By John Darkow
Monday, December 8, 2025
US private data index suggest ongoing weakness
I've updated my US private data index, originally created to fill the gap caused in public data by the prolonged shutdown. I've also added another constituent time series, the "optimism" index from Real Clear Markets, and I've extended the calculation back to 2010.
Note how the index plunges after the Fed raised interest rates, then started a recovery in late 2023, and fell sharply after Trump came to office. It's still falling.
Doesn't look as if employment will be growing fast any time soon.
And this is what the year-on-year change in the index looks like. One struggles to describe this as a "strong economy".
Observe that all the trends are still down.
The chart below shows the sub-indices in the ISM whole economy index, for prices paid and employment. The surge in inflation appears to be over, but the ISM employment data suggest that employment is weakening. Again, note how it had started picking up only to fall in a heap since January
Saturday, December 6, 2025
Forever chemicals in my blood
From the BBC
As I walked into the medical clinic for my blood test, all I could think about was how to avoid looking like a wimp on camera. I didn't really contemplate what the test would reveal.
I am not great with needles - but as part of a BBC Panorama investigation into so-called forever chemicals, I was being tested to see what level of them I had in my blood. As a mum with two small children, I also wanted to know whether they may be having an impact on my family.
Forever chemicals, or PFAS (per-and poly fluoroalkyl substances), are a group of about 10,000 chemicals. They have been used for decades, in anything from waterproof clothes, to cookware, electronics and medical equipment.
They are persistent pollutants, meaning they don't degrade easily and instead build up in the environment.
They exist in our homes, our water and in our food.
Scientists have linked a small number of them to serious harms, such as infertility and cancer.
Any level of PFAS above 2ng (nanograms) per millilitre of blood is considered to bring health risks, according to Dr Sabine Donnai, a specialist in preventative healthcare. She has never met anyone without at least some PFAS in their bloodstream.
My result was 9.8ng per millilitre.
Dr Donnai delivered the news very gently - but it still hit me hard.
The forever chemicals in my blood would "most likely" have an impact on my health, she told me.
I also learned that, sadly, my body would have rid itself of some of these chemicals during pregnancy, by passing it on to my babies.
That was the moment this investigation stopped being just work and felt very personal.
"They [PFAS levels] would have been even higher before your pregnancies," Dr Donnai told me.
"You will have passed on to your children for sure."
I was worried, but I also felt angry about how this could have happened without me having any knowledge, and very little control.
I wanted to know more about these substances and the health issues they have been linked to.
PFAS chemicals "don't break down", said Stephanie Metzger from the Royal Society of Chemistry.
"Once they get into our bodies, they stick around and build up little-by-little until they start to interfere with our systems.
"Some PFAS have been linked to thyroid problems, some to kidney and liver cancer, and some have been shown to affect fertility."
As for me, it is "unlikely" I will be able to bring my levels to zero, said Dr Donnai.
"But you can reduce it over the next two or three years with a strategy."
She suggested I increase my fibre intake - either by eating more oats, barley, beans, nuts and seeds, or by taking supplements of gel-forming fibre. Increased fibre in our diet is "the strongest evidence to date that might help", she said.
If I did these things, menstruation would also help reduce my current PFAS levels over time, she added.
She also told me to identify the biggest sources of exposure in my home - replace my non-stick cookware with ceramic, stainless steel or cast iron alternatives, use a water filter and switch to eco-friendly cleaning products which are transparent about being PFAS-free.
Look for PFAS-free make-up and hair products and avoid ingredients with "fluoro" or "PTFE" in the name, she added.
Similar advice was given to mum-to-be Pam Kavanagh, who we visited at home in Berkshire with Dr Federica Amati of Imperial College London.
Pam was eager to know how to reduce the possible household risks of PFAS to her baby - and Dr Amati has studied how babies and children can be affected by forever chemicals.
"When we drink tap water, we are, depending on where you live, at varying levels of exposure to PFAS," Dr Amati said.
Just buying a water filter can help to reduce exposure, she said - whether that is a jug with a filter in it, or a filter installed into the actual sink.
Any non-stick frying pans with scratches on them should be thrown out, Dr Amati advised.
Stainless steel or ceramic pans "are far safer", she said.
Carpets can be treated with PFAS to make them more stain resistant, she added, suggesting that people vacuum their carpets every day.
"Making sure you ventilate the room by opening the windows every single day is a good idea [because] it really collects as house dust," she added
Dr Amati then turned to children's clothing. Pam was left "speechless" to discover that waterproof or stain-resistant clothing can contain PFAS. Manufacturers are under no obligation to disclose this information.
Some children's products are not PFAS-free, despite claiming to be, the BBC learned.
We found PFAS in a children's coat we bought from the Mountain Warehouse website a few months ago, even though the site says that none of its children's products are made with forever chemicals.
If fabrics containing PFAS come into "prolonged contact with human skin" there's the potential the chemicals can be absorbed across the skin, explained Prof Stuart Harrad at the University of Birmingham, who tested the coat for us.
To reduce the risk, opt for untreated fabrics and avoid "waterproof" or "stain-repellent" labels unless they have a PFAS-free certification, said Dr Donnai.
