...strategic macro through the prism at Brookings (Hat tip to Ned McDonnell III who shared a link:
http://www.brookings.edu/research/in...ts-black-swans ):

Eurozoned Out, By: Justin Vasse and Thomas Wright, January 17, 2013, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa.../eurozoned-out

The Eurocrisis has been ongoing for three years and the European Union is beginning to get its act together to build a sustainable monetary union. But, the euro is not out of the woods yet. Real dangers remain. The underlying causes of the crisis have not been addressed. The politics are pulling in a different direction from that required for a solution. Populations on the periphery are suffering from austerity measures and see no end in sight. Those in the so-called core (Germany, Northern Europe) feel exploited. The Eurozone is building new structures but they may not be sufficient to protect it against a future major crisis.

As long as an optimal solution remains elusive, the risks of failure will remain. If failure occurs, it could be devastating to the U.S. economy, surpassing the crisis of 2008. Some estimates project that the collapse of the euro would cause an immediate 10 percent loss of GDP for the global economy, with unemployment in the European Union reaching 20 percent and spiraling inflation on the EUs periphery. The United States and European Union are the two largest economies in the world and they are inextricably linked with each other through trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), and financial markets. For instance, 50 percent of U.S. FDI abroad goes to the European Union while 62 percent of FDI into the United States originates in the European Union. The rest of the world would also be adversely affected, particularly the Middle East and China, the worlds second largest national economy, both of which require robust growth to maintain domestic political stability.

A secondary but related danger is that the construction of a new Eurozone could lead to the fracturing of the European Union through a British withdrawal. The United Kingdom is extremely concerned that further integration in the Eurozone will damage its interests as an E.U. member. Public opinion also favors a renegotiation of the United Kingdoms terms of membership even though such a renegotiation would be strewn with difficulty and would likely fail. In this scenario, the Eurocrisis would remove Americas most reliable European ally from the EU and lead to a weakening of Europes capacity to act as a coherent unit in world affairs.
Free Trade Game Changer, By: Mireya Sols and Justin Vasse, January 17, 2013, http://www.brookings.edu/research/pa...e-game-changer

Pursuing and signing free trade agreements (FTAs) with both the Asia-Pacific region and Europe during your second administration will yield considerable economic and political benefits. World trade is expected to have stalled at a mere 2.5 percent growth in 2012, down from 13.8 percent in 2010. Protectionism is on the rise everywhere, especially in the form of non-tariff barriers. The Doha Round is essentially dead. At the same time, the United States and Europe need to stimulate their economies without resorting to fiscal spending. Furthermore, the United States needs to establish a broader and deeper economic presence in Asia, the worlds most dynamic economic region. Achieving both a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) is the most realistic way to reclaim U.S. economic leadership and make progress towards your promised goal of doubling U.S. exports. Moreover, signing both the TPP and TAFTA would have deep strategic implications. Both deals would reaffirm liberal norms and a leading U.S. role in setting the global rules of the road. The TPP would help define the standard for economic integration in Asia, without necessarily antagonizing China. TAFTA would give American and European businesses an edge in setting industrial standards for tomorrows global economy.
...and, arguably, tactical macro:

Are we seeing the great rotation from bonds to stocks?, January 20, 2013 5:07 pm by Gavyn Davies, Financial Times, http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2013...nds-to-stocks/

The past few weeks have seen a surge of inflows into US equity mutual funds, following many years in which investors have preferred allocating money to bonds rather than stocks. The week ended 9 January saw the fourth largest weekly cash flow into equity mutual funds since 1992, and large investment companies like BlackRock have spoken of a sea change in the opinion of small investors towards equities. Some analysts see this as the start of a great rotation from bonds into stocks, thus reversing the pattern of the last decade.

Others, however, point out that cash inflows from small investors tend to be contrarian indicators, since they are often driven by recent market behaviour, rather than by fundamental valuation, which is what actually determines market returns in the long run.
My conclusions from all this? Recent investor flows into equities, and improving sentiment, are driven mainly by price momentum, which works over short horizons, but says nothing about a longer term rotation from bonds to stocks. In judging medium term returns, we have nothing better to rely upon than fundamental valuation, which also fits better with the theory of finance. At present, valuation indicates that US stocks (though not European stocks) are fairly expensive compared to their own history, while bonds are extremely expensive. Based on valuation, US stocks should therefore out-perform bonds in the medium term, but overall real returns on both assets in the US may be fairly low.