Cheføkonom Erik Nielsen, UniCredit, skriver i sin søndagsanalyse, at der er et forstyrrende mix af støj og signaler på markedet og i politik. Der har været megen støj om den amerikanske inflation, men det er mere støj end signaler, fordi han ikke tror, der kommer en bekymrende inflation. Der har været megen støj om crypto-valutaer, men denne støj udtrykker også en dyb bekymring for soliditeten i betalingssystemerne. Den største støjkilde er den voksende indflydelse, som Donald Trump har på det republikanske parti, og det betragter Erik Nielsen som den værste udvikling, som et reelt signal, fordi det truer selve grundlaget i det amerikanske demokrati.

Uddrag fra UniCredit:

Noise versus signal

The theme of today’s note is “noise versus signal” and the importance for policymakers to differentiate between the two so as to secure medium- to longer term sustainable growth. For us markets participants, the trick is, of coure, to both diagnose the data and events in order to put them into the right category, and to understand whether policymakers will let the “noise” pass without jumping the gun, and whether they will – or can – react sufficiently to “signals”.

To be sure we start on the same page, “noise” is self-correcting temporary stuff which you, as policymaker or longer term investor, let pass, while traders hopefully take advantage of the short-term trading opportunities that inevitably come with it. In sharp contrast, “signal” is the early warning of a potentially bigger shift, which – if it is in the wrong direction – needs to be addressed with policies.

Whether corrective policies are forthcoming in reaction to such signals, or not, should inform longerterm investors.

I’ll discuss three very different – and yet strangely related – events from this past week, which need to be diagnosed correctly for the sake of the sustainability of the post-pandemic recovery, for the sake of longer- term sustainable growth, and for the sake of Western democracy, no less.

I’m referring to:
■ The big jump in US inflation for April: I’ll argue that it’s “noise” and that you can safely look through it, as indeed key policymakers have made clear they will. But this noise will continue for some months, and could get worse before it gets better. The central banks need to keep their cool.
■ The big moves in Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies this past week on the back of Elon Musk’s statements, as well as the news of prominent hedge fund backing for a new crypto-asset exchange. I’ll argue that the underlying technologies, exciting as they are, have moved from being “positive signals” of opportunities to “negative signal” with potentially serious troublesome externalities, which need to be addressed.
■ The US Republican party’s replacement of Liz Cheney with a Trump-follower in its congressional leadership. I interpret the GOP’s alignment with Trump’s claim that the election was stolen, in spite of the court rulings to the contrary, as the party’s willingness to undercut the judiciary branch of government. If so, this is a signal of immense importance as it threatens the very foundation of US democracy.

Before I start, let me very briefly explain how I see these three very different events as somewhat related:

The fear of inflation among many observers ever since the Fed started QE in 2008, misguided as it was and is, provided fuel for the confusion about this past week’s inflation number in the US. This flawed logic also fueled the excitement about private crypto-currencies as a “stable” alternative to fiat money when Bitcoin was launched in 2009, which – in this voodoo-land of simplistic analysis – is needed as “irresponsible policies” were undermining the usefulness, if not even the legitimacy, of governments and public institutions, including central banks.

And as the trust in governments and public institutions began to erode, the ground became fertilized – helped by the explosion in unregulated social media – for the arrival in the US of the possibly most incompetent, legally and morally compromised, president in modern American history in 2016 on a promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, articulated with previously unheard of disrespect for facts – and for anyone suggesting disagreement with him.

Unfortunately, by the time the good American majority recognized the disaster and voted Trump out in 2020, the destruction of traditional Republican values in the GOP had already infected a critical mass of the GOP leadership.