices (home prices) will automatically fall down gradually in the coming years, based on demand-supply, but it will avoid a crash. Today is not the time to trim the role of the Govt.

If anything can prevent America from depression with deflation, it is the US Govt taking the lead with offering new economic stimulus packages – for infrastructure, for education, for vocational training, etc. Fiscal policy levers/incentives must be used to spur private sector growth, where in the govt. either becomes a buyer or actively sources buyers through export opportunities.

The need is for the govt. to take charge and play a major role. US businesses alone can’t do much. In addition, taxes on the rich must be renewed, not removed. Unless job growth happens, no real economic recovery is possible.
-Shankar

Create a massive fall in the market large enough to trigger stop-losses typically set up at 5% drop, and then buy blue chip stocks at 30% less price before they recover, sell Put Options at 1000% gain, blame it all on computers and trading algorithms. Some person or some company somewhere has walked away with billions in profits after this event. It looks very well planned. This event was most probably an example of higest form of market manipulation, a bold master stroke, though illegal and unethical.

To find answers, we need to check the money-trail.
Who all bought millions of DOW 10500 Puts for pennies a few days back? Those Put options would have got sold at 10 dollars each, making billions of dollars. It is very unlikely that the organizer is within the US, otherwise the SEC/FBI can find ways to take back the money. The organizers are most probably hedge funds, outside the US, in offshore locations. The sponsors had enough capital, and NYSE/NASDAQ trading algorithm expertise, to make the initial 250 point dent, and then the market forces took over, pushing everything down in free fall.

To those who say that since the prices came back to pre-fall levels, and no real damage was done — they clearly are not traders or have market positions or investors who have put stop losses.  Many traders and brokerages got blown out of their positions because their stops were taken out after 5% drop in the Index.  Many futures and options traders squared loss making positions, and opened hedging positions, only to be caught in the pull-back few minutes later.  It was violent – a financial hurricane. Such extreme movement of stock prices has cascading effects on margin positions which impact other non-related trades, commodity positions and forex, because all these market are inter connected.

In the short term, the conflict between inflation and growth always exists. As of now, there is no case for raising interest rates, at least till inflation is below 5%. The food price pressure will remain for the next 2-3 months.

Rangarajan sees price pressures due to inflation from growth, and oil prices will play a key role. 9% GDP growth for India is possible after the world economy has come out of recession in FY 2011-2012 by when the global trade will pick up.

For those are who have been following it, the Indian Cement Industry is rocking. It has been one of the best performers in fundamentals and also in the stock markets.

Vallabh Bhansali of Enam Securities comments on the proposed demerger of Grasim’s cement business and formation of a wholly owned subsidiary called Samruddhi Cements, which will ultimately get merged with Ultratech Cement, which is also part of AV Birla Group like Grasim.

Ultratech has shareholding in it by rival Larsen & Toubro, so that could be a reason why a direct transfer into Ultratech is not being done.

Kiran Karnik, the interim chairman of the Indian government appointed board of Satyam, said that it is up to Tech Mahindra to decide the way forward for Satyam. And of course, it shouldn’t be any other way. Tech Mahindra now has a wide array of restructuring projects as it tries to merge/rationalize Satyam’s services into its overall IT services portfolio.

The revelation comes just days after Temasek said Chief Executive Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore’s premier Lee Hsien Loong, steps down to be replaced by former BHP Billiton CEO Charles Goodyear.

The fund made a number of wrong moves under Ho Ching, including a $5 billion investment in brokerage Merrill Lynch in late 2007. And as you may know already, Merrill’s shares fell 78 percent in 2008 amid the global financial turmoil and it was bought by Bank of America Corp. on 1st Jan in a lifesaving deal.

Temasek Holdings also has large stakes in other financial companies such as Standard Chartered Plc, DBS Group Holdings Ltd and Barclays Plc. So it looks like Temasek financed a good chunk of the toxic mortgage securities in the US.

This is a learning for all of us. Warren Buffet invested $5bn in Goldman Sachs, and Temasek in ML. And the difference in the quality of decision making is clear.