This piece on Wikipedia shows how ubiquitous and how dangerous PFAs are.
Why don't we ban their manufacture? Why do you think? Because of money. Because of "donations" from companies to politicians. Because lobbyists stop action. It's the same with microplastics or nanoplastics. We know they are deadly. But we go on producing them. We know burning fossil fuels is leading to climate catastrophe. But we allow oil and gas companies to pervert our political system, and even invite their representatives and lobbyists to the COP conferences. We know that pesticides are leading to insectageddon, yet still we do not act. Ask yourself why.
 |
| Source: Wikipedia |
World PMI very sluggish
This is my calculation of world manufacturing PMI, compared with J.P. Morgan's calculation. I only started keeping the J.P. Morgan data in 2011, which is why I needed to make my own calculation to understand previous cycles. Where I don't have back data for individual countries, I have used manufacturing business confidence, and estimated what each country's PMI would have been if it had been calculated by IHS Markit (which used to publish PMI data before S&P Global took over.) In some cases, I have smoothed the input series (some, such as ABSA's PMI for South Africa, or the AIG PMI for Australia or Canada's Ivey survey, are very "spiky", i.e., have large month-to-month random errors.) In other cases, I have extreme-adjusted the series before I used them to calculate my estimate of world PMI. This mostly, in effect, reduced the down spike from COVID, but had some small effects elsewhere.
Why this chart is interesting is because, hitherto, in all recoveries, from deep recessions or shallower slow-downs, the rebound has been sharp. This cycle, it's been a slow, and not especially steady ascent. Observe that it actually began a steep-ish recovery at the end of 2023, before it fizzled out.
Obviously, Trump's tariff tango has something to do with this, but I suspect there's more to it. Inflation isn't falling like it should be when the economy is so sluggish, and part of the reason for that is the growth of monopoly and oligopoly is the US, and the West's determination to stop China exporting its deflation to the world, particularly in cars, solar panels and batteries, via tariffs and quotas. Why was inflation lower before Covid, when manufacturing was just as concentrated as it is now? Because everybody expected inflation to remain low. But in the Covid rebound, firms found that they could indulge in a bit of "greedflation", and pushed up their margins, and expectations have accordingly shifted. Monopolies and oligopolies now know they can shove up prices every year by more than they used to, and get away with it. To use more technical terms, inflation over the last few years has been more cost-push than demand driven.
Sluggish growth may well continue, even though Europe is clearly (finally) recovering. But higher inflation means that Central Banks will be reluctant (=slow) to cut interest rates. And if the AI bubble pops, the US will go into recession. If that happens, the US dollar will plunge, pushing other economies themselves into slow-downs or recession.
Of course, happy days may be here again. But I hae me doots.
Use of AI suddenly drops
From Futurism
After three years of unprecedented tech spending and nonstop hype, the demand for AI in the workplace seems to be drying up fast.
Referencing data from a recent US Census Bureau survey, The Economist estimated that the percentage of Americans using AI to “produce goods and services” at large companies rang in at a modest 11 percent in October, the latest available survey date. It’s not just that the figure is a bit soggy for the supposedly world-changing technology, but that it’s suddenly moving in the wrong direction: the financial publication notes that the percentage is actually down from 12 percent in the prior survey, conducted two weeks previously.
Looking at the big picture doesn’t make it any prettier. Back in March, the number of businesses with 100-249 employees that reported not using AI within the last two weeks stood at 74.1 percent. The survey results show a steady uptick in “no” results over the past few months, culminating in a dreadful 81.4 percent as of the latest poll.
For big corporations with over 250 employees, meanwhile, the “no” reports have crept up to 68.6 percent, up from the year’s low of 62.4 percent recorded in February.
The data is nothing if not a major red flag for an industry which is expected to spend $5 trillion on AI infrastructure between now and 2030. To do so will require a massive increase in revenue from both business and personal AI use — the latter of which has been lagging.
Unfortunately for the tech industry, enterprise AI customers aren’t picking up the slack. Though various non-government surveys cited by The Economist varied wildly in their numbers, they all seemed to spell out the same results: AI remains more of an experimental plaything in the workplace than a serious driver of productivity.
One economist at Stanford who tracks the use of generative AI at work found a major drop in usage month to month: though 46 percent of respondents reported using the tech in June, that number had fallen to 37 percent by September. Another estimate, by Fintech firm Ramp, found that AI use at American corporations went through the roof earlier in 2025 to around 40 percent, but has since plateaued.
The results follow a disappointing summer for AI advancements, with models like OpenAI’s GPT-5 falling short of expected performance gains. Still, the cracks in enterprise AI adoption had begun to show as early as December of 2024, when an EY pulse survey of 500 senior executives found over half felt they were “failing in their role” of supporting AI in their companies.
Instead, executives pointed to a creep of “AI fatigue” among the rank and file — which a year of AI horrors probably hasn’t helped.
With a $600 billion gulf between AI revenue and AI spending, an immense amount is riding on whether the tech can start bringing home the bacon.
My wild and woolly guess: it's not going to bring home the bacon. And that's bad news for the US economy, because most of the rise in spending recently has been on AI.
Friday, December 5, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)