Già quindici mesi fa, nell’agosto del 2020, scrivemmo che per tutti noi investitori (alcuni consapevoli, e la grande maggioranza inconsapevoli) oggi il principale nemico sono le Banche Centrali.

Noi scrivemmo, quindici mesi fa in questo Blog: “Fight the Fed”, combatti la Federal Reserve.

Oggi, quel nostro atteggiamento è largamente condiviso, almeno tra chi è consapevole di ciò che sta facendo e raccontando in giro.

Come vedete nell’immagine qui vicino, gli stessi Banchieri centrali, o almeno ex-banchieri centrali, si rendono conto degli enormi rischi che l’azione della Banche Centrali ha accollato a tutti noi investitori finali.

Ci siamo impegnati, pubblicamente, a non scrivere più di Banche centrali per qualche tempo: questo perché l’azione delle Banche Centrali oggi è del tutto irrilevante, per noi investitori, per i nostri portafogli in titoli, e per i rischi e rendimenti degli asset finanziari. Le Banche Centrali non hanno più spazi di manovra e possibilità di decisione: sono costrette a fare la sola cosa che possono fare.

Ribadito tutto questo, oggi siamo qui a presentarvi un recente articolo di John B. Taylor, che qualcuno di voi ricorderà come teorico della “Taylor Rule” di cui si discute con sempre maggiore frequenza dentro e fuori i mercati finanziari internazionali.

La ragione per la quale vi sottoponiamo questo articolo è presto spiegata: in poche righe Taylor spiega le ragioni per le quali oggi tutte le Banche Centrali si trovano in un vicolo cieco. Il tema è di particolare attualità, in vista della riunione di settimana prossima della Federal Reserve, che nelle ultime sedute ha generato grande nervosismo sui mercati finanziari, come potete vedere anche dal cambio tra dollaro USA ed euro del venerdì 17 settembre 2021.

Vi chiediamo un pizzico di pazienza, per leggere la lingua inglese. E poi vi chiediamo un poco (ma molto poco) di calcolo aritmetico, per fare solo somme e sottrazioni. Nessuno meglio di John B. Taylor vi può illustrare la ragione per la quale il costo ufficiale del denaro, negli Stati Uniti, oggi dovrebbe stare al 5% invece che a zero.

E non c’è un modo più semplice, ed efficace, per mettere tutti voi lettori di fronte ai rischi, davvero folli, che tutti state correndo a causa delle politiche della Federal Reserve.

I rischi sono, per dirla in parole povere, quelli che vi porterebbero a perdere molti soldi.

The Fed’s State of Exception

Aug 12, 2021 John B. Taylor

Despite the recent surge of inflation in the United States, the Federal Reserve is keeping the federal funds rate in a range far below what its own monetary-policy rules would prescribe. But since history shows that this deviation cannot last indefinitely, it would be better to normalize sooner rather than later.

STANFORD – Over the past few months, there has been a growing chorus of economic observers voicing concerns about the increase of inflation in the United States. Much of the commentary (including my own) has focused on the US Federal Reserve’s apparent continuation of easy monetary policy in the face of rising prices. Despite a sharp increase in the rate of money growth, the central bank is still engaged in a large-scale asset-purchase program (to the tune of $120 billion per month), and it has kept the federal funds rate in the range of 0.05-0.1%.

That rate is exceptionally low compared to similar periods in recent history. To understand why it is exceptional, one need look no further than the Fed’s own July 9, 2021, Monetary Policy Report, which includes long-studied policy rules that would prescribe a policy rate higher than the current actual rate.

One of these is the “Taylor rule,” which holds that the Fed should set its target federal funds rate according to the gap between actual and targeted inflation. The Taylor rule, expressed as a straightforward equation, has worked well when it has been followed over the years. If you plug in the current inflation rate over the past four quarters (about 4%), the gap between GDP and its potential for the second quarter of 2021 (about -2%), a target inflation rate of 2%, and a so-called equilibrium interest rate of 1%, you get a desired federal funds rate of 5%.

Moreover, the Taylor rule implies that even if the inflation rate falls to 2% by the end of this year (which would be well below most forecasts), and economic output reaches its potential, the federal funds rate still should be 3%. That is a long way from the near-zero level implied by the Fed’s forward guidance.

Since these calculations use the inflation rate averaged over the past four quarters, they are consistent with a form of “average inflation targeting” that the Fed itself endorsed last summer. They also follow the Fed’s own recently suggested equilibrium interest rate of 1%, rather than the 2% rate that has traditionally been used. If the latter had been used, the discrepancy between the policy rate in the rule and the actual level of the funds rate would be even larger.

