Ok, so we all know what the Hurricane Harvey “silver lining” is, right?
If not, you can read all about it here, or you can simply extrapolate from this Sunday soundbite from Mnuchin who spoke to Fox News:
MNUCHIN SAYS HARVEY AID SHOULD BE TIED TO RAISING DEBT LIMIT
— Heisenberg Report (@heisenbergrpt) September 3, 2017
Here are the full highlights from Axios:
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told “Fox News Sunday” that Congress must tie Harvey recovery funding to a clean debt ceiling rise, or else the money intended for Harvey might not arrive.
“Prior to Harvey I’ve said, you know, we have enough funding to go through the end of September… with Harvey its moved the situation up earlier,” he said.
- On whether Trump’s threat to shut down the government over the border wall is out the window: “I can’t really comment on if it’s out the window or not out the window,” but priority now is Harvey.
- On whether tax reform will blow a hole in the national debt: “We want to make sure we can pay for things, but the way we’re going to pay for things is with economic growth.” He said he thinks growth will likely be higher than the models predict.
- So will it be revenue neutral? “What we’ve said is we believe in dynamic scoring.”
In other words: not only has Harvey made it more likely that the debt ceiling will be raised simply by virtue of the bad optics for anyone who opposes a bill with disaster relief attached to it, but also because it makes the funding crunch more acute, rendering the situation even more urgent than it already was.
If you’re not in Texas or if you’re just a cold-hearted, trader cynic who only worries about your P&L, then that’s probably all you care about here, because the sooner the debt ceiling gets raised, the sooner you can cross “technical U.S. default” off your “tail risk” list.
Of course as is usually the case with catastrophic natural disasters, it’s not all good news.
“Early damage estimates on Hurricane Harvey range from large hurricanes such as Andrew and Sandy ($53bn and $76bn, respectively) to as high as Hurricane Katrina ($160bn in 2017 dollars),” Barclays writes, in a new note assessing the economic impact from the storm. They continue: “[If we assume the latter], losses of this amount would put the costs from Harvey at or above every hurricane to strike the US in recent decades.”
(Barclays)
Obviously, trying to estimate the damages and the costs is an exercise in futility at this juncture (probably better to call it a “fool’s errand”). And besides, “damages” don’t translate directly into “economic costs.” Plus, there’s a kind of give-and-take here for the economy where that which is lost in the lead up to the storm and in the storm itself, is to a certain extent regained in the aftermath because after all, someone has to clean all the shit up.
So probably the best we can do in terms of assessing the impact on widely followed economic indicators is simply to observe how those indicators behaved during previous storms and use Katrina as a best-guess proxy. Here’s Barclays again:
Disruptions to the flow of income (eg, GDP) occur in the short run because of the halting or trimming of production of some industries and through declines in compensation of employees in that industry. Industrial production, jobless claims, and payrolls may all reflect disruptions to the flow of income. However, these may be offset to some degree by increased activity in cleanup, repair, health care and other social assistance. In addition, retail sales and consumption may be boosted prior to a storm as households improve their preparedness, which may then be followed by declines in each immediately following the event. The latter effect may be larger, depending on how much and how long activity is disrupted after the hurricane. Eventually, retail sales and consumption spending are likely to pick up as the situation normalizes.
And here are the charts:
(Barclays)
Clearly, the old “the bigger they are” adage applies here, and this one was pretty… well… pretty “bigly.”
As Barclays goes on to say, those visuals represent “a simple event study” but again, that’s probably the best we can do here.
On inflation, the bank notes that if you look at gasoline futures and extrapolate, what you come away with for CPI inflation is “a 0.1- 0.2pp rise in headline inflation through November, then a reversal thereafter.”
So… some artificially inflated prints in the months ahead of the December Fed meeting and a prompt crash back to reality right as the committee is considering whether to try and squeeze in another hike. Perfect.
***************
The two best pieces of evidence that the gods has a wicked sense of humor:
1) Putting most of the world’s oil in the middle east.
2) Putting the southern states in the direct path of climate change..
Kudos for those two humorous ironies. Strokes of genius.
You missed the third: Putting Trump in the Oval.
I am not laughing you your item #2.
