Today’s News November 7, 2015

  • Is Washington Preparing For World War III?

    Submitted by Patrick Martin via WSWS.org,

    The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning.

    Three congressional hearings Tuesday demonstrated this reality. In the morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a lengthy hearing on cyberwarfare. In the afternoon, a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee discussed the present size and deployment of the US fleet of aircraft carriers, while another subcommittee of the same panel discussed the modernization of US nuclear weapons.

    We will provide a more detailed account of these hearings, which were attended by a WSWS reporter. But certain preliminary observations can be made.

    None of the hearings discussed the broader implications of the US preparations for war, or what a major war between nuclear-armed powers would mean for the survival of the human race, and even of life on our planet. On the contrary, the hearings were examples of what might be called the routinization of World War III. A US war with China and/or Russia was taken as given, and the testimony of witnesses and questions from senators and representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, concerned the best methods for prevailing in such a conflict.

    The hearings were component parts of an ongoing process. The witnesses referred to their past writings and statements. The senators and representatives referred to previous testimony by other witnesses. In other words, the preparations for world war, using cyber weapons, aircraft carriers, bombers, missiles and the rest of a vast array of weaponry, have been under way for a protracted period of time. They are not a response to recent events, whether in the South China Sea, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else.

    Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades. The danger of terrorism, hyped incessantly for the purposes of stampeding public opinion, was downplayed and to some extent discounted. At one point in the Senate hearing on cyberwarfare, in response to a direct question from Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the panel witnesses all declared that their greatest concern was nation-states, not terrorists.

    One of the witnesses at that hearing was Dr. Peter W. Singer, listed as a “Strategist and Senior Fellow” for New America, a Washington think tank. He titled his presentation, “The Lessons of World War 3.” He began his prepared statement with the following description of that imagined conflict:

    “US and Chinese warships battle at sea, firing everything from cannons to cruise missiles to lasers. Stealthy Russian and American fighter jets dogfight in the air, with robotic drones flying as their wingmen. Hackers in Shanghai and Silicon Valley duel in digital playgrounds. And fights in outer space decide who wins below on Earth. Are these scenes from a novel or what could actually take place in the real world the day after tomorrow? The answer is both.”

    None of the hearings saw any debate about either the likelihood of a major war or the necessity of winning that war. No one challenged the assumption that “victory” in a world war between nuclear-armed powers is a meaningful concept. The discussion was entirely devoted to what technologies, assets and human resources were required for the US military to prevail.

    This was just as true for the Democratic senators and representatives as for their Republican counterparts. By custom, the two parties are seated on opposite sides of the committee or subcommittee chairmen. Without that arrangement, there would be no way of detecting, from their questions and expressions of opinion, which party they belonged to.

    Contrary to the media portrayal of Washington as deeply divided between parties with intransigently opposed political outlooks, there was bipartisan agreement on this most fundamental of issues, the preparation of a new imperialist world war.

    The unanimity of the political representatives of big business by no means suggests that there are no obstacles in the path of this drive to war. Each of the hearings grappled, in different ways, with the profound crisis confronting American imperialism. This crisis has two major components: the declining economic power of the United States compared to its major rivals, and the internal contradictions of American society, with the deepening alienation of the working class and particularly the youth.

    At the House subcommittee hearing on aircraft carriers, the chairman noted that one of the witnesses, a top Navy admiral, had expressed concern over having “an 11-carrier navy in a 15-carrier world.” There were so many challenges confronting Washington, he continued, that what was really needed was a navy of 21 aircraft carriers—double the present size, and one that would bankrupt even a country with far more resources than the United States.

    The Senate hearing on cybersecurity touched briefly on the internal challenge to American militarism. The lead witness, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency and former head of the Pentagon’s CyberCommand, bemoaned the effect of leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden and Army private Chelsea Manning, declaring that “insider attacks” were one of the most serious threats facing the US military.

    Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia asked him directly, referring to Snowden, “Should we treat him as a traitor?” Alexander responded, “He should be treated as a traitor and tried as such.” Manchin nodded heartily, in evident agreement.

    While the witnesses and senators chose to use the names of Snowden and Manning to personify the “enemy within,” they were clearly conscious that the domestic opposition to war is far broader than a few individual whistleblowers.

    This is not a matter simply of the deep-seated revulsion among working people in response to 14 years of bloody imperialist interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and across North Africa, important as that is.

    A war between the United States and a major power like China or Russia, even if it were possible to prevent its escalation into an all-out nuclear exchange, would involve a colossal mobilization of the resources of American society, both economic and human. It would mean further dramatic reductions in the living standards of the American people, combined with a huge blood toll that would inevitably fall mainly on the children of the working class.

    Ever since the Vietnam War, the US military has operated as an all-volunteer force, avoiding conscription, which provoked widespread opposition and direct defiance in the 1960s and early 1970s. A non-nuclear war with China or Russia would mean the restoration of the draft and bring the human cost of war home to every family in America.

    Under those conditions, no matter how great the buildup of police powers and the resort to repressive measures against antiwar sentiments, the stability of American society would be put to the test. The US ruling elite is deeply afraid of the political consequences. And it should be.

  • Artist's Impression Of The Obama War Memorial

    We’re sending 50 — count them, 50 — special operations soldiers to Syria, and they will have ‘no combat role,’ the president says,” said Mr. McCain. “Well, what are they being sent there for? To be recreation officers? You’re in a combat zone, and to say they’re not in combat is absurd.”

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Cops Around The Country Quietly Begin Rebelling Against The Drug War

    Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

     It is a rare occurrence when police officers in America organize to undermine the very Drug War they vociferously fight for politicians. Police Chief Leonard Campanello of the Gloucester, Massachusetts Police Department, however, did just that earlier this year when he decided to treat — not arrest — heroin addicts who came to his department seeking help. His revolutionary “ANGEL” program has proven successful for addicts and their families in Gloucester, but it has also inspired other departments across the country to adopt similar programs amid growing officer fatigue over the ineffectual arrest and incarceration of addicts.

    In May, Campanello announced via Facebook that his department would adopt the new policy of treatment over arrest (note: it does not apply to individuals caught in possession of drugs who do not turn themselves in). The move was met with widespread praise and the new policy was officially enacted in June. Treatment centers and pharmacies have partnered with the police department to ensure addicts receive the care they need.

    As the police department’s website explains:

    “If an addict comes into the Gloucester Police Department and asks for help, an officer will take them to the Addison Gilbert Hospital, where they will be paired with a volunteer ‘ANGEL’ who will help guide them through the process. We have partnered with more than a dozen additional treatment centers to ensure that our patients receive the care and treatment they deserve not in days or weeks, but immediately.

     

    “If you have drugs or drug paraphernalia on you, we will dispose of it for you. You will not be arrested. You will not be charged with a crime. You will not be jailed.

     

    “All you have to do is come to the police station and ask for help. We are here to do just that.

    Five months since the program launched, Campanello reports positive results: over 260 addicts have been placed in treatment. This summer, shoplifting, breaking and entering, and larceny dropped 23% from the same period last year. “We are seeing real people get the lives back,” he said. “And if we see a reduction in crime and cost savings that is a great bonus.”

    Other police officers are following suit. John Rosenthal is the co-founder of Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative, a nonprofit that helps police departments around the country adopt programs similar to Gloucester’s. Rosenthal says almost 40 departments in nine states (Connecticut, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) have adopted at least some aspects of the program, and 90 more departments want to get involved.

    Though the specifics of the programs vary, they all aim to treat addicts. Police are even participating through Veterans Affairs, as opiate addiction is high among veterans.

    The program, which Campanello has funded with money seized during drug arrests, has been well-received by departments that implement similar strategies. John Gill, a police officer in Scarborough, Maine, said his local police station saw a “profound” change. He credits Gloucester with the courage to go through with it:

    It was the Gloucester ANGEL project which showed us that a relatively modest-sized police agency could have a real impact. And like Gloucester, we couldn’t afford to wait until the perfect solution came along.”

    Opiate addiction has skyrocketed in the United States in recent years. In 2013, 517,000 were abusing heroin — a 150% increase from 2007 — and deaths due to heroin tripled in that same period of time. Addiction has spiked across multiple demographics, though 90% of first-time users are white. Fully 75% of new heroin addicts previously used prescription drugs, implicating the legal drug industry, as well. This epidemic has prompted action by various government entities: from the DEA’s crackdown on pharmaceutical over-prescription to President Obama’s recently announced plan to reduce addiction and improve access to treatment. Though the president commuted the sentences of 46 drug offenders over the summer, 48.4% of the prison population is incarcerated for narcotics offenses — proving the Drug War is still very much in effect.

    So far, it appears the most expedient method to reduce drug arrests and improve treatment options comes from officers employing ANGEL-like policies on the ground.

    We’re absolutely, unequivocally thrilled by the reception of this program by law enforcement,” said Rosenthal. “Police chiefs are recognizing we can’t arrest our way out of this, that this is a disease and not a crime and that people suffering from this disease need treatment, not jail.”

  • US Taxpayer Set To Bank-Roll Biggest Billionaire Builders

    Just days after the potential for more capital injections for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) are admitted to, we discover another 'scheme' to enrich the 'have-yachts' on the backs of the 'have-nots'.

    At the behest of the government, apparently to provide 'affordable' housing for the least creditworthy individuals – just as they did in the not-so-distant past to such cataclysmic ends, GSE's "commitment to providing critical financing for multi-family housing in all markets," has, as Bloomberg reports, enabled billionaires such as Starwood's Barry Sternlicht and Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzmann to cheaply finance two transactions totaling more than $10 billion, implicitly subsidized by the US taxpayer. Even more ironic is that the provision of this 'cheap debt' is helping sustain just the unaffordable surges in rents and prices that are forcing Milennials to live with their parents for longer.

    Who do billionaires turn to when they want to buy apartment complexes? The U.S. taxpayer. Bloomberg explains…

    Barry Sternlicht’s Starwood Capital Group and Stephen Schwarzman’s Blackstone Group LP are in talks with Freddie Mac to finance two transactions totaling more than $10 billion, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations. Those discussions come after the government-owned mortgage giant already agreed to back Lone Star Funds’ $7.6 billion deal to buy Home Properties Inc. and Brookfield Asset Management Inc.’s $2.5 billion takeover of Associated Estates Realty Corp.

     

    The mortgage guarantor — which along with its larger counterpart Fannie Mae was rescued in a $187.5 billion taxpayer bailout in 2008 — is boosting its multifamily lending as their regulator eases restrictions on that part of their business. Cheap debt from the U.S.-backed companies is helping sustain a five-year surge in values for apartment buildings and fueling some of the biggest real estate deals since the financial crisis.

     

    “They wield a very big stick,” said John Levy, a principal at a real estate investment banking firm in Richmond, Virginia, that bears his name. “It takes more time and it’s going to be more expensive” to get transactions done without the two companies, which can lend at rock-bottom rates because their deals have implicit government backing.

    And so there we have it – the GSEs are providing 'cheap' loans to the extremely wealthy (with the US taxpayer's shoulders bearingthe weight of the gap between the underlying risk of the loan and the free money being offered).

    Freddie Mac’s deals are getting bigger as its regulator expands the definition of affordable housing, enabling the company to make more loans. Properties that are deemed affordable by the Federal Housing Finance Agency are exempt from a $30 billion cap that limits how much the government-sponsored entities can lend to apartment landlords each year.

     

    “We’re helping to push more capital into this part of multifamily,” said David Brickman, head of multifamily operations at McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac. “A very small percentage of what we’re doing is luxury.”

     

    Freddie Mac provided $34.1 billion for multifamily acquisitions and refinancings this year through September, more than double the $14.1 billion for the same period in 2014.

    So if you wondered why you could not afford to rent (let alone buy) a home, it's not just the Chinese hot money flows, it's an implicit subsidy by the US government (using US taxpayer funds)

    Other than the government-sponsored companies, there aren’t many lenders that have the capacity to fund a purchase as large as Blackstone’s, according to Sam Chandan, president of Chandan Economics, a provider of real estate data and analysis.

     

    “You could argue convincingly that the deal wouldn’t get done in its current form without agency financing in the market,” he said.

    Will they never learn?

    U.S. multifamily-building prices are 33 percent higher than they were at the prior peak in 2007, according to Moody’s Investors Service and Real Capital Analytics Inc., a jump stoked partly by the abundant financing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

     

    That’s raised concerns that a bubble is forming that might pop when interest rates rise, according to Levy, the investment banker.

     

    Taxpayers could be on the hook for losses incurred by the mortgage companies if apartment values were to fall sharply.

    Detractors argue that providing subsidized loans to deep-pocketed real estate investors isn’t in line with the mandate of the government-sponsored entities.

    "If the purpose of the GSEs is to provide liquidity to the secondary mortgage market, in an effort to promote homeownership, a focus on funding multifamily rental properties seems inappropriate,” Josh Rosner, an analyst at research firm Graham Fisher & Co., said in an e-mail. “This approach only serves to deliver a public subsidy to private players.”

     

    Brickman said Freddie Mac doesn’t view its business through the prism of the institutions it lends to.

     

    “Our focus in on supporting middle-income and workforce housing,” he said. “Who owns it is somewhat irrelevant.”

    Yeah it's irrelevant who gains from the US taxpayer subsidy, as long as the number of home units is rising…

  • These Are The 20 Worst Cities In The US – Spot The Common Theme

    A new analysis by WalletHub has compared and classified 1,268 of America’s small cities in the U.S. to find the ones where residents don’t have to give up much by avoiding the “bright lights” and the soaring rent. Its data set include a total of 22 metrics, ranging from housing costs to school-system quality to the number of restaurants per capita.

    Why live in a small city? Inevitably, life in a small city demands some tradeoffs such as shorter business hours, a heavier reliance on cars and fewer dating opportunities.  It does bring benefits – tighter communities, less competition, shorter commutes and an actual backyard with a white picket fence. And from a purely financial standpoint, living in a small city creates a sense of greater wealth because of cheaper cost of living — one of the main draws for in-movers, especially those seeking to raise a family.

    According to the Economic Policy Institute, a two-parent, two-child family would need to earn $49,114 a year “to secure an adequate but modest living standard” in Morristown, Tenn., compared with $106,493 in Washington. So even with a lighter wallet, a family or soloist can enjoy a comparable, or even better, quality of life for much less in a cozy place like Morristown.

    What was the full ranking methodology?

    To find the best small cities in America, WalletHub’s analysts compared 1,268 cities across four key dimensions: 1) Affordability, 2) Economic Health, 3) Education & Health and 4) Quality of Life. For our sample, we chose cities with a population size between 25,000 and 100,000 residents. “City” refers to city proper and excludes surrounding metro areas. Next, it compiled 22 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights.

    To obtain the final rankings, a score between 0 and 100 was attributed to each metric. The weighted sum of the scores was then calculated and used the overall result to rank the cities. Together, the points attributed to the four major dimensions add up to 100 points.

    The dimensions are as follows:

    Affordability – Total Points: 25

    • Housing Costs ((median annual household income divided by median house price) plus (median annual household income divided by median price of rent): Full Weight (~8.33 Points)
    • Cost of Living: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)
    • Homeownership Rate: Full Weight (~8.33 Points)

    Economic Health – Total Points: 25

    • Unemployment Rate: Full Weight (~5 Points)
    • Median Household Income: Full Weight (~5 Points)
    • Percentage of Residents below Poverty Level: Full Weight (~5 Points)
    • Population Growth: Full Weight (~5 Points)
    • Income Growth: Full Weight (~5 Points)

    Education & Health – Total Points: 25

    • School-System Quality (WalletHub’s “Best & Worst School Systems” Ranking): Full Weight (~6.25 Points)
    • Percentage of Residents with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher: Full Weight (~6.25 Points)
    • Percentage of Population with Health-Insurance Coverage: Full Weight (~6.25 Points)
    • Number of Pediatricians per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~6.25 Points)

    Quality of Life – Total Points: 25

    • Average Commute Time: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Percentage of Residents Who Walk to Work: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Mean Hours Worked per Week: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Number of Restaurants per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Number of Bars per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Number of Coffee Shops per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Number of Museums per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Number of Fitness Centers per 100,000 Residents: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Percentage of Millennial Newcomers: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)
    • Crime Rate: Full Weight (~2.5 Points)

    And now the results. A an interactive breakdown of the cities in the top of the ranking (shown in blue) and at the bottom (in orange) is shown below:

    Source: WalletHub

     

    And while he full list can be found at the following link, here are the two extremes.

    First, the 20 best cities:

     

    But more importantly, here are the worst – spot the common theme.

    Source

  • China's Navy Trolls US Destroyer: "Hope To See You Again"

    On Thursday, we brought you Ash Carter and his “big stick” (you’re welcome) which he is busy waving around on the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt in the South Pacific. 

    Ultimately, the Defense Secretary was making the rounds in an effort to prove to Washington’s regional allies that the US is “serious” about deterring Chinese “aggression” in the Spratlys. 

    We doubt we need to recap the story, so we’ll keep it brief, but Beijing has constructed some 3,000 acres of new “sovereign” territory atop reefs in The South China Sea. The PLA then proceeded to build runways, cement factories, and all manner of other questionable facilities on the new islands, which unnerved America’s South Pacific allies. 

    Initially, the US tried to contain the situation with a series of brave pronouncements and when that didn’t stop China from continuing to deploy the dredgers, Obama sentt a guided missile destroyer to Subi. 

    Thankfully – for those who don’t wish to witness World War III – China didn’t fire on or otherwise surround the USS Lassen and thus Beijing took the high road. The “pass-by” was one of the most well documented geopolitical events of the year and now, we have an account of the communication that occurred between the US Navy and the PLA. Here’s Reuters with more on the hilarious exhchange

    As soon as the guided-missile destroyer USS Lassen breached 12-nautical-mile territorial limits around one of China’s man-made islands in the disputed South China Sea last week, a Chinese warship shadowing its movements began demanding answers.


    “‘Hey, you are in Chinese waters. What is your intention?’,” it asked, as recounted to reporters on Thursday by Commander Robert Francis, commanding officer of the Lassen.


    His crew replied that they were operating in accordance with international law, and intended to transit past the island, carrying out what U.S. officials have called a freedom-of-navigation exercise designed to challenge China’s claims to the strategic waterway.


    The response from the Chinese destroyer?


    “The same query, over and over,” said Francis, speaking onboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt as it sailed 150 to 200 nautical miles from the southern tip of the Spratly archipelago, a chain of contested islands where China’s seven artificial outposts have taken shape in barely two years.


    The Chinese destroyer shadowed the Lassen for 10 days before and after its Oct. 27 patrol near the artificial islands, said Francis. The Lassen got to within six to seven nautical miles from the nearest Chinese land formation, he added.


    But not all U.S.-Chinese naval interactions are tense, especially when things are slow on the high seas.


    “A few weeks ago we were talking to one of the ships that was accompanying us, a Chinese vessel … (We) picked up the phone and just talked to him like, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing this Saturday? Oh, we got pizza and wings. What are you guys eating? Oh, we’re doing this. Hey, we’re planning for Halloween as well’.” The intent, Francis said, is “to show them … that we’re normal sailors, just like them, have families, just like them.”


    Eventually, the Chinese destroyer that had followed the Lassen on its mission past the artificial islands peeled away.


    “They were very cordial the entire time … even before and after the Spratly islands transit,” Francis said.


    “When they left us they said, ‘Hey, we’re not going to be with you anymore. Wish you a pleasant voyage. Hope to see you again’.”

    We don’t think it’s necessary to comment further on the interactions described above, but we would note that the US is set to conduct these “patrols” twice every three months.

    We’ll leave it to readers to extrapolate on the meaning of “hope to see you again,” and on that note, we’ll simply close with the following quote from China’s latest defense white paper:

    On the issues concerning China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, some of its offshore neighbors take provocative actions and reinforce their military presence on China’s reefs and islands that they have illegally occupied. Some external countries are also busy meddling in South China Sea affairs; a tiny few maintain constant close-in air and sea surveillance and reconnaissance against China. It is thus a long-standing task for China to safeguard its maritime rights and interests. 

  • Volkswagen And China: A Perfect Fit

    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    If Angela Merkel wants to get rid of one of her major headaches, we suggest she should tell Volkswagen to move its operations from Wolfsburg to China. It may seem a strange thing to do at first blush, with 750,000 German jobs on the line, but bear with us here, because this could well be the only way to preserve at least some value for VW’s stock- and bondholders.

    And several layers of German government, as well as German pension funds, are major investors. In a company that has now lost 40%, over €32 billion, of its market cap, and, according to an estimate by UBS, faces €35 billion or more in costs over the various emissions scandals. Count your losses, German pensioners! And the way things are going, and the way the scandal is widening, this may still be a conservative number.

    Here’s the ‘thing’: after the most recent admissions coming from the carmaker and its affiliates it may well have become impossible for -international- lawmakers and lawyers alike to not go after Volkswagen with all they’ve got. First the EPA found a few days ago that defeat devices were installed in larger diesel engines too, those used in Porsche and Audi cars, instead of just the smaller ones whose testing by the University of West Virginia started this whole Teutonic drama.

    Now we find that for VW’s petrol engines, too, various emissions have gone severely underreported. Porsche’s official reaction to the new diesel findings was that the company was ‘surprised’. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that the new Volkswagen CEO, Mueller, ran Porsche before being promoted to his present gig?! ‘Surprised’?

    Other than that ‘surprise’ comment, both Audi and Porsche have reportedly flatly denied the very existence of the defeat devices in their products, even as the EPA research looks solid. Perhaps they should have been advised by their vast legal staffs that flat denial at this point in the game is a dangerous move.

    VW has had ample time to come clean, with the EPA, with German regulators, as well as with a wide range of other regulators across the globe. But it’s abundantly clear they haven’t come clean. Moreover, thus far they’ve mostly been allowed to do their own in-house testing. And yes, that is as crazy as it sounds.

    If and when the company is found to not have spoken the truth and nothing but the truth after the initial EPA findings (which, remember, followed a multi-year period of blatant lies, denial and deceit), replacing a CEO or pointing fingers at employees will no longer suffice. Heads will have to roll, and they will have to roll straight into prison cells.

    At the same time, the company will be ordered, by regulators, lawmakers and judges, to pay fines so hefty its very existence will be in danger. VW lost 40% of its market cap and stands to lose 40% more in fines. An attractive investment? Only until the next lie gets exposed, one would presume.

    This is no longer about the cost of repairs. And it’s no longer about greater fools still buying VW cars either. You can’t keep on lying to disguise your earlier lies and expect to get away with it just because you’re a large corporation.

    That may not seem obvious or intuitive in today’s environment, but because attacks on VW will come from a multitude of sources -a dozen countries and ten dozen lawyers from all over the world-, regulators won’t want to be found going easy on VW as -some of- their peers go for the jugular. At some point, it gets to be about credibility.

    Credibility of the EPA, and of all the other regulators. South Korea and Japan sales are plummeting, and India of all places is now getting on the bandwagon. This is not just a Merkel headache, it’ll be a migraine attack soon. Move the whole thing to China, Angela! Cut your losses…

    Why China? We first thought of the VW-China connection because of this Jen Sorensen comic, but thought right away that it would be even much more applicable to China than it is (and it very much is, of course) to the US. That is, the idea of a political system with a built-in defeat device. China’s defeat device is its ‘official numbers’. The government says it wants X% growth, and that’s what comes out a year later.

     

    What defeat device? Well, for one thing, Chinese President Xi Jinping looks to be starting a new personality culture in the vein of Mao, and presumably to that end last week introduced a new 5-year plan. But let’s be frank, these are things that don’t fit in a 2015 economy that relies on trade with the entire world.

    The 2016-20 plan, which spans all corners of nation-building, represents Xi’s best chance to enact his reforms and establish a legacy before party retirement rules compel him to clear the way for a successor in 2022. “It bears Xi Jinping’s fingerprints, as does everything else in the Chinese government now. He is the top man, not first among equals, just first. One-man rule is back in China,” said Stein Ringen, a professor of sociology and social policy at the University of Oxford. “This is Xi saying, ’I am in charge and I will continue to be in charge.’”

    That Xi goes down this path anyway shows us that he still seeks total control in the Mao or Deng Xiao Ping tradition, even though that is not remotely possible in an even half-open economic system. In China’s economy today, GDP growth can neither be planned nor fabricated. But the numbers still can! Which is where the defeat device comes in.

    Xi Jinping cannot resist the temptations of a personality culture and at the same time demands a minimum 6.5% GDP growth over the next five years. A volatile combination. Question then is: what happens if and when growth is much lower than that? Who is Xi going to blame? And who are the Chinese people going to blame? What are the odds that a sub-6.5% growth rate will lead to mayhem?

     

    But that’s just one side of the tale. There are many western observers, quite a few of them quite knowledgeable, who put Chinese GDP growth already at much less than 6.5 %. Lombard Street, Chris Balding, the Li Keqiang Index, Capital Economics, Danny Gabay, you just Google them, there are far too many critical views to ignore. And they on average put REAL China GDP growth at less than half XI’s 6.5% number.

    And so again: what will happen when Mao-wannabe Xi can no longer fudge the numbers enough to make his 1.3 billion people believe? What will happen when the PBoC cannot buy sufficient assets with sufficient printed mullah to keep markets appear steady that haven’t been steady in ages?

    The 5-year plan calls for GDP to double from 2010-2010, and for per capita income to do the same. Imagine if the US or EU set such goals. There’s no prediction, whether from the OECD or IMF or one of various central banks that comes even close to being correct after just one year, let alone five.

    Xi Jinping’s 5-year plan should be read in the same way that one reads Alice in Wonderland. It is wishful thinking devoid of any sense of reality, and it’s only the inbuilt ‘official number’ defeat device that can provide it with an air of importance.

    Apparently, China’s emissions numbers follow the same path, and the link to Volkswagen is again awfully easy to make in that respect too:

    China has been consuming as much as 17% more coal each year than reported, according to the new government figures. By some initial estimates, that could translate to almost a billion more tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere annually in recent years, more than all of Germany emits from fossil fuels.

     

    The adjusted data, which appeared recently in an energy statistics yearbook published without fanfare by China’s statistical agency, show that coal consumption has been underestimated since 2000, and particularly in recent years. The revisions were based on a census of the economy in 2013 that exposed gaps in data collection, especially from small companies and factories.

     

    Illustrating the scale of the revision, the new figures add about 600 million tons to China’s coal consumption in 2012 — an amount equivalent to more than 70% of the total coal used annually by the United States.

    In other words, the deceit is built-in, it’s a feature not a flaw. That goes for both China’s and Volkswagen’s emissions models, and it goes for Xi Jinping’s 5-year plan. One common element seems to be desperation, the knowledge that certain aspired conditions cannot be met, and the subsequent decision to then fudge and cheat. That decision is made necessary by one thing only: incompetence.

    We don’t want to harp this horse to death, the overall idea should be clear by now. But while writing, we do get new ideas popping up. Like those 750,000 Germans who depend on Volkswagen, directly or indirectly, for their jobs, can all move to China, and settle in some of the abundant ghost cities.

    Their homes in Wolfsburg et al can then be made available to the 1 million or so refugees that Germany expects to settle in this year. Win win win, everybody happy.

    But we remain anxious about what will happen if and when it becomes clear that the Chinese doubling of GDP and incomes is just a weird fantasy of a man who feels omnipotent enough to think he can control global financial markets. China has malinvested to such an extent that major busts are inevitable.

    The British steel industry knows exactly what we mean. And predictions are that a year from now, all US aluminum smelters will be closed. China exports deflation. And that is being felt in its domestic economy too. So it looks like either Xi will need to crack down on his people, or they will crack down on him. Neither is an enticing prospect.

    But he can’t tell the truth either, because it’s too far removed from the fairy tales he’s been telling. Just like Volkswagen.

  • Here Is The Credit Bubble

    When in several years, experts will clamor that “nobody could have possibly seen it coming”, we want to make sure that at least our readers “saw it coming” wide and clear from a mile away.

    The chart below shows very clearly what is the next bubble, one which has nothing to do with such philosophical concepts as “what is money”, or “net is not gross”, and everything to do with a clear injection of debt with the sole intention of shifting consumer preferences and (mis)allocating capital.

    Presenting the total loans owned by the Federal government as disclosed in the Fed’s monthly G.19 statement on consumer credit – from $100 billion in 2008 this number is now almost $1 trillion.

     

    Actually, one explanation: since credit is just a source of funds, there has to be a matched use of funds.

    There is.

    First, the bulk of US “government-held” has gone into auto loans, which as shown in the chart below, not only have surpassed total credit card (revolving) debt, but as of Sept. 30 just topped the credit card debt held by US consumer at the peak of the last bubble when housing was at all time highs, and consumers “charged it” like there was no tomorrow.

     

    And then, of course, there is the student loan bubble.

     

    And now you’ve “seen it coming.”

  • Activists Seek To Impoverish Thai Villagers To Save Monkeys From "Slavery"

    Submitted by David Adams via The Mises Institute,

    Leave it to NPR to add guilt to your pleasure. That bon-bon hidden behind your two-year-old bottle of Scotch just took on a whole new layer of sin. With child slavery in the production of chocolate and animal cruelty in the harvesting of coconuts, the conflict confection is born.

    According to an animal rights group featured in a recent edition of NPR’s The Salt, abused monkeys are a key ingredient in your Panang curry. While the Thai/Malay practice of using monkeys to harvest coconuts dates back hundreds of years, landing in the crosshairs of activist vegans and SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) is a new phenomenon. Anthropologist Leslie Sponsel, quoted briefly in the NPR article, offered a defense of simian symbiosis. I caught up with Dr. Sponsel at his Hawaii home in hopes of learning more about his fieldwork. “Debate on the morality of enslaving monkeys to get a job done is a Western dilemma, not a Thai one,” Sponsel explained.

    A lifelong environmentalist and author of Spiritual Ecology: A Quiet Revolution, Sponsel had reservations about watching primate pickers at work. Instead of calling for a nationwide boycott of coconut products as some have done, Sponsel did what every anthropologist worth his salt is trained to do: take pause and observe. He noted that neither his wife — a Thai Buddhist — nor a fellow Thai professor from a local university framed the practice in moral terms. Add a complete lack of compunction from the local Muslim population and Sponsel concluded that monkeys on task are not a cause, but a part of the “isness” of peninsula living.

    The British explorer Robert Shelford observed in his 1916 book: A Naturalist in Borneo:

    The modus operandi is as follows: — A cord is fastened round the monkey’s waist, and it is led to a coconut palm which it rapidly climbs, it then lays hold of a nut, and if the owner judges the nut to be ripe for plucking he shouts to the monkey, which then twists the nut round and round till the stalk is broken and lets it fall to the ground; if the monkey catches hold of an unripe nut, the owner tugs the cord and the monkey tries another. … [At times] the use of the cord was dispensed with altogether, the monkey being guided by the tones and inflections of his master’s voice.

    According to Sponsel, Working macaques are the difference between a livelihood and abject poverty for many South Thailand farmers. Snake bites, stinging ants, and life-ending falls face whoever or whatever goes up those trees.”

    Given the best monkeys harvest coconuts at over twenty times the speed of the most skilled man, the incentive to continue a centuries-old partnership is clear. During his fieldwork, Sponsel never observed or heard of monkey abuse by their handlers. He noted that many were treated similar to the way a Westerner treats a family pet. “For some households,” he observed, “they may even rise even to the level of being a family member.”

    For a country that sees its stray dog population driven in crates to Vietnam every Tet New Year to become a side dish, the Thai macaques could have it worse. According to Sponsel, “Young ones are trained and kept on a rope or chain tethered to the handler or to a shelter when not working.” It is this practice that has earned the ire of some activists. Sponsel counters that in our society it is a matter of civility to keep a pet on a leash. And who hasn’t seen the mother who ties a string to her own children on a walk through a busy mall! According to Sponsel, the monkeys he observed were well-fed, groomed and cared for. Indeed, he often saw macaques being pushed in carts by their handlers on the way to the plantation.

    “This debate is not new,” Sponsel explained. “Back in 1952, Jean Marcel Brulle’s The Murder of the Missing Link tackled our moral obligation to primates.” In an account of science fiction, a man impregnates a female monkey and then kills the newborn to force a jury to deliberate whether murder extends beyond humankind. Be it a hairy chest, or his way with the ladies (simians included), Burt Reynolds played the lead in Skullduggery — a 1970’s take on Brulle’s dilemma.

    As some ramp up calls for a boycott, Sponsel cautions the bandwagon. “They should seriously consider how their campaign may negatively impact the livelihood of poor farmers. Some activists appear to be more worried about non-human animals more so than humans; even though the latter are also animals and have rights too.”

    In a perfect world, Thai farmers would have machines and monkeys would have unspoiled wilderness. But, for the world we have — one in which habitat destruction wipes out entire populations — coconuts and farmers in need may be all that keeps the macaques in the trees and off the dinner tables.

  • The Most Surprising Thing About Today's Jobs Report

    After several months of weak and deteriorating payrolls prints, perhaps the biggest tell today’s job number would surprise massively to the upside came yesterday from Goldman, which as we noted earlier, just yesterday hiked its forecast from 175K to 190K. And while as Brown Brothers said after the reported that it is “difficult to find the cloud in the silver lining” one clear cloud emerges when looking just a little deeper below the surface.

    That cloud emerges when looking at the age breakdown of the October job gains as released by the BLS’ Household Survey. What it shows is that while total jobs soared, that was certainly not the case in the most important for wage growth purposes age group, those aged 25-54.

    As the chart below shows, in October the age group that accounted for virtually all total job gains was workers aged 55 and over. They added some 378K jobs in the past month, representing virtually the entire increase in payrolls. And more troubling: workers aged 25-54 actually declined by 35,000, with males in this age group tumbling by 119,000!

     

    Little wonder then why there is no wage growth as employers continue hiring mostly those toward the twilight of their careers: the workers who have little leverage to demand wage hikes now and in the future, something employers are well aware of.

    The next chart shows the break down the cumulative job gains since December 2007 and while workers aged 55 and older have gained over 7.5 million jobs in the past 8 years, workers aged 55 and under, have lost a cumulative total of 4.6 million jobs.

     

    The same chart as above showing the full breakdown by age group – once again the 25-54 age group sticks out.

     

    But young workers’ loss is old workers’ gain, as the following chart of total jobs held by those aged 55 and over shows. As of October, there was a record 33.8 million workers in the oldest age group tracked by the BLS – the same workers who, as noted above, also have the poorest wage negotiating leverage.

     

    Finally, the most disappointing data point in today’s report is that while overall labor growth was solid, the participation rate for workers 25-54, was 80.7%, far below is peak of just under 85%, and below the 80.8% at the end of 2014.

     

    Time for a rate hike?

  • Weekend Reading: Copious Contemplations

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    There are a couple of things that are simply hard to conceive currently. The first is that there are only SEVEN (7) Monday's left until Christmas. The second is that the Federal Reserve is seriously discussing increasing interest rates given the current economic weakness both domestic and global. 

    While many of more mainstream outlets continue to "hope" that we are on the cusp of economic resurgence, as I penned earlier this week, the EOCI index suggests something quite different.

    (Note: The EOCI Index is a combined measure of the Chicago Fed National Activity Index (85 subcomponents), the ISM manufacturing and services index, the Fed regional manufacturing surveys, the Leading Economic Indicators index and the NFIB small business survey. Combined these measures give a broad sense of actual economic activity.)

    "Despite hopes of a stronger rates of economic growth, it appears that the domestic economy is weakening considerably as the effects of a global deflationary slowdown wash back onto the U.S. economy."

    ECOI-Events-101215

    Of course, while mainstream analysts and writers cling to each comment from the Fed as if it were gospel, it should be remembered that Ms. Yellen and her cohorts can not "tell the whole truth."

    Imagine for a moment that Janet Yellen climbed up to the podium and said:

    "After many years of ultra-accommodative polices, it is clear that ongoing interventions have failed to boost actual economic growth and only exacerbated the destruction of the middle class. It is clear that employment growth has only been a function of population growth, as witnessed by the ongoing decline in the labor-force participation rates and the surging levels of individuals that have fallen out of the work-force. While we will continue to operate to foster maximum employment and price stability, the reality is that the economy overall remains far to weak to sustain higher interest rates or any tightening of monetary policy."  

    As soon as those words were uttered, the markets would plunge dramatically which would erode consumer confidence and trigger an almost immediate recessionary environment. 

    So, if you were Janet Yellen, what message would you deliver to convey much of the same without "freaking" the markets out? How about this from yesterday:

    "YELLEN SAYS IF OUTLOOK WORSENED FED MIGHT WEIGH NEGATIVE RATES"

    Negative interest rates were "trial ballooned" after the September FOMC meeting and were dismissed by the markets. This is the second "trial" by the Fed to gauge market reaction. Historically, such hints have had a tendency to become future policy actions. It is worth paying attention to what the Fed is "NOT" saying.

    I have been extremely busy this week working on a new project, so I am sharing with you the list of articles that I will be catching up on this weekend. 


    THE LIST

    1) Bond Market To Stocks – Last Call by Jesse Felder via Tumblr

    “Bond market risk appetites hold the key to the stock market right now. It is normally the case that equity and debt markets are very closely intertwined but today this true more than ever. And the bond market is signaling the party is nearly over.

     

    I say that the relationship between bonds and stocks is more important today than ever because mergers and acquisitions activity and stock buybacks have been a major source of demand for equities over the past few years. And, to a very large degree, these have been financed by debt. So companies' ability to access the credit markets currently has a huge impact on stock prices."

    Felder-Dalio-110515

    Read Also: Bonds Are Sending Some Ominous Signs by Daniel Kruger via Bloomberg

     

    2) Stocks Are 85% Above Long Term Trends by Doug Short via Advisor Perspectives

    “The peak in 2000 marked an unprecedented 144% overshooting of the trend — nearly double the overshoot in 1929. The index had been above trend for two decades, with one exception: it dipped about 14% below trend briefly in March of 2009. But at the beginning of November 2015, it is 85% above trend, at the middle of the 77% to 93% range it has been hovering for the previous thirteen months. In sharp contrast, the major troughs of the past saw declines in excess of 50% below the trend. If the current S&P 500 were sitting squarely on the regression, it would be around the 1086 level.

     

    Incidentally, the standard deviation for prices above and below trend is 40.6%. Here is a close-up of the regression values with the regression itself shown as the zero line. We've highlighted the standard deviations. We can see that the early 20th century real price peaks occurred at around the second deviation. Troughs prior to 2009 have been more than a standard deviation below trend. The peak in 2000 was well north of 3 deviations, and the 2007 peak was above the two deviations."

    SP-Composite-real-regression-to-trend-standard-deviations

    Read Also: Q4 Dividends Off To A Bad Start by Ironman via Political Calculations

     

    3) The Fed's Communication Breakdown by Ken Rogoff via Project Syndicate

    “Nothing describes the United States Federal Reserve's current communication policy better than the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. Various members of the Fed's policy-setting Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) have called the decision to keep the base rate unchanged "data-dependent." That sounds helpful until you realize that each of them seems to have a different interpretation of "data-dependent," to the point that its meaning seems to be 'gut personal instinct.'

     

    In other words, the Fed's communication strategy is a mess, and cleaning it up is far more important than the exact timing of the FOMC's decision to exit near-zero interest rates. After all, even after the Fed does finally make the "gigantic" leap from an effective federal funds rate of 0.13% (where it is now) to 0.25% (where is likely headed soon), the market will still want to know what the strategy is after that. And I fear that we will continue to have no idea."

    Read Also: China's Economy Is Worse Than You Think by Noah Smith via Bloomberg

    But Also Read: I'll Eat My Hat If There Is A Global Recession by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard via The Telegraph

     

    4) The 10-Things I Relearned In October by Doug Kass via TheStreet.com

    1. Disasters have a way of not happening
    2. Permabulls (and bears) are attention getters
    3. Pay attention to investor sentiment at extremes
    4. Market remains preoccupied with monetary policy
    5. Quants rule – they move the markets up and down.
    6. Greed vs Fear
    7. Tech nearly always leads the markets
    8. Perception vs Reality
    9. The hardest trade is the best trade
    10. Curse of the Billy Goat lives

    Read Also: Why The S&P May Already Be in A Bear Market by Shawn Langlois

     

    5) A Good Time To Hold Some Cash by Mohamed El-Erian via Financial Times

    "Recent signals from the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have reignited talk of divergent monetary policies among the world's two most influential central banks.

     

    The short-term implications for investors include a stronger dollar, greater equity market volatility and a wider trading range for key interest rate differentials. The longer-term consequences are up for grabs. Both suggest investors should revisit conventional wisdom that dismisses cash as a 'wasting asset' in their portfolios."

    Read Also: Is The U.S. Entering A Recession by Charlie Bilello via Pension Partners


    Other Reading


    “Risk taking is necessary for large success, but also necessary for large failure.” – Nasim Taleb

    Have a great weekend.

  • S&P Ends Red After 2015's Best Jobs Data Sparks Bond & Bullion Breakdown

    The best jobs print in 2015 sparked a surge in the dollar and purge on everything else… quickly followed by this from some…

     

    …and this from the mainstream media and their sponsoring talking heads.

     

    *  *  *

    Having dipped and ripped on a huge miss in October, after today's beat, the market couldn't quite pull it off…

     

    WTI Crude was the worst-performer post-Payrolls as stocks desperately ramped to get back to unchanged…

     

    On the day, Small Caps and Trannies were on fire (squeeze) as S&P was unablew to get there…

     

    Despite the massive crush on VIX to get the S&P 500 above 2100 – which failed..

     

    VIX (equity implied business risk) and HY bond spreads (credit implied business risks) remain notably decoupled…

     

    Thanks to yet another big short squeeze…

     

    Small Caps had a massive week… the 2nd biggest week since Oct 2014's Bullard Bounce

     

    As Financials surged…

     

    BABA was bashed (and thus YHOO yanked) after Chanos said he was shorting…

     

    Credit markets did not bounce…

     

    Treasury yields spiked after the jobs data and did not give much back as stocks sank… (notice that on the week 2Y actually outperformed with the belly worst)

     

    We note that 2Y yields spiked to 95bps at their highs (and futures were halted) before fading back (still 6bps higher on the day) – the highest since May 2010…

     

    The USD surged today on the payrolls beat… with AUD crashing and EURUSD

     

    The USD Index hit 7-month hghs today… after biggest 3-week gain since March's peak…

     

    The USD strength weighed heavy on all commodities with Copper managing to modestly outperform as gold, silver, and crude all huddled together down 4.5 to 5% on the week…

     

    Gold is back under $1100, at August lows (down 8 straight days, and 12 of the last 13), and Silver down 7 straiught days to September lows…

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Wealthiest Americans Ominously Remind Nation They Could Easily Drop Another $10 Billion On Election

    Fact or Fiction…

    Calmly stating that they would not even need to think twice about doing so, the nation’s wealthiest individuals ominously reminded the populace during a press conference Wednesday that they could easily drop another $10 billion on the 2016 election.

     

    “We want to make it completely clear to voters that there’s absolutely no reason – none at all – why we couldn’t shell out another $10 billion between now and next November,” said casino magnate Sheldon Adelson on behalf of the top tenth of a percent of income-earners in the U.S., adding that creating dozens of new and extremely well-funded super PACs would mean practically nothing to them.

    “Trust me, we’ve got plenty to throw around, so it really wouldn’t be a problem. We could spread it around a bunch of congressional races, or, heck, we could put it all on one presidential candidate—it doesn’t really affect us much either way.

     

    Why don’t we toss in a billion right now just to give you a taste?

    The nation’s wealthiest families then added that they would have no problem repeating the process for the next 30 election cycles before silently walking off the stage.

    Source: The Onion

  • Is This The Green Light To Hike Rates?

    Today’s euphoric unemployment print of 5.0% was based on a total employment number of 149.120 million, with 7.908 million workers unemployment (and another 94.5 million out of the labor force).

    The number was so good, the market is now confident the Fed will hike rates in December.

    So how does US employment growth look like in context and is this really the catalyst for the Fed to hike rates signalling a jump of confidence in the economy?

    We will let readers decide if the 1.3% increase in total employment, less than half what it was last October,  is the answer.

    Source: BLS, h/t @Gloeschi

  • World's Largest Steelmaker Reports Huge Loss, Suspends Dividend, Blames China

    It’s no secret that Beijing has an excess capacity problem.

    Indeed, the idea that a yearslong industrial buildup intended to support i) the expansion of the smokestack economy, ii) a real estate boom, and iii) robust worldwide demand ultimately served to create a supply glut in China is one of the key narratives when it comes to analyzing the global macro picture. 

    That, combined with ZIRP’s uncanny ability to keep uneconomic producers in business, has served to drive down commodity prices the world over, imperiling many an emerging market and driving a bevy of drillers, diggers, and pumpers to the brink of insolvency. 

    As we noted late last month, if you want to get a read on just how acute the situation truly is, look no further than China’s “ghost cities”…

     

    Here’s the simple, straightforward assessment from the deputy head of the China Iron & Steel Association: 

    “Production cuts are slower than the contraction in demand, therefore oversupply is worsening. Although China has cut interest rates many times recently, steel mills said their funding costs have actually gone up.”

    To which we said, “meet the deflationary commodity cycle in all its glory”:

    China’s mills — which produce about half of worldwide output — are battling against oversupply and sinking prices as local consumption shrinks for the first time in a generation amid a property-led slowdown. The fallout from the steelmakers’ struggles is hurting iron ore prices and boosting trade tensions as mills seek to sell their surplus overseas.Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. forecast last week that China’s steel production may eventually shrink 20 percent, matching the experience seen in the U.S. and elsewhere.

     

    “China’s steel demand evaporated at unprecedented speed as the nation’s economic growth slowed,” Zhu said. “As demand quickly contracted, steel mills are lowering prices in competition to get contracts.”

    Right. Well actually there’s that, and the fact that they can’t get loans despite multiple RRR cuts and attempts on Beijing’s part to boost China’s credit impulse. In fact, over half the debtors in China’s commodity space are generating so little cash, they can’t even cover their interest payments.

    So, considering all of the above, the obvious implication is that China will simply export its deflation…

    Given that, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that on Friday, the world’s biggest steelmaker suspended its dividend and cut its outlook.

    Here’s more from Bloomberg

    The world’s biggest steelmaker on Friday cut its full-year profit target and suspended its dividend, putting the blame on the flood of cheap steel from China’s loss-making mills. The market is being overwhelmed with material coming from the nation’s state-owned and state-supported producers, a collection of industry associations said Thursday.

     

    “It is obvious that we are operating in a very challenging market,” Chief Financial Officer Aditya Mittal said on a call with reporters. “This is essentially the result of very low export prices out of China that are impacting prices worldwide.”

     

    The steel industry has been roiled by the slowest economic growth in two decades in China, the biggest consumer.

     

    The flood of cheap exports from the nation has drawn complaints from Europe and the U.S. that the shipments are unfair. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Chinese steel shipments overseas will exceed 100 million metric tons this year, more than the combined output of Europe’s top four producing countries.

     

    While demand for steel in the company’s largest markets of the U.S. and Europe is recovering, producers’ profits are being hit by slumping prices because China has been pushing excess supply onto the world market as its economy slows.

    So again, we’re seeing disinflation (the exact opposite of what DM central bankers intended when they decided to expand their balance sheets into the trillions) as global growth and trade enters a new era, characterized by a systemic slump in demand. Here’s the damage in terms of the Arcelor’s equity:

     

    And here’s more from The New York Times on the impact of Chinese “dumping: 

    “The Chinese are dumping in our core markets,” Mr. Mittal said. “The question is how long the Chinese will continue to export below their cost.”

     

    The company’s loss for the period compared with a $22 million profit for last year’s third quarter.

     

    ArcelorMittal, which is based in Luxembourg, also sharply cut its projection for 2015 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization — the main measure of a steel company’s finances. The new estimate is $5.2 billion to $5.4 billion, down from the previous projection of $6 billion to $7 billion.

     

    On a call with reporters, Aditya Mittal, Mr. Mittal’s son and the company’s chief financial officer, said that a flood of low-price Chinese exports was the biggest challenge for ArcelorMittal in the European and North American markets.

     

    The company estimates that Chinese steel exports this year will reach 110 million metric tons, compared with 94 million tons last year and 63 million tons in 2013. ArcelorMittal produced 93 million metric tons of steel in 2014.

    Of course when the standing government policy is to roll over bad debt and avoid SOE defaults at all costs, uneconomic producers can and will continue to produce. This means the deflationary impulse ArcelorMittal cites isn’t likely to dissipate anytime soon, and on that note we close with what we said just a week ago:

    The cherry on top is that China itself is now trapped: it simply can’t afford to let anyone default, as one bankruptcy would cascade across the entire bond market and wipe out countless corporations leaving millions of angry Chinese workers unemployed, and is therefore forced to keep bailing out insolvent companies over and over. By doing so, it is adding even more deflationary capacity and even more production into the market, which leads to even lower prices, and even greater bailouts! In short: this is a deflationary toxic spiral.

  • Consumer Credit Has Biggest Jump In History, Led By Government-Funded Car And Student Loans

    If there was any confusion where all those soaring new car sales are coming from, we now have the definitive answer: moments ago the latest consumer credit data for September was released, and surging by $28.9 billion – a 4.9% jump Y/Y – not only did this smash expectations of a “modest” $18 billion rise, this was the biggest monthly increase ever!

     

    And while revolving credit rose a respectable $2.7 billion to $925 billion, still well below its historic high of $1.02 trillion…

     

    … the monthly swing was all in the non-revolving credit, i.e., the student and car loans: soaring by $22.2 billion, this was the second biggest monthly jump on record.

     

    The source? Drumroll – the US government, which on one hand laments the credit bubble it has created via ZIRP and QE and is eager to raise rates by 25 bps, and on the other is directly funding the biggest student and car debt bubble in history.

     

    Presenting: the government bubble in all its glory.

  • Mistress Of Deception – More From The Hillary Chronicles

    Submitted by Andrew Napolitano via AntiWar.com,

    The self-inflicted wounds of Hillary Rodham Clinton just keep manifesting themselves. She has two serious issues that have arisen in the past week; one is political and the other is legal. Both have deception at their root.

    Her political problem is one of credibility. We know from her emails that she informed her daughter Chelsea and the then-prime minister of Egypt within 12 hours of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, that he had been killed in Benghazi by al-Qaida. We know from the public record that the Obama administration’s narrative blamed the killings of the ambassador and his guards on an anonymous crowd’s spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muhammad video.

    Over this past weekend we learned that her own embassy staff in Tripoli told her senior staff in Washington the day after the killings that the video was not an issue, and very few Libyans had seen it. We also know from her emails that the CIA informed her within 24 hours of the ambassador’s murder that it had been planned by al-Qaida 12 days before the actual killings.

    Nevertheless, she persisted in blaming the video. When she received the bodies of Ambassador Stevens and his three bodyguards at Andrews Air Force base three days after their murders, she told the media and the families of the deceased assembled there that the four Americans had been killed by a spontaneous mob reacting to a cheap 15-minute anti-Muhammad video.

    Clinton’s sordid behavior throughout this unhappy affair reveals a cavalier attitude about the truth and a ready willingness to deceive the public for short-term political gain. This might not harm her political aspirations with her base in the Democratic Party; but it will be a serious political problem for her with independent voters, without whose support she simply cannot be elected.

    Yet, her name might not appear on any ballot in 2016.

    That’s because, each time she addresses these issues – her involvement in Benghazi and her emails – her legal problems get worse. We already know that the FBI has been investigating her for espionage (the failure to secure state secrets), destruction of government property and obstruction of justice (wiping her computer server clean of governmental emails that were and are the property of the federal government), and perjury (lying to a federal judge about whether she returned all governmental emails to the State Department).

    Now, she has added new potential perjury and misleading Congress issues because of her deceptive testimony to the House Benghazi committee. In 2011, when President Obama persuaded NATO to enact and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, he sent American intelligence agents on the ground. Since they were not military and were not shooting at Libyan government forces, he could plausibly argue that he had not put "boots" on the ground. Clinton, however, decided that she could accelerate the departure of the Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, by arming some of the Libyan rebel groups that were attempting to oppose him and thus helping them to shoot at government forces.

    So, in violation of federal law and the U.N. arms embargo on Libya she authorized the shipment of American arms to Qatar, knowing they’d be passed off to Libyan rebels, some of whom were al-Qaida, a few of whom killed Ambassador Stevens using American-made weapons. When asked about this, she said she knew nothing of it. The emails underlying this are in the public domain. Clinton not only knew of the arms-to-Libyan-rebels deal, she authored and authorized it. She lied about this under oath.

    After surveying the damage done to his regime and his family by NATO bombings, Col. Kaddafi made known his wish to negotiate a peaceful departure from Libya. When his wish was presented to Clinton, a source in the room with Clinton has revealed that she silently made the "off with his head" hand motion by moving her hand quickly across her neck. She could do that because she knew the rebels were well equipped with American arms with which to kill him. She didn’t care that many of the rebels were al-Qaida or that arming them was a felony. She lied about this under oath.

    My Fox News colleagues Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne have scrutinized Clinton’s testimony with respect to her friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal. Recall that President Obama vetoed Clinton’s wish to hire him as her State Department senior adviser. So she had the Clinton Foundation pay him a greater salary than the State Department would have, and he became her silent de facto advisor.

    They emailed each other hundreds of times during her tenure. He provided intelligence to her, which he obtained from a security company on the ground in Libya in which he had a financial interest. He advised her on how to present herself to the media. He even advocated the parameters of the Libyan no-fly zone and she acted upon his recommendations. Yet she told the committee he was "just a friend." She was highly deceptive and criminally misleading about this under oath.

    It is difficult to believe that the federal prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Clinton will not recommend that she be indicted. Inexplicably, she seems to have forgotten that they were monitoring what she said under oath to the Benghazi committee. By lying under oath, and by misleading Congress, she gave that team additional areas to investigate and on which to recommend indictments.

    When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name.

  • Tech Bubble Unravelling: Square To Go Public At 30% Discount To Latest Private Round

    Two weeks ago, we reported that one of the numerous “unicorns” prancing around Silicon Valley was about to have a very rude wake up call when Dropbox was warned by its investment bankers that it would be unable to go public at a valuation anywhere near close to what its last private round (which had most recently risen to $10 billion from $4 billion a year ago) valued it at.

    And while Dropbox’s day of public reckoning approaches, another company realized today just how big the second “private” tech bubble, one we profiled first in January of 2014, truly is. That company is Jack Dorsey’s Square, which earlier today filed a prospectus in which it said that the “initial public offering price per share of Class A common stock will be between $11.00 and $13.00.”

    Assuming a mid-point price of $12 and applying the 322.9 million shares outstanding after the offering, it means a valuation of $3.9 billion.  The problem is that in its last private fundraising round, Square was valued at about $6 billion according to ReCode.

    Needless to say, IPOs are meant to come at a valuation that puts all the prior rounds of private investors “in the money.” Not this time.

    What does that mean, especially since as BuzzFeed reported previously, Square’s last round of private financing guaranteed investors at least a 20 percent return on investment.

    Well, it means that if Square’s IPO share price was less than $18.55, Square would have to issue these Series E investors shares to make up the difference, or an automatic dilution for everyone else. And since that looks increasingly likely, and if Square ends up pricing its IPO at $12 a share — the midpoint of today’s range — it would have to issue these investors around 5.3 million additional shares, representing around 1.6 percent of all outstanding shares, according to today’s filing.

    ReCode concludes what we said nearly two years ago:

    Square’s IPO pricing will likely give credence to the growing belief that there are a whole host of private companies valued at $1 billion or more — “unicorns,” in Silicon Valley parlance — that wouldn’t sniff such a high valuation if they decided to go public. Square’s revenue is growing quickly, but the company is still generating large losses.

    So the question facing all the other unicorns is simple: will they keep jumping from private round to private round, funding operations while increasing the valuation of the underlying to absolutely ludicrous levels, ones which can never be “cashed out” using a public route and pray for a strategic to swoop it up instead, or will the Valley finally have a rude wake up call, admit the past two years of bubble valuations were driven not by fundamentals but by excess liquidity, and scramble to go public in an attempt to cash out first before everyone else does?

    We will know on December 16: if the Fed indeed does launched tightening by hiking 25 bps, watch as a record number of unicorns are downgrade to zerocorns in the nanosecond blink of an algorithmic CCD.

  • It's Official: The Baltic Dry Index Has Crashed To Its Lowest November Level In History

    2015 has been an 'odd' year. Typically this time of year sees demand picking up amid holiday inventory stacking and measures of global trade such as The Baltic Dry Index rise from mid-summer to Thanksgiving. This year, it has not.