These higher possible levels for the federal funds rate are largely being ignored in the Fed’s reported discussions. Instead, the Fed insists that today’s higher inflation is a temporary byproduct of the pandemic’s effect on inflation last year. Those who defend its current stance point out that market interest rates on longer-term bonds remain very low. On safe Treasury assets, the five-year yield is only 0.81%, and the ten-year yield is only 1.35% – well below the rates suggested by the Taylor rule when averaged over these maturities. Considering these factors, many commentators are saying not to worry: the markets are probably being rational when they forecast low rates.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the low longer-term rates are likely being caused by the Fed’s own insistence on keeping low rates as far as the eye can see. As Josephine M. Smith and I show in a 2009 study, there is a “Term Structure of Policy Rules” to consider. Effectively, the policy rule for longer-maturity bonds depends on the policy rule for the much shorter-term federal funds rate, as perceived by people in the market. If the Fed convinces the market that it will stay low, the term structure of interest rates will imply lower longer-term rates.

Today’s situation is similar to that of 2004, when then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan noticed that ten-year Treasury yields did not seem connected to moves in the federal funds rate. He called this a “conundrum,” because the actual short-term interest rate was not generating as large of an increase in long-term interest rates as one would expect based on previous experience. Monetary-policy tightening was not having as much of an effect on longer-term rates as it had in previous periods of tightening.

During this period, the federal funds rate deviated significantly from what would have been predicted by the Fed’s typical response, much as it is doing today. When the actual federal funds rate deviated significantly from the level suggested by policy rules, the short-term interest-rate response to inflation appeared to be much lower, at least from the perspective of market participants trying to assess Fed policy. And this perception of a smaller response coefficient in the policy rule may have led market participants to expect smaller longer-term interest-rate responses to inflation, and therefore lower long-term interest rates.

Today, it appears that the Fed is deviating from monetary-policy rules. It has beaten its own path for forward guidance, and the market is basing its estimates of future rates on the expectation that this deviation will continue. But history tells us that it cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually, the Fed will have to return to a policy rule, and when it does, the conundrum will disappear. The sooner this occurs, the smoother the recovery will be. There is still time to adjust and get back to a policy rule, but time is running out.

John B. Taylor, a former under-secretary of the US Treasury (2001-05), is Professor of 999Economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of Global Financial Warriors and co-author (with George P. Shultz) of Choose Economic Freedom.

Vi dicevano tutti, solo 12 mesi fa: “E’ il momento di investire, e di guardare al lungo termine. Nel lungo termine con le azioni si guadagna sempre”.

Era, lo abbiamo scritto più volte e lo ripetiamo anche oggi, un abbaglio colossale. Un errore, da parte dei più ingenui. Una manipolazione, da parte dei male intenzionati..

Oggi, al contrario, nel settembre 2021, adesso è il momento giusto. Adesso è venuto il momento di ragionare sul lungo termine.

Nel lungo termine, succedono tante cose diverse. Nel lungo termine “le azioni salgono sempre” ma solo in alcuni Paesi. In altri Paesi, tra i quali l’Italia, non è vero.

Nel lungo, anzi nel lunghissimo termine, le azioni (equity, stocks) non sono mai state così tanto care come oggi, nel senso di sopravvalutate. Mai prima nella storia. Neppure nel tragico 2001.

Nel lungo termine, è documentato che da momenti come quello attuale si è sempre rientrati, e con perdite pesantissime.

Nel lungo termine, le economie sono sempre uscite da fasi di debito eccessivo, come è quella attuale, con crisi profonde e prolungate.

Nel lungo termine, momenti di elevata inflazione e crescita debole sono stati chiamati stagflazione.

Ed oggi … sorpresa!!! L’inflazione non è più “transitoria” ed il COVID non è più “transitorio”. Al contrario di ciò che vie era stato venduto dal welath manager, dal private banker, dal consulente venditore, e dal robot-advisor. Insomma dal vostro promotore finanziario.

Se seguite questo Blog, ricorderete che di stagflazione noi ne scrivevamo già nell’agosto 2020. Tredici mesi fa. Con i nostri Clienti da quindici mesi ne abbiamo fatto la base della strategia di investimento.

Questo è il nostro lavoro per il Cliente. Questo è il lavoro che fa OGNI GIORNO un consulente che sia serio, competente e degno di questa qualifica.

Se non sapete cosa sia la stagflazione, andate a cercare il termine sul Web, e rileggete in nostri Post dove ve ne abbiamo scritto. Oppure scriveteci: vi richiameremo per confrontarci, dare informazioni, offrire approfondimenti.

Le occasioni non mancheranno, ed anzi saranno numerosissime: perché questo è il tema centrale di investimento oggi. E lo sarà, ancora di più, domani, e poi tra tre mesi, e poi tra dodici mesi e poi tra due anni.