– Murphy
It gets a little funnier every time I hear an irresponsible rube deny climate change. Especially with Murphy’s Law ruling in the southern states, as it does so well.
RTJR – Oh, I completely believe in climate change! I don’t like your insult to southern states.
Damn Yankees are such blockheads.
– Murphy
A wildly disproportionate number of those in the Southern states are climate change deniers. That is simply a fact. Regardless of whether you are or not. When was the last time you tried to help wake up a denier?
Your comment is in itself a denial of the rampant irresponsibility found in the rube-riddled southern states. The fact that the southern states now find themselves on the front line of the consequences is sweet poetic justice. We can only hope this irony will help, at least somewhat, to end that uncivil irresponsibility.
First step is to end the denials. Only then can we begin to behave responsibly.
Wow. Anyone who makes a completely asinine claim that most deniers of climate change live in the south is a complete ASS. I don’t even care why you think that is factual. It is ridiculous and speaking of uncivil, you would not be welcome in the south with that divisive unfriendly opinion. Get off your preachy soapbox, Fool.
Murphy, I was reflecting on the same point. When one considers that, amongst other non-southern states, Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Indiana and Idaho, went to Trump, climate change denial is not a southern state mind-state. Also, of the Southern coastal states, 3,867,816 Texans, 4,485,745 Floridians, 779,535 Louisianans, 462,001 Mississippians, 718,084 Alabamians, 849,469 North Carolinians, and 2,162,074 South Carolinians voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. It appears to me that climate change denying is not sovereign state related. Rather, it’s politics, education and new source related.
Marty,
My original comment was addressing a geographical phenomenon, and was not inferring to politics. That, for whatever reason, the higher concentrations of climate change deniers is located in the southern states.
If climate change denial were a weather map, the southern states would show up as dark red.
Your assumption is that a vote for Trump equals a climate change denier. It might to some degree, although there were many other issues involved in the race, but politics is a different subject than the geographical phenomenon I was referring to..
Except to the extent that the mentality and education level of most climate deniers does tend to equal that of most Trump supporters.
My observation spoke more to geography, and I find it ironic that that same geography now finds itself on the front-line of the consequences of their denials.
And that hopefully something productive may come of it. The beginning of the end of these rampant irresponsible denials.
I did not say “most,” I said “wildly disproportionate.” The undeniability of this fact is the reason why you needed to change what I said.
Southerners disproportionately deny climate change, and that is irresponsible behavior, and it needs to change. It’s the same mentality the created Trump’s base support. And again, it’s not only in the southern states, but it disproportionately is, and wildly so.
Your defensiveness indicates you are not trying to help solve the problem, but instead attempting to excuse it away, which serves only to worsen. My only desire is to help solve the problem, and that begins with the ending of denials.
Perhaps the one silver-lining from Harvey is that it will serve as a wake-up call.
Alas, so far all I’m seeing is more denials and defensiveness.
Or to put it another way:
The “concentration” of the deniers is higher in the U.S. southern states than it is elsewhere.
Hopefully, Harvey will help to dilute that concentration somewhat.
Only then can we all start to behave responsibly, together.
State concentration of climate change deniers is higher in states where a higher concentration of republicans reside versus democrats.
Step 1:
For the most part Republicans are climate change deniers.
How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html?_r=0
Step 2:
A state by state view of the 2016 Presidential Election Results
http://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/
I am having trouble following your conversation with yourself — sounds like you are backing off of your first comment and then making some other feeble excuse for the comment and then you come back with some definition that is weak at best then you come back with the same basic comment about where you think the deniers live in the U.S. – so confusing.
Let me make my point 100% clear to you. YOU ARE AN UNINFORMED IDIOT.
There can be a concentration of climate deniers in more than one type of grouping; there can be a higher number of deniers in the south compared to the north, AND there can be a higher number of deniers among republicans than democrats, AND there can be more deniers in the uneducated than the educated. They are not mutually exclusive. Why has everyone jumped on RTIR?
RTJR, to be sure you recognize my last comment was directed to you specifically. MARTY is absolutely correct in his research and resulting opinion. Your fearless President Assface, is the leader of the deniers of climate change. How embarrassing is that for all your Yankee friends? Are they also Republican?