     

    In fact, it has plummeted as the world's economic engines slow and reality under the covers of global stock markets suggests a massive deflationary wave (following a massive mal-investment boom). At a level of 631, this is the lowest cost for Baltic Dry Freight Index for this time of year in history.. and within a small drop of an all-time historical low.

     

     

    Hard to ignore something that has never happened before as anything but a total disaster for world trade and economic growth.

    * * *

    As we concluded previously after exposing the collapse in Ships…

     

    Trains…

     

    And Trucks…

    US-Load-to-Truck-ratio-2013_2015-09

    We have in the past joked that the only thing that could possibly save the world from what is a trade recession is if the central banks can somehow find a way to "print trade" the way they artificially boost asset prices higher to give the impression of a status quo normalcy. Unfortunately, as this is not a real option, and with both global and US trade in freefall, many wonder just how will the world's central planners mask this most dangerous aspect of the global economic slowdown?

    Charts: Bloomberg

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 6, 2015

  • China's Re-Bubble – Stocks Soar 10% In 3 Days, 2nd Best Run Since 2014

    Because nothing says ‘stability’ like a 10% surge in the ‘price’ of stocks in 3 days. Having trodden water between in a narrow range for a month, the last 3 days (ahead of US payrolls and China’s weekend) are the biggest rally since China first banned short-selling in July, and 2nd biggest since December 2014 when the epic bubble really took off in Chinese stocks. Now, with China ‘fixed’, all The Fed needs is a “not terrible” payrolls print tomorrow and December is a done deal…

    Up 10% in 3 days… “normal”

     

    The biggest jump since the short-selling ban and 2nd biggest since December…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • If This Doesn't Convince You to Exit the Global Banking System, Then Absolutely Nothing Will

    Today, bankers all around the world are making it more and more difficult to withdraw more than $3000 or €3000 per day, and simultaneously making it impossible to pay for, in cash, any item with a price tag in excess of these levels. Though most people are not questioning why this is, this global banker movement to ban all cash transactions should be interpreted as a clear and present danger to the purchasing power of everyone’s lifetime of accumulated savings. If you’re still not convinced, then think about what the Carbanak theft of $1 billion from global banks truly means. If we investigated how this hacking group accomplished their theft, we would discover that, at times, they even hacked into bank servers to create currencies out of thin air before transferring this newly created currency to themselves. The fact that these hackers could create currency that did not even exist on the bank’s books and then steal it should compel all of us to ask ourselves, “Do we really want to hold the earnings of our cumulative lifetime of labor in digital currencies that have intrinsic values of nearly nothing?” If we realize that bankers can store tens of millions of currency literally on just a few bits on a hard drive on their bank server, and if we understand that we can purchase a 5 Terabyte Western Digital hard drive that can hold 40,000,000,000,000 bits on Amazon for just US$179, then we really should question why we believe that digital bits will ever preserve our lifetime of savings for the next 10 years, or even for just the next 2 years.

     

     

    It seems that most of us have already forgotten, quite conveniently, that banker digitalization of payments for our labor allowed bankers to easily steal 47.5% from all Bank of Cyprus accounts greater than 100,000 just a couple of years ago. With our compliance with such actions and our and acceptance of digital bits for our labor, as noted today here on ZeroHedge, Bank of Ireland bankers were recently able to ban withdrawals of less than 700 from all of its branches with little protest and relative ease. While most of us would realize that something sinister is afoot right now in the global banking system if we merely diverted our attention away from the Sunday football game or the Game of Thrones episode on our TV for just 10 minutes to think about these issues, unfortunately, the vast majority of us still do not ever stop to think about the meaning of such events.

     

    In an attempt to prod everyone to really consider the meaning of such events, without further ado, I present to you, our latest SmartKnowledgeU_Vlog_0010: “If This Doesn’t Convince You to Exit the Global Banking System, Then Nothing Will!”

     

     

    smartknowledgeu_vlog_0010

     

    Additional reading today: “Is this the Gold & Silver Mining Stock Washout For Which We’ve Been Waiting All Year Long?”

     

     

    About the author: JS Kim is the Managing Director & Chief Investment Strategist for SmartKnowledgeU, a fiercely independent research, consulting, and education firm that focuses of analyzing banking & investment industry fraud and manipulation as the primary tool in formulating wealth preservation strategies to yield positive returns during the escalating global currency wars.

  • Giant Sucking Sound of Capital Destruction in US Oil & Gas

    Wolf Richter   www.wolfstreet.com

    Chesapeake Energy is a good example. The second largest natural gas producer in the US, after Exxon, reported its debacle yesterday.

    Revenues plunged 49% from the quarter a year ago, when the oil bust had already set in. The company has been slashing costs and capital expenditures. In June, it eliminated its dividend. And yesterday, it recognized $5.4 billion in impairment charges, bringing impairments for the nine months to a staggering $15.4 billion.

    Impairment charges are a sudden accounting recognition of accumulated capital destruction. These impairments pushed its losses from operations to $5.4 billion in Q3 and to $16 billion for the nine months.

    Chesapeake currently gets 72% of its production from natural gas, 17% from oil, and 11% from natural gas liquids. The oil bust has been going on since the summer of 2014. The US natural gas bust has been going on since 2009! Two natural gas producers have already gone bankrupt this year: Quicksilver Resources and Samson Resources.

    Its annual free cash flow has been negative since 1994, even during good times, with only two tiny exceptions (Bloomberg chart). After living off borrowed money, it’s now trying to hang on by selling assets and lowering its mountain of debt. But it still owes $16 billion, much of which QE-besotted, ZIRP-blinded, yield-hungry investors had handed it over the years, based on hype and false hopes.

    Its shares last traded at $7.50, down 75% from peak hype in June 2014. Its 4.875% notes due 2022 and its 5.75% notes due 2023, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD yesterday, traded for 66 cents on the dollar.

    In terms of capital destruction, Chesapeake is in good company, and not even the leader. A new report by Evaluate Energy, which covers Oil & Gas companies around the globe, examined the financial statements of the 48 US oil & gas companies that have reported earnings for the third quarter so far. The amounts and the speed of deterioration are just stunning.

    Turns out, what started in Q4 last year is getting worse relentlessly. And now it’s getting serious: plunging revenues, squeezed operating margins, whopping impairment charges, and horrendous losses are combining into a very toxic mix.

    Evaluate Energy determined that net income of those 48 companies was a gigantic loss for the three quarters combined of $57 billion.

    On a quarterly basis, the losses in Q3 jumped 58% from Q2 and 70% from Q1 to $25.5 billion. This fiasco, which has been spiraling down at a breath-taking pace, looks like this:

    US-oil-gas-earnings-quarterly-2014-Q3-2015

    The biggest factor in these losses, as in Chesapeake’s case, was the impairments. For this study, Evaluate Energy only counted impairments of property and equipment, not of financial assets such as “goodwill.” Including charge-offs of goodwill, it would have been even worse (an example is Whiting Petroleum, which we’ll get to in a moment).

    Of the 48 companies, 38 recognized impairment charges totaling $32.8 billion in Q3 alone, a 79% jump from Q2, when impairments hit $18.4 billion. Since Q4 2014, these 48 companies recognized impairments of $84.6 billion; 39% of that in Q3.

    Devon Energy was king of the hill, with $5.9 billion in impairments in Q3, after having recognized impairments every quarter this year, for a total of about $15.5 billion.

    Our natural-gas hero Chesapeake is in second place, if only barely, with $5.4 billion in impairments this quarter, and $15.5 billion for the nine months.

    Of note, Occidental Petroleum, with impairments of $3.3 billion in Q3, Murphy Oil, Whiting Petroleum, and Carrizo Oil & Gas all recognized over 90% of their respective impairments this year in this misbegotten third quarter. They were in no hurry to grant their investors a peak at reality.

    However, Whiting’s impairments of $1.7 billion do not include an additional $870 million in write-offs of goodwill in connection with its once highly ballyhooed acquisition of Kodiak Oil & Gas, which closed in December last year.

    In Q4 2014, many investors thought the oil bust was a blip, that this was just a correction of sorts in oil prices and that they’d rebound in early 2015. But in 2015, oil and natural gas both have plunged to new cycle lows. And yet, over and over again, sharp sucker rallies gave rise to hopes that it would all be over pronto, that the price would settle safely above $80 a barrel, or at least above $65 a barrel, where some of the oil companies could survive.

    But now that oil in storage is practically coming out of our ears, globally, the meme has become “lower for longer,” and the game has boiled down to who can slash operating costs and capital expenditures fast enough without losing too much production, who has enough cash to burn through while this lasts, and who can still get new money at survivable rates. And that game is accompanied, as in Q3, by the giant sucking sound of capital destruction.

    Banks, when reporting earnings, are saying a few choice things about their oil & gas loans, which boil down to this: it’s bloody out there, but we made our money and rolled off the risks to others in a trade that has become blood-soaked. Read… Who on Wall Street is Now Eating the Oil & Gas Losses?

  • The "War On Terror" Is The Hoax Foundation Of The Police/Spy State

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    The “war on terror” was a hoax. Americans were deceived by policymakers, who are pursuing a hegemonic agenda. The American people were too trusting and too gullible and, consequently, Americans were easily betrayed by Washington and by the presstitute media.

    The consequences of the deceit, gullibility, and betrayal are horrendous for Americans, for millions of peoples in the Middle East, Africa, Ukraine, and for Washington’s European vassals.

     

    The consequences for Americans are an aborted Constitution, a police/spy state and rising resentment and hatred of America around the world.

     

    The consequences for peoples in Somolia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, and Ukraine have been massive deaths and dislocations, infrastructure destruction, internal conflicts, birth defects, invasions, bombings, drones. Millions of peoples have been murdered by Washington’s pursuit of hegemony, and millions have been turned into refugees.

     

    The consequences for Washington’s European vassals is that the millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are now overruning Europe, causing social and political discord and threatening the European political parties that enabled, and participated in, Washington’s massive war crimes in eight countries.

     

    The populations of the eight countries and Washington’s vassals are stuck with the consequences of Washington’s evil, vicious, and illegal actions. And Americans are stuck with the police/spy state and militarized police who murder three Americans each day and brutalize countless others.

    The countries we have destroyed have no recourse to restitution.

    Our European vassals will have to provide from their own pockets for the refugees that Washington’s wars are sending to them.

    As for Americans, they seem to have settled into acquiescence to the brutal police/spy state that has crowded out freedom and democracy.

    But Americans could do something about it.

    It is a proven fact that the police/spy state rests on a foundation of lies and deceptions, and these lies and deceptions are now known. Even George W. Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of independent experts consisting of physicists, nanochemists, structural engineers, highrise architects, fire fighters and first responders, and military and civilian pilots have provided the detailed explanations of September 11, 2001, that Washington failed to provide. Today not even an idiot believes the official explanation. The corrupt neoconservative Bush regime created a false reality and sold it to a trusting population that was anxious to prove its patriotism.

    The American electorate knew that the Bush/Cheney regime had deceived them about many things, and the people, believing Obama’s promises of change, put him in office to rectify the situation. Instead, Obama protected the criminal Bush/Cheney regime and continued with the neoconservatives agenda.

    We don’t have to stand for this. We can turn off Fox “News,” CNN, NPR and all the rest of the presstitutes who lie for a living. We can cease purchasing the useless newspapers. We can demand that the police/spy state that was created entirely on the basis of lies and deceptions be rolled back.

    Who can possibly believe that the massive PATRIOT Act was written so quickly in the aftermath of 9/11? It is not possible that every member of Congress and the staff does not know that such a massive document was sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity.

     

    Who can possibly believe that a handful of Saudi Arabians acting without the support of any state and any intelligence service could outwit the entire apparatus of the American National Security State and inflict a humiliating defeat on the world’s only superpower?

     

    9/11 is the worst national security failure in world history. Who can possibly believe that not a single one of the national security officials who so totally failed in their responsibilities was held accountable for their failures that brought total humiliation to the proud United States?

     

    Who can possibly believe that the Bush regime’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a response to 9/11 when Bush’s Treasury Secretary publicly stated that the invasion of Iraq was the topic of the Bush regime’s first cabinet meeting long prior to 9/11?

    Are the American people really such washed-up sheeple, such cowards, that they acquiesce to a police/spy state, the foundation of which consists of nothing but lies told by criminals and repeated endlessly by whores pretending to be journalists?

    If so, the American people are not a people who any longer matter, and they will continue to be treated by Washington and by their local police as people who do not matter.

  • East Chicago Re-Elects Councilman Facing Murder & Drug Charges

    While "innocent until proven guilty" is all well and good, when it comes to electing officials, one would hope the voting public is at minimum curious when the official is facing murder and drug charges.

    Meet Robert "Coop" Battle, East Chicago, Indiana's newly-elected 3rd District Councilman, who spent election day in the Lake County jail

     

     

    As The NWI Times reports,

    He's accused of shooting to death on Oct. 12 Reimundo Camarillo Jr., in the 4200 block of Euclid Avenue in East Chicago, according to court records.

     

    He also faces a federal drug charge stemming from a traffic stop in Porter County where police found 73.22 grams of marijuana and $100,700 in cash.

     

    Despite his pending legal battles that could take months if not years to sort out in the courts, Battle ran unopposed in Tuesday's election.

     

    Battle initially said through his then attorney, Walter Alvarez, that he shot Camarillo after Camarillo pulled a knife on him, according to the affidavit. As the conversations continued, Battle said there was no struggle before the shooting, according to court records.

     

    On Tuesday, Lake County Criminal Judge Clarence Murray granted the state's motion for a DNA mouth swab from Battle. According to their motion, prosecutors want to compare his DNA to evidence collected at the scene.

     

    Battle is expected to appear in court again Nov. 17 seeking to get bail set in the case.

    His attorney, John Cantrell, said he is offended by people who are calling for his client to resign.

    "He is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty," Cantrell said. "If he is acquitted, he'll keep his job."

    East Chicago City Council members made $42,356 a year in 2014, more than five times the average salary of council members of 75 community governments, according to the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns.

    East Chicago Mayor Anthony Copeland said Battle's fate was in the hands of the courts and declined to comment further.

    Cantrell said he will keep Battle informed about council business while he is in jail.

    Buncich, who is also the county's Democratic chairman, said he is embarrassed about Battle's situation.

    "The right thing to do at this time would be to resign, step aside so the East Chicago citizens in the third district can be represented properly," Buncich said.

    Standing outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Center, one woman, who did not want to identified, said she voted for Battle and thought he was being ambushed.  "I believe what he said, that the man was attacking him and he was defending himself," she said.  The woman recalled Battle brought her food and water when her brother died.

    A voter at the polling place in the 4900 block of Gladiola Avenue who also did not want to be identified described her councilman as a "good guy" who created a summer program for the children in her neighborhood. The woman does worry about how her neighborhood will now be represented.  "How can he represent us when he's facing his own issues," she said.

    *  *  *

    Drug dealing, Murder? Hillary has a long way to go yet…

  • "There's A Total Lack Of Confidence" McCain Warns Obama Of Growing "Military Dissatisfaction"

    Conjuring images of "the kind of incrementalism that defined much of the Vietnam conflict," John McCain came out swinging today exposing the frustration top military officers have with President Obama's policies. "There’s a total lack of confidence in the president's leadership," the warmonger raged, adding – as perhaps a veiled threat – "there’s a level of dissatisfaction among the uniformed military that I’ve never seen in my time here."

    Interestingly, as The Washington Times reports, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, echoed McCain's comments, demanding that, The White House be "more inclusive in the decision-making process," rather than 'icing' The Pentagon out

    "People who have spoken truth to power get retired," ranted McCain, "all you have to do is look at a map of the Middle East in 2009 and then compare it to a map of today," to see an utterly failed strategy.

    Mr. McCain argued that the frustration on Capitol Hill and at the Pentagon stems from the administration’s “complete lack of any kind of coherent strategy, much less a strategy that would have any success on the battlefield” against Islamic State and the Assad regime.

    “We’re sending 50 — count them, 50 — special operations soldiers to Syria, and they will have ‘no combat role,’ the president says,” said Mr. McCain. “Well, what are they being sent there for? To be recreation officers? You’re in a combat zone, and to say they’re not in combat is absurd.”

    But the White House, he argued, has effectively blinded itself to such absurdities by promoting a system over the past seven years that suppresses dissenting voices.

    "Compliant and easily led military leaders get promoted,” he said.

     

    When it comes to actual policy, Mr. McCain lamented, the administration pursues half-measures and decisions, “when they are made, consistently disregard recommendations from the uniformed military.”

     

    The failure to break Islamic State’s hold on Syria and Iraq, and its spread into North Africa, have resulted in “very poisoned relations that now exist between many in both houses of Congress and the president,” said Mr. McCain.

     

    “There’s a total lack of confidence in the president’s leadership,” he said.

     

    read more here…

    Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama’s past claims that things were improving in the region have undercut his credibility today.

    *  *  *

    It sounds like the neocons are upset at the progress Putin has made… and are stirring the pot for moar war. It appears to be working to get the general public on their side…

    More than 6 in 10 now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll published Thursday, an 8-point jump compared to a similar poll last January.

    *  *  *

    Since our Nobel Peace Prize winning President is sending "a few" special operations forces to Syria, it seems like a great time to revisit one of Ron Paul's columns from 2013. In it, Dr. Paul asked if war with Syria was justified even if President Obama sought and received a declaration of war (spoiler alert: it's not!).

    Of course, this is a theoretical question since Obama, the former Constitutional Law Professor, did not seek Congressional approval before sending American troops to Syria.

    Here is Dr. Paul's column from 2013:

    President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way

     

    Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

     

    The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented "a serious danger to our national security." I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.

     

    According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and "limited" missile and air strikes would cost "in the billions" of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

     

    I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria?

     

    For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

     

    In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:

     

    "There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

     

    Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama's speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president's war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president's war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.

     

  • Is Iran Opening A "Secret Passage" To Asia For Russian Crude?

    Submitted by Dave Forest via OilPrice.com,

    Russia is looking to expand its influence through oil trade. And a little-reported deal this week may give it access to an entirely new part of the planet when it comes to crude exports.

    That's the Persian Gulf. Where reports suggest Russia is close to negotiating a "secret passage" for its oil shipments.

    The move is coming through a deal with Iran, which that government says could open the door for crude oil swaps between the two countries — facilitating exports of "Russian" oil out into Asia and beyond.

    Iran's Deputy Petroleum Minister Amir Hossein Zamaninia told local press Monday that Russian energy company representatives will be arriving in Iran this week to discuss such a swap deal.

    Here's how it would work.

    Russia lacks access to ocean shipping routes beyond the Pacific and Arctic. Iran has better access, through its ports on the Persian Gulf.

    But Russia does have ports on the Caspian Sea. And as the map below shows, that provides a short shipping route into Iran.

     

    Russia and Iran can exchange crude oil shipments along the Caspian Sea

    The swap scheme would see Russian crude oil sent to Iran, in exchange for equal shipments of Iranian crude flowing to Russia.

    And from there, it will be interesting to see what happens.

    Officials said that Russian oil would likely be used within Iran's northern provinces. But the swaps agreement opens up another possibility — Russian crude could be sent further south, and even exported through Persian Gulf ports.

    That would give Russia unprecedented access to markets around the Indian Ocean — including go-to crude buyers in Asia, greatly changing the dynamics of oil markets in this part of the world.

    It's unclear how much oil might be exchanged under the swap agreements. We should have more details after this week's meetings are completed — watch for more details coming.

    Here's to a crude exchange.

  • Another Abenomics Fail: New Survey Shows Inequality Growing In Japan

    One thing that’s become abundantly clear in the post-crisis world is that round after round of QE are enriching the few at the expense of the many. 

    Ben Bernanke (the architect of the current DM CB regime) will tell you that the growing divide between the haves and the have nots isn’t attributable to central bank policy because after all, the poor have been getting poorer vis-a-vis the rich for decades and so whatever effect the Fed may have had is surely minimal from a historical perspective. 

    That is of course absurd. When you deliberately inflate the value of the assets that are most likely to be held in the hands of the rich, you are explicitly exacerbating the wealth gap and the effect QE has had on the value of financial assets the world over is certainly no secret. 

    Nowhere is this more apparent than Japan, where central bank Governor Haruhiko Kuroda has become the poster child for Keynesian insanity after commandeering 52% of the domestic ETF market on the way to providing daily plunge protection for the Nikkei.

    We’ve documented the effect this has had on stocks on any number of occasions and we also noted back in April that according to Akio Doteuchi, a senior researcher at the NLI Research Institute, anyone in the middle class is now at risk of falling into poverty. 

    Well, even as the BoJ recently “disappointed” the market by not announcing more QE, the wealthy are still getting wealthier under Abenomics. Here’s Bloomberg with the most recent read on household wealth:

    Signs of inequality in Japan are increasing as people living on their own fall further behind and wealthier households accumulate more assets, according to surveys released Thursday by the Bank of Japan.

     

    The ratio of single-member households with no financial assets climbed to almost 48 percent in 2015, the highest level since 2007, from about 39 percent a year earlier, according to an annual survey by the central bank. At the same time, households with two or more people who held assets such as stocks and bonds saw these rise to a record high 18.2 million yen ($149,597), a separate BOJ report showed.

     

    The widening inequality highlights Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s challenge as he seeks to spread the benefits of record corporate profits and stock prices that this year reached levels not seen since 1996. Low-income households are feeling the effects of last year’s sales-tax hike and limited wages gains while more well off Japanese are benefiting from the swelling value of their investment portfolios.

     

    “Inequality seems to be widening,” said Hiroshi Hanada, head of economic research at Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank Ltd. “A sales-tax hike and price increases last year hit households hard. Abe hasn’t succeeded to bring benefits to most ordinary people.”

    Right. Abe hasn’t really “succeeded” in doing much, but as the above seems to indicate, one thing that hasn’t been a problem is making the rich richer. Of course improving the plight of everyday Japanese is an entirely different story…
    …and inflation expectations are a disaster…
    …and as for the economy, well…


     

     

    So, there you go. But as long as the rich are doing well, we suppose this is fine. 

    Of course then again, what’s about to happen here is that Japan is going to run out of monetizable government bonds. Once that happens, the BoJ will need to consider two alternatives: 1) buying pretty much the entirety of the Japanese ETF market, and/or 2) resorting to direct deficit financing (i.e. “helicopter money”). 

    While neither of those options will fix the country’s demographic problem or do anything to change the fact that Tokyo is headed for “failed state” status by 2018, there may still be some more room for the rich to get a little richer vis-a-vis the peasantry so, mission accomplished? 

  • Monetary Bazookas Or Not, "Global Crisis Is Inevitable"

    Submitted by Saxobank's Dembik Christopher via TradingFloor.com,

    • There is an "inevitable" global financial crisis on the way
    • We are near the end of the global recovery cycle even if it may not feel like it
    • China could delay the crisis through a QE 'monetary bazooka'
    • A new paradigm is emerging but we could jump from deflation to hyperinflation

     t

    Reuters Plaza in Canary Wharf is a symbol of the global economy, but, accommodative policies notwithstanding, a "global crisis is inevitable". Photo: iStock

     

    Until recently, the consensus assumed a strengthening of the global economy in 2016. It won’t happen. If the global economic growth manages to reach 3.1% next year, as forecast by the IMF, it will be a miracle.

    We haven’t realised that the global economic recovery is already here for over six years. This recovery phase is weaker than previous ones and much more disparate.

    Since the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007, the potential growth rate has been much lower everywhere: from 3% to 2% for the US, from 9.4% to 7.20% for China and from over 5% to below 4% for Poland.

    Many regions, such as the euro area, have remained on the sidelines and experienced stalling economic growth. Over the last two decades, economic cycles have been shortened due to the financialization of the economy, trade globalization, deregulation and the acceleration of innovation cycles.

    Since the 1990s, the US went through three recessions: in 1991, 2001 and 2009. It is erroneous to believe that the recovery has just begun. We are close to the end of the current economic cycle. The outbreak of a new global crisis in the coming years is inevitable.    

    The lack of economic momentum next year and short periods of deflation related to falling oil prices will certainly push central banks to pursue their disastrous “extend-and-pretend” strategy which will increase the price of financial assets and global debt.

     

    t

     Low oil prices will see central banks revert to 'pretend-and-extend' policies. Photo: iStock 

     

    The European Central Bank could push further interest rates into negative territory and could increase or lengthen the purchase program. Several options are on the table: the central bank could drop the 25% purchase limit on sovereign bonds with AAA rating or could add a program to help the corporate bond market.  

    Following the same path, China could take out the monetary bazooka in the first half of 2016 by launching its own version of QE-style bond buys. Along with a dovish monetary policy, China could implement a massive Keynesian stimulus programme, relying on the already-expected bond issue plan which could raise 1 billion yuan.  

    This move could temporarily reassure world markets. 

    The only central bank that has a leeway to hike rates is the US Federal Reserve. 52% of investors expect a tightening of US monetary policy in December.  However, the speed and magnitude of tightening will remain low. It is unlikely the rates will be back anytime soon to where they were before the global financial crisis. Too high interest rates could cause a myriad of bankruptcies in heavily indebted industries, such as the shale oil sector in the US.

    The Fed and other central banks are in a dead-end having fallen in the same trap as the Bank of Japan. If they increase rates too much, they will precipitate another financial crisis. It is impossible to stop the accommodative monetary policy.

     

    t

    China could open the QE floodgate to help alleviate the global economy, temporarily. Photo: iStock 

     

    Because of the persistent low-rate environment and the risk of a new global crisis, finding the right investment has never been harder. No one is able to know the outcome of the central bank printing press.  

    The world could go from deflation to hyperinflation without a stop in between for inflation as predicted by Nassim Taleb. In this uncertain context, gold remains certainly the best investment that can be used as a hedge against the coming crisis.  

    Since the sudden drop of the EURCHF floor last January, the Swiss franc is no more a reliable safe haven. This decision has hurt irremediably the Swiss National Bank's credibility. Investors understood they cannot blindly believe the words of central bankers. 

    Although the yuan is not a safe haven, it may be the right time to invest in the Chinese currency. It is well-placed to grow in popularity and become stronger.  

    By the end of 2016, the yuan could be the third most traded currency in the world, behind the US dollar and the euro. The new Silk Road has been probably the most ambitious global economic strategy in the past 50  years. It is likely to succeed and to push investors to hold more yuan products. 

    The paradox of the current state of the economy is that innovation clusters, linked to cloud computing or digital fabrication for instance, have never been so numerous and the growth so weak. The economy is switching to a new paradigm.  

    The three biggest trends for investors are related to changing global demographics, low economic growth and climate change. An aging population will boost the development of elderly care services. Greater inequalities between the haves and have-nots will stimulate shared creation, production, trade and consumption of goods and services by different people and companies.

    The energy transition towards renewable energy will encourage the development of financial products still little used, like the green bonds. It is a very challenging time for investors because financial markets have never been so much influenced by central banks but plenty of investment opportunities exist in the new economy.

     

    g

     

    The juxtaposition of old and new is a feature of the new paradigm. Photo: Martin O'Rourke

     

  • "Get Covered" America Or "Take Cover" America

    Isn’t it interesting the mainstream media makes barely a peep about the ongoing and worsening Obamacare debacle. Healthcare premiums, co-pays and deductibles are soaring, while doctor and plan choices contract to a minuscule level.

     

    Source: Townhall

    Recent surveys reveal the hardship being inflicted upon families across the nation. As The Burning Platform's Jim Quinn details, those who are willfully baffled by the lack of consumer spending need look no further than Obamacare and its impact on the budgets of hard working Americans.

    According to a survey by LIMRA, an insurance and financial services trade association, six in 10 workers agreed that the rising cost of health insurance directly affects how much they set aside in their workplace retirement savings plan. Employees are being forced to cut back on their retirement savings in order to meet the skyrocketing cost of their health insurance. Based on the numbers being bandied about by the Kaiser Family Foundation, it seems average families will soon have to decide between food and healthcare. Remember Obama’s quotes in 2008- 2009 when he was selling this bloated pig of a plan to you?

    “We will start by reducing premiums by as much as $2,500 per family.”

    “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”

    Millions of people have been kicked out of their existing health plans and have seen their premiums and deductibles go up by double digits. Small business owners are being forced out of business. And now the fines, mandates, and taxes really begin to kick in. At least median household real wages are lower than they were in 1989. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation:

    Single and family average premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 4% this year over last. The average annual premium for single coverage is $6,251, of which workers pay an average of $1,071; the average family premium is $17,545, of which workers pay an average of $4,955. Deductibles have risen more sharply than premiums. That’s the amount that consumers must pay out of pocket before insurance pays for anything, except for certain preventive services that are covered at 100%. The average deductible for workers with employer-sponsored health insurance who face a deductible is $1,318 for single coverage this year, up 44% from $917 in 2010. By contrast, over that same period, single premiums are up 24% and wages have risen 10%, just outpacing general inflation at 9%.

    The brain dead proponents and cheerleaders for Obamacare reveal themselves to be nothing more than liberal control freaks who care not for the people they supposedly are helping with “free” healthcare. They need to falsify enrollment figures in order to prove how successful they’ve been in destroying the health system. They only care about press releases and winning the PR battle with the Republicans. It’s all about votes. It’s not about what is best for the uninsured. Families being forced into the limited number of Obamacare plans are seeing weekly costs of $300 to $400 for barely acceptable coverage.

    The poor suckers forced into the Obamacare marketplace have to contend with health plan deductibles that are even higher than those with workplace-based coverage. The average 2016 deductible for a silver plan on the Obamacare exchanges is $3,117 for individual coverage, up 6% from 2015, while the average silver family deductible is $6,480, up 8% from this year, according to a recent analysis by HealthPocket, a technology company that ranks and compares health plans.

    The entire reason Obama and his liberal minions forced Obamacare down the throats of a public that did not want it, was to provide insurance for the 30 million uninsured Americans. He failed, as there are still close to 30 million uninsured Americans, only they now get to pay a penalty to the IRS. It’s laughable for the MSM and brainless liberal twits to hail Obamacare as a huge success in covering the low income uninsured, when a poor family has to meet a $6,480 deductible before insurance pays a dime. How many poor families have $6,480 to spare? We know for a fact that more than half the households in the country don’t have $1,000 in savings, let alone the poor households. It’s a joke to say they have health coverage.

    Obamacare is an unequivocal disaster that has resulted in less job growth, small business closures, worse care, less options for consumers, higher health insurance premiums for all, and soaring profits among mega-insurers, mega-hospital corporations, drug conglomerates, drug stores, drug wholesalers, and the political campaign coffers of corrupt bought off politicians. It’s the gift that keeps taking from hard working Americans.

  • CIA, Saudis To Give "Select" Syrian Militants Weapons Capable Of Downing Commercial Airliners

    Wednesday brought a veritable smorgasbord of “new” information about the Russian passenger jet which fell out of the sky above the Sinai Peninsula last weekend. 

    First there was an audio recording from ISIS’ Egyptian affiliate reiterating that they did indeed “down” the plane. Next, the ISIS home office in Raqqa (or Langley or Hollywood) released a video of five guys sitting in the front yard congratulating their Egyptian “brothers” on the accomplishment.

    Then the UK grounded air traffic from Sharm el-Sheikh noting that the plane “may well” have had an “explosive device” on board.

    Finally, US media lit up with reports that according to American “intelligence” sources, ISIS was probably responsible for the crash. 

    Over the course of the investigation, one question that’s continually come up is whether militants could have shot the plane down. Generally speaking, the contention that ISIS (or at least IS Sinai) has the technology and/or the expertise to shoot down a passenger jet flying at 31,000 feet has been discredited by “experts” and infrared satellite imagery. 

    But that’s nothing the CIA can’t fix.

    With the Pentagon now set to deploy US ground troops to Syria (and indeed they may already be there, operating near Latakia no less), Washington is reportedly bolstering the supply lines to “moderate” anti-regime forces at the urging of (guess who) the Saudis and Erdogan.

    Incredibly, some of the weapons being passed out may be shoulder-fire man-portable air-defense systems, or Manpads, capable of hitting civilian aircraft. 

    But don’t worry, those will only be given to “select rebels.” Here’s more from WSJ

    The U.S. and its regional allies agreed to increase shipments of weapons and other supplies to help moderate Syrian rebels hold their ground and challenge the intervention of Russia and Iran on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. officials and their counterparts in the region said.

     

    The deliveries from the Central Intelligence Agency, Saudi Arabia and other allied spy services deepen the fight between the forces battling in Syria, despite President Barack Obama’s public pledge to not let the conflict become a U.S.-Russia proxy war.

     

    Saudi officials not only pushed for the White House to keep the arms pipeline open, but also warned the administration against backing away from a longstanding demand that Mr. Assad must leave office.

     

    In the past month of intensifying Russian airstrikes, the CIA and its partners have increased the flow of military supplies to rebels in northern Syria, including of U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles, these officials said. Those supplies will continue to increase in coming weeks, replenishing stocks depleted by the regime’s expanded military offensive.

     

    An Obama administration official said the military pressure is needed to push Mr. Assad from power. 

     

    “Assad is not going to feel any pressure to make concessions if there is no viable opposition that has the capacity, through the support of its partners, to put pressure on his regime,” the official said.

     

    In addition to the arms the U.S. has agreed to provide, Saudi and Turkish officials have renewed talks with their American counterparts about allowing limited supplies of shoulder-fire man-portable air-defense systems, or Manpads, to select rebels. Those weapons could help target regime aircraft, in particular those responsible for dropping barrel bombs, and could also help keep Russian air power at bay, the officials said.

     

    Mr. Obama has long rebuffed such proposals, citing the risk to civilian aircraft and fears they could end up in the hands of terrorists. To reduce those dangers, U.S. allies have proposed retrofitting the equipment to add so-called kill switches and specialized software that would prevent the operator from using the weapon outside a designated area, said officials in the region briefed on the option.

     

    U.S. intelligence agencies are concerned that a few older Manpads may already have been smuggled into Syria through supply channels the CIA doesn’t control.

    If that sounds insane to you, that’s because it is. Even as US intelligence (which we can only assume emanates from the CIA) indicates that IS Sinai likely brought down a Russian passenger jet with 224 people on board, the same CIA is working with the Saudis to supply “select rebels” with weapons capable of shooting down commercial airliners.

    In order to make sure no one ends up blowing a 747 out of the sky, Washington will “retrofit” the weapons with “special” software that makes sure they can only be used in certain areas. 

    Make no mistake, this has gone beyond absurd and is now bordering on the bizarre. It’s apparently not enough that the US is supplying anti-tank missiles to rebels shooting at the very same Iran-backed militias that the US implicitly supports across the border in Iraq so now, the CIA and Saudi Arabia will give these rebels the firepower to shoot down planes, meaning that in the “best” case scenario they’ll be firing at Russian fighter jets, and in the worst case scenario these weapons will end up in the “wrong” hands and be used to down commercial flights. 

    It’s difficult to see how John Kerry can attend “peace” talks in Vienna and keep a straight face while chatting with Sergei Lavrov. That’s not to say that Russia bears no responsibility for its role in the conflict (sure, Moscow is supporting a “legitimate” government in Syria but they’re still dropping bombs on populated areas), but the US and the Saudis are arming Sunni extremist groups and encouraging them to shoot at Russian and Iranian forces. For Obama to suggest this isn’t a proxy war is absurd. 

    Putting this all together, it now appears possible that the US is, i) sending anti-tank weapons to rebels who are shooting at Iranian soldiers, ii) embedding ground troops near Latakia which means they’ll almost certainly be engaging Hezbollah directly, and iii) passing weapons capable of downing a commercial airliner to “select” militants days after a Russian passenger jet exploded in the skies above the Sinai Peninsula.

    This is all in conjunction with the Saudis and Erodgan, who just rigged an election in Turkey on the way to rewriting his country’s constitution. 

    And the Western media reports this with a straight face as though it all makes some measure of sense…

  • A Practical Guide to Hawaiian Secession

    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The BBC reports this week that a secession movement in Hawaii continues to simmer under the surface:

    An upcoming election has highlighted the deep disagreement between native Hawaiians over what the future should look like. For some, it's formal recognition of their community and a changed relationship within the US. Others want to leave the US entirely – or more accurately, want the US to leave Hawai'i.

    Much of the antipathy to DC stems from the grievances of the indigenous population which is quite familiar of how wealthy white ranchers in the late 19th century overthrew the legitimate government of Hawaii and formed  a pro-US puppet government in its stead. Eventually, annexation followed.

    Nevertheless, the fact that some Hawaiians want independence does not mean that most do. While it's true that whites are only 25 percent of the Hawaiian population, it's also true that indigenous Hawaiians and other pacific islander groups only comprise ten percent of Hawaii's population. The largest demographic group in Hawaii is Asian-Americans, who make up 38 percent of the population (not including people of mixed parentage.)

    If the secessionists are ever to sell secession to the overall population, they would have to offer something more practical than solidarity with the indigenous population or appeals to local patriotism.

    Potentially, the costs of secession could be high if the US decided to regard the Hawaiian government as a hostile regime (thus bringing economic sanctions), and of course, spending by the US government in Hawaii — funded by mainland taxpayers — is extensive.

    Practically speaking, however, there is a lot of real estate between the current status quo for Hawaii and full-blown independence. It is unlikely that Hawaii would fully remove the US from the islands any time soon, no matter how unpopular the regime in DC became. It is likely that Washington would resort to military action before it would be willing to give up its military installations in and around Pearl Harbor. Look, for example, at how the US has held onto Guantanamo Bay, even when Cuba became aligned militarily with the Soviet Union.

    However, there is no reason that that Hawaii could not reach a compromise with the US in which Hawaii obtains domestic autonomy while remaining a military ally and resource for the US. The world is full of such arrangement, and many countries have relationships with regions (many of which are islands and overseas territories) that use their own currency and have their own systems of government while remaining part of a larger political body.

    It does not follow logically, of course, that Hawaii, even if it were to allow a US military presence, would have to use US currency or submit to US regulations of trade.

    In fact, freedom from federally imposed restrictions on trade would be among the greatest benefits for Hawaiians in the case of independence. As Gary Galles noted here in Mises Daily, Hawaii, as part of the US's domestic market, is heavily restricted by the Jones Act. The Jones Act restricts the nature and extent of shipping that can take place in and out of American ports. Galles writes: 

    Jones Act costs are made clearest in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska, where it most severely limits supply lines.

     

    In 2014, shipping a forty-foot container from Los Angeles to Honolulu reportedly cost more than ten times shipping it to Singapore. Dependent on Jones Act shipped petroleum for three-quarters of its electricity generation, Hawaii’s electricity prices are almost double the next most expensive state.

     

    A 2012 report found that sending a container of household goods from the east coast to Puerto Rico cost more than double that to nearby Santo Domingo. A GAO study found that some Puerto Rico companies had shifted sourcing from America to Canada, due to cost savings from escaping Jones Act restrictions.

     

    Alaska is restricted from shipping oil by tanker to the lower forty-eight states or to Hawaii, due to Jones Act restrictions. The costs are so extensive that the state’s governor is mandated to use “all appropriate means to persuade the United States Congress to repeal those provisions of the Jones Act.”

    (International trade is restricted by the Jones Act as well, although not in the same way as domestic shipping.)

    Thanks in part to trade restrictions such as these, the cost of living in Hawaii is notoriously high. For example, in nominal terms, Hawaii has a rather high median income at $59,000.  (The US median is $58,000.) But when adjusted for cost of living, the median income in Hawaii plummets to $50,900.  This disparity is the nation's largest, although, New Jersey comes in just slightly behind Hawaii in this measure:

     

    We can't blame all of this on federal law, of course, as Hawaii is a long way from other major shipping ports, but the fact remains that the Jones Act severely limits what can be shipped from the US mainland, and by whom, while international trade further is controlled by a Congress where only four people out of 535 are from Hawaii.

    Thus, economic freedom for Hawaii would allow Hawaiians greater power to control tariffs and trade in a manner that benefited Hawaii rather than special interests far away on the mainland. (Naturally, I prefer unilateral free trade in this regard.) This isn't to say that some Hawaiians never benefit from US trade restrictions. International trade restrictions on sugar are a famous example. But for every pro-Hawaii government regulation, there are countless others that benefit far away interests much more.

    The US cannot be faulted for all of Hawaii's inability to take advantage of its geographical advantages. As just one example, we might note that a majority of Hawaiians have long refused to allow gambling on the islands, even though such a move could turn the islands, or a subregion of them, into a Monaco of the Pacific where wealthy Asians and Americans would leave behind thousands of dollars in gambling losses with every trip. 

    The biggest obstacle to successful secession for the time being, however, is not ideological. As long as the federal money keeps coming in the form of social security checks, welfare checks, and military spending, its unlikely many will want to kill that golden goose. If those checks ever start bouncing, however, and if the feds start to scale back the fiat-money and taxpayer funded largesse, things will start to look very different.

  • Play The Forex Fix – JPY And CHF Pairs Range Bound

    The Forex market is very unusual; it’s the largest market in the world with the least amount of significant players (a handful of large banks and central banks control the Forex market).

    We see everyday in the news more and more proof that the Forex market, to a large degree, is fixed. Just today, two traders from Rabobank have been convicted of rigging Libor rates:

    Two British citizens face lengthy prison sentences in the US after being convicted of rigging Libor interest rates, in the first case of its kind to reach a courtroom across the Atlantic.  The two former traders at the Dutch bank Rabobank – Anthony Allen, Rabobank’s former global head of liquidity and finance, and Anthony Conti, a former senior trader – both intend to appeal against the verdicts reached by a federal jury in Manhattan.

    The US justice department said the verdicts showed that the authorities were determined to crack down on financial crime.

    Instead of getting into the detail of how and why the Forex market is different, and that it’s fixed; let’s look at some charts of USDJPY and EURCHF.

    USDJPY 1 Hour

    EURCHF 1 Hour

    As you can see from the above 2 pairs which are not connected or correlated, there are defined ranges and little direction. While USDJPY has a slight trend up and EURCHF has a slight trend down, they mostly are range bound.

    Why is this? Both the BOJ and the SNB have intervened in the market to influence the Forex market, and in some cases have defined predetermined ‘fix’ levels where they want the currencies to be. They can do that, because they are the primary emission of the currency!

    A simple range bound strategy – trade the ranges

    If you have the ability to trade spot Forex, trading these ranges is simple. In the case of USDJPY, simply sell when there’s a big move up and buy when there’s a big move down. There are ways to use algorithms to execute this as well – simply program them to trade against the market – if USDJPY is going up – sell, and if USDJPY is going down, buy.

    Of course, there are situations where they will break out of the range – which is why it is always prudent to use stop losses and other account protection methods. The ranges certainly will not last forever – but the point is to make money while they last!

    Trading ranges with options

    If available at your broker, trading these ranges with options is great, especially with options such as ‘double no touch’ which allows traders to bet that a pair will stay within a certain range.

    For serious traders, sell a call above the range and sell a put below the range for the duration you believe the range will last (30 days, a reasonable time). Or in the reverse and in the money, buy a put above the range and buy a call below the range.

    What this bet is really all about – the Forex Fix

    Not only do the banks fix Forex market rates, the central banks openly manipulate the Forex market in many ways:

    • Most basically, setting the interest rates
    • Capital controls (such as the case with emerging markets)
    • Actual Forex market intervention

    See a short timeline of central bank intervention from Reuters here.

    What are the best range bound Forex pairs?

    Simply open your platform and look hourly or daily charts. Currently any CHF pair should be the best, and the best CHF pair – EURCHF. Any pair which is connected to a central bank that openly intervenes in the market, is subject to such behavior. JPY is a little more volatile than CHF, as Japan has a real economy it needs to manage (no offense, Switzerland!).

    Remember – Forex is a countertrend market. It always pays in Forex to bet against the trend. Forget “The trend is your friend” and start listening to “Home, home on the range.”

    About Elite E Services Forex

    For updated Forex strategies, checkout Elite E Services blog, Elite Forex Blog.  

  • Ceasefire Is Over: Kurds Call Time After Erdogan Engineers Election Victory

    In the wake of Turkey’s “elections” held a few days back, the question was how the market would ultimately view the results of the country’s trip to the ballot box.

    Make no mistake, this was to certain extent a complete farce. That is, as soon as it became apparent that elections held in June yielded results that did not support President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s bid to alter the constitution on the way to consolidating his power, it was clear that Ankara would undercut the coalition building process on the way to calling for snap elections. 

    In short, Erdogan wanted a mulligan and in order to boost the odds that new elections would yield the outcome he wanted (i.e. more support for AKP and less support for HDP), he engineered a NATO sponsored civil war with the PKK in order to scare voters into backing away from their support for the Kurds. 

    What the market wants, of course, is stability, which is why the lira rallied hard in the immediate aftermath of Sunday’s elections. But in reality, this was a lose-lose for Ankara. Either AKP won back its majority at the expense of democracy or the opposition once again put up a strong showing, validating the democratic process but prompting a renewed crackdown from the regime. In other words, there will likely be instability either way.

    Well, now that Erdogan has won, the PKK has called off a pre-election cease fire. Here’s Reuters with more:

    Kurdish militants scrapped a month-old ceasefire in Turkey on Thursday, a day after President Tayyip Erdogan vowed to “liquidate” them, dashing hopes of any let-up in violence in the wake of a national election.

     

    The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group said the ruling AK Party, which won back its parliamentary majority in Sunday’s election, had shown it was on a war footing with attacks launched this week.

     

    “The unilateral halt to hostilities has come to an end with the AKP’s war policy and the latest attacks,” it said in a statement carried by the Firat news agency, which is close to the militant group, based in the mountains of northern Iraq.

     

    Erdogan, who oversaw a peace process with the PKK that collapsed in July, vowed on Wednesday to continue battling the group until every last fighter was “liquidated”.

     

    Yes, Erdogan is going to fight the Kurds until Ankara “liquidates every last fighter” which means the country’s civil war is going to continue unabated. That portends further danger for civilians. Make no mistake, Erdogan’s most powerful weapon over the past six or so months has been fear and the PKK has variously accused Ankara of effectively terrorizing their own people in order to strengthen the position of the regime. 

     

    Well now, in the wake of what many view as rigged elections, the PKK has called an end to the cease fire. Here’s Reuters with more:

     

    Kurdish militants scrapped a month-old ceasefire in Turkey on Thursday, a day after President Tayyip Erdogan vowed to “liquidate” them, dashing hopes of any let-up in violence in the wake of a national election.

     

    The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group said the ruling AK Party, which won back its parliamentary majority in Sunday’s election, had shown it was on a war footing with attacks launched this week.

     

    “The unilateral halt to hostilities has come to an end with the AKP’s war policy and the latest attacks,” it said in a statement carried by the Firat news agency, which is close to the militant group, based in the mountains of northern Iraq.

     

    Erdogan, who oversaw a peace process with the PKK that collapsed in July, vowed on Wednesday to continue battling the group until every last fighter was “liquidated”.

     

    The PKK’s latest declaration, on top of the renewed surge in violence, was a fresh source of concern for foreign investors who broadly viewed Sunday’s election as offering the potential for increased stability in NATO-member Turkey.

     

    However, generally weaker Turkish financial markets showed little immediate reaction to the PKK move.

     

    The PKK – designated a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union – declared the ceasefire on Oct. 10, saying it wanted to avoid violence that might prevent a fair election. The government dismissed it as an electoral tactic.

    Right, an “electoral tactic,” much like starting a civil war in an effort to frighten the electorate into “voting” for a dictator. 

    As we’ve documetned extensively, the interesting thing to note here is that this comes as Washington is set to, i) embed spec ops with the PKK-affiliated YPG  in Syria and, ii) fly missions from a Turkish airbase to support that effort. 

    So the question is this: if the PKK steps up its attacks on the Erdogan regime, how will Ankara reconcile that with Washington’s move to place ground troops with the group’s Syrian sister organization and what will that mean for two air forces that are flying from the same base at Incirlik?

  • Owner Of Bankrupt Casino Offers To Unleash Thousands Of Syrian Refugees In New Jersey

    No, not Donald Trump.

    Recall that back in April 2012, an ecstatic Atlantic City basked in the neon blue glow of its most recent, “category-killer” casino-hotel, the Revel.

    Revel promotional materials: archive

    The taxpayer-backed casino was supposed to provide thousands of jobs and millions in much needed tax revenue for both the city and the state for years to come. It did none of that because less than 10 months later, it filed for its first bankruptcy. 16 months later it filed its second bankruptcy as the Atlantic City hotel/casino business model was officially pronounced dead.

     

    Revel’s problems did not end there.

    Two days after the current owner of the former casino, Florida developer Glenn Straub who bought the building (unwillingly: in November 2014 Canada’s Brookfield ended up winning the liquidation auction with a $110 million bid but it subsequently backed out, leaving “back up” Straub as the owner in February 2015) its sole source of electricity, heat and water cut off utility service after it could not agree with Straub on a contract. New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs ordered the power plant to provide limited electricity to keep fire and safety systems powered, but the situation is beset by litigation on all sides.

    On Monday, a judge delayed a request by a sewer utility to cut off service to Revel when the utility claimed it hadn’t been paid. Straub must put $140,000 into an escrow account pending a January hearing. In other words, what seemed like a slam dunk deal just 9 months ago has once again turned into a money pit.

    And all this without any real vision of how to convert the building into anything that can generate revenue. In fact, even Straub has given up. Which is why, according to AP, he has proposed using it as an indoor water park, a medical tourism resort, an equestrian facility, and a so-called “genius academy” where the world’s top minds would tackle society’s problems.

    Which brings us to Straub’s latest proposal how to use the vacant, money-losing building: use it as shelter for Syrian refugees.

    Straub told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he’s willing to let people displaced by the civil war in Syria stay at the 47-story Revel resort as he fights in court over its future.

    “We treat our dogs better than we treat the Syrians right now,” he said. “If the government wanted to house Syrian refugees, I’d give them use of the building and let them put those people there.

    Which is great news for Obama: recall that recently the White House announced it would accept 100,000 refugees in the US starting in 2017. Surely a few thousand of them wouldn’t mind staying in the luxury building.

    Straub added the building is likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future while he hashes out a half-dozen lawsuits or regulator battles involving its utilities, taxes and former business tenants.

    Is Straub doing this out of the goodnews of his own heart? Hardly: he told AP that his “only request would be to be reimbursed for the cost of operating the building while refugees were staying there.”

    In other words, the Florida developer made a terrible deal, found himself stuck with a terrible “asset” which he can’t refund or resell, and on top of that, he now has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in municipal fees even if the building remains vacant forever. His solution: unleash a few thousand Syrian refugees in New Jersey because, drumroll, he is such a noble guy.

    Somehow we doubt a few millions New Jerseyans would share the “kindness” of his heart if asked whether they are willing to cohabitate with a few thousand Syrian refugees living in the taxpayer-funded luxury of a recently bankrupt casino.

  • For WHO, Red Meat Is A Red Herring

    Submitted by Yuri Maltsev via The Mises Institute,

    Our booming green-industrial complex built up by administrations of both parties in the US is effectively using the United Nations, its thirty two “sister” institutions — such as the World Bank, UNESCO, and numerous “tribunals” — and hundreds of training and research centers. This huge international bureaucratic buildup is already employing over a million “international civil servants” to administer what our socialist visionaries hope will become the world government of the future.

    An increasingly important “sister institution” of the UN system is the highly politicized "World Health Department" also known as the World Health Organization (WHO) which, as part of a new scare campaign, has issued new declarations that sausages, hot dogs, bratwurst, and ham are carcinogenic, and that all red meat is “probably carcinogenic.”

    This new anti-meat campaign, however, is not about your health, but about the “health of the planet.” WHO’s attack on meat is happening just before the Paris gathering on global warming and is a part of the slow motion socialist revolution poorly disguised as “climate change awareness.” As usual, socialist policies today are justified as “necessity for future generations.” Famous Nobel Laureate in physics, Dr. Ivar Giaever, once an Obama supporter, now stands against the president on global warming. “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem.” Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming. I am sure that Obama and other politicians are peddling the climate change agenda not because of “bad advice,” but because advocates provide them with the argument for central planning and curtailing of individual liberty.

    The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will be held in Paris from November 30 to December 11, is designed by the Obama administration as the major leap forward toward world government and central planning. It will be the twenty-first yearly session of the Conference of the Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the eleventh session of the Meeting of the Parties to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the countries, including the US.

    All globalists were mobilized for preparation to this event. Pope Francis, for example, published an encyclical called Laudato Si’ help to secure success for the conference. The encyclical calls for immediate action against human-caused climate change. The International Trade Union Confederation, which traces its origins back to the First International founded and addressed by Karl Marx, has called for the goal to be "zero carbon, zero poverty," and its general secretary Sharan Burrow proclaimed that there are “no jobs on a dead planet.”

    The war on meat is part of this public relations blitz. Lord Stern of the UK, a former chief economist of the World Bank, believes that “meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

    Another Stern, this time our own, is a US special envoy for climate change appointed by the Obama administration to secure a strong climate agreement at the Paris climate conference. Ambassador Todd Stern is now traveling to Brazil and Cuba to obtain support from these corrupt socialist governments to stand against “the global threat of climate change.”

    In the US, socialist zealots and their “capitalist” cronies have already destroyed the coal industry and the whole energy sector is under attack. Now they are after the meat industry which is, according to them, “unsustainable.” The left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists lists meat-eating as the second-biggest environmental hazard facing the Earth. (Number one is fossil-fuel vehicles.)

    In the Soviet Union, when it existed, beef was available only to Communist Party functionaries and everybody else could only find it on the black market. It was “explained” to the masses that meat was bad for their health. In Cuba today you cannot find beef in the food stores. Ground beef (usually mixed with soy), chicken, sausage, and ham are rationed by the government in the amount of a half pound per person every fifteen days. My Cuban friends complain, however, that most of these deliveries are unreliable and can be “canceled” without any explanation.

    In the US, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee worked on concocting a 571-page report of pseudoscientific “evidence” to encourage Americans to avoid red meat. US departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services will use this junk science to guide federal nutrition policy, including the $16 billion school lunch program.

    And it’s all being done at our own expense. The United States is bankrolling the UN and its “sister” institutions, including WHO, from one-quarter to one-third of their operating budgets. Let’s hope we don’t get all the world government we’re paying for.

  • NY Attorney General Launches Crack Down On Exxon Over Global Warming Denial

    Last May, when the Obama administration was furiously cracking down on the Kremlin in the aftermath of the CIA-backed Ukraine presidential coup and the resulting “territorial expansion” by Russia which promptly took over the Crimea peninsula (and is on its way to annexing the Donetsk republic) with attempts to “isolate” Russia, one prominent US company dared to defy the White House embargo and extended its partnership with Moscow.

    This is what we posted last May: “Several of the largest oil companies in the world are doubling down in Russia despite moves by the West to isolate Russia and its economy. ExxonMobil and BP separately signed agreements with Rosneft – Russia’s state-owned oil company – to extend and deepen their relationships for energy exploration. The U.S. slapped sanctions on Rosneft’s CEO Igor Sechin in late April, freezing his assets and preventing him from obtaining visas.

    However, the sanctions do not extend to Rosneft itself, allowing western companies to continue to do business with the Russian oil giant. ExxonMobil signed an agreement with Rosneft, extending its partnership to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on Russia’s pacific coast. Known as the Far East LNG project, the export terminal will receive natural gas from Russia’s eastern fields as well as from Sakhalin-1, an island off Russia’s east coast. Rosneft announced the deal in a press release on its website on May 23.

     

    By defying the White House, the oil majors salvaged what would have otherwise been an embarrassing event for the Kremlin. The absence of the world’s largest companies would have demonstrated Russia’s increasing isolation. Instead, Russia used the event to detail plans to expand its massive energy sector. “(They’re) eager to continue work on projects in Russia,” Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said of ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

     

    To be clear, the oil companies are not legally running afoul of international sanctions. But their collective shrug in the face of European and American pressure to boycott Russia – along with the $400 billion natural gas deal Russia signed with China last week – illustrates the difficulty with which the West will have at undermining Russia’s energy sector, if it chose to do so. Russia is too big of a prize for the likes of ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell. Or viewed another way, the moves to deepen business in Russia suggest that the world’s biggest oil companies are confident that the U.S. and Europe won’t be so bold as to truly attack Russia’s energy machine.

    To be sure, back than oil was over $100, and perhaps now that it is below $50 a different reality would have been unveiled, but for all intents and purposes, the take home was that while Obama was scrambling to show a united front in his ideological war against Russia, Exxon dared to cross Obama’s latest “red” line.

    And now it’s payback time.

    As the NYT reports, the New York AG has “begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.”

    According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

    The NYT adds that “the focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science.” 

    It is unclear just which science is envisioned: perhaps the “science” that was purchased thanks to the more than $79 billion in “climate change” money spent in the 21st century as the infamous 2009 Climate Money report by Joanne Nova revealed. 