Leggete poi anche che cosa ne ha scritto il Financial Times in settimana, nell’articolo che segue. Un articolo che aiuta a capire, ed offre anche un prezioso aggiornamento, su un tema del quale il vostro wealth manager non parla, un tema che il vostro private banker preferisce evitare, un tema che per ora non è arrivato al TG Economia, un tema non abbastanza “eccitante” per canali TV come CNBC. Neppure il robot-advisor se ne è occupato, per il momento.

E soprattutto muovetevi: non sarete ancora lì a sognare ad occhi aperti lo scenario di “boom economico” che vie era stato venduto dal vostro promotore finanziario, vero?

Hearing that I was flying to the UK, a friend of mine sent me a picture of a partially empty supermarket shelf with a simple message: “You’ll be coming back to Soviet-era shelves.”

Unlike that era, however, this is not happening in a closed economy with inefficient state-run production protected by high tariff and quota walls. Nor is it UK specific. It is due to supply disruptions faced by many countries.

They will be with us for a while, complicating corporate and policy plans, and could undermine investments based on the ample liquidity injections from central banks that have pushed many markets ever higher. The phenomenon in play is evident in macroeconomic data and corporate signals. Producer price inflation is soaring around the world. Sizeable gaps have emerged between factory orders and output. Transportation costs from China to Europe and the US have risen seven to 10 times in the past year. More companies in more sectors are supply-constrained.

The culprit is some mix of disrupted supply chains, high transportation costs, container scarcity and congested ports. Labour shortages are also an issue, forcing companies in manufacturing and services to operate below capacity and with constant wage pressures. In the UK, the CBI has warned labour shortages may last up to two years. Fewer chief executives have confidence that such disruptions are temporary and quickly reversible. This will restrain growth plans despite robust demand, and increase pressure to raise prices to offset higher costs.

Rather than a one-off dynamic, the global economy is experiencing waves of supply disruptions suggesting that longer-term forces are also in play. Yet some policymakers and market participants continue to assert that supply-demand imbalances are transitory, soon to be resolved by market forces. For support, they point to how lumber has reversed its big price rise. Some reversible factors are indeed in play. Already, time has helped overcome some of the initial Covid-19 shock to the economy — a “sudden stop” more generalised than under the 2008 financial crisis. It is also not to deny that the latest Covid wave fuelled by the Delta coronavirus variant has temporary and reversible elements, such as the shutdown of ports in China and Vietnam. The same is true for destination ports, such as California’s Long Beach, where one chief executive characterised the bottleneck to me as being worse than last March’s Suez Canal blockage.

The key point is that such reversible factors are accompanied by supply side troubles that could last for one to two years, if not more. Already, their persistence is leading more companies to revise their supply chain management with a view to enhancing resilience, even at the cost of efficiency. But the beneficial longer-term mitigation effects of vendor/country diversification have short-term disruptions. Labour market rigidities are also unlikely to pass anytime soon. Recent indicators suggest that the reopening of schools and, in the US, the termination of supplementary unemployment support are unlikely to lead to an immediate jump in labour force participation. This is despite record job openings.

The longer this continues, the more companies adapt. How Covid has strained the world's ports Added to inflation already in the pipeline, all this translates into stagflationary winds for the global economy that are unfamiliar to those that did not live through the 1970s. It is a scenario that more companies are putting front and centre in their planning. Yet too many policymakers and, therefore, market participants lag behind realities on the ground. Having missed the window at the start of summer to taper the massive asset purchases implemented at the height of last year’s Covid shock, the Federal Reserve now risks a particularly difficult policy dilemma: having to lessen stimulus because of inflation consistently well above its target but hesitant to do so because of lower growth.

This could become an issue for many asset classes where valuations embody a considerable bet on the predictability and effectiveness of central bank support, including a monetary policy soft-landing in a Goldilocks economy that is not too hot or too cold. The dominant structural theme post the financial crisis — that of deficient aggregate demand — has given way to frustrating supply rigidities. They are not going away any time soon. It is so much better for companies and policymakers to adjust now. Containing further disruptions is cheaper and easier than having to clean up the damage.

Sono passati solo sei mesi.

Esattamente sei mesi fa, il Parlamento degli Stati Uniti approvava il Piano Biden.

Nel mondo degli investimenti, sei mesi fa (180 giorni fa) tutti erano ottimisti. Molto ottimisti. Erano ottimisti Goldma Sachs, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Credit Suisse, Bank of America, BNP Paribas.

Erano ottimisti, molto, moltissimo, Azimut, FINECO, Fideuram, Mediolanum, Allianz e tutti i loro compari.

Erano tremendamente ottimisti i wealth managers, i private bankers, i personal bankers, i family bankers, i promotori finanziari, i consulenti. E naturalmente i robot advisors. Nessun dubbio nella mente e nessun problema all’orizzonte. E quindi nessuna prudenza nella gestione dei portafogli titoli.

