I love alliteration. A game my family plays on long car trips is to see how many words starting with the same letter we can string together and still make sense. I hold the record so far with something like Cape Cod Canal Commission Community College Cheerleading Co-Captain’s Conference Center classroom chatter, or CCCCCCCCCCCcc. Top that!

The topic for today, however, is the budget battle. We now have three budgets out there—the Senate Democrats’, the House Republicans’, and the President’s. While none of them will be passed as presented, we can reasonably define the box that the final budget will fit in. I plan to do a detailed analysis and comparison in the next couple of days.

“Margaret Thatcher RIP,” I tweeted yesterday, but in retrospect, that’s probably the least likely outcome. Wherever she ends up, peace is the last thing I would expect. If heaven, she’ll be offering God suggestions for how to run the world better; if hell, she’ll be planning a revolt. Love her or hate her, there’s no doubt that Margaret Thatcher changed Britain and, to a much lesser extent, the world.

I say “to a much lesser extent” because, as the current European situation plays out, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we’re reaching a Thatcherite breakpoint. To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes of hers, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. Europe, especially the periphery, is now at that point.

Unsurprisingly, last week’s disappointing employment results have generated quite a bit of discussion. The most interesting part for me has been a quantitative finding from Ned Davis Research: if you compute the actual hours worked, given the number of jobs and the increase in the average work week, it’s the equivalent of another 328,000 jobs added. Therefore, the aggregate hours worked—the actual labor input into the economy—actually rose 0.3 percent rather than declining, and the increase is pretty strong, above the 12-month average.

As I mentioned the other day, the past couple of years have seen a slowdown from a strong first quarter to a weaker second quarter, and it seems like this year will be no exception.

This morning’s employment reports were a serious disappointment. Job growth dropped across the board, with an increase of 88,000 in nonfarm payrolls—down from 268,000 in February and less than half the expected 190,000. Although the decline was partially offset by upward revisions in the previous months, there’s no denying this is a significant letdown. Adding to the bad news was a slowing in wage growth, from 2.1 percent to 1.8 percent on an annual basis, with wages staying flat month to month.

U.S. stock markets continue a bull run

[youtube=http://youtu.be/XayxtiL0xvI?rel=0hd=1]

In my response to David Stockman’s op-ed piece in the New York Times, I stated that our problems are, in fact, solvable, and that we are—however slowly and painfully—in the process of solving them.

Not everyone is convinced, to put it mildly, and to state it is not to demonstrate it. Looking through today’s papers, though, I found a couple examples of exactly what I was talking about.

For the past couple of years, we’ve seen a strong first quarter followed by a much weaker second quarter. Initial signs suggest that the pattern may continue this year as well. Should we expect that—and, if so, what would it mean?

First, the good news: the first quarter was very strong. Economists are estimating that growth could have been as strong as 3 percent, which is well above expectations. Private employment continued to grow, with signs of an increasing growth rate over the past year, while government employment recovered somewhat after a tough fourth quarter, as shown in the chart below.

Several people have forwarded me “State-Wrecked: The Corruption of Capitalism in America”—a recent New York Times op-ed by David Stockman, former budget director for President Reagan—and asked for my thoughts. Having read through the piece, it’s actually not that easy to respond, as Mr. Stockman seems to be all over the place. In fact, I’m not sure exactly what he’s saying other than that we’re all doomed.

Trying to pick out the different parts of his argument, I come up with following. First, abandoning the gold standard was a huge mistake and has led to fiscal and moral debasement. Second, the Fed has been the agent of said debasement, printing money to enable the federal government’s wanton spending. Third, Wall Street has captured both the Fed and Washington, D.C., and is using them to enrich itself. Fourth, the 2008 financial crisis would have burned itself out and we would have been fine had the government not intervened. Fifth, our fiscal situation is not only worse than admitted but beyond hope. We cannot solve our present problems and face a future of poverty. In short, under the present system, we’re doomed, and we largely deserve it for past sins. Thus endeth the lesson.

At the end of the quarter, we all look at our statements and evaluate how we’re doing. Depending on the results, we either congratulate ourselves or start to ask what went wrong—and what we can do about it. The implicit assumption here is that we are in control of our investments.

To a great extent that’s true, of course, but the markets are beyond anyone’s control. Trying to manage that uncertainty has been the great quest of modern finance. The management of uncertainty is also characteristic of another financial endeavor: gambling.