Two stories that made the front pages today illustrate both the power and the limits of technology. The first was the accidental prerelease of Google’s disappointing earnings. I was looking at my screen yesterday afternoon, watching the Nasdaq drop, and asking anyone who would listen, “What the heck is happening here?” No one knew at the time, though it became apparent an hour or so later what had happened.

For people who haven’t seen the story yet, the financial printer handling Google’s results report accidentally posted it prematurely to the SEC’s website. Although it was rapidly pulled, the damage had been done. The results were well below expectations, showing declines in profits and in the revenue growth rate. The stock tanked.

Well, because they vote, in this case. The big story today, which made the front pages of the major papers, was the discovery by both campaigns that women vote. The Financial Times (FT) led with “Fiery Obama seizes on debate to put Romney in a bind over female voters,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) led with a more sedate “Candidates Zero In on Women Voters,” and the New York Times (NYT) had a relatively stuffy “Rival Campaigns Intently Pursue Votes of Women.” The underlying story is the same, that women voters—a “minority” that actually constitutes 53 percent (a majority) of the electorate—are now up for grabs, as Romney has narrowed down what had been a large Obama lead to almost even in some polls. One more example of how politics is proving much more fluid than was commonly expected.

Now that the Romney rebound is in full swing, as predicted, I think we can expect to see more pro-Obama coverage in the next round of the horse race. This has already started, with Obama being reported as more energized on the trail, but it will intensify. It is worth noting that despite the Romney rebound, Obama is still ahead by almost two to one in the Nate Silver forecast and in the Intrade market, although both of those numbers are down from their highs.

An interesting couple of days in the news. Yesterday, the lead story in the Financial Times (FT) was “Fears over US banks’ mortgage dominance,” which discussed how the banks are making too much money off the refinancing wave. I have to say, it is interesting to note the change that has occurred when we see this kind of article, as opposed to the ones that focus on failing banks. This follows earlier articles about higher-than-expected profit gains at J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo and suggests that the U.S. financial system is actually getting to be in pretty good shape.

Now, for the aspera. The big news today is the surprise resignation of the CEO of Citicorp and his immediate replacement by another executive. The story made the front page of the major papers, as it should, because it’s a little strange. Supposedly, the board has been discontented for a while, and the CEO just decided to resign. Certainly possible, but it does not usually play out that way. This sort of suggests that there is something else going on, and if so, it should emerge shortly. Perhaps the U.S. financial system, at least as far as the large banks go, isn’t out of the woods yet.

I have been doing some detailed review work on the economy, both historically and going forward, for my presentation at Commonwealth’s upcoming National Conference. As part of that, I put together a chart that I thought was worth sharing as we move closer to the election. The blue line is business uncertainty, and the red line is the U-6 unemployment series. Note how changes in the blue line lead changes in the red line.

Looking at today’s news, there really isn’t a lot that’s new. Election. China/Japan. Europe, Europe, Europe. Nothing we have not already talked about—a lot. So I am going to go back to yesterday to look at what I think may be a big story going forward.

When a major financial paper has not one, not two, but three stories on a particular topic, you have to assume it’s probably a big deal. The Financial Times had three stories on Walmart and American Express’s launch of a new product intended to take on the banks. The product is a separately branded, prepaid card that can be used as a debit card wherever AmEx is accepted. According to the stories, the card is aimed at lower-income households that are tired of or unwilling to pay the fees charged by most banks. Walmart wants to replace the bank for its customers.

The slowing global economy was the big story this morning. It was front-page news in the Financial Times (FT) and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), with “IMF cuts global growth forecasts” and “Global Recession Risk Rises,” respectively. Although it didn’t make the New York Times (NYT) front page, it did make the front of the business section, with “IMF Lowers Its Forecast for Global Growth.”

The short version is that Europe continues to tank, China continues to slow, and the U.S. is at risk because of political uncertainty. The IMF is projecting continued though slower global growth, but that depends on a few criteria: Europe implementing the sovereign bond purchase program successfully and navigating its multiple other problems, China achieving a soft landing, and the U.S. not going over the fiscal cliff. A hefty set of assumptions.