Tutto questo 180 giorni fa.

Che cosa è cambiato, negli ultimi 180 giorni? Fatevi questa domanda, e guardatevi intorno: nella realtà della vostra vita, nel vostro quotidiano, nella realtà dei fatti intorno a voi, che cosa è cambiato in 180 giorni?

Le prime due immagini di questo Post a noi dicono che è cambiato tutto a Wall Street. Nel cuore della finanza internazionale. Sei mesi fa, tutti esuberanti, ottimisti ed eccitati. Solo 180 giorni dopo, tutti moderati, tutti spenti. Forse pessimisti?

Il contrasto che salta agli occhi, il contrasto che suscita non solo perplessità ma proprio una grassa risata, è leggere (titolo sopra) che “Wall Street suona l’allarme sull’azionario”: pensiamo ai poveretti che solo tre mesi fa hanno investito sull’azionario, quando il loro promotore finanziario spiegava che “è il momento giusto per prendere più rischio in portafoglio”.

Il problema dove sta? Sta nell’immagine qui sopra, e nell’immagine qui sotto: il problema sono i Clienti. I Clienti di Goldman Sachs, i Clienti del wealth manager, i Clienti del promotore finanziario.

Come vedete nei due grafici (sopra e sotto) i Clienti sono stati indotti ad investire tutto sull’ottimismo. Sul boom economico senza inflazione. Su una crescita senza fine.

Questi qui sono fregati. Come sempre.

Per ciò che riguarda la gestione di qualsiasi portafoglio titoli, ed in particolare la asset allocation del vostro portafoglio titoli, la domanda oggi è una sola: cosa faranno quelli del circoletto rosso nell’immagine che vedete qui sotto?

Il cosiddetto “consenso” è cambiato nel corso del mese di agosto, come noi abbiamo scritto lungo titto il mese anche qui nel Blog, e come leggete anche nell’articolo che Recce’d ha selezionato per voi, qui di seguito. Un articolo che offre una sintetica ricapitolazione dei temi che oggi vengono discussi tra gli operatori sui mercati finanziari.

Delta worries, labor shortages and fading Washington stimulus — it’s enough to cast a chill on the U.S. economy this fall.

A bevy of Wall Street forecasters chopped their targets for U.S. growth after a poor U.S. jobs report for August. The government on Friday said the economy gained 235,000 new jobs last month — just one-third of what investors were expecting.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BMO Capital Markets, TD Securities and other firms cut their forecasts — some by more than half.

An economy that was expected to grow at a sizzling 7% annual pace from July through September is now seen expanding at a more modest 3% to 3.5% clip, Wall Street forecasts show.

The tepid pace of hiring naturally shone a spotlight on the damage delta is doing to the economy.

The companies that have been hurt the worst during the pandemic — restaurants, hotels, theaters and so forth — added zero new jobs in August. They had created an average of 364,000 new jobs a month since May.

Evidence of a slowdown was found in declining dinner reservations and hotel bookings. The number of people flying on planes also declined. Americans appeared to be more worried about venturing out and being in large crowds.

“The coronavirus situation has deteriorated over the last couple of months,” Goldman Sachs noted.

A possibly even bigger factor in the U.S. employment report is a lack of people willing to go back to work.

Businesses have been complaining for months that they can’t find workers and the August jobs report seemed to underscore the problem. The percentage of people in the labor force either working or looking for a job has been static for the past year.

It’s not just labor shortages, either.

Companies are struggling to obtain the parts and materials they need to produce enough goods and services to satisfy the surge in demand. Automakers in particular have had to cut back production owing to a global shortage of computer chips.

The result is that consumers are spending less because of delta, and even when they want to buy a new car or other goods, they are having trouble finding what they want.

Fading government stimulus could also weigh more heavily on the economy in the second half of the year.

Most of the stimulus cash has been doled out already, economists point out, and a multi-billion dollar infrastructure bill now before Congress is unlikely to shovel much money into the economy anytime soon. Most public works take a long time to plan and get underway.

So all doom and gloom, right? No. The delta wave appears to be cresting, for one thing. The states that experienced the biggest outbreaks early are now seeing cases on the decline.

Most consumers and businesses, what’s more, have adapted to the virus. So has government. Hardly any are putting in place the sort of strict measures that hurt the economy last year.

Businesses are also expected to keep hiring and more people will probably go back to work after the expiration on Monday of extra federal benefits for the unemployed. That will help ease — but not eliminate — the labor shortage.

At the same time, parts and supply shortages should also fade over time and release a big stranglehold on businesses.

“The bottom line is the expansion continues to progress, albeit at a slower pace,” Morgan Stanley economists predicted.