    Or perhaps it was the “science” that Australia PM Tony Abbott dared to challenge? Recall Abbott previously questioned the reliability of climate science, and had proceed to probe the “statistics and data” behind the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. This “probe” threatened a potentially massive revenue stream for Goldman in the form of carbon credits, and which is why Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull: a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997 to 2001.

    Which “science” the NY AG is referring to is unclear, but one thing is clear: Exxon has dared to deny “climate change” and now it must be punished. As the NYT says “a major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.”

    A “need” spearheaded, incidentally, by the “bleeding heart humanitarian” and infinite humanist, Goldman Sachs, which stands to make billions from such programs as cap-and-trade. Here is a quick reminder of just how Goldman’s profit motive is aligned with the “science” Obama finds beneficial to society, from 2009:

    it’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs – its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign – sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.Gone are HankPaulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits – a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.

     

    The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

     

    Here’s how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions: President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

     

    The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the annual combined revenues of all’ electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

     

    Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they’re the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief ofstaff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank’s environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson’s report argued that “voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem.” A few years later, the bank’s carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won’t be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, “We’re not making those investments to lose money.”

     

    * * *

     

    Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn’t, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees – while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

    And, best of all, Goldman’s next and potentially perhaps largest ever revenue stream has the cover of doing what is “socially right”, and is, according to the NY AG, “backed by science.”

    That, in a nutshell, are the two sides of the “climate change” debate, and without taking either side, we show whose financial interests are most at stake.

    But back to Exxon, whose financial interests are certainly at stake now that it is suddenly in the crosshairs of allegedly denying “climate change”, a charge which will result in billions in settlement fees or worse.

    Here is the NYT:

    The Exxon Mobil investigation might expand further, to encompass other oil companies, according to the people with knowledge of the case, though no additional subpoenas have been issued to date.

     

    The people spoke on the condition they not be identified. The Martin Act, a New York state law, confers on the attorney general broad powers to investigate financial fraud. 

     

    Mr. Schneiderman’s decision to scrutinize the fossil-fuel companies may well open a sweeping new legal front in the battle over climate change. To date, lawsuits trying to hold fossil-fuel companies accountable for the damage they are causing to the climate have been failing in the courts, but most of those have been pursued by private plaintiffs.

     

    Attorneys general for other states could join in Mr. Schneiderman’s efforts, bringing far greater investigative and legal resources to bear on the issue. Some experts see the potential for a legal assault on fossil fuel companies similar to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies in recent decades, costing those companies tens of billions of dollars in penalties.

     

    This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia law school. “In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet.”

    The premise behind the probe is whether Exxon was “funding”, and thus influencing, the other side of the argument, namely “deniers”.

    The sources said the attorney general’s investigation of Exxon Mobil began a year ago, focusing initially on what the company had told investors over the course of decades about the risks that climate change might pose to its business.

     

    News reporting in the last eight months added impetus to the investigation, the sources said. In February, several news organizations, including The New York Times, reported that a Smithsonian researcher who had published papers questioning established climate science, Wei-Hock Soon, had received extensive funds from fossil fuel companies, including Exxon Mobil, without disclosing them.

    This reminds us of the NYT’s other expose on “pay-for-research” professors such as University of Houston’s very own Craig Pirrong who recently made waves reporting that commodity traders are not a “systemic risk” when it quickly became clear that they are.  However, the truth is that there have been such anti-intellectual mercenaries for decades: people who will goalseek a conclusion to benefit the party that commissioned the study; Pirrong is just one of them, Wei-Hock Soon may be another, but what about the tens of billions spent to fund research slamming “climate change deniers” which incidentally, is far more prevalent and far more pervasive among the progressive media than the counter?

    Logic aside what happens next is that “climate change deniers” will be treated just the same as big tobacco.

    That struck some experts as similar to the activities of tobacco companies that had contrived scientific papers to suggest that smoking was safe, ultimately leading to court findings that they had defrauded the public.

     

    More recently, Inside Climate News and The Los Angeles Times have reported that Exxon Mobil was well aware of the risks of climate change from its own scientific research, and used that research in its long-term planning for activities like drilling in the Arctic, even as it funded groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks.

    To be sure, Exxon has a different take on things.

    Mr. Cohen, of Exxon, said on Thursday that the company had made common cause with such groups largely because it agreed with them on a policy goal of keeping the United States out of a global climate treaty called the Kyoto Protocol.

    Ah yes, the Kyoto Protocol treaty which commits member states to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, and which the overly sensitive about global climate change United States (together with India and China) has refused to sign and has said will not ratify any treaty that will commit it from legally reducing CO2 emissions.

    It is almost as if the US is applying a double standard: one when applying moral suasion in preaching what is good for the public, and why Exxon must be punished, and a totally different one when actually implementing the pursuit of reducing cabon emissions.

    But everyone knows the US would never do that.

    As for Exxon, “Wall Street analysts reacted to the legal action against Exxon Mobil with mixed concerns about a company that, like other oil and gas companies, is already suffering from a plunge in commodity prices. “This is not good news for Exxon Mobil or Exxon Mobil shareholders,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil company analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. “It’s a negative, though how much damage there will be to reputation or performance is very hard to say.”

    Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst at Edward Jones, said, “There is headline risk, but the actual financial impact will not affect the company for a long time, if ever. I think there will be a modest overhang.”

    And that is precisely what Obama wants: to keep a lid, both literally and metaphorically, on yet another sector, and have all the leverage (mostly monetarily) over an industry that for the past decade was one of the few bright spots in the US economy. Because soon energy companies, like banks, like biotechs, are about to become another “utility” of the government which will decide just how much profit is fair, and how much isn’t… and has to go into the government’s pocket.

    More importantly, as the title suggest, with this salvo, it is now open season on “climate change deniers” everywhere.  And it will certainly teach companies far and wide to defy Obama in public and make a global mockery of his ironclad foreign policy.

  • Bank Of Ireland Bans "Small" Cash Withdrawals At Branches

    As central planners the world over grapple with the effective “lower bound” that’s imposed by the existence of physical banknotes, there’s been no shortage of calls for a ban on cash. 

    Put simply, if you eliminate physical currency, you also eliminate the idea of a floor for depo rates.

    After all, if people can’t withdraw paper money and stash it under the mattress, then interest rates can be as negative as the government wants them to be in order to “encourage” consumption. If, for instance, you’re being charged 10% for saving your money, then by God you will probably spend that money rather than see the bank collect a double-digit fee just for holding on to your paycheck. 

    In the absence of physical cash, there’s no way for depositors to avoid that rather unpalatable outcome unless the public starts buying hard assets like commodities with their debit cards. If you think that sounds far-fetched, just consider the fact that everyone from Citi’s Willem Buiter to economist Ken Rogoff to the German Council Of Economic Experts’ Peter Bofinger have now floated the idea. 

    “With today’s technical possibilities, coins and notes are in fact an anachronism,” Bofinger told Spiegel back in May. 

    Now, in what should be a wake up call to the world, Bank of Ireland has banned branch withdrawals of less than €700. 

    Seriously.

    Here’s The Irish Times explaining that tellers will still assist the “elderly” if they have trouble using automated methods of obtaining cash:

    Under new rules, designed to streamline in-branch services, Bank of Ireland said withdrawals of less than €700 will no longer be facilitated with the assistance of tellers.

     

    From mid-November, customers will have to use ATMs or mobile devices for small and modest-sized withdrawals.

     

    Lodgements of up to €3,000 and those involving less than 15 cheques will also have to use the bank’s dedicated lodgement ATMs.

     

    “Bank of Ireland understands these changes may be a new way of banking for some of our customers, and the branch teams will be available to help and guide them through this change,” the bank said in a statement.

    So, if you are, i) wanting less than €700, ii) have less than 15 checks to deposit, or iii) aren’t looking to put at least €3,000 into your account, you are no longer welcome inside Bank of Ireland branches. 

    For his part, Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan seems to think that this is, for lack of a better description, absolutely nuts: 

    Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has described restrictions to be imposed by Bank of Ireland on over-the-counter lodgements and withdrawals as both “surprising and unnecessary”.

     

    “I expect the bank to fully honour this commitment and ensure that customers will be facilitated through the existing arrangements where required. I would welcome a clarification form Bank of Ireland on the issue,” he said in a statement.

    Yes, Noonan is demanding some “clarification,” and you should too, before you discover that the world’s central bankers planners have absconded with your physical cash on the way to instituting a regime that will allow for the micromanagement of your purchasing decisions. 

  • US Planes Fired On Fleeing Civilians, Doctors Without Borders Says

    Just a few days ago, the Saudis followed in the footsteps of their counterparts in Washington when the kingdom’s warplanes “accidentally” bombed a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Yemen. 

    The “incident” came less than a month after the Green Berets – who were battling for control of Kunduz in Afghanistan in an effort to beat back a Taliban advance – apparently decided that in order to rid an MSF hospital of some “insurgents” who were apparently hanging out inside (and by “hanging out” we mean “were injured and that’s why they were in the hospital in the first place”), they needed to call in an AC-130 gunship which proceeded to make five passes and engage the building for an hour, eventually killing dozens of people as tends to happen when advanced air assault technology squares off against unarmed people lying on gurneys.

    Here are some of the visuals for anyone who missed it:

    And here’s a look inside the building courtesy of BBC:

    Now, in a revelation that likely won’t surprise those who frequent these pages, MSF says the US fired on civilans who were running from the building. Here’s Reuters

    Medical aid group Medicins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Thursday it was hard to believe a U.S. strike on an Afghan hospital last month was a mistake, as it had reports of fleeing people being shot from an aircraft.


    At least 30 people were killed when the hospital in Kunduz was hit by the strike on Oct. 3 while Afghan government forces were battling to regain control of the northern city from Taliban forces who had seized it days earlier.


    The United States has said the hospital was hit by accident and two separate investigations by the U.S. and NATO are underway but the circumstances of the incident, one of the worst of its kind during the 14-year conflict, are still unclear.


    MSF General Director Christopher Stokes told reporters the organization was still awaiting an explanation from the U.S. military.


    “All the information that we’ve provided so far shows that a mistake is quite hard to understand and believe at this stage,” he said while presenting an MSF internal report on the incident.


    The report said many staff described “seeing people being shot, most likely from the plane” as they tried to flee the main hospital building.

    Let’s just be clear so that it doesn’t appear we’re being bombastic for the sheer hell of it: MSF is now accusing the US of firing on civilians fleeing a hospital.

    And in case you have any questions as to whether US Spec Ops knew this was a hospital, recall the following from AP

    In the days before the attack, “an official in Washington” asked Doctors without Borders “whether our hospital had a large group of Taliban fighters in it,” spokesman Tim Shenk said in an email. “We replied that this was not the case. We also stated that we were very clear with both sides to the conflict about the need to respect medical structures.”

     

    Taken together, the revelations raise the possibility that U.S. forces destroyed what they knew was a functioning hospital, which would be a violation of the international rules of war.

    MSF went on to say that there were 20 wounded Taliban fighters at the facility, which shouldn’t surprise anyone because i) it’s a hospital, and ii) “treating wounded combatants is not a crime” (that’s a quote from MSF General Director Christopher Stokes). Back to Reuters: 

    MSF says the site’s location had been clearly communicated to both Afghan forces and the Taliban and it was clearly identifiable as a hospital.

     

    “That night, it was one of the few buildings with electrical power, it was fully lit up,” Stokes said.

     

    He also said that inspections of the area around the hospital since the Taliban withdrew from Kunduz last month did not reveal signs of heavy fighting.

    So, while the Western media is busy accusing the Russians of accidentally hitting hospitals in Syria, MSF itself is now out accusing the US of gunning down fleeing civilians after engaging what Washington absolutely knew was a functioning medical facility. Here, for what it’s worth, is Washington’s excuse: 

    “Several Afghan officials have suggested Taliban fighters were using the hospital as a base.”

    Maria Zakharova, if you’re listening, we can’t wait to see what you do with this.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 5, 2015

  • The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    While many divisions within our society are arbitrary or engineered, there is one division that represents perhaps the most pervasive and important conflict of our time; the division between collectivists and individualists.

    Now, people who do not understand the nature of collectivism will often argue that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive because individuals require groups in order to survive and thrive. However, a “group” is not necessarily a collective.

    For some reason the core fundamental of collectivism – the use of psychological coercion or physical force to compel participation – goes right over the heads of many skeptics. A group does not have to be collectivist. Any group can and should be voluntary. Collectivism is NOT voluntary. Therefore, collectivism and individualism are indeed mutually exclusive. Collectivists and individualists cannot exist in the same space at the same time without eventually coming into conflict. There is simply no way around it.

    From the position of the liberty minded (or the average Libertarian), collectivism is by far the inferior of the two philosophies. Collectivists often boast of the social and economic “harmonization” collectivism creates, as well as the mobilization of labor to “streamline progress.” The reality is that artificially rigged harmony is no harmony at all. If people are forced to homogenize and get along through fear, then peace has not truly been accomplished.

    Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time. They cannot be manipulated and shoehorned into a “utopian” framework. Problems will result, like genocide, which tends to erupt during almost every attempt at collectivist utopianism.

    Economic harmonization is even less practical, with government force inevitably used to confiscate resources from one group to give to another group, essentially punishing success or frugality. This creates an environment in which achievement becomes less desirable. When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity. Without individual accomplishments and ingenuity, the group is nothing but a hollow mindless ant hill.

    Another argument which usually arises is that individualism leads to “selfishness” and the dominance of wealth devouring machines like corporations. I would remind collectivists that corporations exist only through the legal framework and protections of corporate personhood created by governments, and without government protections and favor, corporations could not exist. It is by collectivism, not individualism, that corporatocracy thrives.

    At the same time, collectivists consistently blame individualist "free markets" for the numerous ailments of nations.  Yet another misrepresentation considering America has not had true free markets in well over a century, and most other nations have never had true free markets in their history.  Feudalism and its child Socialism have always been present to plague mankind.

    There are no merits to collectivism that are not accomplished with greater success by individualism and voluntary community. In fact, collectivism only serves to enrich and empower a select few elites while destroying the future potential of all other individuals.

    Given the disturbing nature of collectivism, one would think that attempts at collectivist societies would be a rarity, shunned by most people as akin to inviting cancer into the body. Unfortunately, cultures based on individualism are the minority in history.

    The average collectivist is not usually much of a beneficiary of collectivism. We call these people “useful idiots” or “sheeple” who unknowingly serve the darker machinations of elitists while under the delusion that they are changing society for the better. The reason useful idiots participate in collectivism are many, but I have found that across the spectrum these people tend to be weak willed, weak minded, and by extension, possess a rabid desire for control over others.

    It is perhaps no coincidence that “intellectuals” (self proclaimed) tend to end up at the forefront of modern efforts for collectivism. While the poor and destitute are often exploited by collectivism as a mob to be wielded like a battering ram, it is the soft noodle-bodied and fearful academia that acts as middle management in the collectivist franchise. It is they that desire the power to impose their “superior” ideologies on others, and since they are too weak to accomplish anything on their own, they require the cover and momentum of collectivist movements to give them the totalitarian fix they so crave. In other words, they believe in humanitarianism by totalitarianism.

    Individualism is under constant and imminent threat as the collectivist obsession with control grows. The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly.  It is not enough for them to merely apply force, the greatest power is in the power of consent.  Here are the most common tools used by collectivists to obtain power and manufacture consent from the masses.

    The Illusion Of Consensus

    Collectivists rely greatly on the force of a well-aimed mob to convince the general public they have the consensus position; that they are in the majority. Appearing to be in the majority is the single most important goal of a collectivist movement, even if they are in reality a small minority. The anonymity of web activism gives the force of the mob a new potency. No more than a dozen collectivists working in tandem can wreak havoc in multiple web forums or harass numerous individualist publications while giving casual readers the impression that their ideology is “everywhere.”

    The key here is that collectivists understand that the average person does not want to be seen as too contrary to the majority. They understand that the majority view matters to the public, even if the majority view is utterly wrong. If collectivists can convince enough people that their ideology is the majority view, they know that many people will blindly adopt that ideology as their own in order to fit in. The lie of consensus then becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. This problem will remain forever a danger as long as people continue to care at all about the majority view.

    The Destruction Of Core Institutions

    Those institutions people consider “core institutions” are sometimes vital, and sometimes not. That said, it is the openly admitted objective of collectivists through socialist-style movements to destroy core institutions so that there is no competition to their new system. A collectivist society cannot allow citizens to have any loyalties beyond their loyalty to the group or the state.

    So, individual liberties must be degraded or removed, as per the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution as a “living document.”  Religious institutions must be painted as shameful affairs for stupid barbaric cave-people. And, the family unit must be broken apart. This is done through economic depravity so pronounced that families never see each other, through state influence over children through public schooling, and through identity politics and propaganda which create sexual and racial conflicts out of thin air.

    Dominating Discussion

    This coincides with the idea of artificial consensus, but it goes beyond the use of the mob. In our daily lives we are now bombarded with collectivist messages — in mainstream news, in television shows, in movies, through web media and print media. The money behind these outlets belongs to a very small and select group of people, but through them the collectivist worldview is injected into every corner of our society. I would call this propaganda by attrition; an indirect but steady insertion of collectivism creating an atmosphere in which the ideology becomes commonplace even though it is being promoted by a limited number of people.

    Exploiting The Youth

    When we are young, most of us spend a great deal of time and energy working to be taken seriously. The question is, should we be taken seriously?

    In my view and the view of the liberty minded, it really depends on the person’s actions, experience, efforts and accomplishments. Most younger people have little to no experience in life and haven’t had the time to accomplish much. They are still learning how to function in the world, and what kind of goals they want to pursue (if they ever pursue any goals). Because of this, it is hard for those of us who have gone through considerable struggles in life and reached a certain level of achievement to take them seriously when they decide to stroll into a room and pontificate on their moral and philosophical superiority. It makes me want to ask; what the hell have you ever accomplished?

    This is not to say that there are not ingenious young people out there, or ignorant and lazy older folks. There are. But collectivist movements seek to exploit younger generations exactly because of their general lack of experience and naivety, as well as their feelings of entitlement when it comes to respect.

    Collectivism almost always utilizes a theory called “futurism” in order to appeal to the young. The theory, which was a leading philosophy behind the rise of fascism, proclaims that all new ideas are superior in their social usefulness and all old ideas and beliefs should be abandoned like so much dead skin. According to futurism, those who cling to old ideas and principles are an obstacle to the progress of society as a whole.

    The funny thing is, the ideas usually expounded by collectivists are as old as time — elitism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc. None of these methodologies are “new” by any stretch of the imagination, but collectivists repackage them as if they are some grand new secret to Shangri-La. Younger adherents of collectivism latch onto futurism almost immediately. For, if all new ideas are superior, and all old ideas are barbaric, and younger people are the purveyors and consumers of everything new, then this means that it is the youngest generations that are the wisest, and the village elders that are naïve. By default, the young become the village elders without them ever having to struggle, make sacrifices, learn hard lessons, suffer loss, rise to challenges, or accomplish anything.

    The enticing nature of this sudden groundswell of cultural respect is simply far too much for the average person college age or younger to ignore. Collectivism gives the young what they think they want, then uses them as tools for greater conquests.

    Forcing Society To Accept The Lowest Common Denominator

    Collectivism requires the homogenization of society, to the point that individualism is frowned upon and success is treated as negligible. Whether it is public schools lowering standards to the point that students with little or no reading comprehension graduate, or businesses being forced to lower standards in the name of “diversity” while rejecting employees with superior skill sets because they do not belong to a designated victim group, or government institutions like the military lowering physical standards to accommodate far weaker candidates in the name of “gender parity” while putting every soldier’s life at risk in the process, we are constantly being asked to accommodate the lowest common denominator instead of reaching for the highest level of excellence.

    This makes the concept of success a bit of a joke. For “success” within such a system is easy as long as one follows the rules; excelling as an individual is not a factor. And by success I mean being allowed to survive, because that is the best you are going to get in a collectivist structure. The only way to fail is to not follow the rules, rules which may be arbitrary or idiotic at their core. Individualists are immediately punished for thinking or acting outside the box, when this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. A society built on the lowest common denominator is a society destined for collapse. Individuals are systematically weeded out in the name of homogenization and all of their potential achievements and innovations disappear with them.

    The nightmare of collectivism is the defining battle of our age. It is in this era that we will decide whether or not individual liberty and freedom of thought are more important than the illusory security and “harmony” of the collective.

    I, for one, long to see a future in which individual enterprise is allowed to thrive and voluntary participation is the root principle on which our culture functions; a future in which state power is reduced to zero, or near zero, and government force is no longer an acceptable means by which one group can seek to control another group. I may not see this world in my lifetime, but the liberty-minded can make it possible for newer generations by avidly defending ourselves against collectivism today. As pointed out in the beginning, collectivism and individualism cannot coexist; confrontation is inevitable. Recognizing this, and preparing for it, is our duty as free human beings.

     

  • Visualizing Where The Money's Made Is In America

    The U.S. Department of Commerce and its Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) recently released its statistics on gross domestic product (GDP) by metropolitan area for 2014. The BEA determines the statistics for each metropolitan area as the sum of the GDP originating in all industries in the area. The data is the sub-state counterpart of the nationwide GDP. It is the most comprehensive measure of economic activity.

    HowMuch.net built a map to provide a 3D visualization of the GDP by metropolitan area, seen below. The higher the cone rising out of the map, the greater the GDP in that area. In analyzing the data, we found that the top 20 metropolitan areas represent over 52% of the total GDP in the United States. GDP grew 2.3% for all metropolitan areas in 2014, after increasing 1.9% in 2013.

     

     

    As shown by the map, the New York metropolitan area, which includes Newark and Jersey City,lead the country with $1.5 trillion in GDP. The area had GDP growth of 2.4% in 2014. The New York metropolitan area provided almost 10% of the total GDP for the entire country.

    The Greater Los Angeles area was second with $866 billion in GDP, with an increase of 2.3% over 2013. This was followed by the Chicago metropolitan area with $610 billion and growth of 1.8%. In fourth was the Houston metro area with $525 billion. Dallas, another Texas metro area, had $504 billion in GDP.

    GDP By State

    We also broke down the GDP by state. We calculated that the top 5 states contributed 40% of the overall GDP for the United States as follows:

    • California: $2.11 trillion, 13% of overall GDP

    • Texas: $1.46 trillion, 9.5% of overall GDP

    • New York: $1.28 trillion, 8.4% of overall GDP

    • Florida: $769 billion, 4.8% of overall GDP.

    • Illinois: $680 billion, 4.3% of overall GDP.

    Effect of Population

    One important factor for GDP appears to be the population for both the state and the metropolitan areas. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Houston are the five most densely populated metropolitan areas in that order. Further, California, Texas and New York have the highest populations by state in that order. There appears to be a relationship between GDP output and the population for a geographical area.  

    The Final Analysis

    The largest metropolitan areas contributed the greatest amount of GDP for the country. According to our analysis, the top 20 metropolitan areas contributed over half of the United State’s GDP. The New York metropolitan area contributed nearly 10% to the GDP by itself. In terms of a breakdown by state, the top 5 states contributed around 40% of the entire country’s GDP. California alone contributed over 13% of the total GDP for the country.

  • A "Zero Tolerance" Police State

    Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    I’ve almost become numb to horrendous videos like these…

    It seems like a new shocking police abuse video sweeps the nation almost every week. These viral videos help bring a small dose of accountability to government employees. And they don’t like it one bit.

    The unjustified violence isn’t what really upsets them. They’re upset because they can’t operate with near total impunity anymore. The Internet and proliferation of smartphones have made it much harder for the government and mainstream media to sweep inconvenient incidents under the rug.

    This is why some states, most notoriously Florida, are abusing outdated eavesdropping laws to harass people who attempt to film the police.

    It’s all part of a long trend. The government will always try to shield itself from the fallout from its behavior. Another favorite tactic is to simply declare troublesome information “classified” or to withhold it because of “national security,” a vague and misused term.

    It’s an upside down situation. The government can monitor almost any aspect of the average citizen’s life whenever it wants. But it’s difficult to impossible for the average citizen to monitor the government. In a free society, the opposite would be true.

    The Camera Is the New Gun

    Trying to prohibit people from recording cops is a desperate move. And I don’t think it’s practical.

    Nearly everyone has a phone that can record a decent quality video, and it only takes seconds to upload a video onto the Internet. Once it’s there, it’s hard for anyone to make it disappear.

    Even a police incident in a small town no one has ever heard of can become a national news phenomenon. This has made it harder for the government and mainstream media to shape the narrative.

    It’s also why Judge Andrew Napolitano calls the camera the new gun.

    This scenario played out recently at Spring Valley High School in South Carolina. A teenage girl refused to put her cell phone away. The teacher asked her to leave the classroom. She didn’t. So the school called in its resource officer.

    “Resource officer” strikes me as a strange term. As far as I can tell, it’s just a police officer stationed at a school. Why not call it what it is?

    Some bureaucrat likely invented the term to sanitize a situation that reasonable people find disturbing. It’s unnerving to think about heavily armed government employees interacting with your children every day they go to school (which looks more and more like a prison). “Resource officer” certainly makes the whole thing sound friendlier.

    But back to the incident in South Carolina…

    The resource officer showed up and asked the student to leave. When she refused, he wrapped his arm around her neck in a headlock. The struggle tipped over the girl’s desk and she fell to the ground. Then the officer dragged the girl and threw her across the classroom.

    It’s a barbaric and unjustifiable way to treat a young girl. But it’s hardly unique or surprising.

    In my experience, U.S. police are much more aggressive than police in the rest of the world. I noticed it when I started traveling many years ago. I’ve also noticed that the average citizen is more likely to run into the police in the U.S. Both of these trends are accelerating.

    This is especially true for young people in public schools. No other country comes close to having the same level of police presence in schools. And no other country criminalizes as many everyday activities.

    According to the LA Times there are now over 14,000 resource officers in schools across the U.S.

    The explosion in the number of cops embedded in schools started in the 1990s. That’s when “zero tolerance” madness really started to sweep the country. It was a side effect of the ludicrous War on Some Drugs.

    At first, these school cops only got involved with things like illegal drugs, gangs, and serious violence. Over time, there’s been a predictable mission creep. Schools were tempted to use the officers in more and more situations. At this point, they’re effectively enforcing school rules. Horseplay and disobeying the teacher now lead to arrests and criminal records rather than in-school discipline, like detention.

    South Carolina has a “disturbing school” law, which makes it a crime "to interfere with or to disturb in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college in this state.” The government can fine up to $1,000 or jail for 90 days anyone who breaks the law.

    The law’s vague and subjective wording effectively allows the police to harass students whenever the school administration asks…or whenever they want to. This is the law that gave the high school in South Carolina the pretext to call its resource officer to deal (violently, if needed) with the girl who wouldn’t put away her cell phone.

    Seven other states already have similar laws. I’d bet the ongoing “zero tolerance” psychosis helps push many more through.

    A Harbinger of Things to Come

    Unfortunately, most people don’t even question whether there should be a resource officer in each and every school in the first place. Most passively accept it as an undisputed necessity. If they want change, they usually want a more aggressive police presence in schools.

    I doubt the attitudes and mindsets that have fostered this situation will change for the better anytime soon. I expect the police state trend will only accelerate in the U.S.

    How will the government pay for all this police activity? I’d bet civil asset forfeitures will continue to play a big role.

    Dozens of government agencies now have the power to lock up all your U.S. bank accounts, your U.S. brokerage accounts, and even your home. They only need the flimsiest hint that something might be wrong.

    It doesn’t matter if the underlying allegation is about taxes, drugs, food safety, the environment, or something else. It doesn’t even take a real allegation to make it happen. A single government employee’s suspicion or ill will is enough to push the bureaucratic launch button and start your nightmare.

    They act without warning, and they can strip away all of your assets without waiting for a hearing, a trial, or any other token of due process.

    If it’s in the U.S., it’s theirs, whenever they say it is.

    Yes, after they strike, you can go to court to get your property back. But how will you hire a lawyer if they’ve frozen your bank account? And how will you pay your bills while the legal process grinds on?

    Forget what you learned in civics class. Sometimes a government agency just wants your property.

    As the Institute for Justice has stated, “Under modern civil forfeiture laws…filling law enforcement’s coffers is often the primary purpose of the seizure.”

    The government can easily pick up any assets you keep in the U.S.

    The Ultimate Protection from an Out of Control Government

    If you’re alarmed by the growing threat from your own government to your personal freedom and financial health, I don’t blame you.

    You’ve seen the crowded parade of new laws, taxes, and regulations. Many more are in the works.

    In fact, as financial resources shrink and government deficits rise, I’m afraid the grab for money will become more desperate. Governments will go beyond taxation and reach into checking, savings, and even Grandma’s retirement account for help.

    Events around the world show cash strapped governments are more than willing to use capital controls, income tax hikes (to rates as high as 75% in France), debt monetization, nationalization of private pensions, bail-ins and bank deposit confiscations, and other ways to grab your money.

    No matter how safe your government says your money is, how comfortable can you really be if it’s all in one country?

    Most people understand that it’s foolish to keep all their eggs in one basket. But they don’t apply the principle all that well. Portfolio diversification isn’t just about investing in multiple stocks or in multiple asset classes. Real diversification – the kind that keeps you safe – means holding assets in multiple countries so you’re not overexposed to economic and political risks in any one of them.

    Read more here…

  • Mission Accomplished? Chinese Stocks Re-Enter "Bull Market" – Up 24% From August Lows

    For the 3rd time since the crash in June, Chinese stocks have staged a magnificent recovery. Amid the selling bans, arrests, deaths, manipulation, massive direct government buying, and general happy-talk propoganda, Chinese stocks are now up 24% from the August lows… Of course, we are sure every one of the grandmas and farmers – fully levered – clung on through the dips.. and are now still 32% down from the June highs

     

     

    Where next?

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Desperate-To-Hike Fed Admits "Inflation Is Not As Low As You Think"

    Following this morning's basic admission by Janet Yellen that "no matter what" The Fed is raising rates in December (which was then solemnly supported by an obedient Bill Dudley who "100% agrees with Yellen"), Fed Vice-Chair Stan Fischer, speaking tonight, reaffirmed this belief by, as we detailed previously, telling investors to ignore weak inflation. After San Fran Fed's Williams admission that "there's something going on here we don't understand," Fischer tonight admitted "US inflation is not as low as you think," at once contradicting Yellen's earlier comments and the various market-based measures, while confirming our previous detailed solving of the mystery of the hidden inflation.

    Inflation Breakevens are collapsing…(longer-dated near record lows)

     

    Inflation expectations are at a record low… and worse…

    • *CURTIN SAYS `DISINFLATIONARY MINDSET' IS TAKING HOLD

     

    But all of that is wrong.. As Stan Fischer admitted tonight:

    • *FISCHER SAYS NOT MUCH EVIDENCE INFLATION MEASURE IS TOO LOW
    • *FED'S FISCHER SAYS HE BELIEVES WAGE GROWTH WILL COME BACK
    • *FISCHER SAYS U.S. INFLATION IS `NOT AS LOW AS YOU THINK'
    • *FISCHER SAYS FED IS NOT THAT FAR FROM 2% INFLATION TARGET

    Wait, what!!??

    Having now admitted that all of the above market-based (and survey-based) expectations (and current measures) of inflation are wrong, as we noted previously, depending on the importance of the credit channel, the Federal Reserve, by pegging the short term rate at zero, have essentially removed one recessionary market mechanism that used to efficiently clear excesses within the financial system.

    While stability obsessed Keynesians on a quest to the permanent boom regard this as a positive development, the rest of us obviously understand that false stability breeds instability.

     

    It is clear to us that the FOMC in its quest to maintain stability is breeding instability and that previous attempts at the same failed miserably with dire consequences for society. We are sure it is only a matter for time before it happens again.

    And further seemingly confirmed that the real "hidden" inflation mystery – as we solved here – is in fact in the very heart of The Fed's wealth creation process: the U.S. transformation from a homeownership society, to one of renters.

    From the latest, just released joint white paper by Harvard's Center for Housing Studies in conjunction with the Enterprise Resource Center, in which we read that the US rental crisis is about to get far worse. In fact, in an optimistic scenario in which rental inflation rises by 3% annually (it is currently far higher at 3.6%), while annual income growth is rising at a speed 2.0% (it is currently far lower in real terms) the number of severely cost burdened households – those who spend over half of their income on rent – will rise by over 25% over the next decade, from 11.8 million to a record 14.8 million households!

    Which means that is using at least somewhat realistic assumptions, the real number of households who spend more than half of their income on rent will likely be in the upper teens if not 20s of millions by 2025.

    From the report:

    if current trends where rent gains outpace incomes continue, we find that for each 0.25 percentage point gain in rents relative to incomes, the number of severely cost-burdened renters will increase by about 400,000. Under the worst-case scenario of real rent gains of 1 percentage point higher than real income gains per year over the decade, the number of severely cost-burdened renters would reach 14.8 million by 2025, an increase of 25 percent above today’s levels.

    More depressing details about the state of the US housing rental market:

    At the time of the decennial census in 2000, one in five renters were severely cost burdened, paying more than half of their gross income for rent and utilities (Figure 2). Meanwhile, another 18 percent faced moderate cost burdens, spending between 30 and 50 percent of their income on housing costs, exceeding the widely accepted standard that housing should not command more than 30 percent of a household budget.3 This represented a slight improvement over the shares burdened in 1990 as income gains outpaced growth in rents.

    And here is the punchline: "in the years following 2000, gains in typical monthly rental costs exceeded the overall inflation rate, while median income among renters fell further and further behind (Figure 3). As a result, the share of renter households facing severe cost burdens grew dramatically, reaching a new record high of 28 percent in 2011 before edging down to 26.5 percent in 2013. Adding in those with moderate burdens, just under half of all renters were cost burdened in 2013. These rates are substantially higher than a decade ago and roughly twice what they were in 1960."

    And far from confirming the "bullish thesis" that Millennials will eventually move out of their parents basement and buy (or rent) their own housing while starting new households, just the opposite is taking place:

    In 2015, 15.1 percent of  25 to 34 year olds were living with their parents, a fourth straight annual increase, according to an analysis of new Census Bureau data by the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. The proportion is the highest since at least 1960, according to demographer Mark Mather, associate vice president with PRB. "The phenomenon of young adults, facing their own financial challenges, forced to squeeze in the homes of their parents. And new data show the trend is getting worse, not better."

    In conclusion, nowhere is the mystery of the "missing" inflation more obvious than in the following interactive map showing that in virtually all major seaboard metro areas, including the major cities in California, New York, and Florida, the number of households with a cost burden is 50% or higher.

     

     

    As we concluded when addressing this mystery,

    All of this could have been avoided if only the Fed has observed the "missing" and soaring rental inflation that was right in front of its nose all the time, and which it did everything in its power to ignore just so the 1% can keep their ZIRP (and soon NIRP)and QE, and become even wealthier on the back of the middle class and the 80 million of 25-34 year old Americans who have found out the hard way that not only is the American Dream of owning a home officially dead, it has been replaced with the American nightmare of completely unffordable renting.

    *  *  *

    And thus, The Fed is forced to entirely trounce its "data-dependent" bullshit in order that it can do whatever it wants… in this case, raise rates in order to perhaps slow the speculative bubble in housing (driving rental inflation) just enough (goldilocks-style) to turn the multi-year trend in homeownership around…the lowest in 48 years!

     

    Or, perhaps more likely, show it can and to have the merest of ammunition when the current bubble bursts before resorting to QE-moar… because as Peter Schiff recently concluded,

    If the Fed is unable to raise rates from zero, it will also be have no ability to cut them to fight the next recession. So the next time an economic downturn occurs (one may already be underway), the Fed will have to immediately launch the next round of QE. When QE4 proves just as ineffective as the last three rounds to create real economic growth, the Fed may have to consider the radical ideas now being contemplated by the Bank of Japan.
     
    So this is the endgame of QE: Exploding debt, financial distortion, prolonged stagnation, recurring recession, and the eventual government takeover of industry and the economy. This appears to be the preferred alternative of politicians and bankers who simply refuse to let the free markets function the way they are supposed to.
     
    If interest rates were never manipulated by central banks and QE had never been invented, the markets could have purged themselves years ago of the speculative bubbles and mal-investments. Sure we could have had a deeper recession, but it also could have been much shorter, and it could have been followed by a far more robust and sustainable recovery.
     
    Instead Washington has joined Tokyo on the road to Leningrad.

  • US Officials: ISIS "Likely" Had Bomb On Russian Plane

    On Wednesday, IS Sinai released a statement reiterating the contention that the Russian passenger jet which fell out of the sky over the Sinai Peninsula last weekend was “downed” by an act of terrorism. The ISIS “home office” (so to speak) in Raqqa aired a video congratulating their Egyptian “brothers” on the “achievement.”

    In the immediate aftermath of the crash, officials attempted to discredit the ISIS video which purported to show the plane exploding in mid-air. While we were quick to note that it’s virtually impossible to verify the video’s authenticity, we also pointed out that if the footage was indeed genuine, someone on the ground knew exactly when to start filming which would certainly seem to suggest that whatever happened to the Russian jet was premeditated. 

    Whatever one chooses to believe, evidence continues to pile up to support the contention that the plane broke apart in the sky – i.e. that the plane exploded. 

    For instance, an Egyptian forensics expert noted that the scattering of body parts over an eight kilometer radius seems to prove that there was an explosion of board. Meanwhile the UK on Wednesday suspended flights from Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt after saying that the Russian jet “may well” have been destroyed by an “explosive device.” 

    That seemed to indicate that Western governments were set to “confirm” ISIS’ contention that a bomb is to blame for the crash. 

    Now, Western media are reporting that according to US “intelligence”, an ISIS bomb was indeed the cause of the catastrophe that claimed the lives of 224 people last Saturday. Here’s Reuters:

    Evidence now suggests that a bomb planted by the Islamic State militant group is the likely cause of last weekend’s crash of a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, U.S. and European security sources said on Wednesday.

     

    Islamic State, which controls swathes of Iraq and Syria and is battling the Egyptian army in the Sinai Peninsula, said again on Wednesday it brought down the airplane, adding it would eventually tell the world how it carried out the attack.

     

    The Airbus A321M crashed on Saturday in the Sinai Peninsula shortly after taking off from the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on its way to the Russian city of St Petersburg, killing all 224 people on board.

     

    The U.S. and European security sources stressed they had reached no final conclusions about the crash.

    And here’s more from NBC:

    There’s significant evidence that a bomb brought down Russia’s Metrojet Flight 9268 over the Sinai Peninsula last weekend, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday, saying U.S. investigators are focusing on ISIS operatives or sympathizers as the likely bombers.


    Questions have swirled over whether foul play or terrorism may have downed the Metrojet-operated Airbus A321 since it crashed in Egypt on Saturday, killing all 224 people aboard. ISIS’s media office in Sinai released an audio message Wednesday reiterating its claim of responsibility. Neither Wednesday’s claim nor an earlier one immediately after the crash said how ISIS is supposed to have brought down the plane.


    U.S. officials stressed that while they believe it’s “likely” that a bomb was on the plane, it’s still too early to conclude that for certain. They told NBC News that mechanical failure remains a possibility.


    A U.S. official said investigators are looking at the possibility that an explosive device was planted aboard the plane by ground crews, baggage handlers or other ground staff at the Sharm el-Sheikh airport before takeoff. Passengers and the flight crew weren’t significantly suspected after intelligence scrub of the passenger manifest and the crew showed no one with suspected ties to any terrorist group, officials said.


    Three top officials at the airport, including the head of security, were fired Wednesday after investigators uncovered numerous lax security procedures, officials told NBC News.

    So apparently, US officials have more evidence about what happened to this plane than either the Russians or the Egyptians do and Washington is now confident enough to say that ISIS is “likely” responsible. 

    Needless to say, there are any number of questions that should be asked here, but at least NBC gets one thing right: 

    A U.S. official told NBC News he expects Russia to retaliate “heavily and militarily” if the theory is borne out.

  • October Gun Sales Hit Record High For Six Consecutive Months

    Two things happened after the most recent widely publicized US mass shootings: i) Obama once again made a concerted effort to pass anti-gun legislation, and ii) gun sales soared most likely in response to i). As we reported a month ago citing the FT, “gun sales this year could surpass the record set in 2013, when gun purchases surged after the December 2012 Sandy Hook murders.”

    … the calls for tighter gun laws lead to an increase in weapons sales. “Once the public hears the president on the news say we need more gun controls, it tends to drive sales,” said Mr Hyatt, who owns one of the largest gun retailers in the US. “People think, if I don’t get a gun now, it might be difficult to get one in the future. The store is crowded.”

     

    “We don’t want our business to be based on tragedy but we have to deal with what we have no control over,” Mr Hyatt said. “And after these shootings and then the calls for tougher gun laws, we see a buying rush.”

    This is not surprising: as Wired noted back in 2013, sharp spikes in gun sales usually following mass shootings for several reasons.

    The desire to protect one’s self In many cases, gun shootings followed by 24/7 media coverage prompt citizens to arm themselves, according to testimonies. In Aurora, for instance, Jake Meyers of Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo told The Post shoppers cited self-protection when checking out new weapons. “A lot of it is people saying, ‘I didn’t think I needed a gun, but now I do,’ ” Meyers said. “When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing — ‘Hey, I go to the movies.'”

     

    The fear of stricter gun laws Another logical factor is that gun owners’ or soon-to-be-gun owners’ sense a tide of gun control regulations following a massacre and seek to purchase guns ahead of fast-moving laws. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, spoke to this following a 60 percent uptick in gun sales in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings in 2011. “Some Americans fear tougher gun control laws in the aftermath of Saturday’s attack so they want to stock up now,” he told Politico. “What it shows is maybe gun owners in Arizona and these other states feel that there’s going to be some change in the law, which is what I hope our elected officials” trying to enact. Obviously, that fear has been unfounded. Since coming into office, Obama has been virtually silent on the issue of gun control, despite the protestations of liberals.

     

    The feeling of uncertainty It’s important to remember, spikes in guns sales don’t just coincide with shooting sprees. They also coincide with violent events of any kind, as Fredrick Kunkle at The Washington Post reported. “People also rushed to buy guns after the 1992 riots in Los Angeles and the breakdown of order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” That has led some industry experts and law enforcement officials to point to a general feeling of uncertainty as a driver of gun buying habits. “People often buy firearms during periods of uncertainty,” Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, told the paper.

    Which brings us to today when in the latest FBI background check data – a proxy for total gun sales in the United States as most gun purchases require a background check – we find that, as expected, Obama’s latest threat to implement stricter gun controls backfried once more, and the month of October saw a record number of background checks.

    As the Free Beacon adds it wasn’t just October: the same was true for September, August, and so on: in fact, October was the sixth consecutive month to see a record number of checks“So far in 2015 the FBI has performed 17,584,346 firearms related checks. Currently, 2015 is on pace to beat 2013’s record 21,09,273 checks.”

    The full breakdown:

    More from the Free Beacon:

    Gun rights activists have pointed to Democrats’ calls for new gun control measures as one reason why gun sales have increased. Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has said that the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, that Australian style mandatory gun buybacks should be considered in the United States, and that she would implement new gun control through executive action.

     

    “Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the best gun salespeople on the planet. The more they scream for new gun control laws the more guns walk off the shelves at gun stores,” said Alan Gottlieb, the head of the Second Amendment Foundation. “To quote the lyrics of Peter, Paul and Mary, ‘When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.’”

    The biggest irony, however as we reported on Sunday, is that “homicide rates have been cut in half over past 20 years as new gun ownership soared.”

     

    So thanks Obama: courtesy of your inept approach to resolving every social issue not to mention your naive, recurring attempts to uproot the Second Amendment, you are making the US safer one teleprompted, faux-emotional speech at a time. Granted, everyone knows that was not your intention, but the public will take whatever it can.

  • War, Big Government, & Lost Freedom

    Submitted by Dr. Richard Ebeling via The Cobden Centre,

    We are currently marking the hundredth anniversary of the fighting of the First World War. For four years between the summer of 1914 and November 11, 1918, the major world powers were in mortal combat with each other. The conflict radically changed the world. It overthrew the pre-1914 era of relatively limited government and free market economics, and ushered in a new epoch of big government, planned economies, and massive inflations, the full effects from which the world has still not recovered.

    All the leading countries of Europe were drawn into the war. It began when the archduke of Austria- Hungary, Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophia, were assassinated in Bosnia in June 1914. The Austro-Hungarian government claimed that the Bosnian-Serb assassin had the clandestine support of the Serbian government, which the government in Belgrade denied.

    How a Terrible War Began and Played Out

    Ultimatums and counter-ultimatums soon set in motion a series of European military alliances among the Great Powers. In late July and early August, the now-warring parties issued formal declarations of war. Imperial Germany, the Turkish Empire, and Bulgaria supported Austria-Hungary. Imperial Russia supported Serbia, which soon brought in France and Great Britain because these countries were aligned with the czarist government in St. Petersburg. Italy entered the war in 1915 on the side of the British and the French.

    The United States joined the conflict in April 1917, a month after the abdication of the Russian czar and the establishment of a democratic government in Russia. But this first attempt at Russian democracy was overthrown in November 1917, when Vladimir Lenin led a communist coup d’état; Lenin’s revolutionary government then signed a separate peace with Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary in March 1918, taking Russia out of the war.

    The arrival of large numbers of American soldiers in France in the summer of 1918, however, turned the balance of forces against Germany on the Western Front. After having been driven out of the French territory they had occupied since the first year of the war, the Germans agreed to the armistice on November 11, 1918 that ended what was already called the Great War – the “War to End All Wars” as it was falsely believed.

    World War I May

    The Human and Material Costs of War

    The human and material cost of the First World War was immense. During the conflict more than 60 million men were called up to fight. At least 20 million soldiers and civilians lost their lives, with an equal number wounded.

    The participating governments combined spent more than $145.9 billion in fighting each other. In 2015 dollars, this represents a monetary expenditure of more than $3.8 trillion. (As a point of comparison, what the belligerent powers spent, in total, fighting each other in the four years of World War I, the U.S government almost spent, alone, in fiscal year 2015 – $3.6 trillion!)

    These numbers, of course, do not capture the human suffering from the four years of war. On the Western Front, which ran through northern France from the English Channel to the Swiss border, millions of soldiers lived endless months – years – in frontline trench warfare. They fought in the heat of the summer and the cold of winter, often with the decomposing bodies of their fallen comrades next to them for days on end.

    They fought in battles such as the one for the French town of Verdun in which hundreds of thousands of men were killed during human wave attacks in attempts to capture enemy positions. Soldiers were mowed down by machine guns or crushed under the treads of that new machine of war, the tank.

    The airplane entered modern warfare for the first time, raining down bombs on both military and civilian targets. And both sides introduced the use of poison mustard gas that blinded the eyes, blistered the lungs, and brought agonizing death.

    War and the End of Limited Government Liberalism

    The First World War also brought about the end of the (classical) liberal epoch in modern Western civilization. For most of the 100 years before 1914, the Western world had moved in the direction of greater individual freedom and wider economic liberty.

    All-powerful kings were replaced with representative democratic government or constitutionally limited monarchy. Expanding civil liberty brought about a more impartial equality before the law and the end of human slavery.

    The older eighteenth century mercantilist system of economic planning and control by government was ended. In its place, arose domestic free enterprise and widening global freedom of trade. The standard of living of tens of millions in the West began to dramatically rise above subsistence and starvation for the first time in human history, while at the same time population sizes grew exponentially.

    War may not have been abolished in the nineteenth century, but new international “rules of war” meant that they were less frequent, of shorter duration, and when among the Great Powers, at least, often involved fewer deaths and greater respect for civilian life and property.

    (The American Civil War in the 1860s was the one major exception with more than 650,000 deaths and massive destruction in the Southern states.)

    Wars and armament races, many argued at the time, had become too costly and destructive among “civilized” nations. A universal epoch of international peace was hoped for when the new century dawned in 1900.

    But in 1914, the First World War shattered the long liberal peace that had more or less prevailed in Europe since the last world war that ended with the defeat of Napoleon’s France in 1815. But even before 1914, there were emerging anti-liberal forces that were moving the world toward greater government control and a renewal of international conflict. (See my article, “Before Modern Collectivism: The Rise and Fall of Classical Liberalism.”)

    Trench Warfare

    The Rise of Nationalism and Socialism

    Early in the nineteenth century, the ideology of nationalism became a new rallying cry for peoples throughout Europe and increasingly around the world. If liberalism had espoused peaceful market exchange and the freedom of individuals under the rule of law, nationalism called for the forced unification under one government of all peoples speaking the same language or sharing the same culture or ethnicity. National collectivism was considered a higher ideal than respect for the liberty of the individuals comprising communities and nations.

    In the middle of the nineteeth century, another form of collectivism started to gain popularity and support: socialism. Karl Marx and other socialists argued that capitalism was the root of all social evil, causing poverty and resulting in exploitation of the masses for the benefit of those who privately owned the means of production. Socialists called for the nationalization of the means of production, central planning of all economic activity, and the curtailing of individual freedom for the sake of the collective good.

    War and the Planned Society

    Imperialist designs by the Great Powers in conjunction with the new ideological forces of rising nationalism and socialism all came together in the caldron of conflict that enveloped so much of the world after 1914.

    Immediately with the outbreak of hostilities, the liberal system of individual liberty, private property, free enterprise, free trade, limited government, low taxes, and sound money was thrown to the wind.

    The epoch of political and economic collectivism had begun. Civil liberties were rapidly curtailed in all the belligerent nations, with laws restricting freedom of speech and the press. Opponents of war were silenced with long prison sentences for “anti-patriotic” behavior. Industry and agriculture were soon placed under increasingly strict price and wage controls.

    Governments imposed wartime planning boards that directed the economic activities of all. They raised taxes to heights never experienced even under the most plundering hands of absolute monarchs of the past. Governments also ended international free trade, and introduced rigid regulations over all imports and exports.

    The nineteenth century freedom of movement under which people in the West could travel from one nation to another without passport or visa was abolished; a new era of immigration and emigration barriers began. The individual was now completely under the control and command of the state.

    With this came a new governmental responsibility: direct caring for the economic welfare of the citizenry. German free-market economist Gustav Stolper explained:

    “Just as the [First World] War for the first time in history established the principle of universal military service, so for the first time in history it brought economic national life in all its branches and activities to the support and service of state politics – made it effectively subordinate to the state. . . . Not supply and demand, but the dictatorial fiat of the state determined economic relationships – production, consumption, wages, and cost of living   . . .

     

    “At the same time, and for the first time, the state made itself responsible for the physical welfare of its citizens; it guaranteed food and clothing, not only to the army in the field but to the civilian population as well . . .

     

    “Here is a fact pregnant with meaning: the state became for a time the absolute ruler of our economic life, and while subordinating the entire economic organization to its military purposes, also made itself responsible for the welfare of the humblest of its citizens, guaranteeing him a minimum of food, clothing, heating, and housing.”

     

    Dancing with Death

    Gold as Money in the Prewar Liberal World

    Along with these losses of personal civil and economic freedom came yet another abridgement of the liberal system of government: the abolition of the gold standard. During the 25 years of war between France and Great Britain following the French Revolution of 1789, both governments had resorted to the money printing press to finance their war expenditures. As a result, inflation had eaten away at the wealth and security of the British and French citizenry.

    When those wars ended in 1815, the lesson learned was that governments could not be trusted with direct control over the creation of money. The liberal monetary goal was the reestablishment of the gold standard, so the amount of money in society was independent of political manipulation.

    Better to rely upon the market forces of supply and demand and the profitability of gold mining, the classical liberals argued, than the caprice of politicians and special interest groups desiring to print the paper money they wanted to use to plunder the peaceful production of the mass of humanity.

    Through the decades of the nineteenth century, first Great Britain and then the rest of the Western nations legally established the gold standard as the basis of their monetary systems. The gold standard was mostly managed by national central banks, and thus not truly free market monetary systems.

    But central banks were expected to, and for the most part did, abide by the monetary “rules of the game” of limiting increases (or decreases) in the domestic currency to additions to (or reductions in) the nation’s supply of gold. Sound money for the nineteenth century liberals was gold money.

    Paper Money and Inflation Finances the War

    But with the firing of the first shots in the summer of 1914, the belligerent governments all ended legal redemption of their currencies for fixed amounts of gold. The citizens in these warring counties were pressured or compelled to hand over to their respective governments the gold in their private hands, in exchange for paper money.

    Almost immediately, the monetary printing presses were set to work creating the vast financial means needed to fight an increasingly expensive war.

    In 1913, the British money supply amounted to 28.7 billion pounds sterling. But soon, as British economist, Edwin Cannan, expressed it, the country was suffering from a “diarrhea of pounds.” When the war ended in 1918, Great Britain’s money supply had almost doubled to 54.8 billion pounds, and continued to increase for three more years of peacetime until it reached 127.3 billion pounds in 1921, a fivefold increase from its level eight years earlier.

    The French money supply had been 5.7 billion francs in 1913. By war’s end in 1918, it had increased to 27.5 billion francs. In this case, a fivefold increase in a mere five years. By 1920, the French money supply stood at 38.2 billion francs. The Italian money supply had been 1.6 billion lire in 1913 and increased to 7.7 billion lire, for a more than fourfold increase, and stood at 14.2 billion lire in 1921.

    In addition, these countries took on huge amounts of debt to finance their war efforts. Great Britain had a national debt of 717 million pounds in 1913. At the end of the war that debt had increased to 5.9 billion pounds, and rose to 7.8 billion pounds by 1920.

    French national debt increased from 32.9 billion francs before the war to 124 billion francs in 1918 and 240 billion francs in 1920. Italy was no better, with a national debt of 15.1 billion lire in 1913 that rose to 60.2 billion lire in 1918 and climbed to 92.8 billion in 1921.

    Though the United States had only participated in the last year and a half of the war, it too created a large increase in its money supply to fund government expenditures that rose from $1.3 billion in 1916 to $15.6 billion in 1918. The U.S. money supply grew 70 percent during this period from $20.7 billion in 1916 to 35.1 billion in 1918.

    Twenty-two percent of America’s war costs were covered by taxation, about 25 percent from printing money, and the remainder of 53 percent by borrowing.

    Germany Hyperinflation 1918 1923

    The German Ideology of Power for War

    The most severe inflations during World War I occurred in Central and Eastern Europe. Among the worst of these were the one in Germany during and then after the war, with the near total collapse of the German currency in 1922 and 1923.

    For decades before the start of the war, German nationalist and imperialist ambitions were directed to military and territorial expansion. A large number of German social scientists known as members of the Historical School had been preaching the heroism of war and the superiority of the German people who deserved to rule over other nationalities in Europe.

    Hans Kohn, one of the twentieth century’s leading scholars on the history and meaning of nationalism, explained the thinking of leading figures of the Historical School, who were also known as “the socialists of the chair” in reference to their prominent positions at leading German universities. He wrote:

    “The ‘socialists of the chair’ desired a benevolent paternal socialism to strengthen Germany’s national unity. Their leaders, Adolf Wagner and Gustav von Schmoller, [who were Heinrich von] Treitschke’s colleagues at the University of Berlin and equally influential in molding public opinion, shared Treitschke’s faith in the German power state and its foundations. They regarded the struggle against English and French political and economic liberalism as the German mission, and wished to substitute the superior and more ethical German way for the individualistic economics of the West . . . In view of the apparent decay of the Western world through liberalism and individualism, only the German mind with its deeper insight and its higher morality could regenerate the world.”

    These German advocates of war and conquest also believed that Germany’s monetary system had to be subservient to the wider national interests of the state and its imperial ambitions. Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises met frequently with members of the Historical School at German academic gatherings in the years before World War I. He recalled:

    “The monetary system, they said, is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to serve the state and the people. Financial preparations for war must continue to be the ultimate and highest goal of monetary policy, as of all policy. How could the state conduct war, after all, if every self- interested citizen retained the right to demand redemption of banknotes in gold? It would be blindness not to recognize that only full preparedness for war [could further the higher ends of the state].”

    Germany’s Great Inflation began with the government’s turning to the printing press to finance its war expenditures. Almost immediately after the start of World War I, on July 29, 1914, the German government suspended all gold redemption for the mark. Less than a week later, on August 4, the German Parliament passed a series of laws establishing the government’s ability to issue a variety of war bonds that the Reichsbank – the German central bank – would be obliged to finance by printing new money.

    The government created a new set of Loan Banks to fund private sector borrowing, as well as state and municipal government borrowing, with the money for the loans simply being created by the Reichsbank.