Looking at the stories for the past three days, I see several that hit the protectionism meme from a couple of different directions. The first, “China’s ‘New Left’ Gets Louder” from the weekend Wall Street Journal (WSJ), does not initially appear to be a protectionist piece; it deals with the resurgence of Maoist thought in China, in opposition to the current policies that have created, per the story, inequality and social unrest. What suggests protectionism is the inward focus on the Chinese economic model based on international trade, as well as the presence of the New Left at anti-Japanese rallies. The consensus for free trade has come under threat in the West, as I have written before, but there are also other threats arising that come from the left and from exporting countries. When a trend becomes this broad, it can’t be shut down easily by one country or even a group of countries.

Not that most countries, particularly the U.S., are exactly trying to stop the protectionist trend. Another article from the weekend WSJ worth noting, “Parched in the West, but Shipping Water to China Bale by Bale,” talks about how alfalfa is sold to China in the context of a water shortage. Protectionism justified by resource shortages—you will definitely be hearing this again, and not just from the U.S. See also the weekend Financial Times (FT) story “Chinese tourists steer clear of Japan.” As I have been discussing for a while, this is (already) a trade war if we are lucky and a shooting war if we’re not. Another U.S. protectionist story hit the front page of the WSJ with “China Tech Giant Under Fire” and page 2 of the FT with “US businesses urged to shun Huawei over security fears.” Protectionism under the guise of national security is another story to watch for in the future, with technology as the leading edge.

The big story over the weekend was the surprising drop in the unemployment rate to 7.8 percent, which is the lowest it has been during the Obama presidency. Employment growth remained slow, at 114,000 jobs, but the big story there was that the previous two months were revised upward to much better levels than had been initially estimated. The papers had different focuses, as expected. The Financial Times (FT) cut to the chase with “Obama boosted by US jobs figures” and “Jobs report better than expected but labour growth still slow.” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) led with “Hiring Notches Modest Gains,” followed by “Jobless See Little Improvement in Outlook” (p. A2). The New York Times (NYT) took the opposite tack, with “Jobless Rate Sinks to 7.8%, Its Lowest for Obama’s Term.” Nice to see when the papers wear their hearts on their sleeves.

Surprisingly, the drop in the unemployment rate led to charges, most visibly by Jack Welch, that the government had cooked the numbers. The NYT addressed that directly with “Jobs Report: Cooked or Correct” (p. A17) and “Taming Volatile Data for Jobs Reports” (p. B1); the articles concluded that the numbers were legitimately volatile, not cooked, and explained how the numbers are derived. Apparently, the last time charges like this were widely aired was during the Nixon presidency—an indicator of how wide the political divide is now.

As I predicted, the papers love a good horse race and have been dying to start the Romney rebound story. It is now well under way, with “Romney dominates glum president” on page 2 of the Financial Times (FT), “Romney Presses Edge After Obama Stumbles” on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, and “Campaign Gains a New Intensity in Debate’s Wake” on the front page of the New York Times (NYT). The consensus is that we now have a competitive race again, and reporters could not be happier.

I read the debate transcript again last night and realized something I didn’t mention enough yesterday—–Governor Romney of Massachusetts was back! The severe conservative of the Republican primaries did not show up; instead, we had a moderate, center-right, successful governor who embraced his own health-care reform plan, bragged of working with Democrats, stated categorically there would be no effective tax cut for the wealthy, and said that regulation was necessary and government had a role to play. One wonders what Paul Ryan thought of all that, not to mention all of the Republican primary voters.

Oh, yes—spending cuts! The papers this morning are all about both. The key article, and the one most people (160 million of them) will be talking about shortly is on the front page of the New York Times (NYT), “Payroll Tax Rise for 160 million Is Likely in 2013.” The expiration of the 2-percent payroll tax on earnings will hit everyone immediately in the new year, and it’s not likely to be reinstated.

This is just a part of the fiscal cliff, which is becoming clearer and clearer as the election approaches. Taxes will be going up, and spending will be cut—the question is how. “Way round the fiscal cliff still unclear” on page 2 of the Financial Times (FT) is pretty self-explanatory and leads with the conclusion that Congress is unlikely to resolve the issues in 2012, leaving another potential pending crisis in 2013. Patriotic citizens are glad to contribute more, led, of course, by private equity managers. According to “Private equity managers fear tax hit” in the FT (p. 17), they are attempting to rewrite existing agreements to specify that they will make more money to compensate if their taxes go up. Clients, unsurprisingly, do not seem to be in favor. No doubt, the managers want to make sure they can continue to spend and stimulate the economy, which will then trickle down.