Nell’immediato futuro, che cosa succederà? Nelle prossime settimane, preparatevi ad assistere all’ennesimo capovolgimento. Lo scenario di sei mesi (180 giorni) fa nn va più bene, non si può più raccontare, è diventato ridicolo. Adesso, sui mercati si parla e si discute di stagflazione (immagine qui sotto),

La danza viene condotta così, e chi è capace di fare investimenti, chi è capace di investire, chi è capace di gestire un portafoglio in titoli, ne è ben cosciente. E’ consapevole che il mercato oggi funziona così: “prima li facciamo investire, poi li facciamo disinvestire, in perdita”.

Tutta quanta la situazione che voi oggi vedete, su tutti i mercati finanziari, viene riassunta, nel modo più efficace, dalla frase di Deutsche Bank che leggete qui sotto nell’immagine. “L’attuale fase dei mercati finanziari non sembra l’inizio di un nuovo ciclo. Sembra piuttosto la continuazione del ciclo che era in atto prima della pandemia COVID”. Noi, ve lo avevamo scritto 12 mesi fa. Prima del Piano Biden..

L’articolo del Financial Times che vi regaliamo più sotto aggiunge alcuni elementi di valutazione per il futuro prossimo dei vostri investimenti.

Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Philip Lowe has a coffee mug in his office inscribed with the words “half full.” Lowe says he's an optimist about next year, as do many of his peers. They’ll have to make it through 2021 first. 

The global economy is in for a choppy future that may provide few convincing signals about the vitality and duration of the recovery. Just as analysts and investors were beginning to worry that growth was bouncing back too sharply and bottlenecks were adding to inflation concerns, the Covid-19 delta variant has stalled commercial activity. If we aren’t back to square one, we have lost significant ground.

That’s making central bankers’ task of reining in monetary accommodation — never easy in the best of times — even trickier. Proceed too fast and growth may be set back or, worse, policy makers have to stage a humiliating retreat. Go too slow and risk overheating, should the lull prove to be only a blip.

The varied approach of central banks around the world in recent weeks shows how difficult this needle is to thread. South Korea hiked interest rates and made clear there are a few more to come. New Zealand blinked on a widely forecast increase but wants to try again soon. The Federal Reserve is still likely to proceed with a cautious reduction in bond buying, but discouraging jobs numbers for August have raised questions about precisely when the process can begin.

Lowe opted Tuesday to split the difference. He went ahead with the RBA's planned taper of quantitative easing to $A4 billion ($3 billion) a week from A$5 billion, in what economists described as a close call. At the same time, he extended the timeline for the current pace of buying to February; initially the bank planned to review that amount in November. While gross domestic product will suffer a big decline this quarter thanks to lockdowns, the implication is that the fourth quarter will be better. The variant will “delay, but not derail” the recovery, Lowe said. His strategy is a neat way to be consistent with past communication on tapering while kicking the ball into next year. 

We’ll probably see more of these very small steps, followed by a generous amount of wait-and-see. There's little question the global economy is in better shape than it was a year ago, and far superior to the start of the pandemic. If the stimulus unleashed by global central banks was aimed at preventing a catastrophic financial crisis and nursing businesses and consumers to a recovery, then an important part of what it set out to do has been achieved. For all its severity, the U.S. recession was the shortest on record, 1 though employment remains well below pre-pandemic levels.

So while there isn’t yet a compelling case for adding to accommodation with additional measures, that doesn’t mean it’s the right time to reduce the amount of liquidity pumped in, either. The International Monetary Fund forecasts the global economy will expand 6% this year. On a country-by-country level, momentum has been lost: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. cut its forecast for U.S. growth this year while Morgan Stanley now puts expansion at 2.9% this quarter, down from 6.5%. China is trying to put a floor under a new slowdown. German investor confidence declined for a fourth month in September. Payroll gains in the U.S were the weakest in seven months in August and less than the most pessimistic forecast.

It’s inevitable that the recovery would cool from its torrid pace, but this is a tough time to be making decisions about changing direction, even if it's gradual. Policy makers need to be nimble without being too quick.

Asked in parliamentary testimony last month about the meaning of the phrase on his mug, Lowe said: “There is a great deal of uncertainty about how the economy is going to travel over the next few months and much depends upon the health situation, but the experience here and elsewhere is that, once the health situation is brought under control, the economy bounces back quickly.’’

Things have deteriorated in Australia and beyond since then. Still, Lowe seems prepared to look through the noise. Whatever picture emerges will determine the future of once-radical monetary steps, be they slowed, withdrawn or paused. The Fed, European Central Bank and People’s Bank of China face similar reckonings in the months ahead. Communication will be everything. Let's hope our monetary chieftains are at least half-way caffeinated.