    During the four years of war, from 1914 to 1918, the total quantity of paper money created for government and private spending went from 2.37 billion to 33.11 billion marks. By an index of wholesale prices (with 1913 equal to 100), prices had increased more than 245 percent (prices failed to increase far more because of wartime price and wage controls). In 1914, 4.21 marks traded for $1 on the foreign exchange market. By the end of 1918, the mark had fallen to 8.28 to the dollar.

    Germany’s Hyperinflation and the Destruction of the Mark

    But the worst was to come in the five years following the end of the war. Between 1919 and the end of 1922, the supply of paper money in Germany increased from 50.15 billion to 1,310.69 billion marks. Then in 1923 alone, the money supply increased to a total of 518,538,326,350 billion marks.

    By the end of 1922, the wholesale price index had increased to 10,100 (still using 1913 as a base of 100). When the inflation ended in November 1923, this index had increased to 750,000,000,000,000. The foreign exchange rate of the mark decreased to 191.93 to the dollar at the end of 1919, to 7,589.27 to the dollar in 1922, and then finally on November 15, 1923, to 4,200,000,000,000 marks for the dollar.

    During the last months of the Great Inflation, according to Gustav Stolper, “more than 30 paper mills worked at top speed and capacity to deliver notepaper to the Reichsbank, and 150 printing firms had 2,000 presses running day and night to print the Reichsbank notes.” In the last year of the hyperinflation, the government was printing money so fast and in such frequently larger and larger denominations that to save time, money, and ink, the bank notes were being produced with printing on only one side.

    Finally, facing a total economic collapse and mounting social disorder, the German government in Berlin appointed the prominent German banker, Halmar Schacht, as head of the Reichsbank. He publicly declared in November 1923 that the inflation would be brought to an end and a new non-inflationary currency backed by gold would be issued. The printing presses were brought to a halt, and the hyperinflation was stopped just as the country stood at the monetary and social precipice of total disaster.

    Burning German Marks

    The Legacies of Tyranny, Paternalism and Lost Freedom

    But the deaths, destruction, and disruptions of the First World War and its immediate aftermath were never fully recovered from. In 1922, Mussolini and his Fascist Party came to power in Italy. In 1933, Hitler’s Nazi movement took power in Germany in the midst of the Great Depression.

    In the United States, also in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal ushered in the arrival of America’s version, at first, of a fascist-type planned economy, with a growing concentration of political control and economic paternalism in the form of the modern interventionist-welfare state in the postwar period that followed a worse and far more destructive and mass murdering Second World War. (See my article, “When the Supreme Court Stopped Economic Fascism in America.”)

    Out of this second “war to end all wars,” came America’s role as global policeman and international social engineer during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. But even the post-Cold War era after the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 has seen part of the legacy of World War I in international affairs.

    The wars and “ethnic cleansings” experienced in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and at least part of the causes behind the current conflicts in the Middle East are outgrowths of the post-World War I peace settlements imposed by the victorious Allied powers.

    But most importantly, I would suggest, is the lasting legacy out of the First World War that has been the rationales and implementations of paternalist Big Government in the Western world, with its diminished recognition and respect for individual liberty, free association, freedom of competitive trade and exchange, reduced civil liberties and weakened impartial rule of law.

    From this has followed the regulating and redistributing State, which includes political control and manipulation of the monetary and banking systems to serve those in governmental power and others who feed at the trough of governmental largess.

    It is a legacy that will likely take another century to completely overcome and reverse, if we are able to devise a strategy for restoring the idea and ideal of a society of liberty.

  • In New Audio, Video ISIS Says "We Downed" Russian Plane, Threatens Putin With Bowie Knife From Front Yard

    The thing about the ongoing “war” on terror is that it seems to get more surreal by the day and indeed, the videos, pictures, and claims that emanate from ISIS’ media arm are at times so outlandish, violent, and outright bizarre that quite a few observers have questioned how they can possibly be authentic. 

    There was the clip purporting to show members building flying landmines out of condoms for instance and let’s not forget the nearly hour long video (that at times appeared as though it walked right out of a high school social studies class) explaining why ISIS intended to wean the world off of fiat money and transition back to the gold dinar.

    And of course no critique of ISIS propaganda would be complete without mentioning their uncanny ability to produce Hollywood-esque murder montages violent enough to make Quentin Tarantino blush (a few installments back, ISIS filmed the drowning of a handful of “spies” and judging from the video, high quality underwater video cameras are something you regularly come across in the Syrian countryside).

    Finally, in what has to be considered the silliest terror-related story of the year, al-Qaeda was out this week calling ISIS leader Bakr al-Baghdadi a “feeble, failure person.” ISIS responded by calling al-Qaeda a bunch of “donkeys.” If you want to understand just how surreal the whole thing is, look no further than the following picture (note that everyone looks to be wearing white, high top Nikes):

    Well, the story took a further turn for the ridiculous on Wednesday after IS Sinai, apparently aggravated by claims that their video of an exploding plane doesn’t actually depict the destruction of the Russian passenger jet that crashed in the Sinai Peninsula last Saturday, released an audio message to confirm that they did indeed “down” the plane and that they’ll prove it when they’re good and ready and not a minute prior. 

    Some highlights:

    • “We downed Russia plane, so die in your rage.”
    • Bring your black box, and do your analysis...prove we didn’t down it...we will reveal the way at the time we wish.”
    • “We are the ones who downed it thank to God and we are not forced to reveal how we downed it.”

    The group says that for now, the proof is that the attack coincided with the one-year anniversary of IS Sinai’s pledge of allegiance to Baghdadi (Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “feeble, failure person”) but the dates appear to be questionable. 

    Whatever the case, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to IS Sinai that they are asking the world to prove a negative. 

    Meanwhile, the home office in Raqqa is out praising the supposed “downing.” In a new video, five ISIS members praise the actions of their “Sinai brothers” and then go the extra mile by directly threatening Vladimir Putin. The video:

    Here’s a screenshot for your amusement:

    And yes, that is an actual still shot from the video.

    Five guys sitting in the front yard waving a bowie knife at The Kremlin. 

    There you go Moscow. Your move. 

  • There Are Now 293 Ounces Of Paper Gold For Every Ounce Of Physical As Comex Registered Gold Hits New Low

    Unlike Bitcoin, which has doubled in the past few weeks (as the predicted Chinese buying onslaught indeed materialized), it hasn’t been a good week for spot gold prices which have tumbled from $1,180 to just over $1,100. While the reason for the selling is unknown, with recurring speculation that an imminent Fed rate hike will make holding gold even more unwelcome in real terms (if not in India where gold now pays interest on par with inflation), what we do know is that as of yesterday the total registered gold at the Comex had dropped to a fresh record low following another transfer of “registered” gold into “eligible.”

     

    This reduced overnight the total amount of eligible gold by a third to just over 151,000 ounces, or under 5 tons as the zoomed in chart below shows.

     

    And since the gold open interest continues to rise modestly…

     

    … this means that as of today, the gold “coverage” ratio, or the amount of paper claims for every ounce of physical, has just hit a new all time high of 293 ounces of paper per ounce of registered physical.

     

    Curiously, the last time we observed a comparable surge in the Comex dilution ratio took place just two months ago when a comparable “adjustment” reduced JPM’s “Registered” inventory by 122,124 ounces. Back then many said the adjustment would be promptly reversed.

    Two months later not only has that not happened, but JPM is now down to just 10,777 ounces of Registered while many other vaults continue to see either outright withdrawals or comparable adjustments.

    How much longer can this exponential surge in the dilution ratio continue? We don’t know, although with less than 5 tons of registered gold left in the Comex vault system, we hope that the mystery of what is really going on at the Comex will finally be unveiled.

  • David Stockman Explains How To Fix The World (In 7 Words)

    While we are used to David Stockman's detailed and lengthy "nailing" of the real state of the world, the following brief clip of an interview with Fox Business, in which David explains how to 'fix' so many of our problems, can be summarized perfectly in just seven short words: "Replace The Fed with the free market."

     

    Enjoy 4 minutes of refeshing honesty… as the Fox anchor just cannot fathom who or what would "control" rates if there was no Fed

    Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

  • Yellen Says Negative Rates On The Table "If Outlook Worsened"

    As the market now diligently calculates the suddenly surging odds of a December rate hike, here’s Yellen with a preview of what will happen once the rate hike cycle is aborted…

    • YELLEN SAYS IF OUTLOOK WORSENED FED MIGHT WEIGH NEGATIVE RATES
    • YELLEN SAYS NEGATIVE RATES COULD HELP ENCOURAGE BANKS TO LEND

    … just as it was aborted in Japan in August of 2000 when the BOJ also decided to send a signal how much stronger the economy is by hiking 25 bps, only to cut 7 months later and to proceed to monetize not only all net Japanese debt issuance a decade later, but to hold half of all equity ETFs.

    The good news:

    • YELLEN SAYS SHE DOESN’T SEE NEED FOR NEGATIVE RATES NOW
    • YELLEN SAYS FED SEES ECONOMY ON STEADY PATH OF IMPROVEMENT

    Because when have the Fed’s forecasts before ever been wrong.

  • Why America’s Land of the Free Title Was Just Revoked

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    The Land of the Free — America has just been stripped of its favorite longstanding self-designation — the official title of ‘Land of the Free’ now belongs to its neighbor to the north, Canada.

    In fact, the Legatum Institute’s 2015 Prosperity Index found Canadians experience the greatest personal freedom and general social tolerance of all 142 nations in the report — while the U.S. trailed behind in ninth place. But that’s only part of the story.

     

    Regarding the feeling of safety and security, America fell two spots from last year’s embarrassing rank to 33rd on the list — landing literally just ahead of the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

     

    According to Foreign Policy’s Siobhán O’Grady:

    “Americans fear more for their safety each day than people living in Egypt, Bangladesh, and Sudan — countries that suffer from regular terrorist attacks, civil unrest, and war.

     

    “Just what exactly Americans have to be so scared about isn’t exactly clear [… ] And while 17 percent had property stolen in 2014, that was still below the global average of 17.5 percent.”

    O’Grady’s tongue-in-cheek query sharply derides Americans’ unfortunate, gullible tendencies to believe whatever subject or object the government deems must be the target for fear. In many ways, the Legatum report proves fear-mongering works.

    If all of this weren’t sufficient to prove the freedom in which Americans ostensibly bask remains little more than illusion, the U.S. stood alone among Western nations with high levels of State-sponsored violence — right in line with Saudi Arabia and the Ukraine.

    Legatum suggested recent uprisings in Ferguson and Baltimore were the reason for this startling comparison, though the general rise in police violence coupled with an astonishing lack of accountability shouldn’t be ignored.

    Canada’s actual tolerance and freedom could be a lesson for U.S. politicians who insist on touting the tired Land of the Free moniker — especially now that it no longer applies.

  • US Spec Ops Already On The Ground In Syria Sources Say, As Russian Troop Presence Grows To 4,000

    On Tuesday evening, we noted that the US is set to send F-15C Eagle twin-engine fighters to Incirlik. This suggests that the Pentagon is preparing for air-to-air combat with the Russians. 

    As hyperbolic as that might sound, there’s really no alternative explanation for why Washington would send the fighters to Syria unless of course ISIS and/or the mishmash of rebels and militants fighting for control of the country have air forces no one has ever heard about. 

    Indeed, Russia made a similar move by sending Sukhoi Su-30s to Latakia and according to several sources, those planes had a run-in with Israeli jets over Lebanon last month. 

    The interesting thing, from our perspective anyway, is that Lebanese sources were out on Wednesday claiming that US spec ops are already on the ground – and they’re operating in the west. Here’s Sputnik

    US military advisors are alleged to have started training so-called moderate rebels near the city of Salma in the Latakia province in what amounts to breaking a pledge not to put US boots on the ground in Syria, Lebanon’s satellite television channel al-Mayadeen reported, citing an unnamed military source.

    And here’s Salma:

    Now bear in mind, this is Russian media citing an unnamed Lebanese source, so that would be a bit like American media citing an unnamed Saudi correspondent, but still, even the suggestion that Washington has placed “advisers” in Salma is alarming. That is, the going assumption was that these spec ops forces would be placed with the YPG or somewhere near Raqqa to avoid even the appearance that The Pentagon is set to place troops with soldiers that are in direct contact with Iranian ground forces and as such could potentially get hit with Russian airstrikes.

    Of course we won’t get much in the way of clarity from Washington. US Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Anne Patterson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday that the “the activities and location of the special forces are classified.” Patterson also said that “Russia’s military intervention has dangerously exacerbated an already complex environment,” on the way to claiming that “the opposition puts up a very strong fight.” 

    Obviously, it’s difficult to know where even to start in terms of analyzing that bit of nonsense. First, the situation is indeed “already complex” thanks to Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha who collectiively decided that “start civil war via the funding of terrorists” was the proper “strategy” for bringing about regime change in Damascus. Second, it’s not clear that the “opposition” is putting up a “very strong fight,” and even if it were, that’s at least partly attributable to the Pentagon handing rebels things like anti-tank weapons. If Patterson thinks that’s constructive, well, maybe she needs to find a new occupation. 

    Meanwhile, Western media reports indicate that there are as many as 4,000 Russian troops in Syria (so, i) just “slightly” more than the 50 Obama is sending, ii) far less than the number of militants the US and its regional allies have trained, and iii) far less than the Iranian contingent, which, between Shiite militas from Iraq, Hezbollah, and the Quds, probably number more than 10 or 15,000). Here’s Reuters:

    Moscow’s military force in Syria has grown to about 4,000 personnel, but this and more than a month of Russian air strikes have not led to pro-government forces making significant territorial gains, U.S. security officials and independent experts said.

     

    Moscow, which has maintained a military presence in Syria for decades as an ally of the ruling Assad family, had an estimated 2,000 personnel in the country when it began air strikes on Sept. 30. The Russian force has since roughly doubled and the number of bases it is using has grown, U.S. security officials said.

     

    The Russians have suffered combat casualties, including deaths, said three U.S. security officials familiar with U.S. intelligence reporting, adding that they did not know the exact numbers.

     

    Russia’s foreign ministry declined to comment on the size of the Russian contingent in Syria or any casualties it has suffered. It referred questions to the Russian Defense Ministry, which did not respond to written questions submitted by Reuters.

     

    The Kremlin has said there are no Russian troops in combat roles in Syria, though it has said there are trainers and advisers working alongside the Syrian military and also forces guarding Russia’s bases in western Syria.

     

    A U.S. defense official said Russian aircraft are now operating out of four bases, but multiple rocket launcher crews and long-range artillery batteries are deployed outside the facilities.

     

    “They have a lot of people outside the wire,” he said.

     

    The main Russian base is at the Bassel al-Assad International Airport near the port city of Latakia. All of Moscow’s fixed wing aircraft are flying from there in support of ground offensives by the Syrian army and foreign Shiite militias, the defense official said.

     

    Three other bases – Hama, Sharyat and Tiyas – are being used for helicopter gunships, he said. The Russians began operating from Tiyas only this week, the official said.

     

    Russia’s air fleet in Syria comprises 34 fixed-wing aircraft and 16 helicopters, the U.S. officials said.

    In a testament to what we said above, Reuters goes on to note that the rebels’ ability to fight off pro-regime forces stems largely from the delivery of U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles. Saudi Arabia is supplying them to forces battling Iran near Aleppo: 

    Despite the Russian air strikes, the offensives have failed to make significant advances, the U.S. officials and independent experts said. A key factor appears to be significant losses by pro-government forces of tanks and other armored vehicles to U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles that Saudi Arabia has been supplying to the anti-Assad rebels.

    Once again, this is just about the silliest damn thing imaginable. Here’s Riyadh giving US-made anti-tank missiles to anti-Assad forces who are using them to target the very same Iran-backed militias who are driving Abrams tanks in Iraq and helping the US-trained Iraqi regulars battle ISIS. Clearly, Washington has gotten itself so intertwined in the Sunni-Shiite battle between Iran and Saudi Arabia that the Pentagon no longer knows what to do, leading to a schizophrenic strategy that varies by country.

    In any event, the takeaway here is that reports now suggest US troops are operating near Latakia and that means they’ll be in contact with Iranian ground troops, Russian fighter jets, and quite possibly with some of the 4,000 Russian troops stationed in the country. Perhaps now we know why The Pentagon sent the F-15C Eagles. Maybe US spec ops will indeed be engaging the Russians and Iranians on the ground and will need the air force to shoot down Moscow’s warplanes in the event they try to hit US positions.

  • Malaysian PM's Goldman-Financed Slush Fund Now Linked To Defunct Australian Penny Stock Firm

    Over the last several months, we’ve documented a series of revelations that have come to light regarding 1MDB, the Malaysian development bank that got its start with the help of several influential Goldman bankers with ties to Malaysian political figures and now threatens to derail the career and destroy the legacy of PM Najib Razak. 

    For the sake of brevity, we won’t recount the entire story (you can read more here, here, and here), but in short, Goldman underwrote a total of $6.5 billion in private placements for the fund (which was set up by Najib) and took the bonds onto its own balance sheet at a discount with the intention of selling them later at a profit. 1MDB then made a series of questionable investments and ultimately, some $700 million ended up in bank accounts linked to the PM. 

    This led to calls for Najib’s ouster (most notably from former PM and the “father” of modern Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad) and street protests.

    Everyone from the Swiss authorities to the UAE to the FBI are probing the fund for evidence of malfeasance. Abu Dhabi, for instance, recently went looking for billions in collateral payments it supposedly received from the fund in exchange for guaranteeing $3.5 billion in bonds and couldn’t find the money. A subsidiary of an Abu Dhabi SWF which apparently lost track of the cash also guaranteed $2.3 billion in funds that 1MDB claims to be holding in Cayman Islands accounts. 

    Put simply, this looks like it was nothing more than a slush fund from which everyone involved was skimming. Well now, an obscure Australian firm called Avestra Asset Management has been drug into the fray. WSJ – who has generally been the source for most of the breaking news on 1MDB this year – has more:

    Regulators there are liquidating a little-known firm called Avestra Asset Management, saying it put its clients’ money at risk in questionable investments.

     

    Avestra focused on Malaysian penny stocks and obscure merger finance, according to a copy of an affidavit by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. But it also had a key role in managing $2.32 billion for state-owned fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd., according to a person familiar with the matter and testimony in June by 1MDB’s auditor before a Malaysian parliamentary committee.

     

    That money flowed from 1MDB’s first major investment, a joint venture with a Saudi oil company in 2009 that never found any oil and was soon wound down. 1MDB says the money was reinvested in a Cayman Islands fund. But government critics in Malaysia, including a former prime minister, have repeatedly demanded proof that the money is actually in the fund and want to know why it has circulated among various offshore companies for years without being returned to the country at a time when 1MDB is struggling to repay $11 billion in debt.

     

    Now it appears the money ended up being overseen by a firm that is being shut down by Australian authorities, adding another layer of questions to the long-running debate.

     

    The investigation into Avestra and those involved in it is ongoing, according to a person familiar with the matter.

     

    The disputed deal involved a joint venture set up in 2009 with a Saudi Arabian company called PetroSaudi International Ltd. that would invest in energy projects around the world. But it quickly generated controversy.

     

    The 1MDB fund was supposed to invest $1 billion into the joint venture. A draft report into 1MDB by the auditor general, however, found this year that $700 million of the $1 billion investment went into “another account not related to this joint venture” and “without the approval” of the 1MDB board. The venture never produced any oil and was wound down the following year.

     

    In 2012, 1MDB put $2.32 billion of what it said were proceeds from its PetroSaudi investment into a Cayman Islands-registered entity called Bridge Global Absolute Return Fund SPC. According to 1MDB, that money included its initial $1 billion investment, plus a later investment of about $800 million and profits it earned in the venture. The Bridge Global fund was set up only weeks before it received the 1MDB money, according to documents from the Cayman Islands corporate registry that don’t say who set it up.

     

    In testimony in June to the parliamentary committee investigating 1MDB, a representative from current auditor Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. said the money in Bridge Global at that time was managed by Avestra. Australia’s regulator says Avestra became an “investment adviser” to Bridge Global in March 2014. It is unclear whether Avestra had any prior connection to Bridge Global or if it still has a role at the Cayman Islands fund.

     

    Australian regulators aren’t looking into the relationship with 1MDB but instead at whether retail investors may be at risk. They allege Avestra hid its investments from Australian regulators by routing them through the Bridge Global fund, where 1MDB had invested its money.

     

    Soon after, 1MDB used its investment in Bridge Global as collateral for a $975 million loan from a group of banks including Deutsche Bank. Questioning its collateral after already giving the loan, the banks pressed 1MDB to pay back the loan just nine months after it was issued, according to Malaysia’s finance ministry.

     

    The Abu Dhabi firm IPIC stepped in again. It agreed to take over some of 1MDB’s debt, including the Deutsche Bank loan, in return for equity, under the terms of an agreement signed in May with the Malaysian fund.

    Got that? 1MDB apparently tried to form some kind of ill-fated joint venture with Saudi Arabia and when that didn’t pan out, they claimed that the money they invested (plus some “proceeds”) was in the Cayman Islands. KPMG didn’t buy it, so 1MDB fired them and convinced a subsidiary of an Abu Dhabi SWF to vouch for the Cayman Islands money in order to secure an audit signoff from new auditor Deloitte.  

    The fund then used these (possibly non-existent) funds to secure a $1 billion loan from Deutsche Bank which is now held by the same Abu Dhabi SWF subsidiary which guaranteed the Cayman Island account and which now can’t find more than $2 billion in collateral payments it supposedly received for guaranteeing 1MDB bonds. 

    Topping it all off, the $2.3 billion supposedly held in The Cayman Islands was partially managed by an Australian firm that specialized in Malaysian penny stocks. 

    Nope, nothing fishy about any of that. 

    Obviously the rabbit hole is just going to get deeper and deeper and deeper here and WSJ seems hell bent on getting to the bottom of it which means that by the time this is over, we’ll probably find out that Najib and a few other Malaysian politicians know a lot more about this than they’re letting on and as we’ve repeated over and over, none of this bodes well for the country’s near-term outlook. The market hates uncertaintly and the 1MDB scandal makes for an extraordinarily uncertain political environment. But don’t worry, Najib is going to get some answers as to how a quarter of a billion dollars ended up in his personal accounts:

    “All these investigations are ongoing, and we will get answers.”


  • After Topping $500, Bitcoin Is (Again) Plunging On Extreme Volume

    It appears a double in a week has prompted – just as we saw yesterday – some more profit-taking in Bitcoin as after topping $500 earlier today, the virtual currency has plunged (considerably more than yesterday) to $368 in late US trading as a high volume selling program was unleashed on the virtual currency.

     

    As we noted during yesterday's plunge,

    To be sure, there is nothing wrong with profit taking after such a parabolic move, however we were under the impression that the kind of furious block selling – which is intended to take out the entire bid stack and reprice an asset to a lower baseline – was reserved solely for gold, courtesy of the BIS.

     

    It appears Virtu, or the NY Fed, may have finally noticed the dramatic surge in this alternative currency. What happens next will be up to the influx of new Chinese buyers who as we predicted two month ago when BTC was $230, have nearly doubled the value of bitcoin in two months in order to bypass China's tightened capital controls.

    *  *  *

    However, someting else caught our eye.

    While the recent rise (and rapid acceleration) in Bitcoin prices have become more mainstream since we suggested Chinese capital-control-fleeing money may find the virtual currency a useful conduit, something odd has been going on in fiat currency alternatives…

    Before The Fed stopped its direct money-printing in October 2014, gold and bitcoin were highly correlated, perhaps rightfully reflecting the ebbs and flows of the USD's reserve currency strength (or weakness) as well as various crisis moments. However, as the chart below shows, since the end of QE3, the correlation regime between gold and the virtual currency has entirely flipped – most notably in the last week or two…

    Of course, these gold 'prices' merely reflect the machinations of various paper-promise-trading manipulators amid surging physical demand, but still, we noticed one interesting point of inflection.

    Since the end of QE3, the relative price of gold has surged relative to bitcoin and now roundtripped to pre-QE3 levels…

    Is this another switching moment as alternative currency seekers rotate back to a 'relatively' cheap gold? Or is something else going on here?

    *  *  *

    With this kind of volatility, we are curious how long before a new generation of traders, the same who are currently watching paint dry in equities and FX courtesy of a seemingly endless short squeeze, migrate to this asset class which suddenly is boasting the best volatility on the planet, if only for the time being.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg & Bitcoinwsidom.com

  • How The Global Debt Bubble Is Crushing Commodity Prices

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    Why is the price of oil so low now? In fact, why are all commodity prices so low? I see the problem as being an affordability issue that has been hidden by a growing debt bubble. As this debt bubble has expanded, it has kept the sales prices of commodities up with the cost of extraction (Figure 1), even though wages have not been rising as fast as commodity prices since about the year 2000. Now many countries are cutting back on the rate of debt growth because debt/GDP ratios are becoming unreasonably high, and because the productivity of additional debt is falling.

    If wages are stagnating, and debt is not growing very rapidly, the price of commodities tends to fall back to what is affordable by consumers. This is the problem we are experiencing now (Figure 1). 

    Figure 1. Author's illustration of problem we are now encountering.

    Figure 1. Author’s illustration of problem we are now encountering.

    I will explain the situation more fully in the form of a presentation. It can be downloaded in PDF form: Oops! The world economy depends on an energy-related debt bubble.

    *  *  *

    Let’s start with the first slide, after the title slide.

    Slide 2

    Slide 2

    Growth is incredibly important to the economy (Slide 2). If the economy is growing, we keep needing to build more buildings, vehicles, and roads, leading to more jobs. Existing businesses find demand for their products rising. Because of this rising demand, profits of many businesses can be expected to rise over time, thanks to economies of scale.

    Something that is not as obvious is that a growing economy enables much greater use of debt than would otherwise be the case. When an economy is growing, as illustrated by the ever-increasing sizes of circles, it is possible to “borrow from the future.” This act of borrowing gives consumers the ability to buy more things now than they would otherwise would be able to afford–more “demand” in the language of economists. Customers can thus afford cars and homes, and businesses can afford factories. Companies issuing stock can expect that price of shares will most likely rise in the future.

    Without economic growth, it would be very hard to have the financial system that we have today, with its stable banks, insurance companies, and pension plans. The pattern of economic growth makes interest and dividend payments easier to make, and reduces the likelihood of debt default. It allows financial planners to set up savings plans for retirement, and gives people confidence that the system will “be there” when it is needed. Without economic growth, debt is more of a last resort–something that might land a person in debtors’ prison if things go wrong.

    Slide 3

    Slide 3

    It should be obvious that the economic growth story cannot be true indefinitely. We would run short of resources, and population would grow too dense. Pollution, including CO2 pollution, would become an increasing problem.

    Slide 4

    Slide 4

    The question without an obvious answer is “When does the endless economic growth story become untrue?” If we listen to the television, the answer would seem to be somewhere in the distant future, if a slowdown in economic growth happens at all.

    Most of us who read financial newspapers are aware that more debt and lower interest rates are the types of stimulus provided to the economy, to try to help it grow faster. Our current “run up” in debt seems to have started about the time of World War II. This growing debt allows “demand” for goods like houses, cars, and factories to be higher. Because of this higher demand, commodity prices can be higher than they otherwise would be.

    Thus, if debt is growing quickly enough, it allows the sales price of energy products and other commodities to stay as high as their cost of extraction. The problem is that debt/GDP ratios can’t rise endlessly. Once debt/GDP ratios stop rising quickly enough, commodity prices are likely to fall. In fact, the run-up in debt is a bubble, which is itself in danger of collapsing, because of too many debt defaults.

    Slide 5

    Slide 5

    The economy is made up of many parts, including businesses and consumers. The consumers have a second role as well–many of them are workers, and thus get their wages from the system. Governments have many roles, including providing financial systems, building roads, and providing laws and regulations. The economy gradually grows and changes over time, as new businesses are added, and others leave, and as laws change. Consumers make their decisions based on available products in the marketplace and they amount they have to spend. Thus, the economy is a self-organized networked system–see my post Why Standard Economic Models Don’t Work–Our Economy is a Network.

    One key feature of a self-organized networked system is that it tends to grow over time, as more energy becomes available. As its grows, it changes in ways that make it difficult to shrink back. For example, once cars became the predominant method of transportation, cities changed in ways that made it difficult to go back to using horses for transportation. There are now not enough horses available for this purpose, and there are no facilities for “parking” horses in cities when they are not needed. And, of course, we don’t have services in place for cleaning up the messes that horses leave.

    Slide 6

    Slide 6

    When businesses start, they need capital. Very often they sell shares of stock, and they may get loans from banks. As companies grow and expand, they typically need to buy more land, buildings and equipment. Very often loans are used for this purpose.

    As the economy grows, the amount of loans outstanding and the number of shares of stock outstanding tends to grow.

    Slide 7

    Slide 7

    Businesses compete by trying to make goods and services more efficiently than the competition. Human labor tends to be expensive. For example, a sweater knit by hand by someone earning $10 per hour will be very expensive; a sweater knit on a machine will be much less expensive. If a company can add machines to leverage human labor, the workers using those machines become more productive. Wages rise, to reflect the greater productivity of workers, using the machines.

    We often think of the technology behind the machines as being important, but technology is only part of the story. Machines reflecting the latest in technology are made using energy products (such as coal, diesel and electricity) and operated using energy products. Without the availability of affordable energy products, ideas for inventions would remain just that–simply ideas.

    The other thing that is needed to make technology widely available is some form of financing–debt or equity financing. So a three-way partnership is needed for economic growth: (1) ideas for inventions, (2) inexpensive energy products and other resources to make them happen, and (3) some sort of financing (debt/equity) for the undertaking. 

    Workers play two roles in the economy; besides making products and services, they are also consumers. If their wages are rising fast enough, thanks to growing efficiency feeding back as higher wages, they can buy increasing amounts of goods and services. The whole system tends to grow. I think of this as the normal “growth pump” in the economy.

    If the “worker” growth pump isn’t working well enough, it can be supplemented for a time by a “more debt” growth pump. This is why debt-based stimulus tends to work, at least for a while.

    Slide 8

    Slide 8

    There are really two keys to economic growth–besides technology, which many people assume is primary. One key is the rising availability of cheap energy. When cheap energy is available, businesses find it affordable to add machines and equipment such as trucks to allow workers to be more productive, and thus start the economic growth cycle.

    The other key is availability of debt, to finance the operation. Businesses use debt, in combination with equity financing, to add new plants and equipment. Customers find long-term debt helpful in financing big-ticket items such as homes and cars. Governments use debt for many purposes, including “stimulating the economy”–trying to get economic growth to speed up.

    Slide 9

    Slide 9

    Slide 9 illustrates how workers play a key role in the economy. If businesses can create jobs with rising wages for workers, these workers can in turn use these rising wages to buy an increasing quantity of goods and services.

    It is the ability of workers to afford goods like homes, cars, motorcycles, and boats that helps the economy to grow. It also helps to keep the price of commodities up, because making these goods uses commodities like iron, steel, copper, oil, and coal.

    Slide 10

    Slide 10

    In the 1900 to 1998 period, the price of electricity production fell (shown by the falling purple, red, and green lines) as the production of electricity became more efficient. At the same time, the economy used an increasing quantity of electricity (shown by the rising black line). The reason that electricity use could grow was because electricity became more affordable. This allowed businesses to use more of it to leverage human labor. Consumers could use more electricity as well, so that they could finish tasks at home more quickly, such as washing clothes, leaving more time to work outside the home.

    Slide 11

    Slide 11

    If we compare (1) the amount of energy consumed worldwide (all types added together) with (2) the world GDP in inflation-adjusted dollars, we find a very high correlation.

    Slide 12

    Slide 12

    In Slide 12, GDP (represented by the top line on the chart–the sum of the red and the blue areas) was growing very slowly back in the 1820 to 1870 period, at less than 1% per year. This growth rate increased to a little under 2% a year in the 1870 to 1900 and 1900 to 1950 periods. The big spurt in growth of nearly 5% per year came in the 1950 to 1965 period. After that, the GDP growth rate has gradually slowed.

    On Slide 12, the blue area represents the growth rate in energy products. We can calculate this, based on the amount of energy products used. Growth in energy usage (blue) tends to be close to the total GDP growth rate (sum of red and blue), suggesting that most economic growth comes from increased energy use. The red area, which corresponds to “efficiency/technology,” is calculated by subtraction. The period of time when the efficiency/technology portion was greatest was between 1975 and 1995. This was the period when we were making major changes in the automobile fleet to make cars more fuel efficient, and we were converting home heating to more fuel-efficient heating, not using oil.

    Slide 13

    Slide 13

    If we look at economic growth rates and the growth in energy use over shorter periods, we see a similar pattern. The growth in GDP is a little higher than the growth in energy consumption, similar to the pattern we saw on Slide 12.

    If we look carefully at Slide 13, we see that changes in the growth rate for energy (blue line) tends to happen first and is followed by changes in the GDP growth rate (red line). This pattern of energy changes occurring first suggests that growth in the use of energy is a cause of economic growth. It also suggests that lack of growth in the use of energy is a reason for world recessions. Recently, the rate of growth in the world’s consumption of energy has dropped (Slide 13), suggesting that the world economy is heading into a new recession.

    Slide 14

    Slide 14

    There is nearly always an investment of time and resources, in order to make something happen–anything from the growing of food to the mining of coal. Very often, it takes more than one person to undertake the initial steps; there needs to be a way to pay the other investors. Another issue is the guarantee of payment for resources gathered from a distance.

    Slide 15

    Slide 15

    We rarely think about how all-pervasive promises are. Many customs of early tribes seem to reflect informal rules regarding the sharing of goods and services, and penalties if these rules are not followed.

    Now, financial promises have to some extent replaced informal customs. The thing that we sometimes forget is that the bonds companies offer for sale, and the stock that companies issue, have no value unless the company issuing the stock or bonds is actually successful.  As a result, the many promises that are made are, in a sense, contingent promises: the bond will be repaid, if the company is still in business (or if the company is dissolved, if the amount received from the sale of assets is great enough). The future value of a company’s stock also depends on the success of the company.

    Slide 16

    Slide 16

    Governments become an important part of the web of promises. Governments collect their assessments through taxes. As an economy grows, the amount of government services tends to increase, and taxes tend to increase.

    The roles of governments and businesses vary somewhat depending on the type of economy of a country. In a sense, this type of variation is not important. It is the functioning of the overall networked system that is important.

    Slide 17

    Slide 17

    There was a very large run up in US debt about the time of World War II, not just in the US, but also in the other countries involved in World War II.

    Adding the debt for World War II helped pull the US out of the lingering effects of the Depression. Many women started working outside the home for the first time. There was a ramp-up of production, aimed especially at the war effort.

    What does a country do when a war is over? Send the soldiers back home again, without jobs, and the women who had been working to support the war effort back home again, also without jobs? This was a time period when non-government debt ramped up in the US. In fact, it seems to have ramped up elsewhere around the world as well. The new debt helped support many growing industries at the time–helping rebuild Europe, and helping build homes and cars for citizens in the US. As noted previously, both energy use and GDP soared during this time period.

    Slide 19

    Slide 19

    I haven’t found very good records of debt going back very far, but what I can piece together suggests that the rate of debt growth (total debt, including both government and private debt) was similar to the rate of growth of GDP, up until about 1975. Then, debt began growing much more rapidly than GDP.

    Slide 20

    Slide 20

    The big issue that led to a big increase in the need for debt in the early 1970s was an increase in the price of oil. Oil is the single largest source of source of energy. It is used in many important ways, including making food, transporting coal, and extracting metals. Thus, when the price of oil rises, so does the price of many other goods.

    As we noted on Slides 11, 12, and 13, it is the growing quantity of energy consumption that is important in providing economic growth. The natural tendency with high energy prices is to cut back on energy-related consumption. Increasing debt, if it is at a sufficiently low interest rate, helps counteract this natural tendency toward less energy usage. For example, the availability of debt at a low interest makes it possible for more consumers to purchase big-ticket items like houses, cars, and motorcycles. These products indirectly lead to the growing consumption of energy products, because energy is used in making these big-ticket items and because they use energy in their continuing operation.

    Slide 21

    Slide 21

    Many people have been concerned about what they call “peak oil”–the idea that oil supply would suddenly drop because we reach geological limits. I think that this is a backward analysis regarding how the system works. There is plenty of oil available, if only the price would rise high enough and stay high for long enough.

    Much of this oil is non-conventional oil–oil that cannot be extracted using the inexpensive approaches we used in the early days of oil production. In some cases, non-conventional oil is so viscous it needs to be melted with steam, before it will flow freely. Some of the unconventional oil can only be extracted by “fracking.” Some of the unconventional oil is very deep under the ocean. Near Brazil, this oil is under a layer of salt. If prices would remain high enough, for long enough, we could get this oil out.

    The problem is that in order to get this unconventional oil out, costs are higher. These higher costs are sometimes described as reflecting diminishing returns–more capital goods are needed, as are more resources and human labor, to produce additional barrels of oil. The situation is equivalent to the system of oil extraction becoming less and less efficient, because we need to add more steps to the operation, raising the cost of producing finished oil products. The higher price of oil products spills over to a higher cost for producing food, because oil is used in operating farm equipment and transporting food to market. The higher cost of oil also spills over to the cost of almost anything that is shipped long distance, because oil is used as a transportation fuel.

    You will remember that increased efficiency is what makes an economy grow faster (Slide 7, also Slide 37). Diminishing returns is the opposite of increased efficiency, so it tends to push the economy toward contraction. We are running into many other forms of increased inefficiency. One such type of inefficiency involves adding devices to reduce pollution, for example in electricity production. Another type of inefficiency involves switching to higher-cost methods of generation, such as solar panels and offshore wind, to reduce pollution. No matter how beneficial these techniques may be from some perspectives, from the perspective of economic growth, they are a problem. They tend to make the economy grow more slowly, rather than faster.

    The standard workaround for slow economic growth is more debt. If the interest rate is low enough and the length of the loan is long enough, consumers can “sort of” afford increasingly expensive cars and homes. Young people with barely adequate high school grades can “sort of” afford higher education. With cheap debt, businesses can afford to buy back company stock, making reported earnings per share rise–even though after the buy-back, the actual investment used to generate future earnings is lower. With sufficient cheap debt, shale companies can create models showing that even if their cash flow is negative at $100 per barrel oil prices ($2 out for $1 in) and even more negative at $50 per barrel ($4 out for $1 in), somehow, the companies will be profitable in the very long run.

    The technique of adding more debt doesn’t fix the underlying problem of growing inefficiency, instead of growing efficiency. Instead, as more debt is added, the additional debt becomes increasingly unproductive. It mostly provides a temporary cover-up for economic growth problems, rather than fixing them.

    Slide 22

    Slide 22

    A common belief has been that as we reach limits of a finite world, oil prices and perhaps other prices will spike. In my view, this is a wrong understanding of how things work.

    What we have is a combination of rising costs of production for many kinds of goods at the same time that wages are not rising very quickly.  This problem can be temporarily hidden by a rising amount of debt at ever-lower interest rates, but this is not a long-term solution.

    We end up with a conflict between the prices businesses need and the prices that workers can afford. For a while, this conflict can be resolved by a spike in prices, as we experienced in the 2005-2008 period. These spikes tend to lead to recession, for reasons shown on the next slide. Recession tends to lead to lower prices again.

    Slide 26

    Slide 26

    The image on Slide 26 shows an exaggeration to make clear the shift that takes place, if the price of oil spikes. When the price of one necessary part of consumers’ budgets increases–namely the food and gasoline segment–there is a problem. Debt payments already committed to, such as those on homes and automobiles, remain constant. Consumers find that they must cut back on discretionary spending–in other words, “Everything else,” shown in green. This tends to lead to recession.

    Slide 27

    Slide 27

    If we look at oil prices since 2000, we see that the period is marked by steep rises and falls in oil prices. In Slides 27 – 29, we will see that changes in the price of oil tend to correspond to changes in debt availability and cost.

    In 2008, oil prices rose to a peak in July, and then dropped precipitously to under $40 per barrel in December of the same year. Slide 27 shows that the United States began its program of Quantitative Easing (QE) in late 2008. This helped to lower interest rates, especially longer-term interest rates. China and a number of other countries also raised their debt levels during this period. We would expect greater debt and lower interest rates to increase demand for commodities, and thus raise their prices, and in fact, this is what happened between December 2008 and 2011.

    The drop in prices in 2014 corresponds to the time that the US phased out its program of QE, and China cut back on debt availability. Here, the economy is encountering less cheap debt availability, and the impact is in the direction expected–a drop in prices.

    If we go back to the steep drop in oil prices in July 2008, we find that the timing of the drop in prices matches the timing when US non-governmental debt started falling. In my academic article, Oil Supply Limits and the Continuing Financial Crisis, I show that this drop in debt outstanding takes place for both mortgages and credit card debt.

    Slide 29

    Slide 29

    The US government, as well as other governments around the world, responded by sharply increasing their debt levels. This increase in governmental debt (known as sovereign debt) is part of what helped oil and other commodity prices to rise again after 2008.

    Slide 30

    Slide 30

    We often hear about the drop in oil prices, but the drop in prices is far more widespread. Nearly all commodities have dropped in price since 2011. Today’s commodity price levels are below the cost of production for many producers, for all of these types of commodities. In fact, for oil, there is hardly any country that can produce at today’s price level, even Saudi Arabia and Iraq, when needed tax levels by governments are considered as well.

    Producers don’t go out of business immediately. Instead, they tend to “hold on” as best they can, deferring new investment and trying to generate as much cash flow as possible. Because most of them have no alternative way of making a living, they often continue producing, as best they can, even with low prices, deferring the day of bankruptcy as long as possible. Thus, the glut of supply doesn’t go away quickly. Instead, low prices tend to get worse, and low prices tend to persist for a very long period.

    Slide 31

    Slide 31

    In 2008, we had an illustration of what can go wrong when the economy runs into too many headwinds. In that situation, the price of oil and other commodities dropped dramatically.

    Now we have a somewhat different set of headwinds, but the impact is the same–the price of commodities has dropped dramatically. Wages are not rising much, so they are not providing the necessary uplift to the economy. Without wage growth, the only other approach to growing the economy is debt, but this reaches limits as well. See my post, Why We Have an Oversupply of Almost Everything (Oil, labor, capital, etc.)

    There is some evidence that the Great Depression in the 1930s involved the collapse of a debt bubble. It seems to me that it may very well have also involved wages that were falling in inflation-adjusted terms for a significant number of wage-earners. I say this, because farmers were moving to the city in the early 1900s, as mechanization led to lower prices for food and less need for farmers. I haven’t seen figures on incomes of farmers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were dropping as well, especially for the many farmers who couldn’t afford mechanization. Wages for those who wanted to work as laborers on farms were likely also dropping, since they now needed to compete with mechanization.

    In many ways, the situation that led up to the Great Depression appears to be not too different from our situation today. In the early 1900s, many farmers were being displaced by changes to agriculture. Now, wages for many are depressed, as workers in developed economies increasingly compete with workers in historically low-wage countries. Additional mechanization of manufacturing also plays a role in reducing job opportunities.

    If my conjecture is right, the Great Depression may have been caused by problems similar to what we are seeing today–wages that were too low for a large segment of the economy, thus reducing economic growth, and a temporary debt bubble that tended to cover up the wage problem. Once the debt bubble collapsed, demand for commodities of all types collapsed, and prices collapsed. This problem was very difficult to fix.

    Slide 32

    Slide 32

    When we add more debt to the economy, users of debt-financing find that more of their future income goes toward repaying that debt, cutting off the ability to buy other goods. For example, a young person with a large balance of student loans is unlikely to be able to afford buying a house as well.

    A way of somewhat mitigating the problem of too much income going toward debt repayment is lowering interest rates. In fact, in quite a few countries, the interest rates governments pay on debt are now negative.

    Slide 33

    Slide 33

    If the cost of producing commodities continues to rise, but the price that consumers can afford to pay does not rise sufficiently, at some point there is a problem. Instead of continuing to rise, prices start to fall below their cost of production. This drop can be very sharp, as it was in 2008.

    The falling price of commodities is the same situation we encountered in 2008 (Slide 27); it is the same situation we reached at the beginning of the Great Depression back in 1929. It seems to happen when wage growth is inadequate, and the debt level is not growing fast enough to hide the inadequate wage growth. This time around, we are also challenged by the cost of producing commodities rising, something that was not a problem at the time of the Great Depression.

    Slide 34

    Slide 34

    If we think about the situation, having prices fall behind the cost of production is a disaster. We can’t get oil out of the ground, if prices are too low. Farmers can’t afford to grow food commercially, if prices remain too low.

    Prices of assets such as the value of farmland, the value of oil held by leases, and the value of metal ores in mines will fall. Assets such as these secure many loans. If an oil company has a loan secured by the value of oil held by lease, and this value falls permanently, there is a significant chance that the oil company will default on the loan.

    The usual belief is, “The cure for low prices is low prices.” In other words, the situation will fix itself. What really happens, though, is that everyone is so afraid of a big crash that all parties make extreme efforts to avoid a crash. In fact, there is evidence today that banks are “looking the other way,” rather than taking steps to cut off lending to shale drillers, when current operations are clearly unprofitable.

    By the time the crash does come around, it is likely to be a huge one, affecting many segments of the economy at once. Oil exporters and exporters of other commodities will be especially affected. Some of them, such as Venezuela, Yemen, and even Iraq may collapse. Financial institutions are likely to find themselves burdened with many “underwater loans.” The usual technique of lowering interest rates to try to aid the economy doesn’t look like it would work this time, because rates are already so low. Governments are not in sufficiently good financial condition to be able to bail out all of the banks and others needing assistance. In fact, governments may fail. The fall of the former Soviet Union occurred when oil prices were low.

    Once there are major debt defaults, lenders will want to wait to see that prices will stay consistently high for a period (say, two or three years) before extending credit again. Thus, even if commodity prices should bounce back in 2017, it is doubtful that producers will be able to find financing at a reasonable interest rate until, say, 2020. By that time, depletion will have taken its toll. It will be impossible to make up for the many years of low investment at that time. Production is likely to continue falling, even if prices do rise.

    The indirect impact of low oil and other commodity prices is likely to be a collapse in our current debt bubble. This collapsing bubble may lead to the failures of banks and even governments. It seems quite possible that these indirect impacts will affect us most, even more than the direct loss of commodities. These impacts could come quite quickly–in the next few months, in some cases.

    Slide 35

    Slide 35

    Stocks, bonds, pension programs, insurance programs, bank accounts, and many other things of a financial nature seem to be very “solid” things–things that we can expect to be here and grow, for many years to come. Yet these things, directly and indirectly, depend on the ability of our system to produce goods and services. If something goes terribly wrong, we may find that financial assets have little more value than the pieces of paper that represent them.

    Slide 36

    Slide 36

    I won’t try to explain Slide 36 further.

    Slide 37

    Slide 37

    Slide 37 illustrates the principle of increased efficiency. If a smaller amount of resources and human labor can be used to create a larger amount of end product, this is growing efficiency. If more and more resources and labor are used to produce a smaller amount of end product, this is growing inefficiency.

    The other part of the story is that simply automating processes is not enough. Instead, the economy must also produce a sufficiently large number of jobs, and these jobs must pay high enough wages that the workers can afford to buy the output of the economy. It is really the health of the whole interconnected system that is important.

    Slide 38

    Slide 38

    Our low price problems are here now. That is why we need very cheap non-polluting energy products now, in large quantity, if there is any chance of fixing the system. These energy products must work in today’s devices, so we aren’t faced with the cost and delay involved with changing to new devices, such as cars and trucks that use a different fuel than petroleum.

    Slide 39

    Slide 39

    Regarding Slides 39 and 40, we are sitting on the edge, waiting to see what will happen next.

    The US economy temporarily seems to be in somewhat of a bubble, now that it does not have QE, while several other countries still do. This bubble is related to a “flight to quality,” and leads to a higher dollar, relative to other currencies. It also leads to high stock market valuations. As a result, the US economy seems to be doing better than much of the rest of the world.

    Slide 40

     

    Regardless of how well the US economy seems to be doing, the underlying problems of rising costs of producing commodities and prices that lag below the cost of production are still present, making the situation unstable. Wages continue to lag behind as well. We should not be too surprised if the economy starts taking major downward steps in the next few months.

  • Global Trade In Freefall: China Container Freight At Record Low; Rail Traffic Tumbles, Trucking Slows Down

    Over the past year we have regularly contended that a far greater threat to the global economy than either corporate earnings, currency devaluations, rate cuts (or hikes), reserve outflow, or even the stock market, is the sudden, global trade crunch which has been deteriorating rapidly since late 2014 and has seen an even more dramatic drop off as 2015 is winding down. Actually, that is incorrect: global trade is merely a manifestation of the true state of the above listed items.

    First, there was ships.

    Back in March, we reported that “Global Trade Volume Tumbles Most Since 2011; Biggest Value Plunge Since Lehman.”

    Then in August when we first pointed out a dramatic slowdown in the Baltic Dry index which had peaked just a few weeks earlier and we said that “should the dead cat bounce in shipping rates indeed be over, and if the accelerate slide continues at the current pace, not only will shippers mothball key transit lanes, but the biggest concern for global economy, the unprecedented slowdown in world trade volumes, which we flagged a week ago, will be not only confirmed but is likely to unleash yet another global recession.”

    Three weeks later, we we got confirmation that the BDIY has indeed become a lagging indicator to actual demand, when Reuters reported in its latest weekly update using data from the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index, that key shipping freight rates for transporting containers from ports in Asia to Northern Europe fell by 26.7 percent to $469 per 20-foot container (TEU) in the week ended on Friday.The collapse in rates is nothing short of a bloodbath: “it was the third consecutive week of falling freight rates on the world’s busiest route and rates are now nearly 60 percent lower than three weeks ago.

    Fast forward to the latest update from the China Containerized Freight Index which as of October 30 has fallen about as far as it ever has in history: at 744.44 it was the lowest on record which suggests that beyond the headline propaganda of some nascent recovery, global trade has literally fallen of a cliff.

     

    And while one could try the usual excuse and blame an excess supply of ships, while ignoring the fact that a third of all containers shipped out of the ports of LA and Long Beach port are now empty…

     

    … apparently a supply which was “not there” earlier this year when the Index was more than 50% higher, that excuse won’t hold when looking at what is going on inside the US itself.

    Then there was trains.

    According to Reuters, “freight carried by major U.S. railroads fell by 7 percent in the second quarter of 2015 compared with the same period in 2014, confirming that large parts of the industrial economy are in recession.

     

    It adds that the major Class 1 railroads carried 431 billion ton-miles of freight in the three months ending June, down from 463 billion ton-miles in 2014, according to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board.

     

    Changes in freight volumes reflect broader difficulties in the industrial economy. Rail operators have been struck by a perfect storm which has hit both their traditional and new business lines.

    The main drivers for the slowdown are all those commodities that make the backbone f America’s industrial economy:

    Coal shipments to power plants, the biggest commodity on the network, accounting for about one-third of total tonnage, have been hit by a combination of environmental regulations and low gas prices. Coal shipments were down by 27 million tonnes, around 15 percent, in the second quarter compared with same 2014 period.

     

    Petroleum shipments, one of the fastest growing sources of new business during the oil boom, fell more than 650,000 tonnes, 5 percent, as production began to peak and new pipelines diverted crude from the rails.

     

    And shipments of sand and gravel, a key ingredient in fracking, plunged by more than 2 million tonnes, nearly 14 percent, as the number of new wells drilled and fracked tumbled.

    It’s not just these well-known culprits: shipments of a range of other items from chemicals to fertilisers and other industrial supplies were also lower as the industrial economy ran into stiff headwinds from a stronger dollar and sluggish capital spending.

    Other sources also confirm that the slowdown in industrial-related freight has continued into the second half of the year. Total traffic on U.S. railroads in the 42 weeks ending on Oct. 24 was down 1.3 percent compared with 2014, according to weekly carload statistics published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR).

    Shipments of intermodal shipping containers, which mostly handle manufactured products, were up 2.2 percent but shipments using box cars, tank cars, hoppers and gondolas, which handle farm and industrial products, were down 4.5 percent. Shipments were down in five of the 10 freight categories including coal (10 percent), forest products (3 percent), metallic ores and minerals (10 percent), nonmetallic minerals (2 percent) and petroleum (7 percent).

    The downturn has deepened and spread to more sectors as the year has progressed, according to AAR data.

    The number of cars carrying coal is down 10 percent so far this year but almost 13 percent in the most recent week. The number of cars carrying petroleum and petroleum products is down 7 percent year-to-date but almost 22 percent in the most recent week.

    But the most vocal confirmation comes at the micro level, companies themselves. In its third quarter earnings presentation on Oct. 22, Union Pacific, the largest publicly owned railroad, acknowledged freight had shrink in five of six categories during the quarter compared with 2014.

    Union Pacific carried lower volumes of farm products (3 percent), chemicals (3 percent), containers (4 percent), industrial products (12 percent) and coal (15 percent). The only sector to increase was automotive (5 percent).

    Other publicly owned railroads all reported falling volumes during the third quarter compared with 2014.

    Norfolk Southern blamed a “decline in metals and construction traffic due to softer steel production” and reported a 16 percent in coal volumes. Kansas City Southern reported that its volumes were down 2 percent including a 24 percent decline in frac sand. CSX reported volumes fell 3 percent including a 15 percent drop in metals traffic and an 18 percent drop in coal.

    * * *

    And then there was trucking.

    As reported here a week ago, as recently as 2014, trucking had been booming in what many saw as a banner year.

    Capacity was squeezed, and rates were rising, so trucking companies went on a buying binge, ordering everything in the book in preparation for red-hot demand in 2015 and more banner years down the road. But then came 2015.

    Among businesses, over-ordering and tepid sales caused inventories to rise and the inventory-to-sales ratio to spike to Financial Crisis proportions. And now businesses are trying to bring them down by trimming orders because they’re having trouble selling more to the middle class, the over-indebted modern proletariat whose stagnant incomes are being eaten up by skyrocketing costs of housing, healthcare, college, and the like – and they simply can’t spend that much on shippable items.

    Unusually “slack demand” in September – the beginning of shipping season – after “a quiet July and even quieter August,” impacted most of the nation, except in the Pacific Northwest, where “fall harvests of apples, potatoes and onions rolled to market in vans as well as reefers,” explained Mark Montague, a statistician at DAT.

    September looks terrible compared to September in banner-year 2014. It still “looks anemic even when compared to the more typical freight movement of September 2013,” Montague said. This slack demand whacked load-to-truck ratios. And that matters:

    Load-to-truck ratios signal changes in the marketplace that are usually reflected in truckload rates. In the past five years, a change in the load-to-truck ratio has correlated at a rate of 0.8 with an immediate change in spot market rates, and a sustained change in spot market rates is typically followed by a change in contract rates, as well.

    Since late last year, DAT’s van load-to-truck ratios have been on a declining trend. Every month this year, the ratios were below the ratios in 2014. In July, August, and September, the ratios hit 1.8, the lowest in years. In September, the ratio was 42% below a year earlier:

    US-Load-to-Truck-ratio-2013_2015-09

    Trucking is a thermometer for the merchandise economy. It doesn’t track consumer expenses like rent or college. But it tracks exports and imports, manufacturing, distribution, retail, and other sectors. It tracks a big part of the real economy. And the sudden slowdown in the trucking industry is another wildly flashing signal in our recession watch.

    * * *

    We have in the past joked that the only thing that could possibly save the world from what is a trade recession is if the central banks can somehow find a way to “print trade” the way they artificially boost asset prices higher to give the impression of a status quo normalcy. Unfortunately, as this is not a real option, and with both global and US trade in freefall, many wonder just how will the world’s central planners mask this most dangerous aspect of the global economic slowdown?

  • Have You Heard Of This Digital Currency That's A Total Scam?

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    It was back in May 2010 that the very first ‘real world’ Bitcoin transaction was conducted: 10,000 bitcoins traded for two Papa John’s pizzas.

    Today that transaction would be worth nearly $4 million, probably making those the most expensive pizzas in the history of the world.

    But back then it was considered revolutionary to trade a ‘digital’ currency, something that few people really understood at the time, for a real product.

    People are still skeptical of digital currency. But the concept itself is not so esoteric.

    As Jim Rickards reminded me some time ago, MOST currencies are digital, even the US dollar.

    The Federal Reserve’s estimate of US dollar money supply is $12.1 trillion; yet only about 10% of that is physical cash in circulation.

    The rest—more than $10 trillion—is simply a series of entries in banks’ core system databases.

    In other words, the money in your savings account isn’t piled up inside your bank’s vault. Far from it.

    Your savings doesn’t really exist. It’s all just digits in an electronic account ledger.

    And yet we transact with these digital currency units all the time.

    Whenever you use a credit card or send a bank transfer, you’re using the digital form of your currency.

    This concept actually dates back to the Middle Ages when Italian bankers realized that they could conduct their transactions without physical money.