Good job, MARTY! 🙂
I speak of ending denial and coming together to help solve an existential threat to all of us.
Your type spews only hate.
” President Assface,” are you serious?
RTJR, you are really a troll, right? You more or less accuse me of dividing and hate and all that crap while you began this “debate” with your bullshit southern denier statement and you don’t see the irony in that? So you dismiss the opinion of anyone who does happen to not believe in climate change as being incorrect and if they just would all agree with you there would be no division on this subject? Is that about it? HAHAHA!
Oh, and yes, I am very serious.
It’s been indisputably proven that the Crucifixion of Christ was due to Climate Change. Yet there are still deniers. All hurricanes, tornadoes, and mass shootings are due to climate change. How possibly can people still deny it? They’re so stupid, they just MUST be southern rednecks. And Trump voters. If you’re stupid, you must be a Trumper. I know, duh.
On a completely unrelated note, 94.2% of all southern U.S. residents deny that there was a moon landing.
I don’t know about these things. All I know is that we have to Blame Bush. (Right? Or have we moved on to Trump now?)
Anon, so you KNOW some statistic that cites 94.shit% of ALL southern residents deny moon landing….show me. stupid.
Here’s a true statement for you: all rednecks may live in the south but not all southerners are rednecks. Another truth: in your one ignorant sentence, you pissed off all southerners and all rednecks.
It’s not complicated. This statement stands on its own. Marty and Murphy will tell you.
“Every Trumper is stupid, and every stupid person is a Trumper.”
And all that science about “cycles” of climate – it’s just right wing rhetoric. And that science that says that Antarctic shelf melts are not due to “climate”, but actually due to warm currents – i.e., core/crust earth temperature events … ergo, internal, not atmospheric heating … NOT man made – must obviously be Republican, because to say such a thing means one hates the planet and wants to kill the poor. And wants to crucify Jesus. And hates women and all minorities. And in defiance of Christ does not embrace homosexual make-out marathons in army barracks.
And we could fix it all, if we would just disregard all those Hillary felonies and make her President. It may not be too late. I’m sure John Roberts has lowered his price.
And anyone who denies the divine propriety of this must be a Southerner. Clearer now?
YOU are clearly and completely out of your mind. Nobody said any of that stupid shit you wrote! I don’t agree with 99% of it. 🙂
I can assume neither does Marty, who is a lot smarter than either of us!
Why in the hell do you and others keep dragging Hillary into any discussions and btw, PROVE one felony. Go ahead, dare ya, just one! hahaha! And as for you, how about this, People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Murphy, I’m not sure which Anonymous is writing what for which reason. It seems to me that another commentator took a shot at Southerners being deniers of climate change and wrote of the gods, irony and the humor of it all. Then you to countered to that comment, and I basically added that those opposed to the policy were concentrated with Republicans spread through all states. Then Anonymous at 2:11pm appeared and wrote, among other things, “Marty and Murphy will tell you.” Right, so here’s what I’ll tell you: I have no earthly idea what Anonymous at 2:11pm intended to convey, but given the manner in which he wrote his words, this will be the last comment on any comment that has a syntax of that ilk from any author. Here’s why: There so many excellent commentators here have an exchange with, why spend valuable time with comments like that of Anonymous at 2:11pm’s?
That’s that.
Next case.
Marty! YES! OK, the Anonymous at 10:26am was me and I have no clue as to how it got tagged with that other persons “name” and “icon” but I didn’t care enough to explain it then. HA! And the 2:11 ad 2:21 have to be the same person (note, 2:21am and then later at 2:11pm – up all night could explain the insanity of the posting HA!)
Other than that glitch at 10:26am on my comment – which should have had MURPHY at the top – anything else I have posted have that now – or were signed.
I’ve had an epiphany. After watching you two I have decided to endorse homosexual love. Your liberated liberal lovefest is inspiring and heartwarming.
There’s hope for me yet it seems.
Anonymous at 9:36
NEVER ASSUME.
Good point. I don’t assume that years ago it emerged that I was spotting Marty 12 to 15 IQ points. Even though that’s not what you assumed.
Anonymous at 9:36