The National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle dating committee, the academic panel that serves as the arbiter of U.S. expansion dates, said in July that key indicators of employment and production “point clearly to April 2020 as the month of the trough." Many countries define a recession as two negative quarters of gross domestic product. The bureau doesn’t use that definition and instead looks for a significant decline in economic activity, typically lasting more than a few months.

Nulla sarà uguale a ciò che avete visto sino a qui, negli ultimi quattro mesi del 2021: ed i cambiamenti saranno più visibili, più profondi e più radicali nel mondo della politica.

In Europa, vedremo l’esito delle Elezioni tedesche, che potrebbero modificare l’intero assetto politico continentale (ed anche molte cose dentro la BCE). In Asia, ci sarà una accelerazione dei processi di riforma in Cina, e dell’intervento dello Stato nell’economia in particolare.

Negli Stati Uniti, il crollo degli indici di popolarità costringerà il Presidente Biden ad un rapido e profondo cambiamento di rotta, che toccherà anche la gestione della politica economica. Siete tutti informati del pacchetto di misure di spesa che è in discussione al Congresso, e siete tutti informati anche della discussione intorno al rinnovo della carica di Jay Powell alla Federal Reserse.

A tutto questo, noi di Recce’d vogliamo aggiungere una forte sottolineatura in merito ai sussidi statili, che erano stati introdotti, e distribuiti a pioggia, sull’onda emotiva della pandemia, e che tutti sono scaduti lunedì scorso, 6 settembre.

Siamo tra quelli che ritengono questo ultimo fatto un evento con profonde implicazioni, sia economiche sia sociali. I sussidi a pioggia sono stati un anestetico che (insieme con l’altro anestetico, quello fornito dalla Federal Reserve) hanno illuso la massa ed il pubblico che “tutto sarebbe tornato come prima dopo sei mesi”. A 18 mesi di distanza, possiamo dire con grande serenità che quella previsione era del tutto sbagliata.

Per comprendere nei dettagli la portata di questo evento, noi vi proponiamo in lettura oggi un articolo del New York Times, che riassume molto meglio di quanto potremmo fare noi di Recce’d i vari aspetti di questa importantissima vicenda.

WASHINGTON — Expanded unemployment benefits that have kept millions of Americans afloat during the pandemic expired on Monday, setting up an abrupt cutoff of assistance to 7.5 million people as the Delta variant rattles the pandemic recovery.

The end of the aid came without objection from President Biden and his top economic advisers, who have become caught in a political fight over the benefits and are now banking on other federal help and an autumn pickup in hiring to keep vulnerable families from foreclosure and food lines.

The $1.9 trillion economic aid package Mr. Biden signed in March included extended and expanded benefits for unemployed workers, like a $300-per-week federal supplement to state jobless payments, additional weeks of assistance for the long-term unemployed and the extension of a special program to provide benefits to so-called gig workers who traditionally do not qualify for unemployment benefits. The expiration date reached on Monday means that 7.5 million people will lose their benefits entirely and another three million will lose the $300 weekly supplement.

Republicans and small business owners have assailed efforts to extend the aid, contending that it has held back the economic recovery and fueled a labor shortage by discouraging people from looking for work. Liberal Democrats and progressive groups have pushed for another round of aid, saying millions of Americans remain vulnerable and in need of help.

Mr. Biden and his advisers have pointedly refused to call on Congress to extend the benefits further, a decision that reflects the prevailing view of the state of the recovery inside the administration and the president’s desire to focus on winning support for his broader economic agenda.

The president’s most senior economic advisers say the economy is in the process of completing a hand off between federal assistance and the labor market. As support from the March stimulus law wanes, they say, more and more Americans are set to return to work, drawing paychecks that will power consumer spending in the place of government aid.

And Mr. Biden is pushing Congress this month to pass two measures that constitute a multi-trillion-dollar agenda focused on longer-run economic growth: a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a larger, partisan spending bill with investments in child care, education, carbon reduction and more. That push leaves no political oxygen for an additional short-term aid bill, which White House officials insist the economy does not need.

President Biden and his advisers have pointedly refused to call on Congress to extend the benefits further.Credit...Oliver Contreras for The New York Times

Administration officials say money that continues to flow to Americans from the March law, including new monthly payments to parents, will continue to sustain the social safety net even as the expanded federal jobless aid expires. Mr. Biden has called on certain states — those with high unemployment rates and a willingness to continue aid to jobless workers — to use state relief funds from the March law to help the long-term unemployed. So far, no state has said it plans to do so.

On Sunday, Mr. Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that the March law was also allowing states to help those out of work by offering employment bonuses and job training and counseling.

Understand the Infrastructure Bill

• One trillion dollar package passed. The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan infrastructure package on Aug. 10, capping weeks of intense negotiations and debate over the largest federal investment in the nation’s aging public works system in more than a decade.