    Rather than risk transporting gold coins across the countryside, medieval bankers merely annotated their ledgers with debit and credit entries.

    They didn’t have the computers, but it was the same concept– they kept track of transactions and balances on account ledgers, instead of with physical money.

    In the late 1960s, the IMF took this idea to the next level when they created their own digital currency for the exclusive use of governments and central banks.

    They’re called Special Drawing Rights (SDR, or XDR).

    And even though the IMF’s balance sheet totals nearly 300 billion SDR (around $211 billion USD), not a single SDR exists in physical form.

    100% of the SDR money supply is digital. Just like Bitcoin, it exists in computer databases, making it the digital equivalent of a 500-year old accounting system.

    There is one key difference, though.

    No one controls Bitcoin. But dollars, euros, SDR, etc., are controlled by central banks.

    Federal Reserve, Banque du Canada, Bank of Japan, etc. all decide how much of their currencies to create.

    The SDR in particular is a total scam; the entire reason it was created was because the system didn’t have enough real savings.

    So they ‘solved’ the problem by creating a new digital currency that allowed them to easily conjure more money out of thin air.

    But the even bigger risk is the commercial banks, which control your account balances. They keep all the records and ledgers, they hold all the keys.

    This means that the ‘money’ in your savings account isn’t really yours. You don’t actually have any savings.

    What you really have is a claim on your bank’s savings. Your account is just an entry in the liability column of their digital ledger.

    When you make a deposit, you’re trading your money for a banker’s promise to repay you.

    And there are countless regulations giving them the authority to break that promise.

    (If you want to test this premise, try withdrawing $25,000 just to see how your bank reacts.)

    That’s the system that controls your wealth today. It’s almost entirely digital. And it’s run by unelected bureaucrats whose interests are not aligned with your own.

    This is not a free system. And any rational person should consider parking at least a rainy day fund outside of this system.

    Bitcoin is certainly one option.

    No one controls it, which is a novel concept in an era when governments and central banks control everything from the value of your savings to what you can/cannot put in your own body.

    But if Bitcoin isn’t your flavor just yet, consider other options.

    Gold and silver still have incredible merit since they cannot be conjured out of thin air by central banks.

    And even holding physical cash is a much better alternative than keeping everything inside a highly centralized banking system.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 4, 2015

  • Bitcoin Soars To 14-Month Highs As Major Exchange Eases Access For Chinese

    Bitcoin, at $444, is now up over 100% since we suggested, in early September, it would become the conduit for Chinese capital outflows following China's crackdown on capital controls. This afternoon's sudden BIS-induced plunge, taking the virtual currency down $50, has been entirely retraced and more as BTCC (China's leading Bitcoin Exchange) announced it will now accept direct deposits (making it significantly easier for Chinese to rotate their Yuan deposits into the virtual currency and out of the potential clutches of capital controlling communists).

     

    As BTCC details,

    Recent bitcoin price increases have reignited enthusiasm in buying bitcoin. BTCC is confident this trend will continue. As such, we are pleased to announce that we now accept direct deposits.

     

    Customers now need only log in, click on “Account,” then “Fund,” and then select the “Bank Deposit” option to fund their BTCC accounts through their bank accounts. All customers who have Chinese bank accounts will be able to make direct deposits through ATM transfers or online banking.

    And adds, even more crucially…

    BTCC will stop accepting customer deposits through agents on November 15.

    Which appeared to provide further dip-buying impetus to the recovery off the day's earlier mysterious plunge…

     

    Lifting BTC to $444 highs, more than double the September levels when we suggested it. Notice the rally is on rapidly increasingly volumes also (as word spreads and ease of access is enabled)…

     

    As we noted previously, this is the validation that, just as predicted here two months ago, bitcoin has become the go-to asset class for millions of Chinese savers seeking to quietly and under the radar transfer funds from point A to point B, whatever that may be, in the process circumventing the recently expanded governmental capital controls:

    While he didn’t provide any concrete numbers, he did comment last week on what was driving the adoption. “Some Chinese traders are expressing a view on the CNY exchange rate after the last devaluation and you have interest by mainland speculators to move to other assets after the stock market fallout,” he explained in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine.

    Which again brings us back to our conclusion from two months ago:

    … if a few hundred million Chinese decide that the time has come to use bitcoin as the capital controls bypassing currency of choice, and decide to invest even a tiny fraction of the $22 trillion in Chinese deposits in bitcoin (whose total market cap at last check was just over $3 billion), sit back and watch as we witness the second coming of the bitcoin bubble, one which could make the previous all time highs in the digital currency, seems like a low print.

    As of this moment, the total value of bitcoin is up from the $3 billion two months ago to a little over $5 billion. That means the ratio of Chinese deposits (at around $22 trillion) to bitcoin, is down to a far more "conservative" 4,400x.

    And now, again, imagine what could happen if these same Chinese depositors realize they have been lied about the non-performing loans "backing" their deposits and that instead of the official 1.5% bad debt ratio, the real number is really far greater, somewhere in the 20% ballpark as we will show shortly, suggesting major deposit impairments are no longer the stuff of Cypriot nightmares but just the thing hundreds of millions of Chinese depositors have to look forward to, and that they have just two possible choices to avoid said impairment: reallocating their savings into bitcoin or, of course, gold.

    *  *  *

    How will the Chinese regulators and government react to this? Especially as the volumes are start to become relevant.

  • The Real Issues You Won't Hear From The 2016 Presidential Candidates This Election Year

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.”—Gore Vidal

    The countdown has begun.

    We now have less than one year until the 2016 presidential election, and you can expect to be treated to an earful of carefully crafted, expensive sound bites and political spin about climate change, education, immigration, taxes and war

    Despite the dire state of our nation, however, you can rest assured that none of the problems that continue to undermine our freedoms will be addressed in any credible, helpful way by any of the so-called viable presidential candidates and certainly not if doing so might jeopardize their standing with the unions, corporations or the moneyed elite bankrolling their campaigns.

    The following are just a few of the issues that should be front and center in every presidential debate. That they are not is a reflection of our willingness as citizens to have our political elections reduced to little more than popularity contests that are, in the words of Shakespeare, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    The national debt. Why aren’t politicians talking about the whopping $18.1 trillion and rising that our government owes to foreign countries, private corporations and its retirement programs? Not only is the U.S. the largest debtor nation in the world, but according to Forbes, “the amount of interest on the national debt is estimated to be accumulating at a rate of over one million dollars per minute.” Shouldn’t the government being on the verge of bankruptcy be an issue worth talking about?

    Black budget spending. It costs the American taxpayer $52.6 billion every year to be spied on by the sixteen or so intelligence agencies tasked with surveillance, data collection, counterintelligence and covert activities. The agencies operating with black budget (top secret) funds include the CIA, NSA and Justice Department. Clearly, our right to privacy seems to amount to nothing in the eyes of the government and those aspiring to office.

    Government contractors. Despite all the talk about big and small government, what we have been saddled with is a government that is outsourcing much of its work to high-paid contractors at great expense to the taxpayer and with no competition, little transparency and dubious savings. According to the Washington Post, “By some estimates, there are twice as many people doing government work under contract than there are government workers.” These open-ended contracts, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, “now account for anywhere between one quarter and one half of all federal service contracting.” Moreover, any attempt to reform the system is “bitterly opposed by federal employee unions, who take it as their mission to prevent good employees from being rewarded and bad employees from being fired.”

    Cost of war. Then there’s the detrimental impact the government’s endless wars (fueled by the profit-driven military industrial complex) is having on our communities, our budget and our police forces. In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s largest employer, with more than 3.2 million employees. Since 9/11, we’ve spent more than $1.6 trillion to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When you add in our military efforts in Pakistan, as well as the lifetime price of health care for disabled veterans and interest on the national debt, that cost rises to $4.4 trillion.

    Education. Despite the fact that the U.S. spends more on education than any other developed nation, our students continue to lag significantly behind other advanced industrial nations. Incredibly, teenagers in the U.S. ranked 36th in the world in math, reading and science.

    Civics knowledge. Americans know little to nothing about their rights or how the government is supposed to operate. This includes educators and politicians. For example, 27 percent of elected officials cannot name even one right or freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment, while 54 percent do not know the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. As one law professor notes:

    Only 36 percent of Americans can name the three branches of government. Fewer than half of 12th grade students can describe the meaning of federalism. Only 35% of teenagers can identify “We the People” as the first three words of the Constitution. Fifty-eight percent of Americans can’t identify a single department in the United States Cabinet. Only 5% of high school seniors can identify checks on presidential power, only 43% could name the two major political parties, only 11% knew the length of a Senator’s term, and only 23% could name the first President of the United States.

    A citizenry that does not know its rights will certainly not rebel while they are being systematically indoctrinated into compliance.

    Asset forfeiture. Under the guise of fighting the war on drugs, government agents (usually the police) have been given broad leeway to seize billions of dollars’ worth of private property (money, cars, TVs, etc.) they “suspect” may be connected to criminal activity. Then—and here’s the kicker—whether or not any crime is actually proven to have taken place, the government keeps the citizen’s property, often divvying it up with the local police who did the initial seizure. The police are actually being trained in seminars on how to seize the “goodies” that are on police departments’ wish lists. According to the New York Times, seized monies have been used by police to “pay for sports tickets, office parties, a home security system and a $90,000 sports car.”

    Surveillance. Not only is the government spying on Americans’ phone calls and emails, but police are also being equipped with technology such as Stingray devices that can track your cell phone, as well as record the content of your calls and the phone numbers dialed. That doesn’t even touch on what the government’s various aerial surveillance devices are tracking, or the dangers posed to the privacy and safety of those on the ground. Just recently, a 243-foot, multi-billion dollar military surveillance blimp drifted off, leaving a path of wreckage and power outages in its wake, before finally crash landing.

    Police misconduct. Americans have no protection against police abuse. It is no longer unusual to hear about incidents in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. What is increasingly common, however, is the news that the officers involved in these incidents get off with little more than a slap on the hands. Moreover, while increasing attention has been paid to excessive police force, sexual misconduct by police has been largely overlooked. A year-long investigation by the Associated Press “uncovered about 1,000 officers who lost their badges in a six-year period” for sexual misconduct. “Victims included unsuspecting motorists, schoolchildren ordered to raise their shirts in a supposed search for drugs, police interns taken advantage of, women with legal troubles who succumbed to performing sex acts for promised help, and prison inmates forced to have sex with guards.” Yet the numbers are largely underreported, covered up by police departments that “stay quiet about improprieties to limit liability, allowing bad officers to quietly resign, keep their certification and sometimes jump to other jobs.”

    Prison population. With more than 2 million Americans in prison, and close to 7 million adults in correctional care, the United States has the largest prison population in the world. Many of the nation’s privately run prisons—a $5 billion industry—require the state to keep the prisons at least 90 percent full at all times, “regardless of whether crime was rising or falling.” As Mother Jones reports, “private prison companies have supported and helped write ‘three-strike’ and ‘truth-in-sentencing’ laws that drive up prison populations. Their livelihoods depend on towns, cities, and states sending more people to prison and keeping them there.” Private prisons are also doling out harsher punishments for infractions by inmates in order to keep them locked up longer in order to “boost profits” at taxpayer expense. All the while, the prisoners are being forced to provide cheap labor for private corporations.

    SWAT team raids. Over 80,000 SWAT team raids are conducted on American homes and businesses each year. Police agencies, already empowered to crash through your door if they suspect you’re up to no good, now have radars that allow them to “see” through the walls of your home.

    Oligarchy. We are no longer a representative republic. The U.S. has become a corporate oligarchy. As a Princeton University survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen.

    Young people. Nearly one out of every three American children live in poverty, ranking America among the worst countries in the developed world. Patrolled by police, our schools have become little more than quasi-prisons in which kids as young as age 4 are being handcuffed for “acting up,” subjected to body searches and lockdowns, and suspended for childish behavior.

    Private property. Private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

    Strip searches. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, forcibly take our DNA, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Accounts are on the rise of individuals—men and women alike—being subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops.

    Fiscal corruption. If there is any absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off. This is true, whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Rubbing salt in the wound, even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.

    Militarized police. Americans are powerless in the face of militarized police. In early America, government agents were not permitted to enter one’s home without permission or in a deceitful manner. And citizens could resist arrest when a police officer tried to restrain them without proper justification or a warrant. Daring to dispute a warrant with a police official today who is armed with high-tech military weapons would be nothing short of suicidal. Moreover, as police forces across the country continue to be transformed into extensions of the military, Americans are finding their once-peaceful communities transformed into military outposts, complete with tanks, weaponry, and other equipment designed for the battlefield.

    These are not problems that can be glibly dismissed with a few well-chosen words, as most politicians are inclined to do. Nor will the 2016 elections do much to alter our present course towards a police state. Indeed, it is doubtful whether the popularity contest for the new occupant of the White House will significantly alter the day-to-day life of the average American greatly at all. Those life-changing decisions are made elsewhere, by nameless, unelected government officials who have turned bureaucracy into a full-time and profitable business.

    As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these problems will continue to plague our nation unless and until Americans wake up to the fact that we’re the only ones who can change things for the better and then do something about it.

    This was a recurring theme for Martin Luther King Jr., who urged Americans to engage in militant nonviolent resistance in response to government corruption. In a speech delivered just a few months before his assassination, King called on Americans to march on Washington in order to take a stand against the growing problems facing the nation—problems that were being ignored by those in office because they were unpopular, not profitable or risky. “I don’t determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Nor do I determine what is right and wrong by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion,” remarked King. “Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but a molder of consensus.”

    Guided by Gallup polls, influenced by corporate lobbyists, and molded by party politics, the 2016 presidential candidates are playing for high stakes, but they are not looking out for the best interests of “we the people.” As King reminds us:

    “Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ And Vanity comes along and asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ But Conscience asks the question ‘Is it right?’ And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.”

  • US Ally Turkey Throws Journalists In Jail For "Attempting To Overthrow The Government"

    Let’s just be clear: while it’s not precisely clear what combination of voter fraud, intimidation, and coercion ultimately led to Sunday’s sweeping ballot box victory for AKP in Turkey, there’s little question that the election results reflect the will of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan more than they reflect the will of the people.

    Indeed, quite a few observers have voiced concerns over the election outcome including the US. 

    “We have both publicly and privately raised our concerns about freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in Turkey,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday. 

    For those unfamiliar with the backstory, Erdogan effectively started a civil war with the PKK in order to convince the public that only a dictator is capable of keeping the peace. Meanwhile, the PKK claims that Ankara has been using ISIS affiliates to stage what amount to false flag suicide bombings on Turkish citizens in order to frighten voters into relinquishing their support for the pro-Kurdish HDP. 

    The turmoil led directly to a plunging lira and crackdowns on anyone that even looked like they might be against the government. For example, here are some images from attacks on HDP offices in the lead up to the elections:

    Indeed, just a week prior to the events depicted above, Ankara arrested three Vice News journalists (two British citizens and an Iraqi) for allegedly “engaging in terror activity” on behalf of ISIS. And as we said at the time, the media crackdown didn’t stop there. Turkish police also raided Koza-Ipek Media which, as AFP noted, owns the “Turkish dailies Bugun and Millet, the television channels stations Bugun TV and Kanalturk and the website BGNNews.com and is close to Erdogan’s political rival, the US-based Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen.”

    Now, in the wake of “elections” which virtually no impartial observer considers legitimate, Turkey has arrested the editors of a news magazine and charged them with attempting to orchestrate a “coup.” Here’s NBC:

    Editors of a left-leaning Turkish news magazine were charged on Tuesday with attempting to topple the government over a cover suggesting Sunday’s election strengthening President Tayyip Erdogan could lead to a “civil war,” the journal said.


    Nokta’s latest edition carried the cover headline “the beginning of civil war” after the ruling AK Party founded by Erdogan regained the parliamentary majority it had lost in a June poll.

     

    “Senior editors Cevheri Guven and Murat Capan have been sent to jail pending trial over charges of ‘staging a coup attempt’ and ‘attempting to overthrow the government,'” Nokta said on its Twitter account.

     

    Journalists accused of involvement in coup conspiracies against Erdogan have in the past been held in custody for months or even years awaiting trial.


    Turkey, which aspires to membership of the European Union, ranks towards the bottom of global press freedom rankings. Erdogan’s opponents fear Sunday’s election result, which could pave the way for him to assume greater presidential powers, could encourage increasingly authoritarian rule.

    Obviously, this is a complete farce. It’s Ankara that started the civil war and it began months ago. This is just another example of Erdogan persecuting dissent and frankly, it’s appalling that we’re talking about a NATO member and a country that’s considered one of the most important emerging markets in the world. 

    This is a backward state run by what amounts to a dictator and he’s managed to secure Washington’s tacit support for a brutal crackdown on his political foes by agreeing to let the US fly missions from Incirlik. This is, and always has been, an unholy alliance, and for those who contend that no matter what the political situation, we must still pay attention to Turkey due to its status as an up and coming economy, we encourage you to have a look at a six month chart of the lira prior to the post-election rally. That’s what happens when you’re a third world autocracy masquerading as a partially developed economy.  

  • The Market Is Not The Economy

    After Q3’s magic…

     

    Q4, we have a problem…

     

    Just keep hoping.

     

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

  • Dogfights Next? US Sends F-15 Jets To "Counter" Russian Air Force Over Syria

    When the Obama administration announced it would soon put 50 (er… 100 we guess, since soldiers generally have two feet) boots on the ground in Syria, the US media immediately asked the wrong set of questions. 

    As we noted in “US Sends Troops To Syria: Here Are The Questions The Media Should Be Asking,” the Josh Earnest presser was nothing short of a joke, as the media peppered the Press Secretary with question after question about whether the President had gone back on his promise (made to the American people at least 16 times) to not put US ground troops into combat in Syria. 

    Of course that completely misses the point. And here’s why: 

    There have been boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq for years and indeed, the public seems to have forgotten that just five months ago, US commandos executed a raid in Syria that purportedly killed Islamic State’s “gas minister” (and yes, that’s just as absurd as it sounds).

     

    Additionally, Washington has made no secret of the now defunct “train and equip” program for Syrian rebels – clearly, the American public hadn’t thought very hard about who was doing the on-the-ground “training.”

     

    Finally, there’s no telling how many CIA operatives and black ops have been running around in Syria assisisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s proxy armies from the very beginning. 

    Given that, there are two questions everyone should be asking: 1) how does Washington plan to explain to Ankara that the Pentagon is set to embed US ground troops with the YPG in Syria and fly sorties from Incirlik in support of those ground troops when Turkey is literally flying from the exact same airbase on the way to bombing the exact same YPG forces with whom the US is set to embed?, and 2) how does the US intend to make sure that Russia doesn’t end up “accidentally” bombing US positions?

    Well, one way to answer both of those questions is to send US dogfighters to Syria. The Daily Beast reports

    The U.S. Air Force is deploying to Turkey up to a dozen jet fighters specializing in air-to-air combat—apparently to help protect other U.S. and allied jets from Russia’s own warplanes flying over Syria.

     

    Officially, the deployment of F-15C Eagle twin-engine fighters to Incirlik, Turkey—which the Pentagon announced late last week—is meant to “ensure the safety” of America’s NATO allies, Laura Seal, a Defense Department spokesperson, told The Daily Beast.

     

    That could mean that the single-seat F-15s and the eight air-to-air missiles they routinely carry will help the Turkish air force patrol Turkey’s border with Syria, intercepting Syrian planes and helicopters that periodically stray into Turkish territory.

     

    But more likely, the F-15s will be escorting attack planes and bombers as they strike ISIS militants in close proximity to Syrian regime forces and the Russian warplanes that, since early October, have bombed ISIS and U.S.-backed rebels fighting the Syrian troops.

    Well, kind of. We could always be wrong, but it seems unlikely that The Pentagon is going to send F-15s into battle against Russian fighter pilots in western Syria. What’s pretty clearly going on here is that Washington is sending just enough air support to ensure that once the Russians and Iranians secure Syria’s major cities in the west, the US has the capability to shoot down Russian jets should they threaten whatever the hell Washington’s spec ops are trying to accomplish near Raqqa in conjunction with the YPG. Anyway, back to The Daily Beast:

    Seal declined to discuss the deployment in detail, but hinted at its true purpose. “I didn’t say it wasn’t about Russia,” she said.

     

    Russia’s air wing in western Syria is notable for including several Su-30 fighters that are primarily air-to-air fighters. The Su-30s’ arrival in Syria raised eyebrows, as Moscow insists its forces are only fighting ISIS, but ISIS has no aircraft of its own for the Su-30s to engage.

     

    The F-15s the U.S. Air Force is sending to Turkey will be the first American warplanes in the region that are strictly aerial fighters. The other fighters, attack planes and bombers the Pentagon has deployed—including F-22s, F-16s, A-10s and B-1s—carry bombs and air-to-ground missiles and have focused on striking militants on the ground.

     

    In stark contrast, the F-15s only carry air-to-air weaponry, and their pilots train exclusively for shooting down enemy warplanes. It’s worth noting that F-15Cs have never deployed to Afghanistan, nor did they participate in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. The war in Syria is different.

    And while that is indeed interesting, the following is nonsense: 

    Incirlik and its growing contingent of warplanes is the key to a new northern strategy in the U.S. campaign against ISIS, an unnamed Pentagon official said on Oct. 30. “One of the principal things we will do to put pressure in the border area and into Syria is, quote, ‘thicken’ air operations in northern Syria.”

     

    “That means we want a greater density of planes striking. We need a greater density of intelligence assets developing targets. You—the White House announced A-10s, which are already on the ground at Incirlik, and F-15s forthcoming on—in Incirlik, to help in the counter-ISIL campaign,” the official added, using another acronym for ISIS.

    As we’ve said on too many occasions to count, if Washington and Ankara (both of which are flying from Incirlik) were that concerned about ISIS in the “border area”, then they wouldn’t have explicitly forbidden the YPG from advancing on ISIS west of the Euphrates. 

    In the final analysis, Washington has absolutely no idea what’s going to happen now that i) the PKK has suffered a bitter electoral defeat at the hands of Erdogan in Turkey, and ii) it’s just a matter of time before Hezbollah advances on Raqqa supported by Russian warplanes and so, the Pentagon is sending in the dogfighters to make sure that in case something goes horribly wrong, the US can shoot down whoever happens to be in the sky before the “50” spec ops get bombed. 

  • America's Endangered Species: Uneducated, Middle-Aged, White

    Submitted by Eric Zuesse, author of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.young ones, and not of old ones, and

    A Scientific Study Shows that in U.S., Uneducated Whites Are Now Dying Younger

    An article published in the latest issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), documents that, ever since 1998 in the U.S, Whites who are of non-Hispanic origin have been dying younger and younger, and that this is especially true for those Whites who are low-educated (non-BA’ed) and middle-aged (45- to 54-year-old). But it’s true also for the other age-categories of non-Hispanic Whites.

    This study, by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, “Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century,” published now in PNAS, finds that, for the low-educated, group, “The change in all-cause mortality for white non-Hispanics 45–54 is largely accounted for by an increasing death rate from external causes, mostly increases in drug and alcohol poisonings and in suicide.” It “was driven primarily by increasing death rates for those with a high school degree or less. … Those with college education less than a BA saw little change in all-cause mortality over this period; those with a BA or more education saw death rates fall.”

    Whereas in 1998, only 2 persons per 100,000 in the White non-BA’ed group died from “poisonings” (drug and alcohol), that figure has steadily soared since then and is now above 30, a 15-fold increase.

    The suicide-rate rose from 16 to 25; and the rate from chronic liver disease rose from 16 to 21.

    Poisonings are thus now the leading cause of deaths within the low-educated White middle-aged group; lung cancer is #2; suicide is #3; chronic liver disease is #4; and diabetes is #5. The only one among the five major causes that has gone down among Whites since 1998 is lung cancer (perhaps a result of reduced smoking). However, the increase from diabetes has been only very slight, from 11 to 12.

    Table 2 in the article shows that for all White non-Hispanics aged 45-54, there were enormous increases (doubling in some, going to tenfold in others) in such categories as “days physical health was not good”; “days mental health was not good”; and difficulty with or related to “walking,” climbing stairs,” “standing,” “sitting,” “activities limited by physical or mental health,” “unable to work,” and “heavy drinking.”

    The article doesn’t speculate as to the causes of this mortality-rise among Whites.

    The question here is: what was done in or around 1998 that might have, to a greater degree than with other groups, adversely affected Whites, and especially low-educated ones, so as to have markedly and very disproportionately increased the stresses that can lead to deaths from poisonings (especially “drug and alcohol poisonings”), and from suicides?

    Blacks and Hispanics have always been highly stressed in the U.S.; so, their decline in death-rates was actually continuing during this time; we’re looking here only for a differential indicator, one which can explain the rapid plunge in the welfare of Whites, and especially of middle-aged ones, and especially of low-educated middle-aged ones — not of young or old ones. However, actually, the entire category of American (non-Hispanic) Whites has been dying younger than before, and this fact also needs to be part of the same explanation.

    American Whites, in their middle years, used to expect to outperform their parents; they used to expect to become better-educated and higher-income than their parents. Perhaps they no longer do.

    One cannot say that the white majority has suffered more than minorities have suffered during the economic stagnation that this nation has experienced since, actually, around 1980. For example, here, from the Economic Policy Institute, is a table showing America’s economic stagnation across groups:

    http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/
     

    Furthermore, here is the Conclusion from the 2010 study, “Foreclosures by Race and Ethnicity,” that Responsible Lending did, of the extent to which the George W. Bush economic crash and home-foreclosures, affected Whites, Blacks, and Latinos:

    “We have estimated that two million families have lost their primary homes and that AfricanAmerican and Latino borrowers have borne and will continue to disproportionately bear the burden of foreclosures.”

    Blacks and Hispanics were hit harder by the 2005-2008 foreclosure-crisis than Whites were. And yet, ever since 1998, for some reason, Whites (especially low-educated ones) have lost hope at a far greater percentage than have Hispanics or Blacks.

    Do Hispanics and Blacks have stronger psychological, and perhaps also physical, constitutions than Blacks and Hispanics do? They’ve always had lower suicide-rates than Whites. So: maybe they do.

    At this stage, one can only speculate as to the reasons behind the Case-Deaton findings.

    Source

  • China Services PMI Rises (And Falls); Stocks Jump Led By Brokers, Exchanges On Shenzhen Trading Link Resumption

    Following Caixin China Manufacturing's 'surprise' jump higher (in the face of the official PMI flat), Caixin Services PMI just beat expectations and bounced considerably to a 'healthy expanding' 52.0 (despite official Services PMI plunge), bringing the Composite PMI to 49.9 – thus proving that billions of dollars of liquidity injections, market interventions, debt transfers to SOEs, arrests, shootings, and general thuggery has fixed China. For now stocks are rallying on this news but offshore Yuan is continuing to leak back to Friday's lows. The biggest gainers are the Chinese brokerages and exchanges (HKEx is up 8%) after PBOC Governor Zhou said a trading link with Shenzhen will start this year.

     

    Is China Fixed?

     

    Who knows?

     

    Chinese stocks are recovering on the 'good' news…

     

    Led by brokerages and exchanges…Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing Ltd. shares surged the most in four months

     

    After the head of China’s central bank said a trading link with Shenzhen will start this year.

    HKEx rallied 5.4 percent, heading for the biggest gain since July 9 and extending this year’s advance to 23 percent. China needs to accelerate the opening of its financial markets, People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan wrote in an article published on the PBOC’s website Tuesday.

     

    An expansion of Hong Kong’s exchange link to Shenzhen after a similar program with Shanghai started last November would come as a surprise to many investors who had anticipated a delay. Ten of the 13 respondents in a Bloomberg survey in September predicted the Shenzhen connect would start next year as authorities focus their efforts on stabilizing the mainland share prices in the wake of a $5 trillion selloff

    ut it seems the Yuan continues to weaken…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Hugh Hendry Says "Don't Panic"; Here Is Paul Singer Explaining Why You May Want To

    Earlier today, we presented the latest outlook by reformed bull Hugh Hendry, who had one message for his readers :  “it is ironic that we are perhaps best known for advising “that you panic”. However, if you are anxious at the wrong time it can prove very painful. Today, we would advise that you don’t panic!” He said a bunch of other things too (you can read his full letter here).

    So lest we be accused of being overly biased to the “rose-colored glasses” side, here is the counterpoint straight from Elliott management’s founder and prominent activist, Paul Singer who, contrary to Hendry, thinks panicking may not be a bad idea after all.

    The Calm Before The Who Knows What

    Businesspeople in today’s world are either concerned, actively sweating or oblivious to the rumblings and dangers around them. We recommend that both investors and businesspeople be highly alert to the implications of populism, the increasing concentration of power into the hands of unaccountable elites and the dissipation of the rule-of-law protections of liberty.

    It is very odd and dangerous that governments, satisfied with policies which, by raising asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate, high-end art), are seemingly designed to make the rich richer, nevertheless simultaneously excoriate inequality as the cause of slow growth and societal disquiet. It is also strange that policymakers are not concerned by the obvious failure of monetary extremism to achieve the predicted levels of growth, or by the risks that may exist either in the continuation of the monetary experiment or in its ultimate unwinding. Policymakers who are sticking with the failed policy mix have invented creative explanations for why growth has been so bad for such a long a period of time. The most prevalent (and tautological) of these explanations is “secular stagnation,” a theory that the developed world simply cannot grow faster due to ageing populations, growth-destructive technologies and competition from cheap labor around the world. We disagree with this theory, and assert that it can be examined for validity only after a full range of first-line “fiscal” policies (as we have defined them) has been put firmly and comprehensively in place. In contrast to the “secular stagnationistas,” we believe that there is a great deal of low-hanging fruit (that is, far higher rates of growth in incomes, jobs and national wealth) to be had from simple changes in leadership and policies.

    The question of the day is: What will be the policy response of the developed world toward the currently deteriorating (at least in EMs and China) conditions, and the policy response if the deterioration spreads to Europe and the U.S.? If we know anything about the policy decision-making landscape in developed countries, it is that policymakers are all on super-keen-alert for signs of deflation (which they basically equate with credit collapse — a false and misleading connection, but that is a topic for another day). They will not remain passive in the face of a renewed global recession and/or financial crisis. So what will they do next, and how will it affect global markets? We can be reasonably certain that policymakers will not leap into action on the fiscal measures that we have described as the front-line policies needed to meaningfully quicken economic growth. Try to imagine more flexible and business-friendly tax, regulatory and labor policies being enacted by current political leadership in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Sorry, our imaginations — never inert — just can’t get there.

    What policymakers will do, in all likelihood, is hope and pray, and when that fails, they will likely double down on monetary extremism. This landscape is essentially baked, unless you think that sometime in the near future the global economy will turn higher, either on its own or in anticipation of such policy measures in the future. To many policymakers today, jawboning seems like a magic button, since  markets often create the desired result in anticipation of possible future actions. Consequently, governments may be able to get a particular outcome without requiring the central bankers to actually take any action.

    But the real risk (not necessarily because it is the highest probability but because its consequences would be so damaging) is that somewhere in the action/counteraction matrix of markets, economic adversity, and monetary actions and failures, market actors lose confidence. Such a loss could take a number of shapes and disrupt a multitude of different asset classes and markets. We are aware that the “informed” opinion of the world’s investors at present is that the U.S. dollar will always remain strong and never lose its special reserve currency position, thereby permitting the Fed to promulgate (at no cost) any monetary policy it deems necessary to save the U.S. economy. It is, however, not possible to predict the effects on “investor psychology” of the next set of creative and extreme monetary and fiscal policies (in this use of “fiscal,” we mean raw government spending) that surely will follow the next financial crisis or global downturn. At the outer edges of the most damaging of possibilities, bond markets could collapse in a flight from paper money; stock markets could collapse from a combination of much higher interest rates and expected new rounds of populist punitive policies; commodities markets could drop further (in recession) then soar (with a flight from paper money); inflation could plunge, and then skyrocket; more governments could evolve in a Venezuelan/Argentinian model (autocratic, populist, cronyism, corrupt, irrational); and/or gold prices could spike.

    Remember that we believe that doubling down on, or even expanding the scope and radicalism of, monetary policy is highly likely to be the policy response to a global downturn or financial crisis. And remember also episodes like the “taper tantrum,” where bond markets around the globe instantly tried to “discount” what they saw to be a future of continuously rising interest rates. Markets generally try to discount or front-run the future. Policymakers, currently smugly asserting that “inflationistas” are “wrong” because QE and ZIRP/NIRP have not caused generalized inflation after seven years, may be surprised indeed if the next round of (possibly expanded) monetary extremism causes markets to try to get “ahead” of monetary debasement. That could look like a self-reinforcing spiral of rejection of paper money.

    These thoughts and paths are suggestive. Nobody knows what such a landscape would look like in shape or detail, although the picture we want to paint is not a blueprint for disaster, but rather a suggestion of the kinds of things that could go awry given trends in modem markets, governments, policy and politics. What is clear, however, about the current environment, in which global growth is slowing, is that the policy options which governments have chosen to pursue are wrong. What will suffer as a result is growth and freedom.

    Other Observations About Current Policies And Their Implications 

    It appears that pumping up the wealth of the affluent is the principal goal of state policy throughout the developed world. It is not a collateral consequence, but the seriously pursued aim of policymakers who often spend their time railing against wealth and the wealthy. What is the policymakers’ desired result in this fetid mixture of policies and populism? If it is to restart their economies, it has failed. If it is to stir up resentment against the prosperous and enable the populists to get elected by giving benefits to those whose assets haven’t been levitated, or those who have no assets, then the policy mix is diabolical.

    Another implication of the current policy landscape is the dissipation of the habit and imperative of saving. A whole generation of young people has little concept of building a nest egg. It is not just government benefits that discourage this practice. It is also the absence of a reasonable rate of return. Many older people who thought saving money for their retirement was a good idea are now sorely disappointed (and poor) because they can’t get a fair rate of interest on their savings. Pension funds can’t meet their liabilities with zero or negative short-term interest rates and I% or 2% rates on 30-year bonds. The “bailout culture” often coincides with sustained weak growth because, among other consequences, successful companies have to compete with companies who are alive only because of cheap credit. Overcapacity and inefficient production are engendered by such policies, causing price and profit declines. Failure is an essential element of capitalism, and if failure is politically denied, the most effective, efficient and innovative solutions cannot “win” over the “living dead” who clutter markets and consumer baskets. Given the obviously deflationary effects of ZIRP and bailouts on growth, we can’t imagine why American and European policymakers have effectively looked at Japanese history since 1989 and said, “We just love what they have done for 25 years of no growth! Let’s do the same.”

    QE, ZIRP and NIRP not only distort the prices of financial assets, but also effectively bully investors into making decisions that they didn’t want to make, raising their risk levels far beyond what would be considered “normal” for such instruments.

    * * *

    And also making respectable, rational people capitulate and BTFD, unable to look at themselves in the mirror again…

  • A Furious Trump Goes After Janet Yellen: "She Is Not Raising Rates Because Obama Told Her Not To"

    Having gone after the entire GOP primary playing field, earlier today during a press conference held in his very own Trump Tower, Donald Trump decided to target his ire at a more worth adversary:US monetary policy in general, and Janet Yellen in particular.

    This is what he said:

    “The question is should the Fed raise rates? They are not raising them because Obama has asked them not to raise them. In my opinion, he wants to get out of office, because we’re in a bubble and when those rates are raised, a lot of bad things are going to happen. In my opinion Janet Yellen is highly political and she’s not raising rates for a very specific reason: because Obama told her not to because he wants to be out playing golf in a year from now and he wants to be doing other things and he doesn’t want to see a big bubble burst during his administration.

    The clip:

    Naturally, the White House promptly denied the allegations: “Of course not,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said when asked about the remarks by Trump. “This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that the Federal Reserve” can make monetary policies that are in the best interests of the country and the economy, Earnest said.

    This was to be expected.

    Then again, considering today’s rally which at least on the surface appears to be on a shift in sentiment (even if it is merely a continuation of the relentless short squeeze seen for the past month), now that a rate hike is again perceived bullish (which clearly does not explain why stocks soared on bearish economic data in October and hopes of rate hike delays) because “what would the Fed know if it is hiking that the market does not”, Yellen just may surprise Trump and Obama with a rate hike in just over one month.

    Which leads to the question: is Yellen as political as Trump claims, and if so, will Obama risk a market drop just in time for a presidential election that makes his golf game far less pleasant a year from now?

  • 18 Bullets Showing That A Global Recession Is Already Here

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream,

    The stock market has been soaring, but all of the hard economic numbers are telling us that a major global recession is here.  This is so reminiscent of what happened back in 2008.  Back then, all of the fundamentals were screaming “recession” by the middle of that year, but the equity markets didn’t respond until later.  It appears that a similar pattern is playing out right now. 

    The trade numbers, the manufacturing numbers, the inventory numbers and even the GDP numbers are all saying that a very significant economic slowdown is happening, but stock traders haven’t gotten the memo yet.  In fact, stocks had an absolutely great month in October.  Of course just like in 2008, stocks will eventually catch up with reality.  It is just a matter of time.  The following are 18 numbers that scream that a crippling global recession has arrived…

    #1 According to the biggest bank in the western world, British banking giant HSBC, the world is already in a “dollar recession“.  Global GDP expressed in U.S. dollars is down 3.4 percent so far in 2015, and total global trade has fallen 8.4 percent.

     

    #2 In September, Chinese exports were down 3.7 percent compared to one year ago, and Chinese imports were down a whopping 20.4 percent compared to a year ago.

     

    #3 Demand for Chinese steel is down 8.9 percent compared to a year ago.

     

    #4 China’s rail freight volume is down 10.1 percent compared to last year.

     

    #5 In October, South Korean exports were down 15.8 percent from a year ago.

     

    #6 According to the Dutch government index, a year ago global trade in primary commodities was sitting at a reading of 150 but now it has fallen all the way down to 114.  What this means is that less commodities are being traded around the world, and that is a very clear sign that global economic activity is really slowing down.

     

    #7 U.S. exports are down 11 percent for the year so far.  The only other times they have fallen this dramatically since the turn of the century were during the last two recessions.

     

    #8 Since March, the amount of stuff being shipped by truck, rail and air inside the United States has been falling every single month on a year over year basis.  If less stuff is being moved around the country, does that mean that economic activity is growing or declining?  The answer, of course, is obvious.

     

    #9 The ISM Manufacturing Index, which is the most important measurement of U.S. manufacturing activity, has fallen for four months in a row.

     

    #10 The Dallas Fed’s Manufacturing Outlook has dropped for 10 months in a row.

     

    #11 Wholesale sales in the U.S. have fallen to the lowest level since the last recession.

     

    #12 The inventory to sales ratio has risen to the highest level since the last recession.  This means that there is a whole lot of unsold inventory that is just sitting around out there and not selling.

     

    #13 It looks like a new housing slump is emerging in the United States.  Sales of previously owned homes fell by 2.3 percent in September.

     

    #14 New home sales in the United States declined by a whopping 11.5 percent in September.

     

    #15 Wal-Mart is projecting that its earnings may fall by as much as 12 percent during the next fiscal year.

     

    #16 According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if the government was actually using honest numbers the unemployment rate in the United States today would be 22.9 percent.

     

    #17 According to Challenger Gray, layoffs at major firms have risen to the highest level that we have witnessed since 2009.

     

    #18 The number of job openings in the United States declined by 5.3 percent during the month of August.  That was a very large plunge for just one month.

    None of the underlying issues that caused our problems back in 2008 and 2009 have been fixed.  Instead, we just became even bigger and bolder with our mistakes.  In the period between the last recession and today, we witnessed the greatest debt binge in the history of the planet.  Now a lot of that debt is starting to go bad, and the Bank for International Settlements says that their “dashboard of risk is flashing red”.  The following comes from a recent article in the Guardian entitled “Apocalypse now: has the next giant financial crash already begun?“…

    This summer, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) pointed out that certain major economies were seeing a sharp rise in debt-to-GDP ratios, which were well outside historic norms. In China, the rest of Asia and Brazil, private-sector borrowing has risen so quickly that BIS’s dashboard of risk is flashing red. In two thirds of all cases, red warnings such as this are followed by a major banking crisis within three years.

    And that is exactly what we are heading for.  Whether it happens next week or several months from now, the truth is that we are steamrolling toward another great banking crisis, and it will be worldwide in scope.

    By the time that it is all said and done, I believe that the economic crisis that we are heading toward will be much worse than what we experienced back in 2008 and 2009.  The U.S. economy has never even gotten close to the level it was operating at prior to the last recession, and now the next crisis is upon us.

    But until stocks crash here in the United States, most people are going to ignore all of the numbers above and will just keep pretending that everything is going to be just fine.

    Just like in 2008, the irrational optimists are going to keep chanting their happy mantras for as long as they possibly can.

  • Housing Crisis: Australians Resort To Renting Tents As Cost Of Living Skyrockets

    Last week we brought you “Million Dollar Shack,” a comedic yet sobering documentary that provides a first hand account of California’s housing bubble. 

    As we noted when we presented the clip, the short film embedded above has it all: absurd prices for rundown properties, soaring costs for rentals, even a tent in someone’s backyard that goes for $46 a night (you get an extension cord, one shower a day, and wi-fi). 

    Of course California isn’t the only place where the cost of living has gone through the roof.

    Indeed, between America’s transformation from a nation of homeowners to a nation of renters, capital fleeing China for international real estate, and the proliferation of ZIRP and NIRP, housing costs have skyrocketed from New York, to Oslo, to Hong Kong. As we pointed out last Thursday, UBS is now out warning that London risks a “substantial price correction should the fundamentals for estate investment deteriorate.” 

    All of this comes as DM central banks across the globe swear there’s no inflation and not only that, the same central banks cite a deflationary impulse on the way to cutting rates to zero or below which of course only serves to exacerbate the housing bubbles that are pricing the lower- and middle-classes out of the market. 

    The situation is so bad in London that one apartment seeker was recently shown the following “room” which she was told could be hers for “just” £500 a month.

    Well as it turns out, Silicon Valley and London aren’t the only places where tents and cots under the stairs are actually being marketed to renters. As Australian media reports, “tents outside” are now going for $90 a week. Here’s more:

    Renters in Melbourne are offering tents on a balcony instead of a normal bedroom — and people are desperate enough to move in.

     

    Those who want cheap rent in the city can find adverts on sites like Gumtree, promoting the low-cost housing solution.

     

    One tent is being rented out at Southbank for $90 a week.

     


     

    The seller, who already lives with two other people, had previously lived in the tent for six months.

     

    It is described as comfortable and has electricity and a mattress.

     

    The person who moves into the tent can share one of two toilets and can have access to the living room, kitchen and two new fridges.

    Flatmates.com.au chief executive Thomas Clement gently suggests that before you resort to living in a tent on someone’s porch, you consider living outside the city and dealing with the commute: 

    “More and more people want to live closer to the city centre and I believe that’s where some of the issues come in A lot of people are having affordability issues but the easy solution is move out of the city a little bit. I think people’s desire to live centrally is outweighing the logic of taking something affordable.”

    Maybe. Or maybe prices are just too damn high. That is, maybe it’s not the renters that are being illogical – maybe it’s a market that’s been distorted by a variety of factors including, but certainly not limited to, ZIRP. In any event, we took a quick spin around Gumtree.com and found another amusig listing which, despite a valiant effort on “Debbie’s” part to sell it in a way that isn’t demeaning, is for all intents and purposes being pitched to vagrants:

     

    hi,everyone i know how backpacker can be to cramped in shareing rooms with no private or to put a tent up at a caravan park , i have a caravan i have parked in my drive way that i am gonna let out for short stay people who are travelling through.

     

    caravan has all utilities as reverse air con, microwave,toaster, kettel , small gas cooker, linen, it has 2 single beds or the table folds down to a double bed , where you have your own space,inside house you tv with foxtel if you like to use and socialised in side the house , share bathroom, kitchen if you like to cook up a storm, pergola out back with bbq that you can use if you like,internet at an extra cost.

     

    your close to shops , beach, and transport, i have dogs that are friendly love people for attention.

     

    PRICE

    $25 a night

    $30 a night for 2 people

    $5 a day for internet per person in house

    $155 if you stay7days for one person or for 2 is $190

    there is a security bond but depends on how long you stay.

     

    please text me or call no emails please Debbie.

    Yes, “no e-mails”, which shouldn’t be a problem because if you’re considering renting out Debbie’s driveway “caravan,” chances are you aren’t toting around a MacBook (unless you’re a jobless recent college graduate, in which case you probably left school with $35,000 in debt and five Apple products). Here’s more from Thomas Celement (cited above): 

    “We don’t believe it’s a reasonable way for people to live.”

     

    “People think share accommodation is a student thing but it’s not. The majority of people who live in share housing are around 27 and in their first or second job.

     

    “Living in a tent doesn’t connect with someone with a professional job.”

    No argument there. 

    Of course at the end of the day, if living on someone’s porch in a tent or in someone’s driveway in a “caravan” isn’t your style, you can always just go home…

    *  *  *

  • Why Most Investors Will Never Go Back To Stocks Again, In One Chart

    The simple answer: the risk/return is simply not worth it.

    Whether it is two recent yet “generational” crashes still fresh in most investors’ minds, or the countless micro flash crashes witnessed daily and countless market fragmentation events thanks to the ubiquitous penetration of HFT in every asset class which have led to partial or wholesale market closures and a risk to principal far beyond what is embedded in the “fundamentals”, not to mention the risk that faith in central planning simply runs out in any given moment, for many equities are simply, as SocGen puts it, “too scary.”

     

    In short, for most return of capital is now far more important than return on capital.

    We note this just in case Steve Liesman is confused “why”…

    Source

  • Goldman Warns "VIX Seems Low", Significantly Underpricing Economic Uncertainty

    "The options market seems to either be anticipating an inflection higher in the economic data, no rate hike, or an extreme lack of catalysts between now and year-end," according to Goldman Sachs' Krag Gregory. With VIX trading with a 13 handle, Gregroy warns, it is notably under-priced relative a 19 handle more in line with economic and policy uncertainty. The potential for volatility to swing higher seems more likely.

    The VIX landed at 14.2 on November 2nd, back down to its average closing level during the low volatility years of 2013 and 2014.

     

    That seems low to us given recent weakness in the U.S. economic data and a potential rate hike in December. The options market seems to either be anticipating an inflection higher in the economic data, no rate hike, or an extreme lack of catalysts between now and year-end.

    Argument for higher volatility: Uncertainty surrounding a mediocre economy + FOMC reaction function; GDP of 1.5% and ISM @ 50 are more consistent with a 19 VIX

     Our VIX model uses economic inputs to estimate trend VIX levels over time. With the ISM, consumer spending and unemployment data that we have in hand, our models would suggest baseline VIX levels of 19, not 14 and change. Reverse engineering our model we estimate that a 14 VIX is more consistent with an ISM new orders level above 60 (ISM high 50’s) given no change in consumer spending or the unemployment rate.

     

    The U.S. options market may be expecting economic stabilization, or a lower likelihood of a December rate hike given an ISM at 50.1.

    Volatility: Less room for error with ISM @ 50 and GDP is 1.5% rather than 3%

    GDP is 1.5% and ISM at 50.1: In our 2015 Volatility Forecast (January 20, 2015), we showed that the FOMC has tended to hike rates when the economy is on solid footing. U.S. real GDP growth has been 3% or higher during the quarter of the initial hike and the ISM averaged 57.6 the month of the hike and a robust 57 one- to three-months after a hike over the last three rate cycles. While the VIX is already pricing in an ISM level in the high 50's and the FED has put a December hike back on the table, the economy is well below where we were at the beginning of past hikes. The advance number for real GDP was +1.5% in Q3 and the ISM stands at 50.1. That gives us a lot less cushion than in past cycles.

    Implications: Modest U.S. and global growth may imply that U.S. market volatility (much like the FOMC) will be a lot more data dependent.

    The economy and the FOMC reaction function will be the key into year-end. Our point is that the potential for volatility to swing higher seems more likely when we are (1) at low VIX levels, (2) the economy is mediocre, and (3) the market is navigating the ramifications of a potential December rate hike.

    Bottom line: a VIX back at 2013-2014 levels seems low if a December rate hike really is in play. In terms of timing, it may be natural for volatility to take a breather after the intense market swings experienced in August-September, an earnings season, and three highly scrutinized central bank meetings (FOMC, ECB, BOJ). We would take advantage of lower option prices to implement direction views.

    Source: Goldman Sachs

  • Peter Schiff On QE's Creeping Communism: Washington Joins Tokyo On The Road To Leningrad

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    Most economists and investors readily acknowledge that the current period of central bank activism, characterized by extended bouts of quantitative easing and zero percent interest rates, is a newly-blazed trail in economic history. And while these policies strike some as counterintuitive, open-ended, and unimaginably expensive, most express comfort that our extremely educated, data-dependent, central bankers have a pretty good idea as to where the trail is going and how to keep the wagons together during the journey.
     
    But as it turns out, there really isn't much need for guesswork. As the United States enters its eighth year of zero percent interest rates, we should all be looking at a conveniently available tour guide along the path of perpetual easing. Japan has been doing what we are doing now for at least 15 years longer. Unfortunately, no one seems to care, or be surprised, that they are just as incapable as we have been in finding a workable exit. When Virgil guided Dante through Hell, he at least knew how to get out. Japan doesn’t have a clue.
     
    Despite its much longer experience with monetary stimulus, Japan's economy remains listless and has continuously flirted with recession. In spite of this failure, Japanese leaders, especially Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (and his ally at the Bank of Japan (BoJ), Haruhiko Kuroda), have recently doubled down on all prior bets. This has meant that the Japanese stimulus is now taking on some ominous dimensions that have yet to be seen here in the U.S. In particular, the Bank of Japan is considering using its Quantitative Easing budget to buy large quantities of shares of publicly traded Japanese corporations.
     
    So for those who remain in doubt, Japan is telling us where this giant monetary experiment leads to: Debt, stagnation and nationalization of industry. This is not a destination that any of us, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, should be happy about.
     
    The gospel that unites central bankers around the world is that the cure for economic contraction is the creation of demand. Traditionally, they believed that this could be accomplished by simply lowering interest rates, which would then spur borrowing, spending and investment. But when that proved insufficient to pull Japan out of its recession in the early 1990s, the concept of Quantitative Easing (QE) was born. By actively entering the bond market through purchases of longer-dated securities, QE was able to lower interest rates across the entire duration spectrum, an outcome that conventional monetary policy could not do.
     
    But since that time, the QE in Japan has been virtually permanent. Unfortunately, Japan's economy has been unable to recover anything resembling its former economic health. The experiment has been going on so long that the BoJ already owns more than 30% of outstanding government debt securities. It has also increased its monthly QE expenditures to the point where it now exceeds the Japanese government's new issuance of debt. (Like most artificial stimulants, QE programs need to get continually larger in order to produce any desirable effects). This has left the BoJ in dire need of something else to buy. Inevitably, it cast its eyes on the Japanese stock market.
     
    In 2010 the BoJ began buying positions in Japanese equity Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). These securities, which track the underlying performance of the broader Japanese stock market, are one step removed from ownership of companies themselves. After five years of the policy, the BoJ now owns more than half the entire nation's ETF market. But that hasn't stopped it from expanding the program. In 2014, it tripled its ETF purchases to $3 trillion yen per year ($25 billion), and  the program may be tripled again in the near term. In just another example of how QE is a boon to the financial services industry, Japanese investment firms are currently issuing new ETFs just to give the BoJ something to buy.
     
    However, these purchases have not proven to be particularly effective in doing much of anything, except possibly pushing up ETF share prices. But even that has been a mixed blessing. ETFs are supposed to be the cart that is pulled along by stocks (which function as horses). But trying to move the market by buying ETFs creates a whole other level of potential price distortions. It also tends to limit the impact to those holders of financial assets, rather than the broader economy. For this reason the BoJ is now contemplating the more direct action of buying shares in individual Japanese companies.
     
    Such purchases would allow the Japanese government to accumulate sizable voting interests in some of Japan's biggest companies. Equity ownership would then allow, according to an economist quoted in Bloomberg, the Abe administration to demand that Japanese corporations adhere to the government's priorities for wage increases and heightened corporate spending. The same economist suggested, this "micro" stimulus provided by government controlled corporations may be more effective in spurring the economy than "macro" purchases of government bonds.
     
    These possibilities should horrify anyone who still retains any faith in free markets. The more than four trillion dollars of government bonds purchased through the Federal Reserve’s QE program since 2008 now sit on account at the Fed. Although these purchases may have distorted the bond market, created false signals to the economy, and may loom as a danger for the future (when the bonds need to be sold), they are primarily a means of debt monetization, whereby the government sells debt to itself. But purchases of equities would involve a stealth nationalization of industry, and would represent a hard turn towards communism.
     
    Many American observers will take comfort in their belief that the United States has already concluded its QE experiment and that we are heading in the opposite direction, toward an era of monetary tightening. This greatly misjudges the current situation.
     
    The U.S. economy is slowing remarkably, and despite the continuous assertions by the Fed that rate hikes are likely in the very near future, I believe we are stuck just as firmly in the stimulus trap as Japan. The main difference between the U.S. and Japan is that Japan began this "experiment" from a much stronger economic position. Japan was a creditor nation, with ample domestic savings and large trade surpluses. In contrast, the U.S. started as the world's largest debtor nation, with minimal savings, and enormous trade deficits. So if Japan, with its superior economic position, could not extricate itself from this trap, what hope does the United States have?
     
    If the Fed is unable to raise rates from zero, it will also be have no ability to cut them to fight the next recession. So the next time an economic downturn occurs (one may already be underway), the Fed will have to immediately launch the next round of QE. When QE4 proves just as ineffective as the last three rounds to create real economic growth, the Fed may have to consider the radical ideas now being contemplated by the Bank of Japan.
     
    So this is the endgame of QE: Exploding debt, financial distortion, prolonged stagnation, recurring recession, and the eventual government takeover of industry and the economy. This appears to be the preferred alternative of politicians and bankers who simply refuse to let the free markets function the way they are supposed to.
     
    If interest rates were never manipulated by central banks and QE had never been invented, the markets could have purged themselves years ago of the speculative bubbles and mal-investments. Sure we could have had a deeper recession, but it also could have been much shorter, and it could have been followed by a far more robust and sustainable recovery.
     
    Instead Washington has joined Tokyo on the road to Leningrad.

  • Greek Island Runs Out Of Burial Ground Amid Flood Of Dead Refugees

    A surge in the number of bodies of refugees whose boats capsized as they desperately tried to reach Europe has filled the burial grounds of the Greek island of Lesbos to capacity, the island’s mayor said, adding that over 50 bodies remain unburied.

    As RT reports, The island’s morgues, cemeteries and emergency services have been overwhelmed with a record number of bodies of migrants who died trying to cross the Mediterranean in October. According to the latest UN data, over 218,000 people arrived in the EU during the month, beating the total annual number for the whole of 2014.

    Some 744,000 migrants and refugees have arrived in Europe in 2015 alone, of which at least 3,300 died while making the journey.

    Mayor Spyros Gallons told the Greek media that, while five funerals were held this weekend, 55 bodies remain at the morgue and the island is having a hard time finding burial ground for them.

    “Yesterday we held five funerals, but there are still 55 bodies at the morgue,” NBC News quoted Galinos as saying. “Who could have anticipated such a carnage in the Aegean?”

    Lesbos, with a population of 86,000, lies in the Aegean Sea near Turkey’s cost. It has served as one of the main destinations for refugees and other migrants trying to escape violence and poverty in Syria and other conflict zones in the Middle East and Africa.

     

    On Monday, the tragic situation was exacerbated, as 11 refugees, most of them children, drowned in the Aegean Sea while trying to reach Lesbos. Moreover, on Sunday another 15 people, including six children, died in the Aegean after their boat capsized off the Greek island of Samos.

     

    Galinos told the media that authorities are working on fast-tracking procedures for creating new burial ground next to the main cemetery.

    The situation on the island has also prompted ambulance workers to protest state budget cuts that have downsized the number of emergency vehicles to only three, despite the increasing number of refugees.

    As DW.com adds, Lesbos currently has 90,000 residents and 200,000 refugees…

    Mytilene is the largest city on the Greek island of Lesbos, in the northeast Aegean Sea not far from Turkey. It is an attractive place with massive docks. From there many large ferries run daily towards Piraeus and Kavala near the Macedonian border.

     

    And that is why there are thousands of refugees here – they want to keep going.

     

    The north coast of Lesbos is an orange streak. Thousands of lifejackets lie on the beach as far as the eye can see, having fulfilled their purpose for the refugees crossing from Turkey. So do the many rubber dinghies that the volunteers pierced right after their arrival so that they couldn't be pushed back onto the sea.

