The Myth of the American Dream

          The United States of America has long been characterized as the land of opportunity. It was founded upon principles recognizing the inherent worth of each individual as embodied in the lines of the Declaration of Independence stating that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. It was for the ideals and principles underpinning the foundation of the United States of America that tens of thousands of courageous citizens sacrificed so much, including their lives, and the well-being of their families. The idea that if one worked hard and did the right thing, there was the reasonable possibility of creating better economic circumstances and a fulfilling life had made the United States of America an international star, holding out the achievement of the American Dream as a life aspiration. No doubt there are countless stories of many individuals and families who have, and are, realizing the fruits of these ideals. Unfortunately, as this is being written in late 2011, national polls show a growing number of dark clouds over Camelot. A recent PEW Charitable Trust poll[1] showed the largest number of Americans living in multi-generational households in modern history. This has been fueled by poor economic conditions that make living in a multi-generational household a financial lifeline. Other polls show the majority of Americans viewing their elected representatives in historically low esteem.

Some of the ideals represented by the United States of America as the land of opportunity seem to have been transformed into myths. The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. They have consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted, and most trusted think tank. Their mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

·      Strengthen American democracy;
·      Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
·      Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.
           Two of their Senior Fellows recently wrote an article[2] for the Washington Post in which they highlighted five myths about America. In their article they state that the idea that Americans enjoy more economic opportunity than people in other countries is contradicted by research showing that children born into a lower-income family in the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom have a greater chance than those in the United States of forming a higher income family when they are adults. They also note a myth that each generation does better than the past generation because men in their 30’s earn 12 percent less than the previous generation. If today’s families have a somewhat higher overall income than prior generations, it is because more family members are working to contribute to the overall income. While immigration and trade may serve as political straw men deserving of blame for the poverty and inequality in the United States, it appears that this too is a myth. The real culprit seems to be the increase in single-parent families that is driving the poverty rate. According to the article, the United States would have a poverty rate 30 percent lower than today if the same percent of single-parent households existed today as in 1970. Clearly, there are some significant blemishes on the American Dream causing a growing amount of social discontent.

       When considered along with a recent Associated Press Report that 1 in 2 Americans, a record number, is now classified as low-income[3], the general prevailing sentiment expressed by small business person Jonathon Smucker, participating is the Occupy Wall Street protest, is probably a fairly accurate representation of the feeling of many Americans when he said:
“Like a lot of Americans, I’m pretty ticked off. It’s not that there are rich people, it’s that the people with a lot of money over the past few decades have rigged the system so that there’s not a fair chance for anyone anymore.”[4]
      While the United States may be a glaring representation of the growing polarization between the have and the have-nots, a survey of world events suggests the increasing social and economic malaise is a global phenomenon.  Anyone interested in trying to plan their future must take notice of this state of affairs and ask themselves what might be responsible for this, as well as where this trajectory may be taking us?

---

[1] Pew Charitable Trust, Fighting Poverty in a Bad Economy, Americans Move in with Relatives, Kochhar, Rakesh and Chon, D’Vera, October 3, 2011.

[2] Brookings, Five Myths About Our Land of Opportunity,

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/1101_opportunity_sawhill_haskins.aspx, Sawhill, Isabel, and Haskins, Ron.

[3] Census Shows 1 in 2 People Are Poor Or Low-Income, Associated Press, Yen, Hope, December 15, 2011.

[4] Pay Gap a $740Bn Threat to US Recovery, Financial Times, Harding, Robin, December 15, 2011.

Critique of Roger Altman's Financial Times Commentary

Roger Altman, founder and chairman of Evercore Partners and former US deputy Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton offered commentary in the Financial Times suggesting America and Europe are on the verge of a disastrous recession. While he may be correct, I see several problems in his analysis.

 http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/09/21/america-and-europe-are-on-the-verge-of-disastrous-recession/#axzz1YNL9mxwW

Roger Altman’s analysis and proposed resolution to the unfolding European financial debacle leaves much to be desired. Interspersed with a review the ongoing events are a great many hypothetical conjectures followed by conclusions presented as some sort of deterministic inevitability. Moreover, his proposed resolution, when compared to an existing model of what he proposes, does not appear to conclusively lead to a better result.