  1. The final vote. The final tally in the Senate was 69 in favor to 30 against. The legislation, which still must pass the House, would touch nearly every facet of the American economy and fortify the nation’s response to the warming of the planet.

  2. Main areas of spending. Overall, the bipartisan plan focuses spending on transportation, utilities and pollution cleanup.

  3. Transportation. About $110 billion would go to roads, bridges and other transportation projects; $25 billion for airports; and $66 billion for railways, giving Amtrak the most funding it has received since it was founded in 1971.

  4. Utilities. Senators have also included $65 billion meant to connect hard-to-reach rural communities to high-speed internet and help sign up low-income city dwellers who cannot afford it, and $8 billion for Western water infrastructure.

  5. Pollution cleanup: Roughly $21 billion would go to cleaning up abandoned wells and mines, and Superfund sites.

“We think the jobs are there,” Mr. Klain said, “and we think the states have the resources they need to move people from unemployment to employment.”

Mr. Biden has faced criticism from the left and the right on the issue, and he has responded with a balancing act, supporting the benefits as approved by Congress but declining to push to extend them — or to defend them against attacks by leaders in some states.

Throughout the summer, business lobbyists and Republican lawmakers called on the president to cut off the benefits early, blaming them for the difficulties some businesses were facing in hiring workers, particularly in lower-paying industries like hospitality. Soon after the backlash began, Mr. Biden defended the benefits but called on the Labor Department to ensure that unemployed workers who declined job offers would lose their aid.

But roughly half of the states, nearly all of them led by Republican governors, moved to cut off benefits early on their own. Mr. Biden and his administration did not fight them, angering progressives. The administration is essentially extending that policy into the fall, by calling on only willing states to fill in for expired assistance.

“I don’t think we necessarily need a blanket policy for unemployment benefits at this point around the country,” Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh said in an interview on Friday, “because states are in different places.”

Privately, some administration officials have expressed openness to the idea that economic research will eventually show that the benefits had some sort of chilling effect on workers’ decision to take jobs. Critics of the extra unemployment benefits have argued that they are discouraging people from returning to work at a time when there are a record number of job openings and many businesses are struggling to hire.

Evidence so far suggests the programs are playing at most a limited role in keeping people out of the work force. States that ended the benefits early, for example, have seen little if any pickup in hiring relative to the rest of the country.

Even in the industries that have had the hardest time finding workers, many people don’t expect a sudden surge in job applications once the benefits expire. Other factors — child care challenges, fear of the virus, accumulated savings from previous waves of federal assistance and a broader rethinking of work preferences in the wake of the pandemic — are also playing a role in keeping people out of work.

“I think it’s a piece of the puzzle but I don’t think it’s the big piece,” said Ben Fileccia, the director of operations and strategy for the Pennsylvania Restaurant & Lodging Association. “It’s easy to point to, but I don’t think it’s the true reason.”

Progressives in and outside of Congress have grown frustrated with the administration’s approach to the benefits, warning it could backfire economically. Job growth slowed in August as the Delta variant spread across the country.

“Millions of jobless workers are going to suffer when benefits expire on Monday, and it didn’t need to be this way,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and the chairman of the Finance Committee, said in a news release last week. “It’s clear from the economic and health conditions on the ground that we shouldn’t be cutting off benefits now.”

Elizabeth Ananat, a Barnard College economist who has been studying the impact of the pandemic on low-wage workers, said that cutting off benefits now, when the Delta variant has threatened to set back the recovery, was a threat to both workers and the broader economy.

“We’ve got this fragile economic recovery and now we’re going to cut income from people who need it, and we are pulling back dollars out of an economy that is still pretty unsteady,” she said.

Even in the industries that have had the hardest time finding workers, many people don’t expect a sudden surge in job applications once the benefits expire.Credit...Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Ms. Ananat has been tracking a group of about 1,000 low-income parents in Philadelphia, all of whom were working before the pandemic. More than half lost their jobs early in the pandemic last year. By this summer, 72 percent were working, reflecting the strong rebound in the economy as a whole. But that still left 28 percent of the group who were unemployed, either because they could not find work or because of child care or other responsibilities.

“We’re going into a new school year where there’s going to be a lot more uncertainty than there was this spring for parents,” Ms. Ananat said. “Employers are again going to be dealing with a situation where they have people who want to work, but what the heck are they supposed to do when their kid gets sent home to quarantine?”

Measures of hunger and other hardship have fallen this year, as the job market has improved and federal aid, including the expanded child tax credit, has reached more low-income families. But the cutoff in benefits could change that, Ms. Ananat said. “In the absence of some kind of solution, this cliff comes and that number is going to go back up,” she said. “This is a significant group of people who are going to be in a lot worse shape.”