     

    The helpers come from England, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany. A few Greeks as well hurry about the beaches. But they limit themselves to "recovering" the valuable scraps of metals from the boats. By sunrise, some are already carrying away the motors of the boats that came in overnight. These are worth a few thousand euro a piece.

     

     

    The so-called "hotspot" in Moria, a barrack outside of Mytilene, has become a textbook example of the way processing is handled in Greece. By now the Greek police and officials from Frontex – the European Union border agency – have managed to register more than 5,000 refugees a day. However, the registration is not valid across the EU. It is usually full of loopholes; the information provided by refugees is not tested for its truth.

    In the end, everyone here receives a registration form that entitles them to travel on from Lesbos. As a matter of fact, the refugees are not allowed to leave Greece, and many will still be ultimately deported. But the authorities on Lesbos cannot do that themselves. Nor do they want to. They just want to sustain a bit of peace and order. And therefore as many refugees as possible must be moved on from the island, as fast as possible.

  • The Unhackable iPhone Has Been Compromised: "Intelligence Agencies Can Intercept Calls, Messages, & Access Data"

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    Iphone maker Apple, Inc. claimed last month that their latest iteration of the wildly popular handheld device was unhackable. According to HackRead, the company is so convinced of its security successes that they issued a statement saying that data stored on a phone secured with a front screen passcode was impossible to access – even by highly talented intelligence agencies:

    The CIA and the FBI are always looking for backdoors in Apple devices, in fact, the agency spent years trying to hack iPhone and iPads according to documents released by NSA’s Edward Snowden.

     

    Now, with the new upgraded operating systems, Apple has termed it “impossible” to access any data from Apple devices. Though, the company can still access data from older phones.

     

     

    According to the Apple’s response to the court, 90 percent of the devices has ios 8 installed and with the type of encryption already there in the phone, it’s nearly impossible to access the data without the passcode, which is only known to the original owner. Even Apple itself cannot find the code.

    But as we already know from recent hacks of Department of Defense computers, essential domestic grid infrastructure computers, and even NASA’s in-orbit spacecraft, in the digital age nothing is ever really secure.

    Within hours of Apple releasing their latest iOS 9 update a cyber security firm known as Zerodium issued a challenge to the hacker community and offered up a $1 million bounty for any team that could bypass Apple’s latest security features. For weeks it appeared that Apple was right. Scores of hackers around the world burned the midnight oil trying to hack the iphone before Zerodium’s bounty expired.

    But just few hours before the challenge came to end, one team submitted their exploits and vulnerabilities and Zerodium has confirmed that the Apple’s iOS 9 has been compromised.

    The exploits, according to experts, would give snoopers the ability to not only access the data on your phone, but intercept calls, text messages and even live chat conversations.

    Here’s the kicker: the exploit is remote, so it can be launched on your phone without you even knowing about it. Simply visiting a web site or receiving a certain kind of text message could initiate the jailbreak process on your phone and then install unwanted (and hidden) monitoring apps.

    According to Motherboard, the unhackable has been hacked… again:

    Bekrar explained that the winning team found a “number of vulnerabilities” in Chrome and iOS to bypass “almost all mitigations” and achieve “a remote and full browser-based (untethered) jailbreak.”

     

    If true, this is a considerable feat. No one had found a way (at least that’s publicly known) to jailbreak an iPhone remotely for more than a year, since iOS 7.

     

     

    there’s no doubt that for some, this exploit is extremely valuable. Intelligence agencies such as the NSA and the CIA have run into problems when trying to hack into iPhones to spy on their targets, and the FBI has publicly complained about Apple’s encryption for months. This exploit would allow them to get around any security measures and get into the target’s iPhone to intercept calls, messages, and access data stored in the phone.

     

     

    A source, who used to work for the NSA, told Motherboard a few weeks ago that $1 million is actually a good price for such an exploit, because “if you sell it to the right people” you can fetch much more.

    And who will Zerodium be selling this exploit to?

    You probably already know the answer:

    Bekrar and Zerodium, as well as its predecessor VUPEN, have a different business model. They offer higher rewards than what tech companies usually pay out, and keep the vulnerabilities secret, revealing them only to certain government customers, such as the NSA.

    So just in case you thought your data and private activities were safe from spying eyes, think again.

    The very people who we want to keep out of our private lives are the ones who will be the beneficiaries of the jailbreak.

    Now the NSA, FBI and other interested intelligence partners will have total access to your phone.

  • How Beijing & The West Work Together To Manipulate The Global Currency War

    Submitted by Brendan Brown via The Mises Institute,

    From reading the commentaries you might have imagined that the process of a currency winning international reserve status depends on getting the IMF seal of approval. At least that seems to be the story with China.

    So, strange to tell, the great international monies of the past evolved either before the IMF was created or without its help. Think of the Deutsche mark and Swiss franc — the two upstarts of the 1970s and 1980s — or briefly the Japanese yen when it enjoyed great popularity. Their emergence was due to the path of monetary stability chosen by their issuing authorities together with complete freedom from restrictions.

    So why is the world of currency diplomacy now playing along with the nonsense of the IMF examining whether the Chinese yuan has met the criterion to become a reserve currency?

    Incidentally, the last time that Washington body bestowed “reserve currency status” it was with respect to the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar, on the eve of the bust for the respective commodity and carry trade bubbles which sent them to their respective skies.

    Beijing and DC Pick the Winners and Losers

    The question as to why the Western world is playing along with the official Chinese currency charade is part of a more general point. Why do Western governments pursue non-market trade diplomacy so enthusiastically with Beijing?

    Think of the repeated times that Chinese communist party dictators traveled to a particular Western capital to hand out their list of chosen beneficiaries of Chinese corporate (mostly state) spending. These dictators were welcomed by fawning officials and bureaucrats who assured us that they also brought up, with muted whispers and inaudible comments, the problem of human rights to their guest.

    And, by the same token, why are there high profile visits of Western leaders to China, presenting their own list of chosen industrialists selected to pick up the new business deals? This is not the way free markets, and global free trade, in particular, is meant to work.

    If it smells like a rat it probably is a rat, and so it is with respect to these deals by collusion between China and Western governments, and their chosen corporate protégés, whether on currency or trade or investment matters. This is all an exercise in some combination of crony capitalism (with cronies on both sides!) and diplomacy by stealth. The gains and gainers are deliberately kept opaque. The losers are much less evident than the gainers, on whichever side of the fence, but principle and practice tells us that the total losses are much larger than the gains.

    The Cronies’ Currency War

    In particular, how much more prosperous would China be today under a regime of currency freedom and well-functioning markets, than under the cozy order of restrictions and preferred access (to capital and trade) put together by Beijing and foreign governments in cahoots? And how much are Western priority systems for getting Chinese capital and orders to favored domestic destinations distorting the signals which guide the invisible hands? And how far is the secret — or not so secret — G-20 currency diplomacy, related to China, abetting the most serious episode of currency warfare since the 1930s?

    Think about the new currency offensive launched by Europe last month when ECB Chief Draghi’s calibrated remarks about further QE drove the euro down by 3–4 percent against the US dollar in 24 hours, which was double the extent of any Chinese currency maneuvers earlier in the summer. And in the bigger picture, China’s mini currency devaluation hardly smacks of currency warfare compared to moves ten or even twenty times greater by Europe and Japan in the past three years.

    So why did Beijing agree to the mild censoring which occurred at the last G-20 meeting (in Lima) of its own mini-devaluation when it could have called on Europe and Japan to halt their currency warfare?

    A plausible answer is that Beijing has no interest in facilitating the emergence of a free market in its currency together with full convertibility. If silence is required on currency warfare as the price of getting its coveted currency reserve status, then so be it.

    Yes, a fully convertible Chinese currency might well find a substantially lower level than today’s official rate. Much would depend on what steps accompany the road to convertibility. Would there be broad-based liberalization in the Chinese economy and markets such as to make assets there more attractive to both domestic and international investors in the context of improved prospects of economic prosperity? Or would the road to convertibility simply facilitate a flight of capital out of the country with little foreign appetite to engage in the opposite direction?

    There is little indication that the Chinese leadership would take the market reform route, which incidentally might seriously undermine the basis of the rents enjoyed by themselves and their connected state enterprises. In effect, there is an unholy alliance between the West and Beijing on only limited reforms and the currency status quo as blessed by the IMF. Meanwhile, currency wars remain a protected activity of the large powers outside China.

    Official game plans do not always work out as hoped. It remains to be seen whether the continued and accelerated path of monetary easing by Beijing is consistent with only a mini-devaluation of the Chinese currency. There is anecdotal evidence of Chinese retail investors now engaging themselves in a new bout of yield-search frenzy in the local high-yield bond markets. That may not endure in the face of a rising tide of default. And the massive yuan carry trade which built up in the past few years could contract much more forcefully in coming months in the context of shrunken yield gaps and credit market cool-down.

     

  • 162 Days Later, The Treasury Finally Updates The Total US Debt Number, And It Is…

    On March 16 of 2015, the US Treasury officially hit what was then the US statutory debt limit of $18.113 trillion. At that moment the Treasury started using “emergency” measures to fund itself while the total reported debt remained unchanged and just dollars below the technical debt limit. This prompted much confusion among the punditry, leading to questions how is it that for many months the US has not updated its official debt number.

    The reason is that until last Friday, the US had no official debt deal and as a result was unable to show legally the official current debt holdings.

    As of Friday, this peculiar situation has been resolved following the latest deal by both parties to suspend the debt ceiling until March 2017 which also means that we finally got an updated total public debt number.

    And so, after 162 work days without an update, the latest US debt number is $18,492,091,120,833.99 (yes, and 99 cents), an increase of $339.1 billion since the latest official pre-debt ceiling update. This is also 102.5% of GDP.

     

    And what is the new debt ceiling? Funny you should ask, because as noted above as part of the debt deal, the debt ceiling was “suspended”, not revised which means that as of this moment the US officially no longer has a debt ceiling.

     

    Why is the debt ceiling suspended? Simple: as we calculated two weeks ago, to provide enough room until March 2007, the total capacity on the US credit card would have to be $19.6 trillion. The problem is that while “selling” democrats the optics of a number that rounds up to $20 trillion would not be difficult at all (the only complaint would be why it is not $200 trillion), for many conservatives the realization that a GOP-controlled Congress just gave the US a blessing to issue another $1.1 trillion in debt would hardly be enjoyable.

    So what did Congress, both democrats and republicans, do? They decided to do away with the debt ceiling entirely, “temporarily” of course, so as not to show what the next debt target for the US will be. And once March 15, 2017 arrives up what then? Why the temporarily suspended debt limit will be extended for another 2 years, “temporarily” again. Because while US representatives don’t have the courage to tell their electorate what the number is, they also don’t have the guts to do away with the debt ceiling entirely either.

    And now: we look forward to the story about the next $43 million gas station somewhere in Afghanistan.

  • The European Refugee "Invasion" In One Stunning Infographic

    A week ago, we brought you drone footage which vividly demonstrates the scope of Europe’s worsening migrant crisis. 

    The people flows into Germany alone are expected to top 1 million this year as desperate asylum seekers flee the war-torn Middle East where the West and Russia are busy taking opposite sides of the Sunni-Shiite divide on the way to facilitating a regional conflict that looks set to spill across the Iraq-Syria border and possibly into Afghanistan. 

    Indeed, the influx of refugees threatens to destabilize the EU as Germany’s insistence on the bloc-wide adoption of an open door policy has infuriated the likes of Hungary’s Viktor Orban who insists that if Europe’s cultural heritage is to be protected and preserved, a mandatory settlement arrangement simply isn’t a viable option. 

    Meanwhile, Alexis Tsipras – who everyone promptly forgot about once China replaced Greece as the market’s focal point – has weighed in from the front lines, expressing shame that the West is at least partially responsible for the migrant crisis due to its role in intentionally destabilizing Mid-East governments. 

    Now, Helsinki-based Lucify is out with a fascinating, interactive infographic on the refugee flow into Europe which we present below and which should help to illustrate just how dramatic a demographic shift this truly is.

    //

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 3, 2015

  • Key Apple Supplier Halts Hiring Due To Poor iPhone Sales

    Two months ago, Tim Cook reportedly wrote Jim Cramer that everything was awesome with iPhone sales in China. Days later, channel checks appeared to call Cook's statement into question. Several day ago, one of Apple's component makers – Dialog Semi – issued cautious guidance strongly suggesting iPhone sales momentum was weakening. Apple's earnings produced disappointment as China sales rather notably fell (but was quickly dismissed by analysts as US sales rose) and now, perhaps most worrying of all, Taiwan’s Pegatron Corp – maker of Apple's next-gen iPhone 6S and iPad – has halted hiring in its Shanghai factory as workers note "sales of iPhone 6S have been disappointing."

    In May 2013, Pegatron became "the new FoxConn" as then new Chief Executive Tim Cook, Apple divided its weight more equally with a relatively unknown supplier, giving the technology giant a greater supply-chain balance.

    Pegatron Corp., named after the flying horse Pegasus, will be the primary assembler of a low-cost iPhone expected to be offered later this year. Foxconn's smaller rival across town became a minor producer of iPhones in 2011 and began making iPad Mini tablet computers last year.

    Back in June 2014, everything was awesome:

    Two companies that assemble Apple’s iPhones and iPads are on a hiring spree, a signal that orders from the Cupertino-based group are ramping up ahead of the launch of a new device.
    not so much

     

    Taiwan’s Pegatron Corp, which employs 100,000 people, said on Monday that it is expanding its workforce in mainland China by 30 per cent to keep up with the production of smartphones.

    But now, in October 2015, the huge facility at Pegatron Technology's factory in Shanghai sports a deserted look, as China Daily reported moments ago.

    Gone are crowds waiting for job interviews or others who come to enquire about possible job openings.

     

    The facility, which at its peak employed around 100,000 people, has temporarily suspended hiring as demand for Apple products has waned considerably.

     

    The winding passage that leads to an interview room is all but deserted. Rather than excited faces, one can see young employees trudging out of the facility with fatigue and despair written large on their face.

     

    Zhang Libing, a 23-year-old from Anhui province, told China Daily that he had just resigned from his job at Pegatron as he was exhausted and fatigued with the long working hours. Next to him was a huge electronic screen that kept flashing the message that the company has put on hold all fresh hiring for the time being.

     

    "We are not surprised at that," Zhang said. "The sales of iPhone 6S have been disappointing. I am afraid that if we do not leave now, we will be laid off soon."

     

     

    China, its biggest market outside the United States, accounted for nearly one-fourth of its total revenues in the fourth fiscal quarter because of its robust handset sales in the country. But fresh concerns have arisen over whether the company would be able to sustain the sales momentum.

     

    Fading enthusiasm for iPhones in China has dragged down the device prices in the parallel market and hit new orders to the supply chain partners.

     

    Pegatron was planning to hire roughly 40,000 workers for its Shanghai plants in the summer when Apple entrusted it with the iPhone 6S and iPad manufacturing. The current employee strength of the company remained unclear.

    It appears things have changed dramatically in a very short period of time…

    Cai Xiaoshuai left his hometown in Luoyang of Henan province and landed a job at the assembly line in Pegatron four months ago. But the 22-year-old man said he had had enough. His basic wage was 2,020 yuan ($320) per month and he had to work overtime for 2.5 hours every day to make sure that his salary would get close to 4,000 yuan.

     

    "Some of my friends went to Kunshan in Jiangsu province to try their luck there. But it seems that the electronics industry there is in an even worse shape. So I am thinking of staying on and checking out other opportunities in Shanghai. But I will definitely not work in any electronics company. I have had enough," said Cai.

    Which leaves us asking, as we did when doubts began to surface about Cook's letter to Cramer:

    So is AAPL the next AOL, and is Tim Cook the next Thorsten Heins?

     

    It all depends on China: if the world's most populous nation can get its stock market, its economy and its currency under control, then this too shall pass. The problem is that if, as many increasingly suggest, China has lost control of all three. At that point anyone who thought they got a great deal when buying AAPL at $92 will have far better opportunities to dollar-cost average far, far lower.

    Oh, and to anyone still holding their breath for AAPL to file a public statement which may well contain an outright lie, you may exhale now.

  • Widening Probe Snags Most Senior Chinese Banker Yet, Sends Stocks Lower; RBA Sparks Commodity Slide, FX Turbulence

    It's a busy night in AsiaPac. The ubiquitous Japanese stock buying-panic at the open quickly faded. China weakened the Yuan fix quite notably and injected another CNY10bn of liquidity but news of the arrest of the President of China's 3rd largest bank and a graft investigation into Dongfeng Motor's general manager sparked greater uncertainty and Chinese stocks extended the losses from yesterday. Commodities had started to creep lower, with Dalian Iron Ore pushing 2-month lows with its biggest daily drop in 3 months, were extended when the Aussie central bank kept rates steady (as expected) but sparked turmoil in FX markets with forward guidance of th epotential for more easing.

     

    Japanese markets opened in their usual glory, then faded fast…

     

    China opened with more liquidity injections and a sizable weakening in the Yuan fix…

     

    Probes widened with AgBank (China's 3rd largest bank) President arrested…

    The president of China’s third-largest bank has been detained, local media reported on Monday — the most senior bank official to be swept up in President Xi Jinping’s sweeping anti-corruption campaign.

     

    Zhang Yun, president, vice-chairman, and deputy Communist party secretary of Agricultural Bank of China had been “taken away to assist an investigation”, Sina Finance and QQ Finance reported, using a known euphemism for corruption arrests. QQ cited an AgBank employee saying that Mr Zhang had been arrested on Friday and that executives had held a meeting late into the night to discuss a response.

     

    Mr Zhang is the most senior banker to be ensnared in China’s anti-corruption probe.

     

    In January, then-president of midsized Minsheng Bank, Mao Xiaofeng, was arrested in an investigation linked to a top aide to former president Hu Jintao. Days later Lu Xiaofeng, a board member at Bank of Beijing, was also arrested.

     

    More recently, police arrested the general manager and several other top executives at Citic Securities, China’s largest securities brokerage, for insider trading linked to the big fall in China’s stock market this year.

     

    Local media also reported on Monday that a famous hedge fund manager was under arrest for insider trading.

    And Dongfeng Motors general manager facing graft charges…

    A general manager of China's Dongfeng Motor Group is being investigated for suspected corruption, the country's graft watchdog said on Monday.

     

    Zhu Fushou was being investigated for "suspected severe violation of discipline", the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) said in a statement on its website. Discipline violations generally refer to corruption.

    All of which follow the weekend's extraordinary actions around Xu Xiang and the Zexi Fund – whose holdings (below) are all under more pressure again today (amid liquidation fears)…

    • Guangdong Electric Power
    • China Gezhouba
    • Guoxuan High-Tech
    • China Sports Industry
    • Shanghai Metersbonwe Fashion
    • Eastern Gold Jade
    • Founder Technology Group
    • Shanghai Tofflon Science
    • Hareon Solar Technology
    • Fujian Rongji Software
    • Anhui Xinlong Electrical
    • Shenzhen Desay Battery
    • Anhui Xinke New Materials
    • Jiangsu Alcha Aluminum
    • Tianjin Saixiang Technology
    • Jinzi Ham
    • Guangdong Eastone Century Tech
    • Nantong Jiangshan Agrochemical
    • Guangzhou Lingnan Group
    • Hangzhou Cable
    • Xiamen Academy of Building
    • Ningbo Kangqiang Electronics
    • Fujian Haiyuan Automatic
    • Tieling Newcity Investment
    • Ningbo United
    • Elec-Tech International

    All of which sparked selling pressure in Chinese stocks as recent re-leveraging was unwound for the 2nd day in a row…

     

    China is in big trouble…

     

    And then RBA decides, as economists expected, not to cut rates

    • *RBA LEAVES KEY RATE AT 2.0% AS SEEN BY MAJORITY OF ECONOMISTS
    • *RBA: FINANCIAL MARKET VOLATILITY ABATED SOMEWHAT FOR THE MOMENT

    Which extended commodity losses…

     

    But of course fed the crowd some forward guidance hope:

    • *RBA SAYS INFLATION OUTLOOK MAY AFFORD SCOPE FOR POLICY EASING
    • *RBA: SUPERVISORY MEASURES HELPING CONTAIN HOUSING RISKS

    This erased Aussie stock gains and sparked chaos in the FX markets – despite the "no move" being expected…running stops high and low before settling back unch…

     

    One wonders who knew what early? Just like last time (and will the regulators get involved again)

     

    And US equity futures are drifting lower as USDJPY rolls over and Apple fears rise on Pegatron hiring freeze...

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Confusion: US Equities Drift Lower (China Higher), Yuan Surges & Purges As China Manufacturing Misses (And Beats)

    Confusion reigns… China's Manufacturing PMI is in contraction according to both the Official and Markit/Caixin measures (but the former was flat and missed while the latter rose and beat "confirming economic stability" according to the 'official' press). Following the largest strengthening fix for the Yuan in 10 years, both the onshore and offshore Yuan are weakening by the most since the August devaluation. Finally, having cliff-dived at the open, Chinese stocks have bounced back to unchanged on the Ciaxin PMI beat (but US equities drift lower still).

     

    It's a rise and a beat & a miss and a drop for Chinese manufacturing…

    The last two times the Caixin measure has diverged positively from the official data, it has converged lower in the next 3 months.

     

    After the biggest strengthening fix in 10 years…

     

     

    Onshore (and offshore Yuan) are weakening by the most since the August devaluation…

     

    Compressing the Onshore/Offshore spread back to zero…

     

    And finally Chinese stocks tumbled on the weak 'official' PMI and surged back to unchanged on the Caixin PMI…

     

    But US equities saw no such bounce as hopes for moar easing fade after comments on "stability" after the Caixin print…

     

    So chaos reigns once again…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Bill Ackman Is Down 19% In 2015 Following 7.3% Loss In October On Valeant Plunge

    First the good news for Bill Ackman: as of October 31, it appears that Pershing Square has not had a spike in redemption requests (or if it has, it hasn’t granted them yet). We know this because as of October 31, Pershing Square’s AUM was $15.1 billion.

     

    This is down from $16.5 billion the month before. This means that the $1.4 billion drop in AUM is largely accounted for by the $75 or so drop in Valeant shares during the month of October (of which Ackman owned about 20 million for most of the month) and that there has been little additional changes to Pershing’s portfolio.

    The bad news is that at $15.1 billion, this is the lowest AUM for Bill Ackman in over a year…

     

    … and his current net performance for October and YTD is a deplorable -7.3%, and -19.0% respectively.

    And yet if this collapse in Pershing’s return YTD on the back of just one stock (memories of PS IV and Target come to mind) is enough to lead to the overdue unwinding of his hedge fund, we doubt the billionaire hedge funder will lose much sleep. He is largely set for life.

    However, we can’t say the same for those unlucky souls who invested in the stock of Dutch-listed stock of Pershing Square hodlings, which recently hit its all time low, and which – if the fund is unwound – will likely proceed to likewise liquidate on short notice. 

  • A Brief History Of Crime: How The Fed Became The Undemocratic, Corrupt & Destructive Force It Is Today

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Perhaps the most famous, and prescient, financial cartoon in American history is the depiction of the Federal Reserve Bank as a giant octopus that would come to parasitically suck the life out of all U.S. institutions as well as free markets. The image is taken from Alfred Owen Crozier’s US Money Vs Corporation Currency, “Aldrich Plan,” Wall Street Confessions! Great Bank Combinepublished in 1912, just a year before the creation of the Federal Reserve. Here it is in all its glory:

    Screen Shot 2015-11-02 at 10.48.55 AM

    Our ancestors were wiser and far more educated than modern Americans about the dangers posed by a centralized, monopolistic system charged with the creation and distribution of money, and our society and economy have paid a very heavy price for its ignorance.

    Indeed, some of today’s Fed critics aren’t even aware that the U.S. Central Bank originally had far less power than it does today. As concerned as they were, its early critics could never have imagined how perverted its mandate would become in the subsequent 100 years. A mandate that has now made it the single most powerful and destructive force on planet earth.

    Earlier today, I came across an excellent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which the author explains this transformation in just a few short paragraphs. Here’s some of what he wrote:

    History suggests that the only way to rein in the sprawling Federal Reserve is to end its money monopoly and restore the American people’s ability to use gold as a competing currency.

    The legislative compromise that created the Fed in 1913 recognized that the power to print money, left unchecked, could corrupt both the government and the economy. Accordingly, the Federal Reserve Act created the Federal Reserve System without a centralized balance sheet, a central monetary-policy committee or even a central office.

     

    The Fed’s regional banks were prohibited from buying government debt and required to maintain a 40% gold reserve against dollars in circulation. Moreover, each of the reserve banks was obligated to redeem dollars for gold at a fixed price in unlimited amounts.

     

    Over the past century, every one of these constraints has been removed. Today the Fed has a centrally managed balance sheet of $4 trillion, and is the largest participant in the market for U.S. government bonds. The dollar is no longer fixed to gold, and the IRS assesses a 28% marginal tax on realized gains when gold is used as currency.

     

    The largest increases in the Fed’s power have occurred at moments of financial stress. Federal Reserve banks first financed the purchase of government bonds during World War I. The gold-reserve requirement was dramatically reduced and a central monetary policy-committee was created during the Great Depression. President Richard Nixon broke the last link to gold to stave off a run on the dollar in 1971.

     

    This same combination of crisis and expediency played out in 2008 as the Fed bailed out a series of nonbank financial institutions and initiated a massive balance-sheet expansion labeled “quantitative easing.” To end this cycle, Americans need an alternative to the Fed’s money monopoly.

    And that, in a nutshell, is how American citizens lost their country and became a nation of debt serfs.

     

  • The Reason For Bitcoin's Recent 60% Surge Revealed

    It was precisely two months ago, on September 2nd, when we explained that as a result of China’s recent currency devaluation, in order to mitigate the inevitable capital outflows that such an FX move would unleash, China was “scrambling to enforce capital controls” in order to prevent the exit of hot (and not so hot) money from China’s economy.

    We then said the following to explain why “this is great news for bitcoin”:

    Which is why we would not be surprised to see another push higher in the value of bitcoin: it was earlier this summer when the digital currency, which can bypass capital controls and national borders with the click of a button, surged on Grexit concerns and fears a Drachma return would crush the savings of an entire nation. Since then, BTC has dropped (in no small part as a result of the previously documented “forking” with Bitcoin XT), however if a few hundred million Chinese decide that the time has come to use bitcoin as the capital controls bypassing currency of choice, and decide to invest even a tiny fraction of the $22 trillion in Chinese deposits in bitcoin (whose total market cap at last check was just over $3 billion), sit back and watch as we witness the second coming of the bitcoin bubble, one which could make the previous all time highs in the digital currency, seems like a low print.

    At the time of this forecast, the price of bitcoin was highlighted with the red arrow.

     

    And while we were confident it was indeed Chinese capital “mobility” using the bitcoin channel that was the impetus behind the nearly 60% surge in the price of the digital currency in past two months to fresh 2015 highs, moments ago we got the closest thing to a confirmation when Bitcoin Magazine reported that “China is leading the charge, with the price trading anywhere from $10-$15 above the rates on U.S. and European exchanges.”

    Bitcoin Magazine further adds that “China is experiencing unprecedented amounts of growth. On October 30th, Jack C. Liu, the Head of International at OKCoin, said, in a tweet, that it had been the “busiest day of the year @OKCoinBTC as #Bitcoin trades to 2015 high of $344. No clawbacks on futures, no downtime. Great day for us & industry.”

    Two days later, he went on to reveal that OkCoin had seen incredible demand for accounts on the exchange:

    And here is the validation that, just as predicted here two months ago, bitcoin has become the go-to asset class for millions of Chinese savers seeking to quietly and under the radar transfer funds from point A to point B, whatever that may be, in the process circumventing the recently expanded governmental capital controls:

    While he didn’t provide any concrete numbers, he did comment last week on what was driving the adoption. “Some Chinese traders are expressing a view on the CNY exchange rate after the last devaluation and you have interest by mainland speculators to move to other assets after the stock market fallout,” he explained in an interview with Bitcoin Magazine.

    Which again brings us back to our conclusion from two months ago:

    … if a few hundred million Chinese decide that the time has come to use bitcoin as the capital controls bypassing currency of choice, and decide to invest even a tiny fraction of the $22 trillion in Chinese deposits in bitcoin (whose total market cap at last check was just over $3 billion), sit back and watch as we witness the second coming of the bitcoin bubble, one which could make the previous all time highs in the digital currency, seems like a low print.

    As of this moment, the total value of bitcoin is up from the $3 billion two months ago to a little over $5 billion. That means the ratio of Chinese deposits (at around $22 trillion) to bitcoin, is down to a far more “conservative” 4,400x.

    And now, again, imagine what could happen if these same Chinese depositors realize they have been lied about the non-performing loans “backing” their deposits and that instead of the official 1.5% bad debt ratio, the real number is really far greater, somewhere in the 20% ballpark as we will show shortly, suggesting major deposit impairments are no longer the stuff of Cypriot nightmares but just the thing hundreds of millions of Chinese depositors have to look forward to, and that they have just two possible choices to avoid said impairment: reallocating their savings into bitcoin or, of course, gold.

  • Did Something Just Snap In China: Total SOE Debt Rises By $1 Trillion In One Month

    We found something unexpected when skimming through the website of China’s finance ministry.

    While most China pundits keep close track of China’s monthly loan creation and, especially these days, its Total Social Financing number to get a sense of what, if any, credit is being created outside of conventional lending channels within China’s shadow banking system, one just as critical please to keep track of Chinese credit is the monthly report on national state-owned and state holding enterprises. 

    Such as this one from October 22, which reports that as of September 30, total liabilities of state-owned enterprises had risen to 77.7 trillion yuan. Why is this notable? Because the monthly update just preceding it, reported a total debt figure of “only” 71.8 trillion yuan: a whopping increase of almost CNY 6 trillion, or USD $1 trillion, in just one month.

    This is the biggest monthly increase by a massive margin among China’s SOE by orders of magnitude, and yet just to get a sense of the magnitude of debt held at China’s SOEs, even this record monthly increase is not even 10% of the total debt held by China’s state-owned enterprises which stood at CNY78 trillion or USD $12 trillion at the end of September, more than the total Chinese GDP.

     

    What can explain this snap? There has been very little commentary on this particular surge aside from a report posted on Wall Street.cn, and translated by Chiecon, which reports the following:

    China’s state owned enterprises added almost 6 trillion yuan (around 1 trillion dollars) of debt in September, described by Luo Yunfeng, an analyst at Essence Securities, as “an unprecedented increase in leverage”. This means that not only is the government abandoning its deleverage policy, it is actually increasing leverage.

     

    According to Luo “it’s possible that debt that was originally classified as government debt, has been reallocated as SOE debt”.

     

    This might be a reflection of how the government plans to tackle its massive debt. Luo mentions that one of the obstacles to managing government debt is that it remains difficult to draw a line between government and SOE debt. The crux of of current reform plans to increase the role of market forces is aimed at resolving this issue.

     

    If it really is the case of shifting government debt to SOEs, then it represents a step forward for this reform, and the prospect of revaluing credit risk. Another implication, it seems unlikely there will be a pause in government debt increase over the fourth quarter.

     

    This raises the more important question of what will be the impact of this enormous debt? Over the past few years credit expansion has surpassed economic growth, and with the governments aggressive leverage, will this lead to a greater waste of resources?

    Ironically, “shifting” the debt – no matter how troubling – would be by far the more palatable explanation. Because if somehow China had quietly “created” $1 trillion in debt out of thin air parked subsequently on SOE balance sheets, that would suggest that things in China are orders of magnitude worse than anyone can possibly imagine.

    Still, if China did not create this debt now, it will eventually:

    This raises the more important question of what will be the impact of this enormous debt? Over the past few years credit expansion has surpassed economic growth, and with the governments aggressive leverage, will this lead to a greater waste of resources?

     

    [W]ith China experiencing slowing economic growth, and no turnaround on the horizon, its seems likely the Chinese government will continue to increase leverage. In September, China Merchants Securities stated that since Chinese government debt leverage ratio is still low, lower than the US, Europe and Japan, there is still more room for leverage.

    It’s low? Really? Because according to the following McKinsey chart total Chinese debt was $28.2 trillion as of Q2 2014 (it has since risen well over $30 trillion), and represents nearly 300% debt/GDP.

    But there is another implication. If China’s is indeed merely stuffing government debt on SOE balance sheets as the report suggests…

    Haitong Securities said at the start of the year that in order to prevent systemic risk the focus over the next few years will be on government leverage. Based on the experience of other countries, monetary easing almost certainly follows an increase in government leverage, with interest rates in the long term trending to zero.

    … then China, while ultimately having to engage in QE, will last out the current regime as long as possible, offloading government debt in ever greater amounts to SOE until finally their debt capacity is maxed out.

    Then, and only then, will China unleash the world’s last remaining debt monetization episode, whereby the PBOC will proceed to openly monetize the roughly $3-4 trillion in total debt China creates every year. At that point the “Minsky Moment” of not only China, but the entire world, will have arrived.

  • Infrared Satellite Reveals Heat Flash At Time Of Russian Airplane Disaster

    Earlier today, we highlighted commentary from Russia’s Kogalymavia (the airline operating the ill-fated Airbus A321 which crashed in the Sinai Peninsula) where officials said human and technical factors weren’t responsible for the mid-air disaster which killed 224 people. 

    IS Sinai took credit for “destroying” the plane but it wasn’t immediately clear what the contention was in terms of just how the group went about sabotaging the flight. Subsequently, a series of analysts and commentators opined that there was simply no way the militants could have possessed the technology or the expertise to shoot down a plane flying at 31,000 feet, but as Kogalymavia put it, “a plane cannot simply disintegrate.” 

    In short, it seems as though something exploded, and while we can’t know for sure whether someone detonated on board or whether, as former NTSB investigator Alan Diehl told CNN, “final destruction” of the plane was the result of “aerodynamic forces or some other type of G-forces,” the circumstances are exceptionally suspicious especially given where the plane was flying and the current rather “tense” relationship between Moscow and Sunni extremists. 

    Now, the US has apparently ruled out the possibility that a projectile hit the plane but satellite imagery depicts a “heat flash” at the time of the crash which indicates “some kind of explosion on the aircraft itself, either a fuel tank or a bomb.” Here’s NBC:

    While many have speculated that a missile may have struck a Russian commercial airliner that went down over Egypt’s Sinai peninsula, U.S. officials are now saying satellite imagery doesn’t back up that theory.

     

    A senior defense official told NBC News late Monday that an American infrared satellite detected a heat flash at the same time and in the same vicinity over the Sinai where the Russian passenger plane crashed.

     

    According to the official, U.S. intelligence analysts believe it could have been some kind of explosion on the aircraft itself, either a fuel tank or a bomb, but that there’s no indication that a surface-to-air missile brought the plane down.

     

    That same infrared satellite would have been able to track the heat trail of a missile from the ground.

     

    “The speculation that this plane was brought down by a missile is off the table,” the official said.

     

    A second senior U.S. defense official also confirmed the surveillance satellite detected a “flash or explosion” in the air over the Sinai at the same time.

     

    According to the official, “the plane disintegrated at a very high altitude,” when, as the infrared satellite indicates, “there was an explosion of some kind.”

     

    That official also stressed “there is no evidence a missile of any kind brought down the plane.”

    We’d be remiss if we didn’t note that the video released by ISIS which purports to depict the plane exploding in mid-air doesn’t appear to show any kind of missile, but rather seems to suggest that someone on the ground knew the exact time when the aircraft was set to explode. 

    To be clear, there’s always the possibility that this is a coincidence and that the explosion which brought down the plane wasn’t terror related, but given the circumstances, you certainly can’t blame anyone for suspecting the worst and as we noted earlier, the Sinai Peninsula is well within the range of Russia’s warplanes flying from Latakia:

  • Catalonia And The Move Against Empires

    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    Recently, the people of Catalonia voted in favour of seceding from Spain.

    In the recent election, secessionist parties secured 72 out of the 135 seats, confirming that the majority of voters want secession. Artur Mas, region president of Catalonia and the leader of the Junts pel Sí movement, is seeking independence from Spain in 18 months.

    This is great news for libertarians the world over, as, to our minds, this is a clear step forward for the Catalan people and for those who seek greater freedom from governments worldwide. And, of course, any blow against the present trend toward empires is a step in the right direction.

    But, this is not the whole picture and, if we’re going to look at the greater truth instead of the truth that we’d like to see, things get a bit more complicated.

    Can They Pull it Off?

    First off, the mere fact that a majority of Catalans have, at this point, voted for independence is not sufficient to assure separation from Spain. Although Catalonia became a province of Spain through a rather arbitrary occurrence (a royal marriage in 1469) and Catalans have for centuries repeatedly behaved more as a conquered people than as loyal Spanish subjects, the territory has remained under Spanish rule for the most obvious of reasons: Spain has the greater power and is able to dominate.

    Although many Catalans seek a legally-recognised referendum from Madrid, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has called the separatist plan “a nonsense” and has stated that he will block it through the courts.

    It is perennially true that, once a given politician in any country feels he “owns” a piece of geography and its population, he will almost invariably hold onto it regardless of the will of the people, using force if necessary.

    And then, there are the practical benefits to being the ruler of a territory. In the case of Catalonia, Madrid has historically exacted more tax from Catalonia than it has paid out in benefits. Catalonia is a cash cow for the Madrid government. Surveys demonstrate that the majority of Catalans would choose to remain within Spain if they could be granted a more favourable tax regime.

    And so, what appears at first glance to be a victory in the quest for independence may not be quite so significant.

    Out of the Pan and into the Fire?

    But, let’s say that the secessionists prevail, that they achieve their goal. What then? Would Catalonia become a beacon of freedom for all the world to see? Well, possibly not. Artur Mas has already planned a central bank, tax authority, and even a Catalonian armed forces. In so doing, he is hoping to begin his reign in much the same way that the vast majority of politicians do, seeking to create controls that will assure his own power and wealth. (Cue The Who, singing “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”)

    And let’s not forget that all Catalans are not unified on the subject of independence. Polls over the years have flipped back and forth between a majority in favour of independence and a majority opposed to independence. As American independence visionary, Thomas Jefferson said:

    Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

    In any move for independence, there are always those who unwillingly must pay for the new “freedom”, whether it be real or only imagined.

    This is not to say that the secessionists are wrong. It is only to say that, when considering change, it’s wise to step back and assess the overall situation, not merely the immediate goals of the movement.

    The Way of the Future?

    Finally, there is the world view. Internationally, the vote in Catalonia is being covered in the media, especially in Europe, where there are literally scores of secessionist movements, some of them with considerable support. Catalonia gives these efforts renewed vigour and, surely, with the EU shaking to its flimsy foundations, every successful move toward secession by any territory brings an end of the EU ever closer.

    And, to a lesser extent, there are secessionist movements around the globe. In the U.S., (which became a country as a result of independence from the UK), all 50 states have received secession petitions filed by their citizens. These have been signed by as few as 2,656 people (Vermont) to as many as 125,000 (Texas).

    It’s important to note that these numbers are not large and the state and federal governments of the U.S. can easily claim that secessionists are merely a crackpot fringe. However, when the empire, be it the EU, the U.S., or any other, past or present, reaches the point at which the government has become overlarge, overly domineering, and overly rapacious as to taxation and other forms of confiscation, secession movements will arise. (To be sure, the 1861 American secession of the southern states was not undertaken over the slavery issue, but over the increased power and economic dominance of the northern states over the southern states.)

    And this is to be expected. It’s the primary business of any government to grow its own power and wealth at the expense of its people. It’s therefore in the best interests of the people to do all they can to limit the size (and therefore the power) of their government.

    Even under the best forms of Government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. – Thomas Jefferson

    A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. – Thomas Jefferson

    Small countries are more free and prosperous than large nation-states. – Ron Holland

    All of the above bear remembering. But a word on that last one, by Ron Holland. My own country, the Cayman Islands, is quite small (population 58,000); small enough that each of us who takes an interest can access our political leaders in a personal way. We find that this level of direct contract not only keeps them accessible to us, but places a lid on their ability to expand their ambitions to “rule”, rather than to “serve.”

    And, indeed, the Cayman Islands are decidedly freer and more prosperous than any of the world’s current empires.

    A long-held belief by the Amish, the Hutterites, and some sociologists is that the ideal population is a mere 150 people, the greatest number that an individual can relate to in a very personal and inter-dependent way. Certainly these communities are far more peaceful and rarely produce dictatorial leaders.

    The concept of secession is an admirable one and a move to secession will often arise whenever a government overreaches to the point of intolerance. In the case of empires, secession has served to increase freedom from the days of the fall of the Roman Empire on. Political leaders will always seek to create empires, whether large or small. The alternative to the ability to secede is the acceptance of tyranny and, therefore, secession, whilst not a panacea, is an essential tool of liberty.

  • One Analyst Says China's Banking Sector Is Sitting On A $3 Trillion Neutron Bomb

    To be sure, we’ve long contended that official data on bad loans at Chinese banks is even less reliable than NBS GDP prints. Indeed, the lengths Beijing goes to in order to obscure the extent to which banks’ balance sheets are in peril is truly something to behold and much like the deficient deflator math which may be causing the country to habitually overstate GDP growth, it’s not even clear that China could report the real numbers if it wanted to. 

    We took an in-depth look at the problem in “How China’s Banks Hide Trillions In Credit Risk: Full Frontal”, and we’ve revisited the issue on a number of occasions noting in August that according to a transcript of an internal meeting of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, bad loans jumped CNY322.2 billion in H1 to CNY1.8 trillion, a 36% increase. Of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In other words, that comes from a government agency and although the scope of the increase sounds serious, it still translates into an NPL ratio of just 1.82%. Here’s a look at the “official” numbers (note that when one includes doubtful accounts, the ratio jumps to somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4%):

    Source: Fitch

    There are any number of reasons why those figures don’t even come close to approximating reality. For instance, there’s Beijing’s habit of compelling banks to roll over bad loans, and then there’s China’s massive (and by “massive” we mean CNY17 trillion) wealth management product industry which, when coupled with some creative accounting, allows Chinese banks to hold some 40% of credit risk off balance sheet.

    Well as time goes on, and as market participants scrutinize the data coming out of the world’s second most important economy, quite a few analysts are beginning to take a closer look at the NPL data for Chinese banks. Indeed, if Beijing continues to move toward “allowing” defaults to occur (even at SOEs) and if China’s transition from smokestack economy to a consumption and services-driven model continues to put pressure on borrowers from the manufacturing sector, the situation is likely to deteriorate quickly. If you needed evidence of just how precarious things truly are, look no further than a recent report from Macquarie which showed that a quarter of Chinese firms with debt are currently unable to cover their annual interest expense (as you might imagine, it’s even worse for commodities firms). 

    Just two weeks after we highighted the Macquarie report, we took a look at research conducted by Hong-Kong based CLSA. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Chinese banks’ bad debts ratio could be as high 8.1%, a whopping 6 times higher than the official 1.5% NPL level reported by China’s banking regulator. 

    We called that revelation China’s “neutron bomb” but it turns out we may have jumped the gun. According to Hong Kong-based “Autonomous Research”, the real figure may be closer to 21% when one takes into account the aforementioned shadow banking sector. Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    Corporate investigator Violet Ho never put a lot of faith in the bad loan numbers reported by China’s banks.

    Crisscrossing provinces from Shandong to Xinjiang, she’s seen too much — from the shell game of moving assets between affiliated companies to disguise the true state of their finances to cover-ups by bankers loath to admit that loans they made won’t be recovered.

     

    The amount of bad debt piling up in China is at the center of a debate about whether the country will continue as a locomotive of global growth or sink into decades of stagnation like Japan after its credit bubble burst. Bank of China Ltd. reported on Thursday its biggest quarterly bad-loan provisions since going public in 2006.

     

    Charlene Chu, who made her name at Fitch Ratings making bearish assessments of the risks from China’s credit explosion since 2008, is among those crunching the numbers.

     

    While corporate investigator Ho relies on her observations from hitting the road, Chu and her colleagues at

    Autonomous Research in Hong Kong take a top-down approach. They estimate how much money is being wasted after the nation began getting smaller and smaller economic returns on its credit from 2008. Their assessment is informed by data from economies such as Japan that have gone though similar debt explosions.

     

    While traditional bank loans are not Chu’s prime focus — she looks at the wider picture, including shadow banking — she says her work suggests that nonperforming loans may be at 20 percent to 21 percent, or even higher.

     


     

    “A financial crisis is by no means preordained, but if losses don’t manifest in financial sector losses, they will do so via slowing growth and deflation, as they did in Japan,” said Chu. “China is confronting a massive debt problem, the scale of which the world has never seen.”

    As a reminder, here’s a look at the scope of the “problem” Chu is describing:

     

    And here’s a bit more on special mention loans and the ubiquitous practice of “evergreening”:

    Slicing and dicing the official loan numbers, Christine Kuo, a senior vice president of Moody’s Investors Service in Hong Kong, focuses on trends in debts overdue for 90 days, rather than those classified as “nonperforming.” Another tactic some analysts use is to add nonperforming debt to “special mention” loans, those that are overdue but not yet classified as impaired, yielding a rate of 5.1 percent.

     

    Banks’ bad-loan numbers are capped by “evergreening,” the practise of rolling over debt that isn’t repaid on time, according to experts including Keith Pogson, a Hong Kong-based senior partner at Ernst & Young LLP. Pogson was involved in restructuring debt at Chinese banks in 1998, when their NPL ratios were as high as 25 percent.

    So let’s just be clear: if 8% is a “neutron bomb”, a 21% NPL ratio in China is the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Here’s why: 

    If one very conservatively assumes that loans are about half of the total asset base (realistically 60-70%), and applies an 20% NPL to this number instead of the official 1.5% NPL estimate, the capital shortfall is a staggering $3 trillion. 

    That, as we suggested three weeks ago, may help to explain why round after round of liquidity injections (via RRR cuts, LTROs, and various short- and medium-term financing ops) haven’t done much to boost the credit impulse. In short, banks may be quietly soaking up the funds not to lend them out, but to plug a giant, $3 trillion, solvency shortfall. 

    In the end, we would actually venture to suggest that the real figure is probably far higher than 20%. There’s no way to get a read on how the country’s vast shadow banking complex plays into this but when you look at the numbers, it’s almost inconceivable to imagine that banks aren’t staring down sour loans at least on the order of a couple of trillion. 

    To the PBoC we say, “good luck plugging that gap” and to the rest of the world we say “beware, the engine of global growth and trade may be facing a pile of bad loans the size of Germany’s GDP.”

    We close with the following from Kroll’s senior managing director in Hong Kong Violet Ho (quoted above):

    “A credit report for a Chinese company is not worth the paper it’s written on.”

  • The UN Plans To Implement Universal Biometric Identification For All Of Humanity By 2030

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Did you know that the United Nations intends to have biometric identification cards in the hands of every single man, woman and child on the entire planet by the year 2030?  And did you know that a central database in Geneva, Switzerland will be collecting data from many of these cards?  Previously, I have written about the 17 new “Global Goals” that the UN launched at the end of September.  Even after writing several articles about these new Global Goals, I still don’t think that most of my readers really grasp how insidious they actually are.  This new agenda truly is a template for a “New World Order”, and if you dig into the sub-points for these new Global Goals you find some very alarming things.

    For example, Goal 16.9 sets the following target

    “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration”

    The United Nations is already working hard toward the implementation of this goal – particularly among refugee populations.  The UN has partnered with Accenture to implement a biometric identification system that reports information “back to a central database in Geneva”.  The following is an excerpt from an article that was posted on findbiometrics.com

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is moving forward with its plans to use biometric technology to identify and track refugees, and has selected a vendor for the project. Accenture, an international technology services provider, has won out in the competitive tendering process and will oversee the implementation of the technology in a three-year contract.

     

    The UNHCR will use Accenture’s Biometric Identity Management System (BIMS) for the endeavor. BIMS can be used to collect facial, iris, and fingerprint biometric data, and will also be used to provide many refugees with their only form of official documentation. The system will work in conjunction with Accenture’s Unique Identity Service Platform (UISP) to send this information back to a central database in Geneva, allowing UNHCR offices all over the world to effectively coordinate with the central UNHCR authority in tracking refugees.

    I don’t know about you, but that sure does sound creepy to me.

    And these new biometric identification cards will not just be for refugees.  According to a different FindBiometrics report, authorities hope this technology will enable them to achieve the UN’s goal of having this kind of identification in the hands of every man, woman and child on the planet by the year 2030…

    A report synopsis notes that about 1.8 billion adults around the world currently lack any kind of official documentation. That can exclude those individuals from access to essential services, and can also cause serious difficulties when it comes to trans-border identification.

     

    That problem is one that Accenture has been tackling in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been issuing Accenture-developed biometric identity cards to populations of displaced persons in refugee camps in Thailand, South Sudan, and elsewhere. The ID cards are important for helping to ensure that refugees can have access to services, and for keeping track of refugee populations.

     

    Moreover, the nature of the deployments has required an economically feasible solution, and has demonstrated that reliable, biometric ID cards can affordably be used on a large scale. It offers hope for the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal of getting legal ID into the hands of everyone in the world by the year 2030 with its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative.

    The Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative was originally launched by the World Bank, and they are proud to be working side by side with the UN to get “legal identity” into the hands of all.  The following comes from the official website of the World Bank

    Providing legal identity for all (including birth registration) by 2030 is a target shared by the international community as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (target 16.9). The World Bank Group (WBG) has launched the Identification for Development (ID4D) cross-practice initiative, with the participation of seven GP/CCSAs sharing the same vision and strategic objectives, to help our client countries achieve this goal and with the vision of making everyone count: ensure a unique legal identity and enable digital ID-based services to all.

    Of course all of this is being framed as a “humanitarian” venture right now, but will it always stay that way?

    At some point will a universal biometric ID be required for everyone, including you and your family?

    And what would happen if you refused to take it?

    I could definitely foresee a day when not having “legal identification” would disqualify you from holding a job, getting a new bank account, applying for a credit card, qualifying for a mortgage, receiving any form of government payments, etc. etc.

    At that point, anyone that refused to take a “universal ID” would become an outcast from society.

    What the elite want to do is to make sure that everyone is “in the system”.  And it is a system that they control and that they manipulate for their own purposes.  That is one of the reasons why they are slowly but surely discouraging the use of cash all over the world.

    In Sweden, this movement has already become so advanced that they are now pulling ATMs out of even the most rural locations

    The Swedish government abetted by its fractional-reserve banking system is moving relentlessly toward a completely cashless economy.  Swedish banks have begun removing ATMs even in remote rural areas, and according to Credit Suisse the rule of thumb in Scandinavia is “If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong.”  Since 2009 the average annual value of notes and coins in circulation in Sweden has fallen more than 20 percent from over 100 billion to 80 billion kronor.  What is driving this movement to destroy cash is the desire to unleash the Swedish central bank to drive the interest rate down even further into negative territory.  Currently, it stands at -0.35 percent, but the banks have not passed this along to their depositors, because depositors would simply withdraw their cash rather than leave it in banks and watch its amount shrink inexorably toward zero.   However, if cash were abolished and bank deposits were the only form of money, well then there would be no limit on negative interest rate policy as banks would be able to pass these negative interest rates onto their depositors without adverse consequences.  With everyone’s wages, salaries, dividends etc, paid by direct deposit into his bank account, the only way to escape negative interest rates would be to spend, spend, spend.  This, of course, is precisely  what the Keynesian economists advising governments and running central banks are aiming at….a pro-cash resistance movement is beginning to coalesce and the head of a security industry lobbying group relates,  “I’ve heard of people keeping cash in their microwaves because banks won’t accept it.”

    If you aren’t using cash, that means that all of your economic activity is going through the banks where it can be watched, tracked, monitored and regulated.

    Every time the elite propose something for our “good”, it somehow always results in them having more power and more control.

    I hope that people will wake up and see what is happening.  Major moves toward a one world system are taking place right in front of our eyes, and yet I hear very, very few people talking about any of this.

    So where do you think that all of this is eventually heading?

  • S&P Puts Too-Big-To-Fail US Banks On Ratings Downgrade Watch, Blames Fed

    Having watched the credit markets grow more and more weary of the major US financials, it should not be total surprise that ratings agency S&P just put all the majors on watch for a rating downgrade:

    • *JPMORGAN, BANK OF AMERICA, WELLS FARGO, CITIGROUP, GOLDMAN SACHS, STATE STREET CORP, MORGAN STANLEY MAY BE CUT BY S&P

    Despite all the talking heads' proclamations on higher rates and net interest margins and 'strongest balance sheets' ever, S&P obviously sees something more worrisome looming. S&P blames The Fed's new resolution regime for its shift, implying "extraordinary support" no longer factored in. This comes just hours after Moody's put Bank of Nova Scotia on review also (blaming the move on concerns over increased risk appetite).

    The ratings agency cited significant measures taken by Canada's third-largest bank to increase its profitability over the past couple of years, which signal a "fundamental shift" in the bank's risk appetite.

     

    Over the past two years, Scotia has accelerated the growth in its credit card and auto finance portfolios "both of which are particularly prone to rapid deterioration during an economic shock and exhibit higher defaults and loss severities than mortgage portfolios," Moody's said in a note late Monday.

     

    While the bank's moves are aimed at increasing profitability to counter the lowest domestic net interest margins among Canada's six largest banks, Moody's believes they increase the prospect of future credit losses when the credit cycle turns.

    Goldman, Morgan Stanley & Citigroup rated A- with negative outlook, JPM has A rating with negative outlook, State Street rated A+ with negative outlook, according to Bloomberg data

    Who could have seen that coming?

     

    As Bloomberg noted earlier, The Fed's new proposal for a "final firewall" requiring total loss absorbing capacity (TLAC) buffers at the largest banks may be the driver of S&P's decision…

    U.S. banks may collectively need to add $90 billion in debt by Jan. 1, 2022, to help ensure an orderly wind down in case of failure, which may add $680 million to $1.5 billion in annual costs. Eight G-SIBs would hold a minimum of long-term debt (LTD) under the Fed's Oct. 30 TLAC proposal. LTD is meant to address "too-big-to-fail" concerns by having a known quantity of capital to help a bank transition through resolution. The Fed reasons that LTD could be used as a fresh source of capital, unlike existing equity.

     

    Companies Impacted: Using 4Q14 figures, the Fed estimates six U.S. G-SIBs collectively face a $120 billion TLAC and LTD shortfall. LTD stand-alone shortfall is approximate $90 billion. Among the eight G-SIBs are JP Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, State Street and Bank of New York.

    All of which have seen risk-weighted assets surge since 2008…

     

    Just as we suspected, S&P's decision is based on The Fed's new regime:

    • *S&P CITES FED'S NOTICE OF RULEMAKING FOR ACTIONS ON EIGHT GSIBS
    • *S&P REVIEWS RESOLUTION REGIME FOR U.S. BANKS
    • *S&P SEES EXTRAORDINARY SUPPORT NO LONGER FACTORED IN GSIB RTGS
    • *S&P EXPECT TO RESOLVE CREDITWATCH ON GSIBS BY EARLY DEC.

    In other words right before The Fed's rate hike decision.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Your Health Insurance Premiums Are About To Go Through The Roof -The Stunning Reason Why

    After years of delays and failed launches, Obamacare has finally taken hold, and with it the economic and financial implications from this mandatory tax are finally being felt.

    We have extensively covered how Obama’s Affordable Care Act will end up being a failure,  observing both the economic implications in “In Latest Obamacare Fiasco, Most Low-Income Workers Can’t Afford “Affordable Care Act” as well as its operational shortcomings in “Obamacare Is A Disaster: Co-Op Insurers Across America Are Collapsing, And Now There Is Fraud“, paradoxically even as Obamacare – a tax – was according to the BEA the single biggest contributor to GDP growth in the third quarter.

    Of course, the most obvious reason why Obamacare will have a dire impact the economy is also very simple: soaring healthcare premiums, also covered before

     

    … which incidentally also explain why all those touted “gas savings” failed to materialize in discretionary spending behavior: all of the “saved” money went to cover rising health insurance costs.

    None of this should come as a surprise.

    What should, however, is that according to a very unexpected twist healthcare premiums are about to soar so much in the coming months that the shocking increases of the past year will seem like a walk in the park.

    The reason for this comes courtesy of a new report from the WSJ which explains something few if any had expected: corporate insurers are scrambling to profit from Obamacare!

    Yes, we know: Obamacare was written by the health insurance companies, and it was supposed to benefit them first and foremost as US households struggled to catch up to what most rational observers had said would be surging premiums. And, on the top line, it did just that: “under the ACA, insurers have seen an influx of new membership in individual plans and in Medicaid plans they administer for the government, expanding the industry’s total U.S. revenue to $743 billion in 2014, the year the law’s biggest changes took effect, from $641 billion the year before, according to a new analysis by consulting firm McKinsey & Co.