For example, he asks “How do we know that another recession is approaching?”. A more accurate statement would be “it is probable that another recession is approaching”. The simple fact is that none of us has a perfect crystal ball, and from what I can see there is no deterministic cause and effect mechanism that provides a conclusive outcome. Altman may be right, and then again, he may not be. To assert anything more than a probabilistic conjecture is at best an error of judgment and at worse hyperbole directed at serving some sort of agenda.

Altman follows by asserting that “there is no other credible explanation for the relentless fall in interest rates”. I suspect that there are readers who could provide other explanations. Whether they were credible may be more in the mind of the beholder. This is but one more example of the “in-the-box thinking” that keeps potentially great minds bouncing of the walls of the conceptual framework of worn out economic models. A failure to explore other potential outcomes and ways to reach them is more an indication of intellectual impoverishment than a deterministic economic conclusion.

Altman’s proposed resolution is “A single currency representing 17 separate nations inevitably requires a unified balance sheet behind it and, following that, a form of fiscal union. The time for denying the latter is over.” However, we already have an operating model of many separate governments with a unified balance sheet and some sort of fiscal union; that would be the United States. Clearly the observable evidence shouts out that this remedy is more than a little problematic as well.

Financial Meltdown; Part Two?

How fast things can change; in either direction. I studiously try to avoid thinking in short term time frames. It usually leads to sub-optimal, emotionally driven decision making, rather than longer term strategicially driven decision making. Sometimes, however, near horizon events are compelling enough to warrant shorter term tactical changes of direction.

I do not see the global financial system being on the verge of a financial apocalypse, at the present time. Last year, at this time, presented a distinct possibilty that we were. Nonetheless, there are a number of very troubling signs on the near term horizon. One of these is an increasing probabilty of a sovereign debt crisis acting as a catalyst for global financial meltdown part two.

A number of countries and regions, such as China, Brazil and India, appear to be economically strong and gaining traction. In and of itself, this might lead one to believe in the underlying attractiveness of some portion of capital allocation to these regions. I concur in the the underlying premise of longer term opprtunity in theses regions. However, there are a number of factors which temper my longer term view of these opportunites, and their derivative considerations, to warrant shorter term tactical changes.

Among these considerations is the growing potential of sovereign debt crises acting as a catalyst for "Global Financial Meltdown, Part Two". The United States and the European region, in general, are seriously problematic. Several countries, in particular, are at the leading edge of a potential governmental solvency crisis. These are Greece, Spain, Italy, and England. S & P recently lowered the debt worthiness rating of the second largest economy in the world, Japan. Because of the growing deficit problem in our own country, and a Congress that may not be able too deal with it, even if the U.S. Congress were to be functional, it appears that the United States may not be too far behind with respect to a solvency crisis within the next five to ten years. This is but one of a number of signifcant factors which should prompt some additional strategic thinking away froma "full steam ahead", business as usual mentality.

As should be quite evident from our recent experiences of the 2007-2008 global financial meltdown, as people ruah for the exit, even assets which have strong underlying fundamental strength get painted with the same brush of value deterioration as panic sets in. Indeed, from a longer term perspective, these can be rare opportunities for the investor, assuming the emotional, pyschological, time, and financial abilities to withstand the ensuing trauma and economic dislocation.

In my opinion, a more prudent approach would be to err on the side of caution. After the financial market runups from March 2008, it appears to me unreasonable to expect, and improbable to achieve an immediate followup to this. The chances are that if we have really turned the corner with regard to a sustainable economic turnaround, there will be many years of compelling opportunties ahead. On the other hand, if reconsideration of the financial landscape leads one to believe in at least a reasonable prospect of financial meltdown, part two, it would be prudent to consider a more defensive portfolio allocation.

These are soome of hazards of the economic and investment landscape at the present time. It does nott consider unaccounted for contingencies, which seem to always arise in some form or other. It presents a set of risks, as well as a set of opportunities. In my opinion, the best way in which to deal with this environment is to maintain a vigilent and critical view of ongoing events. It is necessary to be responsive, while not over-reactive, as to how they may impact our longer term strategic outlook. It is important to keep in mind is that no one has a perfect crystal ball, and that because of institutionalized imprudence, there really is no safe harbor left. The most effective management will how well potential risks and rewards can be balanced in the midst of growing global economic dislocations and the financial restructuring resulting thereof.