Jim Tankersley is a White House correspondent with a focus on economic policy. He has written for more than a decade in Washington about the decline of opportunity for American workers, and is the author of "The Riches of This Land: The Untold, True Story of America's Middle Class." @jimtankersley

Sono trascorsi venti anni, dai tragici fatti delle Torri Gemelle.

Quella tragedia ancora oggi segna le nostre vite, la nostra cultura, la vita politica e sociale, come è stato testimoniato attraverso i media da tutte le componenti della nostra società negli ultimi giorni.

Vi proponiamo una riflessione al proposito: vi proponiamo di mettere a confronto la reazione della società e della politica ai fatti dello 11 settembre 2001 e la reazione sociale e politica alla pandemia del 2020.

Noi di Recce’d siamo tra quelli che ritengono i fatti del 2020 non meno tragici di quelli dello 11 settembre 2001.

Per questo siamo colpiti dalla differente reazione della politica e della società ai due eventi.

Nel 2001, tutti si affrettarono a dire che “nulla sarà più come prima”: ed i fatti sono lì a dimostrarlo, dai controlli quotidiani che tutti subiamo agli aeroporti, fino alla caduta di Kabul nel giorno di ferragosto.

Nel 2020, la corsa andò invece nella direzione opposta: il tentativo è stato quello di negare tutto, e di convincere il pubblico che “tutto sarà di nuovo come prima nello spazio di mesi”. Giudichiamo questo atteggiamento una gravissima mancanza di rispetto per i milioni di vittime.

Politici nazionali ed internazionali si sono distinti in una gara di irresponsabilità, a questo proposito. Andando poi ad alimentare gli atteggiamenti di isteria delle masse dei quali vi raccontiamo con le immagini che trovate in questo Post, immagini tratte dal settimanale The Economist.

Sia detto con chiarezza: perplessità sul vaccino noi ne abbiamo espresse sempre, ed in particolare in quel primo giorno, quel primo lunedì dopo la Elezione Presidenziale che portò Joe Biden alla Casa Bianca.

Detto questo, atteggiamenti di “insurrezione popolare” su un argomento scientifico di sicuro non portano alcun giovamento, non fanno fare alcun passo avanti. Non vogliamo che sia una piazza urlante a decidere in merito ai farmaci da assumere.

Anche queste piazze urlanti però ci aiutano: ci aiutano a comprendere che a distanza di 18 mesi nulla è come prima. Il problema è qui, resta con noi, e nessuno al Mondo è in grado di dirci per quanto tempo. Perché nessuno lo sa. Noi di Recce’d sappiamo che, come per i controlli all’aeroporto dopo lo 11 settembre, alcune ricadute della pandemia non si cancelleranno mai.

Eppure … Eppure è stato fatto uno sforzo incredibile, senza precedenti, ma soprattutto senza freni e senza controllo, per alimentare l’illusione che “tutto è come prima”.

In particolare, questo sforzo si è ampliato a dismisura nel campo dell’economia. A noi di Recce’d risulta incredibile l’ottusa determinazione con la quale si è deciso di “fare ritornare subito il PIL ai livelli pre-COVID”, sacrificando a questo obbiettivo di brevissimo termine qualsiasi criterio di gestione dell’economia, qualsiasi istanza di equilibrio, qualsiasi preoccupazione per fenomeni di instabilità economica e finanziaria.

Abbiamo una spiegazione per questa serie di scelte irresponsabili: una generazione di politici (inclusi quelli delle Banche Centrali) era stata messa a nudo dalle ricadute della pandemia, che ha semplicemente fatto venire a galla una serie di fragilità che fino al febbraio 2020 erano state nascoste alla pubblica opinione. Questa situazione ha resa necessaria una risposta abnorme e sfrenata: al solo scopo di salvare le posizioni di vertici della poltiica (incluse le Banche Centrali9 che le ricadute della pandemia hanno del tutto delegittimato.

Gli effetti delle scelte sfrenate e sciagurate andranno poi a ricadere sulle generazioni successive alla nostra: “e quindi … chissenefrega!”, vi dirà il vostro promotore finanziario vestito da private banker.

Ed è proprio qui, che arriva una utilissima indicazione anche in termini di gestione del portafoglio: amici lettori, vi invitiamo a non cadere nella trappola delle rassicurazioni offerte da chi non può offrire alcuna rassicurazione.

Tra sei mesi sarà tutto come prima, vi avevano detto: ma era solo uno slogan commerciale, del tipo “il detersivo che lava più bianco”.

E poi vi avevano detto “è il momento di mettere più azioni in portafoglio”, e voi ci siete andati dietro, carichi di fiducia di di voglia di guadagnare. Ci siete cascati, anche in questo caso.