    So far so good, and just as expected – incidentally, that 16% increase in industry revenue comes right out of your pocket, dear U.S. reader with the blessings of the US Supreme Court of course.

    But where it gets fascinating is that while the surge in the top-line was expected, what comes as close to a black swan as possible, is what happens below the revenue line on the insurers’ income statement.

    The stunning finding comes from a new analysis by McKinsey which notes that much of that revenue growth has been unprofitable! Health insurers lost a total of $2.5 billion, or on average $163 per consumer enrolled, in the individual market in 2014, McKinsey found. A number are also expecting to lose money on their marketplace business for 2015.

     

    The simple bullet point summary:

    • Insurance industry revenues surged by 16% thanks to Obamacare
    • However, its costs surged by… more than 16%

    How is this possible?

    Shouldn’t all the benefits courtesy of the Obamacare tax flow through largely unobstructed to the bottom line? The answer, it appears, is no.

    At big insurer Aetna Inc., the evidence of the law’s impact could be spotted last month in a Phoenix classroom, where Aetna was training a class of customer-service hires who will support a suite of re-engineered ACA marketplace plans dubbed “Leap.” Those products will have a different service approach, with fewer automated phone prompts and a completely new staff that is supposed to spend more time solving customers’ problems.

     

    A trainee stood at a whiteboard, drawing stick figures with speech bubbles in a Pictionary-style game. “Conversation?” asked a class member. “Transition of care?” ventured another. The teacher gave the answer: The new reps had to keep commitments to consumers. That meant calling them back if needed.

     

    With its Leap plans, Aetna is using many of the approaches that are gaining momentum in the industry. The Leap plans, which will roll out in four states this fall but are expected to be more widely available next year, rest on different technology than other Aetna products, including a new claims-processing platform, the company says.

     

    “It’s a mammoth change in the offering, with everything being brand-new,” said Dijuana Lewis, an Aetna executive vice president. Aetna said this week it would likely lose money in 2015 on its exchange business.

     

    The Leap insurance will include limited networks: In Arizona, it will be built around just one provider, the large Banner Health system. The Leap plans also aim to be easy to understand. For instance, they generally won’t include coinsurance, in which a consumer pays a percentage of the cost of a medical service, a concept many people find confusing.

    And, as we now learn, all these changes and all this “simplification” will cost lots of money. In fact more money, than the tax actually brings in for most.

    It appears that while US health insurers had modeled out their spike in revenue courtesy of Obamacare, not even they anticipated the associated costs the “Affordable” Care Act would entail.

    That, however, is amazing, because while everyone else was worse off as a result of Obamacare, at least the conventional wisdom was that the insurers would make off like bandits. Not only is that not the case, but Obamacare – in a glorious example of how government meddling destroys everything – is actually leading to reduces profit margins for the one group that was supposed to be a sure winner!

    However, since it is too late to undo Obamacare, what do these latest revelations mean?  According to the WSJ “now, a lot of insurers are recalibrating their approach for 2016, with changes visible at all levels of the industryfrom pricing to product design.”

    Mostly pricing.

    The WSJ reminds us that “premiums for a type of plan that is closely watched as a signal of consumer costs—the second-lowest-priced insurance product in the law’s “silver” metal tier—will increase 7.5% on average across the roughly three dozen states that rely on the HealthCare.gov marketplace, according to the administration.”

    For larger companies, the losses were survivable. But rate increases create a risk that consumers may get sticker shock despite the availability of federal subsidies that reduce the cost sharply for many.

    Peter Wainwright, 63 years old, who retired from a telecommunications job, currently has a plan bought on California’s ACA marketplace. He and his wife don’t get a subsidy and pay about $2,230 a month, and the rate is increasing for 2016. “Everything has gone up,” said Mr. Wainwright, of Half Moon Bay, Calif.

    The punchline:

    The health law remade the individual market, forcing insurers to sell plans to all consumers and banning them from charging rates based on health conditions. Insurers struggled to predict their costs, and many didn’t set rates high enough to cover the care of those they enrolled.

    And since the insurers care far more about boosting profits than merely rising revenues which are more than offset by rising costs, and since most insurers are losing money on existing plans, expect all the rate increases incurred so far to be a mere walk in the park compared to the stratospheric premium surges that are about to be unveiled and that would make even the infamous Martin Shkreli green with envy.

  • San Fran Fed Defends Rate Hike, Says Ignore Terrible Wage Growth Data

    It is becoming increasingly clear that, come hell, high water, or dismal data, The Federal Reserve will raise rates in December whether the market likes it (which it will guarantee) or the economy doesn't (which doesn't matter after all).

    A month ago, Stan Fischer dropped the first hint when he told Jackson Hole attendees that The Fed could ignore the inflation target because of transitory issues.

    Fischer said there's "good reason to believe that inflation will move higher as the forces holding down inflation dissipate further." He says, for example, that some effects of a stronger dollar and a plunge in oil prices have already started to diminish.

     

    Fischer added "The Fed should not wait until 2% inflation to begin tightening," thus making that data item irrelevant for deciphering The Fed's decisions.

    Then, having warned of global turmoil weighing on her decision to raise rates, Yellen reversed position and brushed off any concerns about global uncertainty.

    Yellen removed the "global economic developments" part as well:

     

    Recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term.

     

    So no matter what happens overseas, all clear given for rate hikes.

    And now, with the final nail in the coffin of data-dependent lies, The San Fran Fed just dismissed 'wage growth' as entirely irrelevent to future growth or inflation

    These results do not imply that wages and prices are unrelated. Certainly they are tied together in the long run, and wage data will surely contain some information for future price inflation. However, after incorporating information from prices and activity measures, the marginal additional benefit of using wage data appears small.   

     

    Fundamentally, the weak forecasting power of wages for prices suggests that unexpectedly high or low inflation could occur regardless of the recent behavior of wages.   

     

    Researchers have extensively studied how wage data might help predict future price inflation. The overall conclusion of the literature is that wages generally provide less valuable insight into future prices than some other indicators.

     

    In fact, models that do not incorporate wages often result in superior inflation forecasts

    Thus enabling The Fed to justify a December rate-hike no matter how bad the data they are so dependent on turns out to be… Which explains this chart…

     

    As Dec rate-hike odds hit series record 52%… in the face of collapsing macro and micro data.

     

  • Transcanada Just Killed The Keystone XL Pipeline

    In an ironic twist, just hours after we discussed the record capital outflow from Canada, resulting from the plunge in oil prices and the mothballing of Canada’s energy industry, Obama’s long-desired goal of killing the Keystone XL pipeline has finally come true.

    Moments ago, the WSJ reported that Alberta-based Transcanada asked to suspend its U.S. permit application, “throwing the politically fraught project into an indefinite state of limbo, beyond the 2016 U.S. elections.”

    Calgary, Alberta-based TransCanada Corp. sent a letter to the State Department, which reviews cross-border pipelines, to suspend its application while the company goes through a state review process in Nebraska it had previously resisted.

    “In order to allow time for certainty regarding the Nebraska route, TransCanada requests that the State Department pause in its review of the Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL,” the company said in the suspension request reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “This will allow a decision on the Permit to be made later based on certainty with respect to the route of the pipeline.”

    The WSJ correctly notes that “the move comes in the face of an expected rejection by the Obama administration and low oil prices that are sapping business interests in Canada’s oil reserves.” Clearly the former was never an issue before, however the collapse in oil prices and the resultant plunge in CapEx spending means that the pipeline no longer made much economic sense.

  • What The Oil And Gas Industry Is Not Telling Investors

    Submitted by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

    Oil prices crashed because of too much supply, but will rebound as production shrinks and demand rises. But what if long-term demand for oil ends up being sharply lower than what the oil industry believes?

    That is the subject of a new report from The Carbon Tracker Initiative, which looks at a range of scenarios that could blow up oil industry projections for long-term oil demand.

    Historically, Carbon Tracker says, energy demand has been driven by population, economic growth, and the efficiency (or inefficiency) of energy-using technologies. Carbon Tracker looks at a couple possible future scenarios in which those parameters are altered, resulting in dramatically lower rates of oil consumption.

    Carbon Tracker has been a pioneer in the concept of “stranded assets,” the notion that fossil fuel assets will lose their value as the world moves to restrict carbon emissions. If an oil field cannot be produced profitably in a carbon-constrained world – or cannot legally be produced because of certain regulations – then it ceases to have value. That puts investors’ dollars at risk, a risk that financial markets have not fully grappled with.

    However, in a new report, Carbon Tracker expands upon the possible scenarios in which oil demand may not live up to industry predictions.

    For example, if the world population hits only 8.3 billion by 2050 instead of the 9.7 billion figure typically cited by the UN, fossil fuel consumption could end up being 17 percent lower in 2050 than the oil industry thinks. Coal would be affected the most, with 25 percent reduction in demand compared to the business-as-usual case.

    How about GDP growth? The expansion of the global economy is pivotal to energy consumption. The industry typically bakes in a GDP growth rate of 2.8 to 3.6 percent per year into its forecasts. But these figures could be on the high end, especially since so much hinges on the ongoing blistering growth from China. But, using BP’s pessimistic GDP scenario in which China and India only grow at 4 percent per year, global energy demand could be 8.5 percent lower in 2035 than the business-as-usual case.

     

    Perhaps more threatening to future oil demand are global policies to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions, as previously touched upon. Although international negotiations have largely failed to halt the growth of carbon emissions, a significant effort to zero out carbon over the long-term would necessarily cut deeply into demand. Industry projections largely ignore this possibility, as industry estimates for fossil fuel demand in the future would likely lead to average global warming of 4 to 6 degrees Celsius, exceeding the stated goal of capping warming at 2 degrees. More importantly, industry projections for fossil fuel use already exceed the totals that would result if the carbon reduction goals already laid out by countries heading into Paris are implemented. Caps on emissions would upend the entire business model of the oil industry.

    Carbon Tracker looks at a few other scenarios, including the possibility that renewable energy could make cost reductions and deployment much greater than the oil industry thinks. Indeed, energy prognosticators like the IEA consistently underestimate the market penetration of solar PV and wind. Actual deployment wildly exceeds every projection that the IEA publishes. It is not hard to see oil industry projections off the mark, undone by falling costs and rapid deployment of solar and wind.

    Moreover, the combination of energy storage and renewable energy could transform power markets, solving the problem of intermittent energy. Battery storage continues to get cheaper, another trend that the oil industry could be underestimating. Electricity market transformation would also help scale up battery manufacturing, which in turn would reduce the cost of electric vehicles.

    Take Toyota’s recent announcement that it will target a 90 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from its vehicles by 2050 by developing fuel cell vehicles. There is a long way to go before such a scenario becomes viable, but the announcement should is a shot across the bow for the oil industry.

    In short, Carbon Tracker concludes, there are very real threats to the business models of oil companies, threats that need to be explained to investors. Right now, those threats are not being taken seriously.

  • US Will Send Warships To China Islands "Twice A Quarter", Pentagon Says

    Last week, the US did a silly thing. The Pentagon sent the USS Lassen to Subi Reef in the Spratlys just to see if Washington could sail by China’s man-made islands in the South Pacific without getting shot at. 

    (Subi reef)

    (USS Lassen)

    As ridiculous as that sounds from a kind of “let’s not start World War III” perspective, it’s an entirely accurate assessment of Obama’s “freedom of navigation” exercise. There was no reason whatsoever for the US to be there and the pass-by served no purpose at all other than to test Beijing’s patience. 

    To be sure, China isn’t innocent here. They’ve built 3,000 acres of sovereign territory atop reefs in disputed waters and built runways, ports, and cement factories on their new “land” which understandably makes Washington’s regional allies like The Philippines a bit nervous. 

    Still, it isn’t as if the PLA is about to invade Australia and it seems likely that if one could listen in at The Pentagon, US officials could probably care less about these “sandcastles.” But America’s “friends” in the region think that “this is the time for courage” (to borrow and alter a classic Gartman-ism), and so, Washington felt compelled to sail a warship by the islands just to prove it could. China didn’t fire on or surround the US-flagged guided missile destroyer, but the PLA did follow it and Beijing subsequently expressed its extreme displeasure at the “exercise.” 

    As we noted before and after the “incident”, most “experts” believe the US will need to keep up the patrols if they’re to be “effective.” Sure enough, The Pentagon now says destroyers will sail within 12 nautical miles of the islands twice every three months. Here’s Reuters:

    The U.S. Navy plans to conduct patrols within 12 nautical miles of artificial islands in the South China Sea about twice a quarter, a U.S. defense official said on Monday.

     

    “We’re going to come down to about twice a quarter or a little more than that,” the official said. “That’s the right amount to make it regular but not a constant poke in the eye. It meets the intent to regularly exercise our rights under international law and remind the Chinese and others about our view.”

    Yes, because Washington doesn’t want to “poke anyone in the eye.”

    So, as The White House attempts to put on a brave face amid mounting threats to US hegemony, The Pentagon is apprently set to antagonize Beijing for no reason at all other than to appease America’s regional allies who are effectively asking if Big Brother is still dedicated to playing world police officer. 

    We close with China’s warning, issued last week: 

    “If the United States continues with these kinds of dangerous, provocative acts, there could well be a seriously pressing situation between frontline forces from both sides on the sea and in the air, or even a minor incident that sparks war.”

  • How The Fed Has Backed Itself Into A Corner

    Submitted by Leonard Brecken via OilPrice.com,

    In my last article I outlined the case that the fall in commodities is a result of Fed policy more so than fundamentals. The fall in oil began, almost to the day, when the dollar began its rise last June and remained perfectly inversely correlated for rest of 2014 into part of 2015. In 2015, the dollar began to weaken as the U.S. economic growth myth got exposed and yet oil, instead of rising, fell further. The Iran deal helped, as well as OPEC continuing to pump oil above quota levels.

    Admittedly, U.S. oil inventories remain above historical levels, a trend that accelerated in the second half of last year, further fueling the decline in oil. To some extent, that oversupply was enabled by the Federal Reserve’s easy money via rising leverage, as speculation in futures markets drove oil prices up. However, the initial spark was probably tied to a change in the Federal Reserve policy of propping asset prices via Quantitative Easing (QE) vs. what’s going on now in threatening to raise rates.

    Coincidence?

    With Congress reaching a debt ceiling/budget deal, we learned more about how and why this occurred. Instead of more QE, it appears the government is opting for more fiscal stimulus in 2016 as the “deal” basically gives the White House unlimited spending thanks to a relaxed debt ceiling. Coincidence right? Of course not.

    Now it’s becoming clearer as to why this option was taken once again: allow the government to distort asset prices through intervention.

    The Yuan Threat

    As has been reported in the media, the IMF is likely to include the Yuan in its basket of currencies, basically opening the door to the Yuan becoming a reserve currency. This is occurring at the same time the petrodollar is being sold, as commodity oriented nations such as Saudi Arabia are selling wealth funds (i.e. U.S. dollars) to fill their budget gaps.

    Since this adds to downward pressure on the U.S. dollar, it’s no wonder the Federal Reserve has changed course. For one, a strong U.S. Dollar depresses commodities coming into an election year, boosting consumers in lower income brackets. The second motivation for a strong dollar is to ward off the threat of the Yuan replacing the Dollar as the reserve currency.

    Impending U.S Dollar Weakness

    The news that the Chinese government is considering relaxing capital controls and thus allowing the Yuan to appreciate, is a sign that they think the IMF inclusion of the Yuan is imminent. The displacement of the Petrodollar, even fractionally, will result in a drop in the U.S. Dollar. Thus, with this threat, if the Federal Reserve undertakes another round of QE it will further stoke U.S. Dollar weakness.

    That would reverse the commodity declines that began last summer, wreaking havoc on the standard of living especially for the lower income electorate the government depends on for votes, come 2016. So the Fed is weighing the negative consequences of a strong dollar on corporate profits vs. unleashing inflation on the electorate, pressuring long term interest rates. We now see which negative scenario they favor and why.

    This should further explain the influences on oil prices and clearly show that fundamentals aren’t the only thing at play on setting prices.

  • "Somebody Will Do Something Stupid"

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    Is it just me, or does it seem like we are moving inexorably towards a global confrontation?

    China claims some islands in the South China Sea and we attempt to provoke a military response by sending a US warship within 12 miles of the disputed islands.

     

    We accuse both China and Russia of cyber terrorism on regular basis, even though we released the Stuxnet virus into the Iranian nuclear facilities and have used mass surveillance against people around the world, including allied leaders.

     

    We created ISIS as part of our grand strategy that included turning Iraq and Libya into lawless countries racked by civil war strife and religious zealotry.

     

    We created the Syrian refugee crisis by funding militants against Assad because Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Europe.

    We led the overthrow of a democratically elected, Russian friendly, government in the Ukraine, and have continuously provoked Russia in their own backyard.

     

    We have covered up the true culprit in shooting down of the Malaysian airliner over the Ukraine.

     

    We have colluded with Saudi Arabia to drive the price of oil down in an attempt to destroy the economies of Iran, Argentina and Russia. Putin has now called our bluff and entered Syria in full force, bombing the shit out of ISIS and proving the US had no intention of defeating these terrorists, because our military industrial complex depends upon having an enemy to fight. Now Obama is placing US troops in the line of fire between Russia, Syria, Turkey, Iran, and ISIS.

     

    Europe was already bankrupt, using trillions in new debt to pay off the unpayable debt they already had. Now they are being overrun by Muslim hordes who will cause their societies to splinter and cause chaos, violence, and war.

     

    Domestically, Obama has successfully splintered the country along the lines of race, religion, gun ownership, producers vs consumers, and wealth.

    There are a multitude of fuses affixed to dozens of powderkegs and little kids with matches are on the loose.

    I don’t know which of the fuses will be lit and which powderkeg will blow, but someone is bound to do something stupid, and then all hell will break loose.

     

    It could happen at any time. One military miscue. One assassination. One violent act that stirs the world. And the dominoes will topple, setting off fireworks not seen on this planet since 1939 – 1945. I can see it all very clearly.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 2, 2015

  • Q&A: Will China Stop Its Bleeding with Even Tighter Capital Controls?

    By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

    Let’s look at a couple of questions from the readers today, shall we?

    Hi Chris,

     

    I love your sharing of thoughts. Really insightful and though you may not realise it, you’ve helped me a lot. I’m an entrepreneur running flat out. I’m juggling so many things, some inevitably fall through the cracks and yet I feel like I have to beat my competitors. You and your team there have such a long and deep experience in investing, including early stage investing. As such, I figure you’ve seen a lot of guys in my position. What suggestions do you have? I’m losing my mind.

    Without knowing your business your comment reminded me of an event which sticks in my mind to this day.

    Many years ago, as a teenager, I was on my way to a part time job. I had only recently begun driving, and as such my car was a heap of scrap, about as aerodynamic as a quarry face. One day, driving in traffic, I witnessed another guy who cut me off as he was in a desperate hurry, trying to dodge in and out of two lane traffic going in the same direction. He was driving a lovely shiny new BMW and was red faced, and clearly about as agitated as a mosquito bite in the heat.

    I was in no particular rush and just going with the flow listening to music. The journey to my place of work was about 20 kilometers. When I arrived into the car park, lo and behold, there was this guy climbing out of his car. He’d managed to dodge, weave, drive his car as hard as he could, when he could, and emotionally was close to snapping. He had arrived at the same destination maybe 40 seconds before me but in a completely different state.

    What he should have done really is use his time as effectively as he could. He was trying to do something which was out of his control, namely get to where he was going faster than was really possible given the circumstances.

    I’m as guilty as anyone on this but it’s really important to focus on what’s important not what’s urgent. Understand that they’re not the same thing.

    Now, this next comment is not something I would normally bother publishing but I thought I’d share it since it does show some of the current zeitgeist where unsophisticated investors will make decisions not on any intellectual thought process but on something as inane as how many Twitter followers someone has. Social media reigns supreme.

    I was put onto your site by my financial advisor. The material is interesting but I notice that you’ve not got a lot of Twitter followers.

    Mmm… OK, then. Maybe I should focus less on investing my capital and more on my Twitter followers. I could care less if I only had 12 followers. Seemed to work for Jesus…

    If I stopped posting any content would the value of my thoughts and investment insights be less? As a matter of interest, I receive daily solicitations from “internet marketing professionals” who will deliver me any number of Facebook fans, Twitter followers, LinkedIn friends and more. Just sayin’.

    Onto the next one…

    Hi Chris,

     

    Thanks for the fantastic analysis of the RMB. I signed up literally just in time. I think the second article I read was on shorting the RMB and it made sense so I put it on even though at the time I stubbornly felt that the USD was going to hell. Something I’ve changed my opinion on after reading through your many posts and reports on the topic.

     

    I read a lot of commentary suggesting the the RMB would become the new world currency and that it would revalue higher. Your work was less emotional and just looked at the facts which swayed me.

     

    My question, if you’d be so kind to answer. You guys detailed how the USD carry trade created a demand for RMB but surely when those dollars enter China, or any recipient country they would ultimately land up as foreign exchange reserves. Furthermore, China then would have massive USD foreign exchange reserves meaning that the RMB should be more not less stable in a dollar rally. How do you think about this?

    Thank you! I suggest you try to forget about the noise and look at the numbers first. Once you’ve looked at the data then listening to divergent opinions is much easier. You’ll rapidly identify a professional from random opinionated people cluttering the net selling fear, mayhem and catastrophe at every corner, or whatever is the flavour of the day (see my comments about Twitter above).

    To answer your question. When the dollars came into China, largely due to them being made incredibly cheap due to Fed induced QE, this put upward pressure on the RMB – something the PBOC didn’t want. As an example, if you invested capital into something like a RMB CD then those dollars end up on the balance sheet of the Chinese bank. Chinese banks however aren’t typically in the business of lending out dollars but rather RMB. As such they sell the USD in the interbank market to obtain RMB which they can lend out. Banks are in the business of lending.

    That particular trade would cause downward pressure on the dollar (sale of dollars) and that’s not a good situation for an export driven economy such as China. As such the PBOC comes in and buys those dollars but to do so they print RMB thus creating a balance sheet debit. They effectively sterilize the purchase of RMB made by the Chinese bank.

    Everyone was happy with this scenario as dollar financing of China’s boom continued, GDP growth targets kept being met, and the RMB peg to the dollar was largely kept in check. What’s more the RMB – even though sterilization was occurring – was allowed to rise, thus creating a risk cushion on the currency swap by those short dollars. This itself incentivized more of the same behaviour.

    The problem is that for every action there is a consequence to that action. The net result is the PBOC balance sheet expanded as they either issued RMB denominated bonds or bills in exchange for the purchase of those dollars. They now have yuan denominated liabilities in massive quantities.

    This all worked so long as growth continued and so long as those RMB which the original bank had now lent out went into productive assets and there was no loan quality deterioration. Of course, that’s not what’s been happening. Since such large quantities of dollars were pouring into China, based on the growth story, so too the PBOC was creating insane amounts of RMB to sterilize those incoming dollars.

    That incredible creation of RMB had to go somewhere and it’s gone into, among other things, building of famous Chinese ghost cities. The incentive for this behaviour was compounded by the fact that Chinese government officials are rewarded based on GDP growth. Building useless ghost cities shows up as GDP growth but it’s completely unproductive despite what Paul Krugman may have to say about it.

    This is now a problem on multiple fronts:

    1. QE in the US has stopped and those same stimulative policies have NOT stopped in countries such as China. This divergence helps to create an additional bid for the dollar. The Fed doesn’t need to raise rates right now as there exists a synthetic tightening. When the rest of the world is easing and the US stops easing then this is dollar positive.
    2. The China growth story is now seriously in question. Without continued growth the trade unwinds.

    Combine this with the size of the carry trade we’ve discussed at length, and we have an incredible setup to make a lot of money as this plays out. What will continue to take place is foreign exchange outflows from China. At what point do we not just call it what it is? Capital flight.

    History tells us that capital flight is often followed by tighter capital controls, and ironically it is capital controls which will only exacerbate the pressures, meaning that when the final twig snaps the collapse comes all the harder. The pressures for China to devalue will only continue to mount and implementing tighter capital controls will not aid China in its bid to have their currency included in the SDR basket by the IMF.

    – Chris

    PS: If you enjoyed this note then you might also want to receive future write-ups just like this one as well as periodical subscriber-only free reports and more (no spam, though). We’re consistently building upon our investment framework, shared with you in these notes and we welcome the widest possible participation, as well as your thoughts and comments. You can join us HERE.

     

    “The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.” – Ralph Nader

  • Confusion: US Equities Drift Lower (China Higher), Yuan Surges & Purges As China Manufacturing Misses (And Beats)

    Confusion reigns… China's Manufacturing PMI is in contraction according to both the Official and Markit/Caixin measures (but the former was flat and missed while the former rose and beat "confirming economic stability" according to the 'official' press). Following the largest strengthening fix for the Yuan in 10 years, both the onshore and offshore Yuan are weakening by the most since the August devaluation. Finally, having cliff-dived at the open, Chinese stocks have bounced back to unchanged on the Ciaxin PMI beat (but US equities drift lower still).

     

    It's a rise and a beat & a miss and a drop for Chinese manufacturing…

    The last two times the Caixin measure has diverged positively from the official data, it has converged lower in the next 3 months.

     

    After the biggest strengthening fix in 10 years…

     

     

    Onshore (and offshore Yuan) are weakening by the most since the August devaluation…

     

    Compressing the Onshore/Offshore spread back to zero…

     

    And finally Chinese stocks tumbled on the weak 'official' PMI and surged back to unchanged on the Caixin PMI…

     

    But US equities saw no such bounce as hopes for moar easing fade after comments on "stability" after the Caixin print…

     

    So chaos reigns once again…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Here Are The Five "Good News" That Can Cause A Market Selloff According To Bank of America

    “If bad news is great for stocks, then is good news bad?”

    Bank of America reminded us earlier that just this month, the PBoC cut rates, the ECB confirmed QE2, Sweden announced additional QE, and the BoJ promised additional easing if necessary ‘without hesitation’, and for markets, “the stimulus of October 2015 has worked, with equities and corporate bonds rallying hard.

    The main driver of this newly unleashed central bank intervention? Terrible global economic data.

    BofA further says that “central banks are easing because global growth is weak” (in the process making global growth even weaker but at least pushing risk assets to new highs) adding that “global profits are down 4% since February. Even the US has struggled: payroll growth has decelerated and the latest US GDP growth rate was a pitiful 1.5% in Q3. And the level of US inventories is unambiguously recessionary.”

    But while “confidence in quantitative success for the economy is nonetheless low” the ‘loss of faith in central planning’ trade which emerged briefly in late August and September, promptly fizzled as “don’t fight the Fed” once again regained its top position on the pantheon of Wall Street aphorisms, right above BTFD.

    So if terrible economic news is great for stocks, will the opposite be true as well, especially with a resurgent hawkish Fed and odds of a December rate hike soaring to the highest level yet?

    Here are the five “good is bad” things which according to BofA, will change the narrative, and lead to a market selloff in November.

    What changes this narrative? What signals Q3 was the trough for macro expectations? What causes a market sell-off in bonds in November? Strong October data & market validation of a higher rates/higher growth scenario in coming quarters:

    • China PMI>50.5
    • US ISM>52
    • US payroll>225K
    • US banks rally: XLF>$26 would confirm stronger “domestic demand” expectations.
    • US dollar stable: if the Fed can hike without boosting dollar this is positive; DXY must not breach 100; a rally in ADXY (Asia FX index) above 110 crucial as this would erase the apocalyptic view of China growth prospects.

    There is another potential adverse catalyst: while often cited as a source of market strength, the end of Obama’s second term may be just the opposite.

    The “Wall Street boom, Main Street bust” narrative is one central banks would very much like to avoid in 2016, especially as 2016 is a US election year. And it’s worth noting that the end of a two-term Presidential cycle has often signaled the end of an excess valuation somewhere in the global financial markets: the overvaluation of the US$ after JFK/LBJ, the undervaluation of bonds after Ford/Carter, the overvaluation of tech after Clinton and the overvaluation of housing after Bush (see Chart 7).

     

    Will the S&P crash at the end of 2016? We won’t know, but it certainly would be a fitting conclusion to Obama’s second term if the stock bubble, the only thing Bernanke Yellen Obama “got right” and doubled it (at a cost of only $10 trillion in government debt), were to wipe out all its gains since 2009 and confirm to everyone just how naked the US president had been all along.

  • Partner Of "China's Carl Icahn" Executed By Local Police After Attempting Escape Following Insider Trading Charges

    The name of Shanghai’s Xu Xiang is not a household name in US financial circles. It is in China.

    According to a recent profile in Want China Times (as of May 2014) Xiang, who heads the Shanghai-based Zexi Investment (founded in 2009 and since then generating literally impossible returns) is not only one of the richest Chinese investors, but has been called anything from China’s “Warren Buffett” to China’s “Carl Icahn.” He also has a reputation of being an activist within China’s stock market. To wit from May 2014:

    The major players in China’s capital market, including equity fund and insurance asset management firms, are gearing up to secure seats as members on the boards of directors in listed companies in a bid to influence these firms to give dividends, putting profit into their own pockets, according to Guangzhou’s Time Weekly. According to the newspaper Xu Xiang, head of Shanghai-based Zexi Investment, is one among these market players in China.

     

    Xu, from Ningbo in eastern China’s Zhejiang province, built his wealth from scratch through investments in the secondary capital market. Xu set up Zexi Investment in 2010 and gained a good reputation as a profit maker in the Chinese equity fund market. The fund is reported to currently manage more than 10 billion yuan (US$1.6 billion).

     

    A statistics report on the Shanghai stock exchange revealed that Zexi Investment has raised its stakes in several listed companies, including in conglomerate Ningbo United Group, since the beginning of this year. Xu’s investments have made Zexi more visible in the Chinese capital market.

     

    The newspaper reported that Xu’s strategy is not unusual in the US market and is similar to that of Warren Buffett, a prominent US equity investor, although this style is not often seen in China. The report said it is believed that more and more Chinese investors will follow Xu’s example by getting selected as members of the board of directors in listed companies to influence the companies.

     

    A manager in an equity fund firm, who declined to be named, told Time Weekly that Zexi had tried the same technique previously with Sino Life Insurance and Anbang Insurance Group. The fund manager suggested that insurance asset management companies invest in the secondary market.

     

    Xu has been called the Chinese version of American investor Carl Icahn. Icahn, 77, has repeatedly made his presence felt in the equity market, boosting his stakes in several major firms on Wall Street, such as Dale, Apple, and eBay.

    Zexi also appeared in US mainstream news late last week, as a result of Bloomberg’s report that while China’s stock market was crashing, “the country’s top 10 performers, run by Ze Quan Investment, Sunrise Investment, Zexi Investment and Yingyang Asset Management, found gains in the June-August period.” As the following Bloomberg chart shows, four of Zexi’s funds were among the top 10 performing hedge funds from June to August.

     

    It gets better: according to Zexi’s own website, the return of its various funds since 2010 is as high as a mindblowing 3944.9%!

    And then, perhaps related to Zexi’s tremendous outperformance, Xu’s name once again emerged late on Sunday in China, because as China’s Global Times reported, “Xu Xiang, general manager of the Shanghai-based company Zexi Investment, is under investigation for suspected inside trading, the Ministry of Public Security announced late Sunday.”

    Xu and several others allegedly obtained inside stocks information via illegal methods and participated in insider trading and manipulating stocks prices, a ministry statement said.

     

    The suspects have been placed under coercive measures, which include summons by force, bail, residential surveillance, detention and arrest.

    That is all the pithy announcement by the People’s Daily-affiliated newspaper had about the unexpected arrest of one of China’s capital markets scions over “insider trading” charges.

    Ok, this is China: crazy things happen all the time. But where things got outright ridiculous, was when moments ago when as China National Radio reports, Wu Shuang, a partner of Xu Xiang’s at Zexi, and also an insider trading suspect, was shot and killed by Chinese police when he “resisted and tried to escape.” The complete, google-translated brief note:

    Further investigation by the Ministry of Public Security, Xu Xiang criminal gang suspected of insider trading and other offenses are criminal detention. A member of their criminal group Wu Shuang tried to resist escape, the police shot on the spot. 

    And that was it.

    In fact, that was not even it, because moments after the report (which had been corroborated by Bloomberg) was released, CNR promptly 404’ed the entire story.

    And that’s not all: moments ago Bloomberg also reported that Shanghai police just raided Zexi Investment’s Shanghai office on Sunday, “taking away computers and other materials, according to a person familiar with the matter, in the latest attempt by Chinese authorities to crack down on strategies blamed for exacerbating a $5 trillion stock-market rout.”

    So what is the fate of Wu Shuang, or billionaire Xu Xiang for that matter? We probably will never know, although we have a feeling that a slot for China’s “next Carl Icahn” has just opened, especially since as of right now, trying to open the non-cached version of the Zexi Fund (the cached one can still be found here), has just been 503’ed, a fate we are certain has befallen its executives as well.

  • The Military-Industrial Complex's Latest Best Friend – Barack Obama

    Submitted by Chuck Spinney via The Blaster blog,

    The Pentagon just won another small skirmish in its long war with Social Security and Medicare. That is the unstated message of the budget deal just announced gleefully by congressional leaders and the President.  To understand why, let’s take a quick trip down memory lane.

    Last January, President Obama submitted Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget to Congress, and he proposed to break the spending limits on both defense and domestic programs.  These limits are set by the long-term sequester provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011  (BCA), which, for better or worse, is the law of the land, and Obama was asking Congress to change the law.  Mr. Obama wanted to finance his ramped up spending proposals by increasing taxes.  Of course, he knew that the Republican controlled Congress lusted for defense increases but hated domestic spending, particularly entitlements. Moreover, he knew increasing taxes was like waving the red cape in front of the Republican budget bulls.  So, he knew his budget would be dead on arrival.  Obama’s budget, nevertheless, had one virtue: it was up front about the intractable nature of the budget problem.  In effect, whether deliberately or not, Obama laid a trap that the Republicans merrily walked into during the ensuing spring and summer.

    Obama's gambit set into motion a tortured kabuki dance in the Republican controlled Congress.  The Republicans, as Obama well knew, wanted to keep up the appearances of adhering to the BCA.  But at the same time, they wanted desperately to shovel money into the Pentagon’s coffers.  The net result was that Obama’s proposal triggered a series of increasingly irrational Congressional negotiations, bizarre back-room deals and weird budget resolutions.  These machinations came to a head with the passage of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that proposed to (1) keep the Pentagon’s base budget at the BCA level of about $499 billion, but (2) pack the accounts in the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingencies Operations fund (OCO) with a programs and pork that should have been in its base budget.  The reason for the dodgy OCO 'slush fund' rested in the politically irresistible fact that the OCO is a separate war-fighting fund** for the Pentagon that is exempt from the spending limits set by the BCA’s sequester provisions.  The net result of the smoke and mirrors by the Budget and Armed Services Committees of Congress was a total defense budget that was almost identical to Obama’s original submission, but one that was not accompanied by his domestic funding increases or his tax increases.  And this monstrosity was all wrapped up in a ridiculous pretense of adhering to the BCA limits. 

    Last week, President Obama seemed to close the trap by vetoing the 2016 NDAA. But this too was smoke and mirrors.

    The veto put in motion yet another kabuki dance, this time behind closed doors between the White House and the leaders of Congress. The goal was to reach an overall budget deal that would avoid a government shutdown, which the majority Republicans were terrified of being blamed for on the eve of an election year.  At the same time, they wanted to dodge the BCA’s sequester bullet while they shoveled more money into the Pentagon. 

    That deal has now been joined, and the Republic has been saved, albeit at an unknown price.  Nevertheless, some of the sordid details of that price are now beginning to seep through the chinks in the Hall of Mirrors that is Versailles on the Potomac.

    According to this report in Defense News, the elements of the budget deal include:

    The deal raises the BCA spending caps (again) by $80 billion over next two years; including $50 billion in FY2016 and $30 billion in FY2017.  It also increases the Federal Government’s debt limit. 

    These spending increases would be split equally between defense and domestic programs, and they would be financed by two squirrelly provisions, to wit:

    The first financing gimmick cuts back Medicare and Social Security disability benefits. But if past is prologue, the cut to Medicare is likely to be reversed again next year, which is an election year — because everyone in Congress wants the endorsement of the American Medical Association (AMA).  The cut to Medicare providers was first made permanent law by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and since then Congress has reversed the scheduled provider cut 17 times.

     

    The second financing gimmick is to sell crude oil  from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ironically, this rather bizarre provision is peculiarly fitting to the culture of Versailles on the Potomac.  Few remember that the reserve was justified to the American people in 1975 as an insurance “cushion" to reduce the adverse effects of future rises in oil prices or supply disruptions engineered by OPEC, which is controlled by our supposed “ally” Saudi Arabia.  So why sell the reserve's oil when prices are near record lows (adjusted for inflation) compared to those of the last fifteen to twenty years, particularly since the Saudis are flooding the market to take out the US frackers?  Who benefits is a fascinating question with all sorts of twists and turns and is not yet answered.  But it is worth recalling the 1997 Balanced Budget Act had a provision to sell the Naval Petroleum Reserve at Elk Hills (sold in 1998) – at that time, the largest privatization of government assets in history, precisely when oil prices were at their lowest level (adjusted for inflation) since the 1960s. They sold it to Occidental Petroleum which made a killing.

    There is one thing the deal makes clear, however. The Pentagon's share of the spending increases would be $33 billion in FY16, made up of a $25B increase in the Pentagon’s base budget and an $8B increase in the OCO. As for how the Pentagon’s $15 billion increase in FY17 will be allocated, the report in Defense News is silent.

    So, there is good reason why champagne corks are popping in halls of the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex (MICC) and its lobbying affiliates on K Street.  Indeed, to celebrate the triumph, the AF immediately announced it awarded Northrop-Grumman a huge concurrent engineering contract (Milestone B) to design and build the first 21 of 100 new long range strike bombers, which heretofore had been shrouded in heavy secrecy. No one knows what this bomber will even look like, let alone what the program will cost, but two years ago, there were reports of a “pre-cost-growth” total program cost estimate (R&D and production) reaching $81 billion. At least one of the MICC’s euphoric wholly-owned subsidiaries in the Fourth Estate has already written that 100 bomber is not enough, given the threats we face and the number of aging bombers that need to be replaced. 

    This new bomber program is  by far the largest weapon acquisition program yet started in the 21st Century.  Yet there has been no oversight, except by its advocates in the smoke-filled, super-secret secure compartmented information facilities (SCIFs) spread around Versailles.  Moreover, the bomber's heavy concurrency means that the production-related money will quickly start flowing to hundreds of congressional districts, well before it is designed.  So, before you can say sequester next year, the Bomber, like the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will be unstoppable.  And, like the F-35, it will acquire a life of its own to live on, no matter how badly it fails to meet its cost goals, its capability specifications, or its production quotas — for the simple but powerful reason that a majority in Congress are being bought off today in a way that will ensure they vote for it tomorrow.  

    But there is more.  The new Bomber is just the beginning of the new defense boom that Mr. Obama and Congress are launching beneath the smoke and mirrors of their budget practices.  The Pentagon already has a  bow wave of increased spending for new weapons in its R&D pipeline.  In that sense, it is no accident that, a year ago, as he was departing the Pentagon, the Pentagon’s ineffectual comptroller Robert Hale characterized the new bomber as the “canary in the coal mine.” He was wringing his hands over the rapidly growing requirements for larger defense budgets in the future — requirements he helped to create.  Bow waves are a perennial feature in Pentagon planning.  I first heard the term in 1973.  The current bow wave, like its predecessors, will lead inexorably to more budget crises and more dodgy budget deals made by the best government money can buy.

    So, once again, Mr. Obama had a shot at leading from the moral high ground, and once again, he blew it.  He had the Republicans on the ropes, with all their warts on full display, but then he squandered an opportunity to effect even a pretense of challenging a thoroughly corrupt system. Obama’s most recent performance is yet more proof that he is no change agent.  A better characterization would be that he is merely another Manchurian Candidate, whose role is to protect the interests of the factions making up the shadow government that is now running the show – what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren calls the US Deep State.***

    *  *  *

    * This essay is the second in a series of occasional essays on the nature of defense spending. The first can be found here.

    ** The OCO is a George W. Bush gimmick, created in 2001 after 9-11 to capitalize on the national hysteria to pay for the Global War on Terror by taking its costs off the books.  All our previous wars — e.g., WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo — were funded out of the “base” defense budget and there was no need set up a special war fighting account. 

    *** Lofgren a former Republican congressional staffer on the House and Senate Budget Committees has written an important new book,  The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. It will hit the stands next January.

  • Things You'll Never See

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Ben Garrison

  • PBOC Fixes Chinese Yuan Higher By 0.54%, Most Since 2005

    On Friday morning, after the biggest surge in the onshore Yuan in a decade, we explained it as follows: “capital controls are to some extent counterintuitive. That is, the stricter the capital controls, the more people want to move their money out of the country. Here’s how we put it last month: “What better way to spark a capital exodus than with very vocal, and very effective capital controls. Just look at Greece.”

    Indeed, China will likely need to completely liberalize the capital account in the coming years in order to pacify the IMF which is poised to throw Beijing a bone and grant its RMB SDR bid. Inclusion could lead to some $500 billion in reserve demand.

     

    That helps to explain why overnight, the yuan soared the most in a decade after China moved to loosen capital controls with a trial program in the Shanghai free trade zone that would allow domestic individuals to directly buy overseas assets. The move marks another step towards capital account convertibility, thus bolstering Beijing’s bid for yuan internationalization.

    Ironically, this did absolutely nothing to ease the local population’s concerns that capital outflows are accelerating, and certainly did nothing at all to help the Chinese export economy, which as we saw from the overnight PMI numbers, deteriorated once more to new cycle lows.

     

    Fast forward to today when Westpac strategist Sean Callow said that the Froday jump in yuan’ spot rate on Friday and weaker dollar since last week’s close could mean largest daily gain in yuan fixing in several years, adding that the obvious policy priority for stronger yuan essentially sidelines fixing models for time being.

    Sure enough, as per the fixing limits established as part of the August 11 Yuan devaluation, moments ago the PBOC announced that it had set the Yuan at a USDCNY fixing of 6.3154, a strengthening of a massive 0.54% – the most since 2005 – following the manic end of trading PBOC intervention on Friday that sent the Yuan soaring some 300 pips from 6.3475 to 6.3175.

     

    So while the Chinese capital outflow is accelerating with every passing day, and which may now be best seen in the daily surge in the price of Bitcoin which has become a preferred means of circumventing China’s strengthened capital controls…

     

    … China is well on its way to not only filling the entire devaluation gap, but slamming its export industries with an increasingly stronger currency, and thus assuring that any stabilization in the Chinese economy is promptly wiped away.

  • Putin's Approval Rating Reaches A New High

    Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,

    Regime Change Must Wait …

    According to a report at Russia Insider, something we thought would be nigh impossible has just happened – Vladimir Putin’s approval rating in Russia has soared to yet another all time high:

    “Russian President Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has reached historical maximum and hit almost 90%, according to a poll conducted by Russian Public Opinion Research Center (WCIOM). Putin’s approval rating has broken a new record reaching 89.9%. The last record was registered in June 2015 — 89.1%

     

    According to WCIOM, ‘such high rating of approval of the Russian president is registered, first of all, in connection with events in Syria, Russian aviation’s airstrikes at terrorist positions.’ Sociologists reminded that the Russian president’s rating has remained higher than 80% for the last two years. ‘Putin’s rating started growing in spring 2014 against the backdrop of Russia’s reunification with Crimea and Sevastopol. In March 2014, the rating stood at 76.2% on average, in April — at 82.2%, and in May — at 86.2%,’ WCIOM said.

     

    457

    Putin adorned in his presidential ray-bans. He’s never been more popular in Russia

     

    We have put together a chart of Putin’s approval rating history by using the most recent chart available from the Levada Center (another Russian polling company) and complementing it with the result of the recent WCIOM survey (unfortunately we couldn’t find a chart of the WCIOM poll’s history, but various news reports that on Putin’s rating that have appeared over time suggest that the two polls are tracking each other very closely, so this amalgamated chart should serve):

     

    Putin Approval

    The Levada Center’s Putin approval rating survey, with the latest WCIOM survey result added at the end – click to enlarge.

     

    In short, all those who don’t like Putin or were hoping for some sort of regime change in Russia continue to be out of luck.

     

    Mainstream Media, Here and There

    One reason why we are even posting about this is that the Western press has also reported on the event, employing a somewhat less neutral tone of voice. For instance, the Washington Times writes: “Putin’s approval rating hits new high as Russia’s state media sells Syria campaign”

    “From triumphant reports about the “liquidation” of “terrorist training camps” to Kremlin-friendly analysts praising Moscow’s growing international influence, the official media’s coverage of Russia’s dramatic entry into Syria’s more than 4-year-old civil war has been decidedly upbeat — and one more reminder of the Kremlin’s ability to dictate the terms of popular debate.”

    Given that terrorist camps are apparently indeed liquidated by Russian air strikes, the Russian state media are not entirely wrong in this case. As Zerohedge recently reported, in a quite stunning recent development, even Iraq and Jordan are now cooperating with Russia and asking it to help them with subduing IS. They must have been impressed by something the Russians have done (very likely they are actually giving IS discernible problems).

    However, what makes the above sour grapes style reporting (no doubt echoed elsewhere in the Western media) especially funny is that while it is true that the Kremlin exerts extraordinary influence on the media in Russia, one wonders in what way their reportage on Syria is different from the reporting in the happily self-censoring US mainstream media on the Iraq war, especially in the run-up to said war.

    We seem to recall that there was unquestioning support of the administration’s quest to sell a war that was transparently based on little but lies. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature could simply not help realizing that the public was misled. The “free press” was happy to supply truly cheap propaganda in generous gobs (regardless of its presumed political leanings; e.g. the pro-socialist NYT was among the newpapers arguing most forcefully in favor of war and reported even the most ridiculous administration talking points as if they were gospel).

    This was as blindingly obvious as the propaganda dished up by the Pravda in Soviet times. In fact, the handful of people who dared to ask questions when there was still time to potentially reconsider the administration’s course received almost Stalinesque treatment (this continues to this day, only now the people getting the “treatment” are those who dare to question US policy vs. Russia).

    So this is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Who cares if the media are state-owned or if they are owned by a tiny corporate oligarchy that is in cahoots with the State? The result is exactly the same. This is not to say that Kremlin control over the Russian media deserves approval – far from it. When Putin kicked out the Yeltsin era oligarchs who basically ordered the latter’s government around as they pleased, he inter alia got rid of two media moguls. One of these, namely Boris Berezovsky, was probably the most powerful man in Russia during the Yeltsin era.

    Evidently Putin quickly realized that exerting control over the media would be to his advantage, and so his government started to suppress dissenting voices while giving pro-government propaganda a great deal of room, especially on TV. However, on average the citizens of Russia aren’t any less perceptive than the citizens of other nations. Roughly 107 million Russians are e.g. using social media, so we can assume that Russians are in general fairly internet-savvy.

     

    Putin-charts-SOCIAL-MEDIA

    Russian social media users, in millions.

     

    Similar to how this works in the US, it is very easy for the Russian government to whip up nationalist fervor when it is conducting a military intervention abroad. Those questioning the wisdom of interventions will naturally be few and far between, but we are sure they know where to get their information, regardless of what is broadcast on TV.

    In an ironic twist, the places in the developed world where the population nowadays looks askance at any type of military engagement from the very outset are Germany and Japan – regardless of the rationalizations offered in its favor.

     

    Possible Social Mood-Related Implications

    Another aspect worth considering is that Putin’s consistently high approval rating is beginning to align with the trend of the Russian stock market – at least in ruble terms. Readers may recall that we once pointed out that president Bush’s sharply declining approval rating during his second term was one of several warning signs for the stock market at the time, as it indicated that the underlying social mood in the US was increasingly diverging negatively from stock prices.

     

    MCX(Daily)

    The MICEX Index, daily – surprisingly, it has maintained its recent uptrend in spite of oil prices weakening again and the ruble strengthening somewhat (on Tuesday the ruble has sold off sharply, but it remains quite a bit above its August low).

     

    Since the Russian stock market has given back about half of the gain it achieved earlier this year in dollar terms due to the weaker ruble (it rose by more than 40% in the space of five months in the first half), this is something one should keep an eye on, as opportunity probably continues to beckon. Eventually a more positive social mood should also be reflected in a stronger or at least stable currency.

    We realize of course that Russia’s economic fundamentals are quite weak at present, but they are not as weak as might have been expected in view of the decline in the oil price. Moreover, the currency’s value is primarily a matter of monetary inflation, yields and inflation expectations, and from these perspectives the ruble actually doesn’t look unattractive, ceteris paribus.

    Obviously, the oil price still represents a wild card at this juncture – its recent weakness has at least for the moment weakened the case for a potential trend change we have discussed in these pages a few weeks ago (we currently assume that the bottoming process is simply becoming more drawn out). Conversely, if a trend change were to actually happen, it would lend strong support to the ruble and the stock market.

     

    Conclusion

    Putin is proving remarkably durable as a politician. It is ironic that his approval rating is actually better during the current recession than it was during the preceding upswing, but one should never underestimate the emotional appeal of nationalism. We have little doubt that he indeed enjoys strong voter support (e.g. the Levada Institute is well-known for the quality of its data).

    Russia’s economic situation has forced the Putin administration to adopt a number of economic reforms as we have previously reported. While we are currently not sure whether these proposals have been fully implemented or how successful their implementation was/is, the pressure that has led to their adoption remains in place.

    Although the performance of the stock market and especially the ruble obviously remains highly dependent on energy prices, we continue to believe that the Russian stock market represents an opportunity based on valuation considerations alone. It is still the cheapest stock market in the world, and usually tends to magnify EM rallies. Also, once it gets going, it usually runs up a lot in a very short time, so it is often interesting from a shorter term trading perspective as well.

  • Peak Unicorn

    Things are getting crowded in the once-exclusive unicorn club…

     

    This is all still-private unicorns since 2011 and charted them based on when they first joined the unicorn club.

    (click image for large legible version)

    While initially the chart shows unicorns being created at a relatively calm pace, the rhythm accelerates noticeably in late 2013 (right around the time Aileen Lee wrote her famous post coining the term unicorn in November 2013). Since then, there has been an explosion in unicorn creation, with over 60 new unicorns in 2015 alone.

     

    Source: CB Insights via Valuewalk.com

  • Homicide Rates Cut In Half Over Past 20 Years (While New Gun Ownership Soared)

    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    The Pew Research Center reported last week that the murder rate was cut nearly in half from 7 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. Over the same period, overall gun deaths (including accidents and suicides) have fallen by one-third from 15.2 to 10.6 per 100,000.

    In spite of this, Pew reports, the American public believes that homicides and gun deaths are increasing in the United States. Those who think violence is getting worse should probably watch less television and look around them instead. The murder rate in the US is currently similar to 1950s levels.

    Meanwhile, the number of privately owned guns (and gun commerce in general) in the United States has increased substantially in recent decades.

     Source: Firearms Commerce in the US, Annual Statistical Update. (From BATF)

    According to the World Bank, here are the homicide rates in the US since 1995:

    Here's the homicide rate graphed against total new firearms (manufactured plus imported) in US (indexed with 1995 =100):

    Meanwhile, in Mexico, where the US Consulate counsels Americans to not even carry pocket knives in the face of "Mexico’s strict weapons laws." There is exactly one gun store in Mexico. In short, the Mexican experience is a perfect example of the effect of prohibition. A lack of legal access to guns leads to a need for illegal access.

    The murder rates in Mexico:

    Mexican politicians complain that weapons are easily smuggled from the United States, and that is the source of their problem. But if access to guns is the problem, shouldn't murder rates be much higher in the United States? Moreover, if gun smuggling is such a problem in Mexico, this is just another piece of evidence showing the weakness of prohibition laws in preventing access to the intended target of prohibition.

    Naturally, we can't blame everything on gun prohibition in Mexico, nor can we attribute the murder rate decline solely to more guns in the US. But we can say two things for sure: (1) Gun restriction in Mexico has not prevented enormous increases in the murder rate, and (2) increases in gun totals in the US have not led to a surge in the murder rate.

     

  • US, Japanese Stocks Extend Losses; Turkish Lira Soars Most In 7 Years As Gold Mini-Flash-Crashes

    Despite the world seemingly exuberant at Turkey’s fraud election, sparking the biggest rally in the Lira since Nov 2008 (confirming once again that “markets love totalitarian governments,”) it appears the centrally-planned machinations of the US equity markets are not living up to their promises of wealth for all (and rate-hikes don’t matter). US and Japanese equity futures are opening notably lower, erasing all of the post-Fed exuberance with Dow Futs down over 200 points from pre-BoJ hope highs. Finally, gold futures were hammered lower at the Asia open (on heavy volume) only to rip back to practically unchanged.

     

    Lira loves the ‘fix’…

     

    Biggest daily jump since Lehman…

     

    Someone decided the thinly-traded pre-open markets on a Sunday night was an opportune time to flush 10s of thousands of ounce of paper gold (around $228 million notional) into the market…

     

    And maybe higher rates are bad after all…

     

    Japanese stocks are tumbling

     

    As the world, contrary to a surge in pent up expectations that China is finally fine, realize that it isn’t following this weekend’s miss in both the Manufacturing PMI, and slide in the non-manufacturing PMi to the lowest level since 2008.

     

    Finally, was the hawkish Fed hawkish not just to punk another iteration of Eurodollar/FF traders, but because its FRB/US model actually believes that there is no more slack in the economy and a December rate hike is imminent as reported earlier?

  • "What The Heck Is Going On Here"

    Succinctly summarizing the state of the mainstream media’s cognitive dissonance at the state of ‘real’ America…

     

     

    Source: Townhall.com

  • Ban Ki-Moon Condemns The American Stand On Syria, Endorses Putin's

    Authored by Eric Zuesse,

    In an interview with Spanish newspapers that was published October 31st, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon condemned U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be removed from office, and Moon said: “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people.”

    Here is the entire quotation:

    "The future of President Assad must be decided by the Syrian people. Now, I do not want to interfere in the process of Vienna, but I think it is totally unfair and unreasonable that the fate of a person [diplomatese here for: U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Assad be removed from the Presidency of Syria] to paralyze all this political negotiation. This is not acceptable. It's not fair. The Syrian government insists that Assad should be part of the transition. Many Western countries oppose the Syrian government’s position. Meanwhile, we lost years. 250,000 people have been killed. There are 13 million refugees or internally displaced. Over 50% of hospitals, schools and infrastructure has been destroyed in Syria. You must not lose more time. This crisis goes beyond Syria, beyond the region. It affects Europe. It is a global crisis.”

    The U.N. Secretary General is here implicitly blaming all of this – lots of blood and misery – on U.S. President Obama, and on the “many Western countries” who ally with him and have joined with him in demanding regime-change in Syria.

    The position of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been, and is, to the exact contrary of Obama’s: namely, that only an election by the Syrian people can determine whom Syria’s President should be. The U.N. Secretary General is here agreeing with Putin, and rejecting Obama’s demand, that the matter be determined instead by non-Syrians, and by non-democratic means (which is basically like George W. Bush did in Iraq, and like Barack Obama did in Libya).

    Suckers in the West fall for the Western aristocracies’ line that Putin and not Obama is wrong on this and is the cause of the dragged-out Syrian war. Such fools don’t even ask themselves whether in this dispute it is Obama, or instead Putin, who is supporting the most basic democratic principle of self-rule by the people. But the average individual is that manipulable: so manipulable as to think that black is white, and white is black; that good is bad, and bad is good. Totally manipulable.

    This interview was buried by Spanish newspapers, because the Spanish government is allied with the United States. For example, the most prominent Spanish newspaper to publish even quotations from this interview is El Pais, and their headline for the story is "Catalonia is not among the territories with the right to self-determination.” Even there, the headline is false. What Moon actually said instead on that issue of the Catalonian independence movement, was: “The Catalan question is a very delicate matter and, while the UN Secretary General, I'm not in a position to comment on that because it is a purely internal matter.” Lies and distortions in the Western ‘news’ media are that routine: so obvious, sometimes, virtually any intelligent reader can easily recognize that he’s reading lies and propaganda (like in that ‘news’ story).

    This newspaper actually buried the part about Assad and Obama (the blockbuster in the entire story) near the end, but not at the very end, of its report, because one of the standard things that ‘news’ media do if they want to de-emphasize a particular point is to bring the matter up near the end but not at the end. To place it at  the end, would emphasize, instead of de-emphasize, the given point: it’s not the professional way to bury news. Knowledge of how to bury news is important for the managers of any ‘news’ medium, because such knowledge is essential in order to make the medium achieve the objectives of the medium’s owner, the propagandistic function, which is the main reason why wealthy people buy major ‘news’ media, and why major corporations chose to advertise in (and thereby subsidize) these media (which increases that given ‘news’ media-owner’s income). 

    As to why the managers (including editors) of El Pais wanted their ‘reporter’ to misrepresent Moon as being opposed to Catalan independence, the reason is that the owners of El Pais are opposed to Catalan independence. It’s not only in the editorials. With very few exceptions, a newspaper’s editorials and its ‘news’ reporting are slanted the same way. However, sometimes, for particular reasons, the editorial position is instead slanted the opposite way from the ‘news’ ‘reporting.’ Public relations, or PRopaganda, is a science, not for amateurs. And a major function of management is to apply that science so as to maximize value for the medium’s owners. It’s like any business, but the press is also part of the business of government: moulding the public’s opinions so as to serve the needs of the aristocracy that owns the vast majority of the nation’s wealth. The idea of ‘the free press’ is itself PRopaganda. In reality, the press is far from free.

    Anyway, Ban ki-Moon took a rare courageous position here: what he said was correct, though it’s virtually unmentionable in the West. For example: how widely is this news-report being published? It was submitted to virtually all national news-media in the U.S. and several other Western countries. You can google the headline, “Ban Ki Moon Condemns the American Stand on Syria, Endorses Putin’s” to find out how many (and which ones) are actually publishing it.

    *  *  *

     

  • JPM Quants: The Catalyst For The October Rally Is Over; "All 4 Sectors Are Currently Long Equities"

    When it comes to predicting the market’s turbulent swings over the late summer, JPM’s quant team has been absolutely phenomenal, with virtually every single call being absolutely spot on. We previously documented the best exampled as follows:

    But it was his final call, that from the end of September, that may have been the most monumental. We flagged it on September 24 as follows: “Bears Beware, JPM’s Head Quant Just Flipped To Bullish: “The Technical Buying Begins” and we noted that, according to JPM’s calculations, quants are about to unleash a major buying spree.

    This is what happened after:

     

    JPM was right. Again.

    Where do we stand now? Here is the latest from JPM’s quant wizards:

    Since September 29th, balanced mutual funds has been the best performing sector among the above four sectors returning almost 7%. They are followed by risk parity funds which are up by 3% and Discretionary Macro hedge funds which are up by 1%. CTAs are the worst performing sector returning a negative 2%. In other words, among the four sectors, CTAs are the ones suffering the most due to their short equity exposure, while balance mutual funds benefited the most from the equity rally due to high equity exposure. How high are these equity exposures currently?

     

    Figure 2 shows the 21-day rolling betas to equities for balanced mutual funds.

     

     

    This beta started rising sharply in mid September and by mid October it had surpassed the previous high for the year seen last June. The equity beta of balanced mutual funds currently stands at a very high level by historical standards, creating vulnerability for equity markets in the near term. Similar to balanced mutual funds, risk parity funds appear to have also  increased their equity exposure sharply over the past month and their equity beta returned to levels last seen in early August (Figure 3).

     

     

    The behavior of Discretionary Macro hedge funds and CTAs has been different. While Discretionary Macro hedge funds appear to have also raised their equity exposure over the past month, the rise was much less pronounced than that of either balanced mutual funds or risk parity funds. Their equity beta currently stands at a modest positive level and well below that of early August. CTAs, which had adopted a short position in equities from the beginning of August already, had increased their shorts in September and early October. But they appear to have capitulated in the middle of October, by not only cutting their equity shorts, but reversing and moving to a long position instead. This is shown more clearly in Figure 5 which shows both the 21-day and 10-day rolling equity beta of CTAs. The 10-day beta is a better reflection of the behavior of CTAs over the most recent couple of weeks, as it is not affected by observations during the first half of the month. This 10-day rolling equity beta shows an abrupt shift from a short to a long position in equities around the mid of the month. Indeed, while CTAs had suffered a loss of around 4% in the first two weeks of the month, they made a profit of 1% during the second half.

    Putting it all together:

    In all, while balanced mutual funds and risk parity funds are the ones which appear to have triggered the equity rally since the end of September, the rally was amplified at around mid October by CTA capitulation. The reversal of CTAs equity exposure from a short to a long position means that all four sectors, CTAs, Discretionary Macro hedge funds, risk parity funds and multi-asset or balanced mutual funds, are currently long equities. 

    In other words, the catalyst that unleashed the torrid October rally which culminated with the biggest point gain in the S&P500 in history, is now over. As for retail…

    Retail investors appear to have had little participation in October’s equity rally with the exception of the end of the month, i.e. the week ending October 28th when their equity fund buying was more significant.

    The two key points: the forced technical buying at the end of September, correctly predicted by JPM, is now gone, as “all four sectors, CTAs, Discretionary Macro hedge funds, risk parity funds and multi-asset or balanced mutual funds, are currently long equities.” This means that either the corporate buybacks go into overdrive and soak up the excess risk exposure which the technical buyers have on their books, or retail investors do.

    If neither happens, expect another downside volatile month, especially if the market realizes that – as we reported earlier this morning – even the Fed’s own forecasting model now suggests slack in the economy is gone and the time to hike rates in December has arrived.

  • "The Output Gap Appears Closed" – The Fed's Model Just Confirmed A December Rate Hike

    Back on July 24, as we first wrote then, the 2 Year bond yield suddenly tumbled just before noon…

     

    … when it was discovered that “accidentally” the Fed released its confidential, policy-driving economic projections, alongside its public forecasts, as calculated by the Federal Reserve’s FRB/US computer model.

    These were far more dovish than most, at the time, expected and certainly far worse than the Fed’s public computer model data indicated. To wit: “While superficially, and as expected, the Fed is assuming a 1.26% fed funds rate in one year, suggesting about 3-4 rate hikes until then, with the first one according to the leaked documents taking place in Q3, the overall strength of the economy is well weaker, and thus more dovish, than many of the permabulls had expected.”

    This led to a sharp repricing of both short-term rates and inflation expectations. Four months later we find that, at least one, the Fed’s model was right, ironically this happened when it had predicted a slowdown.

    As a reminder, approximately every three months, Federal Reserve Board staff update and publish on the Board’s website a package of computer code of the Board staff’s FRB/US model of the U.S. economy, including a set of illustrative economic projections based only on publicly available information.

    On June 29, an updated package of code was posted that inadvertently included three files containing staff economic forecasts that are confidential FOMC information. Two files contained charts of the staff’s projections for economic variables such as the unemployment rate, the core inflation rate, and gross domestic product growth as well as the staff’s assumption for the path of the federal funds rate target selected by the FOMC. Another file contained computer code used to generate a table displaying staff economic projections.

    Three months after the July 24th fiasco, this Friday afternoon the Fed released an updated set of FRB/US outputs which this time may have precipitated the late day selloff as the results showed a vastly different picture than the one revealed in July. The model also may explain the unexpectedly hawkish tone in the Fed’s October statement.

    In short: the model validated concerns that the Fed may hike rates in December because the Fed’s take, at least as modeled under Excel, is that the “slack in the US economy has substantively disappeared.” This is shown in the chart below which shows the dramatic divergence between the last and most recent FRB/US forecast on the US output gap.

    To explain the chart above, Bloomberg cites Barclays’ chief US economist Michael Gapen (who previously worked at the Fed) who pored through the Fed model data, “the output gap appears closed. This means further progress would lead to resource scarcity and potential upward pressure on inflation in the medium term.”

    Gapen said that may explain why U.S. central bankers signaled this week that they will consider the first interest-rate increase since 2006 at their next meeting, on Dec. 15-16. Finally, “the model assumes that the Federal Open Market Committee raises the benchmark lending rate in late 2015.”  

    Which leaves the one and only FOMC meeting left this year: that on December 15-16.

    Some more details from the Barclays note:

    According to the bank, “the updated output is consistent with near-term liftoff of the fed funds rate, with a risk toward a later liftoff should further softness in inflation manifest. The model now shows much less assumed cyclical slack in the economy and has a softer path of inflation, highlighting the FOMC’s current dilemma as the two parts of their objective move in opposite directions.”

    Barclays ran the FRB/IS model using the most recent data, and had the following additional take-aways:

    Figure 1: The fed funds rate:  FRB/US now assumes that the FOMC increases the fed funds rate in late 2015. We see this lift off as consistent with a December rate hike. Of note, FRB/US, like all other state space or DSGE models of the economy, calls for an immediate and rapid liftoff of policy rates. This immediate lift off has been a feature of FRB/US output since late 2014. The models see most variables as close to their long-run levels and hence the model calls for a return of interest rates to their long-run level (in other words, models do not take into account latent headwinds such as financial frictions or credit constraints in the economy).

    Of note, all variables in the model must converge to long-run levels imposed by staff. At least in the assumptions used for this public version of FRB/US, the staff sees the long-run level of the funds rate at 3.5%, down 25bp from their previous release. This estimate is still higher than our belief (3.0 to 3.25%) but has gradually converged toward our estimate. The staff’s current assumption is down from the 4% level assumed by the Board as recently as late last year.

    Figure 1: Funds path consistent with December

    Figure 2:  The unemployment rate:  The staff moved the long-run level of the unemployment rate (NAIRU) lower in the October 30 release of the model. At 4.9%, NAIRU is two-tenths lower than in the previous version of the model. The lower level of NAIRU is consistent with the views of the committee as expressed in the SEP. The SEP shows the long-run level of the unemployment rate at 4.9%. With unemployment currently at 5.1%, FRB/US assumes very little change in the unemployment rate over time. This view is quite different than ours. We forecast ongoing declines in the unemployment rate and see it reaching 4.3% by end 2016.

    Not shown in the output of the model, the stability of the unemployment rate implies either an increase in the LFPR (labor force participation rate) or a sharp slowing in employment growth. According to our estimates holding LFPR constant, the level of employment growth that keeps the unemployment rate constant is 76k per month. Alternatively, an increase in LFPR of about 0.7pp would allow NAIRU to stabilize with employment growth near its recent average.

    Figure 2: NAIRU pushed down to 4.9%

    Figure 3: Core PCE inflation: The updated path for core PCE inflation closely matches our current forecast. In our forecast, the stabilization in oil prices should lead headline inflation to rebound early next year, but we look for recent dollar appreciation and ongoing declines in Chinese producer prices to lead to a moderation in tradable goods inflation through mid-2016. The release of September PCE inflation this morning is consistent with this view, as the sharp drag from goods prices (-3.2% y/y) led to an unchanged year-on-year rate of core inflation at 1.3%. The FRB/US model agrees and shows the firming in core inflation as giving way to a modest softening through mid-2016. As shown in Figure 3, the October 30 path shows a shallower path from Q1 16 through Q4 17 than the previous FRB/US update.

    Figure 3: PCE inflation slightly lower

    Figure 4: Real GDP growth: The October 30 update for FRBUS also shows a slower growth profile after this year and a lower long-run potential growth rate. As shown in Figure 4, the updated path has y/y rates of economic growth gradually slowing from 2.5% in Q1 16 to 2.1% in 2020. Based on FOMC communications, including minutes to recent FOMC meetings, we believe the shallower growth path likely reflects greater assumed dollar appreciation. In addition, the long-run growth rate is two-tenths lower than the previous FRB/US update (2.1% now versus 2.3% previously). Since this growth rate at the end of the horizon is imposed by staff, we interpret this as suggesting staff has likely reduced its estimate of potential growth, as did FOMC participants in the September forecast round.

    Our view of potential growth is more pessimistic at about 1.5%, but our estimate is weighted heavily to current trends and is not equivalent to the Fed’s long-run estimate. Board staff have likely assumed that productivity growth, which has been much slower in the post-recession environment, rebounds over time as headwinds to the US economy dissipate. We do not discount this possibility, but leave this as an open question for the data to resolve over time.

    Figure 4: Real GDP growth slows after this year

    And the most important chart: The output gap:  Board staff now see the output gap as closing by Q1 2016. To achieve this closing especially given their mark down of real GDP growth, they sharply lowered their estimate of potential growth in 2015. This change likely has policy implications as it indicates a staff view that there is no longer substantive slack in the US economy.

    Figure 5: Potential output slashed to close output gap despite slower growth profile

    * * *

    Finally, just in case someone is skeptical that any of the above computer simulations just “might” be wrong, here is an example of the code that gives the Fed a better understanding of reality than reality itself.

    As it turns out, everyone does live in the Matrix. The Fed’s “model” matrix that is, which at least to the Fed is far more important than the “reality” some 99% of the US population live in, those who never benefited from the Fed’s generous injection of $3 trilion in bank reserves.

  • Stocks, Symmetry, & A Significant Threat To The Global Economy

    Submitted by NorthmanTrader.com,

    If you been following our technical chart segment you have seen the evolution of one particular chart: That of the daily $SPX. The rejection of price on Friday, after yet another push higher, occurred at the level of an arch that we have been observing unfold over the past year. Now there is no technical pattern called the “arch”, but one cannot deny that since September 2014 price rejections have taken place along very specific points that now offer stunning symmetry.

    It is not only the arch here which has proved superbly precise, but the confluences of price rejections are incredible.

    Consider:

    September 2014: 2019.25 September 2015: 2020.32

    December 2014: 2093.55  October 2015: 2094.32:

    Coincidence? Hardly:

    SPX Symmetry

    One can’t help but wonder if all of January – July 2015 was simply the building of a giant head.

    Consider also that the MACD is at its most extended since the year 2000 top and the RSI actually made a lower high versus the December 2014 2093.55 peak. Also of note is that the $SPX is the furthest disconnected from its 50MA to the upside in years.

    Taking these facts into consideration, especially in context of the weekly and monthly charts we’ve been highlighting, the potential for a giant heads and shoulders pattern remains fully in play.

    What will break the pattern? Likely a decisive and confirmed close above 2094 on a weekly basis and/or new highs.

    What will confirm the pattern? New lows and a break of the lower neckline.

    The target? Depending on how you define the neckline (were it to break) it invites a visit back to 2007 highs. Yes the pattern is indeed this large:

    SPXM

    That would be a drop of over 25%. A very steep correction into 2016 and something that central banks are clearly desperate to avoid. Central banks, as academia, know the truth:

    “It is unclear whether the sell-off is over or has slightly paused; in the latter case we could be headed for a potentially very serious equity slump by historic standards,” economists Adam Slater and Melanie Rama said in their report. “A sharp correction in global equity prices would pose a significant threat to the global economy. By reducing wealth, Oxford’s economic models suggest a 15 percent drop in the MSCI could cut the level of world gross domestic product by as much as 0.7 percent after two years. A 30 percent shock would knock off as much as 1.5 percent.”

    Central banks can’t afford a big correction to take place as it goes counter to their mandate, a stable growing economy, hence they interfere every single time a correction of size is about to unfold. And any threat to the global economy must be prevented. So it’s no accident that we have seen all price expansion since $SPX 2020 in October come on the heels of Mario Draghi hinting at additional QE coming in December and the PBOC cutting rates just a day later. Now that fiscal year end mark-ups are over for many funds buyers have to prove how committed they are to driving markets higher.

    Price will ultimately confirm how this will play out, but altogether this $SPX chart is an amazing construct of symmetry and, as a fan of structures and symmetry, it certainly has my attention. I can’t recall ever seeing such a precise structure.

  • Iraq Turns On America: “Iraqi People Have Started To Feel That The US Isn't Serious About Fighting ISIS"

    If you frequent these pages, you’re well aware of why the US decided to release helmet cam footage of a raid on an ISIS prison in the northern Iraqi town of Huwija. 

    Put simply, Baghdad has had just about enough of Washington’s “strategy” for fighting terror in the country and when PM Haider al-Abadi said he would welcome Russian airstrikes, the US panicked. Rather than try to recount the story by paraphrasing ourselves, we’ll simply include our most succinct summary of what exactly is going on in Iraq, originally published here:

    Perhaps the most astounding thing about recent events in the Mid-East is the extent to which outcomes that seem far-fetched one week become reality the next. 

     

    This dynamic began back in June when Iran’s most powerful general vowed to “surprise the world” with his next move in Syria. Just weeks later, he was in Moscow (in violation of a UN travel ban) hatching a plan with Putin to launch an all-out invasion on behalf of Assad on the way to forcibly enacting a dramatic shift in the Mid-East balance of power. Before the West had a chance to react, Moscow was establishing an air base at Latakia. 

     

    As all of this unfolded we began to suggest that it would be only a matter of time before Russian airstrikes began in Iraq.

     

    The setup, we contended, was just too perfect. Iran controls both the military and politics in the country and so, we speculated that The Kremlin would get a warm welcome if Putin decided to launch an air campaign against ISIS targets across Syria’s eastern border. 

     

    Sure enough, Baghdad moved to establish an intelligence cell with Russia, Syria, and Iran in September and when PM Haider al-Abadi said he would welcome Russian airstrikes, it was clear that the US was about to be booted out of the country it “liberated” more than a decade ago. 

     

    Subsequently, Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford traveled to Baghdad and gave Abadi an ultimatum: “…it’s either us or the Russians.”

     

    Well, despite Dunford’s contention that Abadi promised not to enlist Moscow’s help, just days later Iraq gave Moscow the green light to strike ISIS convoys fleeing Syria. 

     

    A desperate Washington then attempted to prove that the US could still be effective at fighting terrorism by sending 30 Delta Force soldiers into battle with the Peshmerga on a prison raid mission in the Northern Iraqi town of Huwija. Conveniently, one American soldier apparently had a GoPro strapped to his helmet and the footage was almost immediately leaked to Western media. 

    Washington apparently assumed that the successful raid would be enough to restore the faith because the Pentagon immediately began to formulate a “plan” to send Apache gunships and their crews to Baghdad. In what has to be considered one of the more embarrassing moments in a string of setbacks for America’s Mid-East “strategy,” Baghdad flat out told the US “thanks, but no thanks”: 

    “This is an Iraqi affair and the government did not ask the U.S. Department of Defense to be involved in direct operations,” spokesman Sa’ad al-Hadithi told NBC News. “We have enough soldiers on the ground.”

    The White House kind of brushed that off and moved on to talking about spec ops in Syria, but the implication is that if the US plans on getting more heavily involved in combat operations in Iraq, Washington will have to do so through Erbil, not through Baghdad. 

    This all comes on the heels of a push by Iraqi forces and Iran-backed militias to retake a key oil refinery at Baiji from Islamic State. That battle underscored the extent to which Tehran essentially controls the Iraqi army (not to mention Iraqi politics). Consider the following brief excert from The NY Times

    “A spokesman for Shiite militias said that several thousand Shiite militiamen were fighting in and near Baiji, which is more than the estimated number of Iraqi soldiers also fighting there.” 

    As regular readers know, this is no conspiracy theory. It’s common knowledge among those who study the region that Iran’s militias are more powerful than the Iraqi regulars and the Quds Force essentially controls the political process in Baghdad. You can read more about this here, here, and here.

    This creates a rather tenuous situation for Washington. The US must maintain a kind of loose alliance with the Shiite militias in Iraq lest the Pentagon should be forced to explain to the public why America doesn’t support groups that are very effectively fighting ISIS. But there are two problems with that: i) it’s not entirely clear that the US wants to rid Iraq and Syria of ISIS and you can bet the IRGC is whispering that in the ears of every Shiite politician in Baghdad, and ii) these very same Shiite militias are fighting the Assad regime at Aleppo where the US is supplying anti-tank weapons to Sunni extremists. 

    Well, just as the Western public is beginning to realize that something rather fishy is going on in Syria, Iraqis are throwing in the towel on the US “effort” to rid the country of Islamic State fighters. Here’s WSJ with more on how the locals feel in the wake of the assault on the Baiji refinery:

    A big victory over Islamic State here provided fresh ammunition for the many Iraqi Shiites who prefer Iran as a battlefield partner over the U.S., despite indications that Washington could soon intensify its battle against the extremist militants.

     

    Shiite militias and politicians backed by Iran have claimed much of the credit for the Iraqi recapture a little over a week ago of the city and oil refinery of Beiji, about 130 miles north of Baghdad. Militia fighters danced and posed for pictures on tanks and armored cars near the bombed-out shell of the massive refinery there, Iraq’s largest.

     

    Powerful Iraqi politicians and militia leaders have cited the yearlong operation to retake the city as evidence that Iraqis can combat Islamic State alone—or with help only of the Iran-backed militias. Some are now lobbying Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to rely less on the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State and more on the PMF.

     

    “Iraqi people in general, not only us, have started to feel that the Americans are not serious at all about the fight against Islamic State,” said Moeen Al- Kadhimi, a spokesman for the Iran-backed Badr Corps militia. “Every victory that the PMF does without the help of the Americans is a big embarrassment for the Americans.”

    For those who might have missed it, here are images from the fight which depict Iran’s proxy armies on the scene at Baiji:

    Of course rather than simply take the high road and consent that regardless of who was ultimately responsible for taking back the refinery, it was a step in the right direction, Washington has decided to deride Iran’s militias for absolutely no reason at all. Back to WSJ: 

    U.S. officers say the Iran-backed proxy militias known as Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF, played only a supporting role. The bulk of the fighting was by Iraqi federal police and elite counterterrorism units trained by the U.S., the American officers said.


    “It’s easy to say after the fact that ‘we did this,’ ” said Maj. Michael Filanowski, an officer for the Combined Joint Task Force, which organizes operations of the U.S.-led coalition. “But if you look at the sequence of events, it was Iraqi security forces that did the assault operations.”

     

    He called the militias a “hold force,” meaning they secured the territory after it fell to the Iraqi forces.

    So let’s just be clear. Either, i) the US is so petty that the Pentagon is willing to argue over who played a larger role in retaking Iraq’s largest oil refinery from ISIS, or ii) Washington is actually angry that ISIS was defeated and is thus lashing out at Tehran. 

    Whatever the case, it’s too late. The game is up for the US in Iraq:

    On Monday, Ali Adeeb, head of the State of Law bloc that controls the ruling coalition in parliament, called on Iraq’s government to prevent the U.S. from launching further ground operations like the prison raid.


    Meanwhile, pro-Iranian Iraqi politicians are pointing to a grinding U.S.-led effort to retake Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province about 65 miles west of the capital, as evidence the U.S. isn’t doing enough to defeat Islamic State.


    For some Shiite politicians, Ramadi and Beiji epitomize the diverging fortunes of U.S. and Iran in Iraq.


    “The two operations in those two cities represent the competition between the U.S.-led coalition and the newly formed alliance among Russia, Iran and Iraq,” said Hakim al-Zamili, a prominent Shiite politician and head of the security and defense committee in parliament.


    The battlefield succic State, said Patrick Martin, an Iraq analyst at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War.

    [Reports”] in Beiji will also make it harder for the prime minister to refuse entreaties for more support from Russia in the fight against Islam

    “Russia and Iran have very similar objectives in that they both want to eject U.S. influence from Iraq,” said Mr. Martin. “Any success that the militias have bolsters that goal.”

    There are two critical takeaways here. First (and we’ve said this repeatedly) these are the very same Shiite militias battling US-backed Sunni fighters in Syria. Second, this is but another example of Washington siding with Sunni extremists over Tehran. This is a replay of what happened in the wake of 9/11 when Iran sought to help the US target the Taliban and al-Qaeda only to see The White House place Tehran in its “Axis Of Evil.” Here again, we have Sunni militants terrorizing both Syria and Iraq and instead of working with the Iranians to oust those extremists, Washington is busy downplaying their successes and supporting the proxy armies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar even as those proxy armies behead Westerners and burn Jordanian pilots alive.

    This is a travesty and an absolute farce.

    The US is on the wrong side of history here and it’s too late to correct it.

  • "Social Expenditures" In the US Are Higher Than All Other OECD Countries, Except France

    Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

    According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "social expenditures" are expenditures that occur with the purpose of redistributing resources from one group to another, in order to benefit a lower-income or presumably disadvantaged population.

    Social Security in the US is one example, and would be considered a "public expenditure" because it involves direct spending by a government agency.

    However, governmental bodies in the US and elsewhere also employ a wide array of mandates and tax-based benefits and incentives to carry out social policy. This distinguishes the US in particular from most European countries that rely more on cash benefits or non-cash benefits administered directly by governments.

    But governments are not limited to direct benefits. Governments may also employ "tax breaks for social purposes" (TBSPs) including tax credits for child care, and tax breaks for health-care related spending. 

    Furthermore, in the United States —  more so than in other countries — governments create tax incentives and mandates that lead to high levels of "private social expenditure." The OECD defines these private expenditures as expenditures that are designed to redistribute wealth, but are not administered directly by government agencies:

    Mandatory private social expenditure: social support stipulated by legislation but operated through the private sector , e. g. direct sickness payments by employers to their absent employees as legislated by public authorities, or benefits accruing from mandatory contributions to private insurance funds.

    Voluntary private social expenditure: benefits accruing from privately operated programmes that involve the redistribution of resources across households and include benefits provided by NGOs, and benefit accruing from tax advantaged individual plans and collective (often employment – related ) support arrangements , such as for example, pensions, childcare support, and, in the US, employment – related health plans 

    The focus on direct government spending, however, creates the impression that the US does not engage in the business of redistributing wealth to the degree of other OECD-type countries. But this is not the case. When we consider tax incentives, benefits, and mandates, the picture is very different.

    When just measuring direct government spending as a percentage of GDP,  the US ranks fairly low. Note however, that even in this case, the US ranks above both Australia and Canada, two countries that are rarely accused of being excessively capitalist:

    Direct social spending by government constitutes 18.6 percent of GDP in the US. In Australia, the total is 16.9 percent, and in Canada, it is 16.3 percent. France tops the list with 29.4 percent. 

    But this just captures spending by government entities. When we look at other types of spending that result from tax incentives and mandates, things look different.

    Once tax breaks for social purposes (TBSPs) are included, the US begins to look much more similar to its European counterparts. By this measure, the US falls in the middle, with more net social spending (as a percentage of GDP) than New Zealand, Norway, Luxembourg, Australia, and Canada:

     

    By this measure, social spending constitutes  20.1 percent in the US, compared to 17.4 percent in Australia and 15.3 percent in Canada. Luxembourg is 18.0 percent and Norway is 18.1 percent. France, again, tops the list with 27.9 percent.

    These tax breaks have the effect of encouraging "private" social expenditures as well, including health care spending (for example).

    Once these "private" sources of social spending are included, we find that the US spends the most by far. We should note also that these figures, from 2011, predate the enactment of "Obamacare," and do not reflect what will likely entail far greater amounts of private social social expenditure on health care.

    In this measure, private social spending comes in at 10.1 percent which is almost twice as much as the next big private spender, the Netherlands, at 5.2 percent. The United Kingdom comes in third at 4.8 percent:

     

     
    So, once we take this into account, we get what the OECD calls "net total social expenditure." It is, of course, deceptive to ignore social expenditures that take a form other than cash transfers and transactions with government agencies. After all, numerous countries other than the US employ legislation (including tax law) to incentivize or mandate social spending with the specific purpose of providing benefits or advantages to certain households.

    The resulting analysis looks like this:

    In the US, net total social expenditures amount to 28.7 percent of GDP. Only France shows a higher rate than this with 31.2 percent. Belgium comes in third at 27.4 percent.

    Conclusions

    There are a few things we can learn from this analysis. First of all, it is important to note that the US does not redistribute resources any less than other countries. Like most other "developed" countries, the US employs a wide variety of public policies to benefit certain groups and income levels.

    Additionally, when taken together, the expenditures that result from these public policies are sizable, and even exceed nearly all other countries measured.

    Left-wing pundits and scholars who wish to portray the US as a kind of hyper-capitalist social-Darwinist system conveniently focus on direct cash transfers and social spending by government agencies while ignoring other sources of social expenditures. At the same time, conservatives and right wing pundits, for different reasons, often attempt to portray the US government as a regime that engages in less redistribution of wealth than other states. Both groups are mistaken.

    Whether or not the policies employed in the US have had the effect preferred by advocates of more social spending is a separate matter from the amount spent overall. We cannot honestly say that the US is some sort of outlier when the US clearly engages in social expenditures in proportions that rival multiple states in Western and Northern Europe.

    Nor should we ignore the fact that the the redistributive policies employed by the US lead to just as many distortions to the economy as does the direct social spending favored by European governments. Tax breaks for homeowners, for example, create incentives for buying homes which distorts real estate markets while increasing the relative tax burden on renters. Tax incentives that encourage more spending on health care drive up health care prices. And so on. And of course, the US employs a wide variety of direct spending and subsidy schemes that create distortions of their own, including Social Security, Medicaid, "Section 8," and others.

    Ultimately, we are forced to conclude that redistributive social spending in the US is indeed different from many other countries. But the overall magnitude is actually greater (both proportionally and in absolute terms) in the US than in almost all other countries measured. One can argue that the way that the wealth is redistributed through public policy in the US is "wrong" or "suboptimal." But, to argue that there is less redistribution as a result of public policy in the US than elsewhere is simply wrong.

  • $20 Trillion In Government Bonds Yield Under 1%: The Stunning Facts How We Got There

    Last week we wrote that in the latest bout of European NIRP panic, “Over Half Of European 2-Year Bonds Trade At Record Negative Yields” with Italy now paid to issue debt, with a follow-up in which even very serious banks are now looking at the Eurozone’s record €2.6 trillion in negative-yielding debt, and finding that the lower yields drop, the greater the savings rates across the continent

    … suggesting a “policy failure” as even more cash ends up inert on bank balance sheets instead of being spent on either the economy or asset price inflation.

    And while the €2.6 trillion number noted above is massive, and as we showed last week is a record for the amount of debt trading under negative rates in Europe…

     

    … here are some shocking statistics on how we got there, and which we all take for granted, courtesy of BofA:

    • There have been 606 global rate cuts since LEH
    • $12.4 trillion of central bank asset purchases (QE) since Bear Stearns
    • The Fed is operating a zero rate policy for the longest period ever (even exceeding the WW2 Aug’37-Sep’42 zero rate period)
    • European central banks operating negative rate policies (Swiss policy rate currently -0.75%; Sweden’s policy rate currently -0.35
    • Just this month, the PBoC cut rates, the ECB confirmed QE2, Sweden announced additional QE, and the BoJ promised additional easing if necessary “without hesitation”
    • $6.3 trillion global government bonds currently yielding <0%
    • $20.0 trillion global government bonds currently yielding <1%

    But wait, there’s more in describing what BofA says is the most immense and long-lasting monetary stimulus, i.e., bubble,  in history:

    • For every 1 job created in the US this decade, US corporations have spent $296,000 on stock buybacks
    • An investment of $100 in a portfolio of global stocks & bonds (60:40) since the onset of QE1 would now be worth $205; in contrast, a wage of $100 has risen to just $114 over the same period
    • US prime (“CBD”) office real estate has appreciated 168% this decade; in contrast, the value of US residential property across America has risen just 16% (see Chart 5)

    • For every $100 US venture capital & private equity funds raised Jan 1st 2010 they are now raising $275; in contrast, for every $100 of US mortgage credit extended and accepted at the beginning of this decade, just $61 was extended and accepted in June 2015 (see Chart 6 – a big reason the US consumer remains so moribund)

    • In 2014 London accounted for 26% of the value of all housing sales in England, despite accounting for just 1% of the land area

    And so on.

    What can end this wholesale lunacy which only economists fail to grasp for what it is: the biggest global asset bubble in the history of humanity, leading to a monetary ice age across the world’s economies (as the velocity of money drops to zero or goes negative) which as Albert Edwards so aptly predicted years ago, is the natural counter to asset price hyperinflation? Alas, with all central banks now clearly all-in on the last and final attempt to reflate the world’s $200+ trillion in debt (a default is not an option as it would wipe out tens of trillions in “legacy” equity wealth) expect many more exponential charts in the coming months before the inevitable admission of “policy failure” by central planners which, if past is prologue, will come during the sound of guns.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News November 1, 2015

  • The Empty Bus

    From the Slope of Hope: With all the grousing and grumbling I do here, I thought I’d change my tone and write up a genuinely positive, optimistic post. This has to do with what I think will be a tectonic shift over the next twenty years: transportation.

    As dull as that sounds, I think the changes that take place in how we get people (or cargo) from point “A” to point “B” are going to be more profound that Amazon, Facebook, and the iPhone put together. My insight, if you want to be generous enough to call it that, is spawned from a couple of (as is typical for me – – negative) observations I make on a periodic basis.

    The first observation is one I make almost daily: in spite of the relative wealth of the San Francisco peninsula, there are buses all over the place. Some of them are the fabled “white buses” that tote highly-paid twenty-somethings from Google and Facebook back to their residences in San Francisco. But most of them are the large (and sometimes double-length) VTA buses that drive all over the Santa Clara valley, and there is one thing I notice about virtually every one of them: they’re empty or near-empty. As they rumble by, I typically see two or three people sitting in a bus that holds 50 to 100 people.

    The other observation I have is that the people driving these buses are really, really, really overpaid. Many of them make six figures. One fellow mentioned in this article was clearing almost $200,000. For driving a bus. This is about as close to “unskilled labor’ as I can imagine. It’s mindless, boring work. And very, very lucrative. (Thank you, civic employee unions!)

    I find inefficiency to be offensive, and just about every aspect of bus systems is offensive to me. Just off the top of my head:

    1. The empty seats are a screaming declaration of inefficiency. To have these huge, gas-guzzling, polluting monstrosities with a quantity of people that could fit into a VW Beetle is preposterous.
    2. The bloated salaries (union-driven, surely) are also wildly out of step with the skill set required.
    3. The passengers themselves have to somehow make their way to the closest bus stop they can find for departure, where in an ideal world I’m sure they’d prefer being driven directly from home, work, or wherever they happen to be.
    4. The destinations are also approximate, because wherever the bus is taking people is surely not quite where they really want to go. As with boarding, the passenger has to figure out the least-bad place to get off the bus so they can make their way to their actual destination.
    5. Even the bus stops themselves are wasteful, because, in the future I am envisioning, they simply wouldn’t exist. That space could be used for something else – – or be simply empty. To say nothing of the huge parking lots where they store all the buses at night.

    In short, it’s a huge waste of space, energy, time, and money. I cringe every time I see one of these things rumble by with hardly anyone on board.

    So what’s going to get better? I think (or hope, at least) a far better world would be one in which small, self-driving cars were deployed all across the nation, and these would be at the beck and call or the same people that are presently riding buses.

    First, let me give you a picture for your mind: here in Palo Alto, we see Google self-driving cars constantly. These have been retrofitted normal vehicles, but recently, the actual Google cars (not modified production cars, but honest-to-God all-Google cars) have been zipping around. They look like this:

    Cute, isn’t it?

    So imagine a working-class person needs to get to their job somewhere. They request the car from their mobile phone, and in about five minutes, the vehicle above pulls up in front of their apartment building. They get in the (driverless) car and are taken to work in the most efficient way possible. There’s no waiting and very little walking. For the passenger, it’s a profoundly better experience.

    Well, that sounds all lovely, but who is going to pay for this convenience? Well, hold on a second. Just think of the costs that are being expended right now on the inferior system in place. There are the aforementioned huge salaries, and with nearly 700,000 bus drivers in the United States alone, the human expense is enormous.

    There are the buses, of course, and all the attendant costs, such as fuel, insurance, replacement parts, repair, and the replacement of worn-out buses. I daresay if you added up all the expenses related to toting individuals from place to place via the bus system and divided it by the number of passenger-miles, you’d get a higher figure than the one you’d get with the “one person/one car” idea I’m offering above.

    Now this sort of thing doesn’t happen overnight. It’s going to take decades. But the technological leap forward of self-driving vehicles is, I believe, going to utterly alter the economic landscape for decades to come, not only with human transportation, but even more broadly with cargo. All the twenty-somethings today that are adding sillier and sillier features to all these social media web sites will be in far more useful occupations in the future as they weed out the grotesque inefficiencies present in worldwide transportation.

    This sounds bone dry, I realize, but I think it’s going to be a very big deal. Google is quite smart to be changing themselves to “Alphabet” and getting into new areas like this, because I think it’s ultimately going to assure they are the largest company on the planet.

    As for what those hundreds of thousands of unemployed bus drivers are going to do with their lives? Or the 3.5 million truck drivers? No clue. That’s going to be just as big a challenge, but I seriously have no idea what the answer could be.

  • Analyst Warns Of Turbulence: "Geopolitical Dislocations Could Result In Key Resource Supplies Disappearing"

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    Some of the world’s biggest investors have been taking significant positions in the commodity resource sector as of late, most notably in gold. With geopolitical tension and fear of economic breakdown reaching a near boiling point, it’s not difficult to see why. Instability pervades the entire system, encompassing everything from financial markets to social safety nets. And while it is easy to ignore the seriousness of current events because stock markets remain at record highs and mainstream pundits continue to toe the recovery line, the fact is that an unexpected and seemingly minor event could well send the entire world into a tailspin.

    According to analyst John Kaiser, this is exactly what we need to be concerned with. In a candid interview with Future Money Trends Kaiser explains just how political dislocations could result in supply lines to critical commodities like food, copper, zinc and gold being cut – even without a major war – should the United States, Russia and China continue to bump heads.


    (Watch at Future Money Trends or Youtube)

    Forget about the big, giant macro-economic increases in overall global GDP, but instead let’s look at the turbulence we’re starting to see where China is asserting itself in the South China Sea area… where Putin is eyeing its lost colonies in Europe and Central Asia and thinking maybe we should re-establish the Soviet empire… where we see instability in the middle east.

     

    Then you also realize that a lot of metal comes from China… a lot of metal comes from Russia. And if we end up in a shoving match where, say, the United States pushes back in the South China Sea… and Chinese generals get all up in arms and we end up with an incident… well what happens if China suddenly has sanctions going against it… or something similar, that Russia goes beyond messing in the Ukraine and starts taking out Latvia or Estonia?

     

    All of a sudden we have not so much nickel coming from Russia anymore… and similar in China.. Tungsten, 85% of it comes from China… graphite, 85% of it comes from China… 40% of the world’s zinc comes from China.

     

    These types of geopolitical dislocations… they could result in supply simply disappearing.

     

    And because the rest of the world is still using the same volume of copper and nickel as before, that’s where you can see price spikes.

    As we know, much of our critical supply chain is dependent on China. Likewise, Russia supplies necessary industrial metals. One misstep here, whether in the South China Sea, Ukraine or the middle east and we could very well see massive price spikes for commodity resources across the board.

    This instability, as John Kaiser notes, could lead to a collective rush of risk capital into safe haven assets, including gold:

    Gold is also supposed to respond to geo-political stresses. When you recall in 1980, yes we had inflation. But also part of the problem in 1980 was that the United States appeared to be losing it… we had the Tehran hostage crisis… we had the Soviet Union expanding itself in Afghanistan… the perception was that the United States was losing its dominant role.

     

     

    If we ended up in a situation of anxiety about… are China, Russia and the United States about to square off? Is the world going to embark on a war footing?

    We could see anxiety about this spike [gold] higher.

    The similarities within this context is that the perception of the United States today compared to 1980 is that we are, indeed, losing our dominant role as the world’s leading economic and military superpower.

    Couple that with geopolitical tensions and economic upheaval around the world, and it’s not hard to see why resource investments into core commodities like food, gold, and industrial metals could spike significantly in the near future.

  • Fed Admits "Something's Going On Here That We Maybe Don't Understand"

    In a somewhat shocking admission of its own un-omnipotence, or perhaps more of a C.Y.A. moment for the inevitable mean-reversion to reality, Reuters reports that San Francisco Fed President John Williams said Friday that low neutral interest rates are a warning sign of possible changes in the U.S. economy that the central bank does not fully understand. With Japan having been there for decades, and the rest of the developed world there for 6 years…

     

    Suddenly, just weeks away from what The Fed would like the market to believe is the first rate hike in almost a decade, Williams decides now it is the time to admit the central planners might be missing a factor (and carefully demands better fiscal policy)… (as Reuters reports)

    "I see this as more of a warning, a red flag that there's something going on here that isn't in the models, that we maybe don't understand as well as we think, and we should dig down deep deeper and try to figure this out better," said San Francisco Federal Reserve President John Williams on Friday pointing out that low neutral interest rates are a warning sign of possible changes in the U.S. economy that the central bank does not fully understand.

    Williams, who is a voting member of the Fed's policy-setting panel through the end of the year, has said the central bank should begin to raise interest rates soon but thereafter go at a gradual pace; ironically adding that the low neutral interest rate had "pretty significant" implications for monetary policy, and put more focus on fiscal policy as a response.

    "If we could come up with better fiscal policy, find a way to have the economy grow faster or have a stronger natural rate of interest, then that takes the pressure off of us to try to come up with other ways to do it, like through a large balance sheet or having a higher inflation target," Williams said. "It also means we don't have to turn to quantitative easing and other policies as much."

    As we noted previously, depending on the importance of the credit channel, the Federal Reserve, by pegging the short term rate at zero, have essentially removed one recessionary market mechanism that used to efficiently clear excesses within the financial system.

    While stability obsessed Keynesians on a quest to the permanent boom regard this as a positive development, the rest of us obviously understand that false stability breeds instability.

     

    It is clear to us that the FOMC in its quest to maintain stability is breeding instability and that previous attempts at the same failed miserably with dire consequences for society. We are sure it is only a matter for time before it happens again.

    And thus, Williams' warning now seems oddly-timed at best, and cover-your-ass tactics at worst perhaps "the matter of time" is about to bite once again…

  • Another Black Swan? Turkey Holds Snap Elections Amid NATO-Backed Civil War

    There’s a potential black swan event taking place in Turkey on Sunday and no one seems to care. That is, the media isn’t devoting nearly enough coverage to Turkish elections considering the impact the outcome will invariably have on the situation in Syria, on the fate of the lira, and on the Pentagon’s strategy with regard to embedding spec ops with the YPG.

    As a reminder, Turkey held elections back in June and the outcome did not please President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

    AKP lost its absolute majority in parliament thanks in no small part to a relatively strong showing by the pro-Kurdish HDP and that meant that Erdogan couldn’t move forward with plans to consolidate his power by amending the constitution. Well, if you know anything about Erdogan, you know that he isn’t exactly the type to take these kinds of things lying down, and so, he decided to trade NATO access to Incirlik for Western acquiescence to a crackdown on the PKK.

    Of course that’s not how it was pitched to the media.

    The official line was that after a suicide bombing in Suruc claimed by ISIS, Ankara decided it was time to go after Islamic State. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s a joke. The PKK and many other observers have long contended that Turkey is complicit in allowing money, guns, and personnel to flow across the border into Syria so that ISIS can continue to destabilize the Assad regime which Ankara opposes. In other words, Erdogan has no interest whatsoever in fighting ISIS. What he does have an interest in is starting a new war with the PKK in order to convince voters that the security situation in Turkey is such that only a dictator can get the situation under control – that’s the whole gambit.

    So what Erdogan did was this: he obstructed the coalition building process in the wake of June’s elections, started a civil war in order to try and convince voters that supporting HDP was a mistake, then called for new elections in November which he hopes will restore AKP’s absolute majority and allow him to change the constitution. It’s deplorable to the point of absurdity (especially given the recent suicide attack in Ankara) and underscores the extent to which ISIS has now become a catch-all smokescreen that can be cited whenever a government wants to do something that would otherwise come across as insane. 

    So that’s the backdrop for Sunday’s elections in Turkey. Here’s a bit of color from Barclays which is useful from a technical perspective, but please remember that this is all about the push and pull between Erdogan and a powerful Kurdish militia. In other words: attempts to analyze this rationally will everywhere and always miss the point but we would note that Barclays does a nice job of taking into account the realities of the situation on the ground and indeed, the bank’s analysts believe the market is mispricing the risk of a geopolitical mishap.

    *  *  *

    From Barclays

    Four months after the June parliamentary elections and the party negotiations failed to produce a new government, Turks are asked to go to the polls again this Sunday (1 November). Market pricing in recent weeks suggests investor optimism that these elections will lead to a swift formation of a new government, possibly in the form of an AKP-CHP coalition.

    We are less sure about such an outcome: the polls do not suggest any significant change in the allocation of votes, nor do we see meaningful changes in party leaders’ attitudes that would imply a greater probability of building a coalition government. In fact, in our view, the political backdrop has become increasingly polarised and fractious.We therefore think the market could become nervous in the absence of signals of tangible progress on coalition talks in a relatively short time, especially given the upcoming Moody’s review on 4 December. 

    The likelihood of a third election is higher than market expectations, in our view. In particular, the probability of a third election would be re-priced higher if the AKP manages to increase its share of the vote in November (ie, towards 43%). In the event of a third election, we see significant risk of a negative rating action, particularly from Moody’s.

    The polarisation in Turkey has deepened further, across political and ethnic lines, as a result of the renewed terror attacks, inflamed political rhetoric and negative repercussions of the Syria issue domestically (particularly among Kurds). The tragic bombing attack in Ankara, which was the worst terror event in the history of the country, not only showed the extent of the polarisation but also highlights equally important problems besetting Turkey. The first is the idea of, ‘adaptive reality’; whereby different factions have moulded events to reach a different perceived reality. A related concept is that of ‘alienation of other’, whereby existing divisions are further deepened by the creation of an environment of mistrust and recrimination.

    The act of “alienation of other” is not something new to Turkey, and has been widely used by political parties at times to consolidate voter base. The side-effects can be toxic and long-lasting, however. It not only makes facilitation of dialogue between political parties nearly impossible (eg, MHP’s isolation of HDP as a party) but can also spread to the general population. A recent example to this was when fans of the national football team protested the moment of silence for the victims of Ankara bombings during Turkey’s football match in Konya, a stronghold for the AKP. There is also evidence of a growing perception among opposition groups that the government has failed to ensure appropriate security during opposition rallies.

    * * *

    Right. The government has no desire to de-escalate here. This is all about convincing the populace that supporting the Kurds leads to an increased incidence of terrorist attacks. 

    But to be clear, no one believes this anymore. This is just as much of an international joke as the idea that Washington, Riyadh, and Doha want to “fight terrorism.” 

    But bear in mind, the results aren’t in question. That is, as Barclays suggests, Erdogan is going to simply undermine the coalition building process on the way to calling for snap elections until he eventually wins. Sadly, this willing usurpation of the democratic process will continue until the President eventually gets his way and the lira will likely collapse until at some point, voters simply give up on democracy and give Erdogan his majority back. 

    Additionally, it’s important to note that this election comes just hours before the US intends to deploy spec ops with Kurdish forces in Syria. As we discussed earlier today, Washington intends to support those toops with sorties flown from Incirlik. If Erodgan doesn’t get the outcome he wants on Sunday and he believes the PKK is responsible, Ankara could begin to re-evaluate its partnership with Washington…

  • HaPPY HoRRoRWeeN 2015

    CENTRAL PLANNING

    .
    DIRTY TRICK OR REFUGEES

    .
    SPACE BUSH

    .
    TRICK OR THIEF

    .
    WHAT BANKS GOT

    .
    WHY SO SYRIAS?

    .
    THE GREAT GOP PUMPKIN

    .
    TEAM USSA

    .
    SCARY BILDERBERG CLOWN HILLARY

  • Crude Supertanker Rates Collapse As VLCC 'Traffic' To China Lowest In 13 Months

    A few days ago we warned, confirming Goldman Sachs' earlier analysis that the world was running out of space to store crude distillate products, that China was running out of storage space for crude oil as it dramatically ramped up its Strategic Petroleum Reserve 'buy low' plan. While the brightest indicator at the time was "about 4 million barrels of crude oil stranded in two tankers off an eastern port for nearly two months," this week, the dial went to 11 on the oil-demand-fear-o-meter, as Bloomberg reports supertankers sailing to Chinese ports plunged to its lowest in 13 months, sending the daily rate for shipping crashing. The marginal demand-er of last resort just left the market.

     

    As a reminder, this is what Goldman said: "the build in Atlantic distillate inventories this year has been large, following near-record refinery utilization in both the US and Europe, only modest demand growth, especially relative to gasoline, and increased imports from the East on refinery expansion and rising Chinese exports."

    As a result, and despite a cold winter in both Europe and the US last year, European and US distillate storage utilization is reaching historically elevated levels, driving a sharp weakening in heating oil and gasoil time spreads.

     

     

    Such high distillate storage utilization has two precedents, leading in both cases to storage capacity running out in the springs of 1998 and 2009, pushing runs and crude oil prices and timespreads sharply lower. This raises the question of whether today’s oil market oversupply can rebalance simply through financial stress – prices remaining near their current low level through 2016 – or if operational stress – breaching storage capacity constraints and forcing prices below cash costs like in 1998 and 2009 – is ineluctable.

    And then something very unexpected happened: the world quietly hit a tipping point when, according to Reuters, China ran out of space to store oil.

    In a report explaining why "oil cargoes bought for state reserve stranded at China port" Reuters notes that "about 4 million barrels of crude oil bought by a Chinese state trader for the country's strategic reserves have been stranded in two tankers off an eastern port for nearly two months due to a lack of storage, two trade sources said."

    And now, as Bloomberg reports,

    VLCCs sailing to Chinese ports at lowest since Sept. 19, 2014, according to ship tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.

     

    As China began its Strategic Petroleum Reserve build in Oct 2014: 89 VLCCs inbound for China…

     

     

    and after ramping up its buying (and VLCC traffic and thus tanker rates),  just 59 ships are now signalling Chinese ports, down by 13 from week earlier…

    And this has sent the daily VLCC rate from Mideast Gulf to East Asia crashing to less than half this year’s recent peak

     

    And just like that China has, if only for the time being, run out of storage facilities. As we concluded previously,

    How long until this translates into an actual drop in oil purchases, and even more importantly, how long until the U.S. itself finds itself in a comparable "overflow" bottleneck, leading to the next, and sharpest yet, drop in oil prices?

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad "Illegal," Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists

    One point we’ve been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin’s move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin’s open “invitation” to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag. 

    That is, it simply wasn’t possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don’t necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

    Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative. 

    Well, it hasn’t worked.

    With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now,  US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington’s effort to oust Assad both “counterproductive” and “illegal.” In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are “our sworn enemy” and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting “World War III.” 

    Enjoy:

    For more on how Russia and Iran’s efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see “ISIS In ‘Retreat’ As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As ‘Weak With No Strategy‘”

  • Mario Draghi Admits Global QE Has Failed: "The Slowdown Is Probably Not Temporary"

    Undoubtedly, the most amusing this about the prospect of more easing from the ECB (as telegraphed by Mario Draghi last week) and the BoJ (where Haruhiko Kuroda just jeopardized his status as monetary madman par excellence by failing to expand stimulus) is that both Europe and Japan both recently slid back into deflation despite trillions in central bank asset purchases. 

    In other words, the market expects both Draghi and Kuroda to double- and triple- down on policies that clearly aren’t working when it comes to altering inflation expectations and/or boosting aggregate demand. Indeed, both Goldman and BofAML said as much last week. For those who missed it, here’s Goldman’s take

    The subdued and increasingly persistent inflation dynamics that have prevailed in recent years may have eroded central banks’ best line of defence in the face of adverse disinflationary shocks. The energy-price-driven decline in Euro area inflation from 2012 to 2015 has thrown this possibility into even sharper relief.

     

    By embarking on unprecedented balance sheet operations and forward guidance, central banks in Europe have sought to ring-fence domestic inflation expectations and signal their intention to maintain monetary conditions easy for a protracted period of time. Mario Draghi himself described the ECB’s asset purchase programme as a way of ensuring that very low (and, at times, negative) inflation does not lead wage- and price-setters to adjust their behaviour to a perceived lower steady-state rate of inflation. However, judging from market-based implied measures of longer-term inflation expectations, the effectiveness of the ECB’s announcements has proved limited so far.

    Or, visually:

    Meanwhile, many critics have accused the ECB of adopting policies that work at cross purposes with Berlin’s insistence on fiscal rectitude. That is, the more Draghi’s PSPP drives down borrowing costs, the less effective the “market” is at pricing risk which in turn means investors aren’t able to punish governments for budgetary blunders. In other words, Spain, Portugal, and Italy shouldn’t be able to borrow for nothing based on the fundamentals, but thanks to the ECB they can – so why implement reforms? 

    And so, ahead of what might fairly be described as one of the most highly anticipated ECB decisions in history, everyone’s favorite Goldmanite gave an interview to Alessandro Merli and Roberto Napoletano. The transcript can be found on the ECB’s website, but we’ve included some notable excerpts below. 

    Perhaps the most interesting passage comes at the outset with Draghi essentially admitting that global QE has demonstrably failed:

    The conditions in the economies of the rest of the world have undoubtedly proved weaker compared with a few months ago, in particular in the emerging economies, with the exception of India. Global growth forecasts have been revised downwards. This slowdown is probably not temporary. To illustrate the importance of emerging markets, it is recalled that they are worth 60% of gross world product and that, since 2000, they have accounted for three-quarters of world growth. Half of euro area exports go to these markets. The risks are therefore certainly on the downside for both inflation and growth, also because of the potential slowdown in the United States, the causes of which we need to understand fully. The crisis led to a sharp drop in incomes. It is up to us to push them up again.

    So, a couple of things there. First, we agree that the “slowdown is probably not temporary.” Indeed, as we’ve documented extensively, we’ve likely entered a period of lackluster global growth and trade, and there’s every reason to believe this is structural and endemic, as opposed to fleeting and cyclical. Second, the last bolded passage there speaks volumes about what’s wrong with the current central planner “strategy.” No, Mario Draghi, it’s not “up to you” to push up incomes. It’s “up t you” to get out of the way and the market figure this out. Central planners had their chance to boost wage growth and they failed – miserably. 

    Here’s Draghi on the effect oil prices are likely to have on inflation expectations going forward:

    As far as the next few months are concerned, the most relevant factor will be the price of energy. We expect inflation to remain close to zero, and maybe even to turn negative, at least until the start of 2016.

    Of course what Draghi doesn’t say is that ZIRP is a contributor. That is, when you ensure that capital markets remain wide open, uneconomic producers continue to dig, drill, and pump and that contributes to lower prices and thus, to a deflationary impulse. 

    And here’s Draghi explaining that the idea of the “lower bound” is becoming antiquated thanks to Europe’s descent into NIRP: 

    Now we have one more year of experience in this area: we have seen that the money markets adapted in a completely calm and smooth way to the new interest rate that we set a year ago; other countries have lowered their rate to much more negative levels than ours. The lower bound of the interest rate on deposits is a technical constraint and, as such, may be changed in line with circumstances.

    Again, it’s all about what Darghi doesn’t say. The reason NIRP is still doable is because it hasn’t yet been passed on to household deposits:

    Here’s a bit from Draghi on inflating away massive debt piles…

    Low inflation has two effects. The first one is negative because it makes debt reduction more difficult. The second one is positive because it lowers interest rates on the debt itself. The path on which fiscal policy has to move is narrow, but it’s the only one available: on the one hand ensuring debt sustainability and on the other maintaining growth. If interest rate savings are used for current spending the risk increases that the debt becomes unsustainable when interest rates go up. Ideally, the savings are instead spent on public investments whose rates of return permit repayment of the interest when it rises.

    And finally, here’s how the ECB chief explains away the idea that central bank stimulus is incompatible with fiscal retrenchment: 

    Structural reforms and low interest rates complement each other: carrying out structural reforms means paying a price now in order to obtain a benefit tomorrow; low interest rates substantially reduce the price that has to be paid today. There is, if anything, a relationship of complementarity. There are also other more specific reasons: low interest rates ensure that investment, the benefits from investment and from employment, materialise more quickly. Structural reforms reduce uncertainty regarding macroeconomic and microeconomic prospects. Therefore, it is the opposite, rather than seeing an increase in moral hazard, I see a relationship of complementarity, of incentive.

    Sure. So what Draghi wants you to believe is that the EU periphery is committed to budgetary discipline and all the ECB is doing by artificially suppressing borrowing costs is making the transition to fiscal responsibility less painful. Here’s proof of how well that strategy is working:

    But none of this matters. DM central bankers are all-in on this; that is, there’s no turning back. Just as night follows day, the ECB will ease further which will lead directly to more easing from the Riksbank and the SNB. Similarly, the BoJ will likely end up attempting to further monopolize the Japanese ETF market and may ultimately move into individual stocks in an insane attempt to control corporate management teams and mandate the wage hikes that Abenomics has so far failed to produce. 

    That said, both the ECB and the BoJ are running out of monetizable assets which makes us and others wonder whether they will not become gun shy, having realized that they’ve finally bumped up against the limits of Keynesian insanity. 

    Whatever the case, just note that while Mario Draghi is quite adept at playing emotionless bureaucrat (unless a twenty-something is throwing glitter at him), it seems clear that DM central bankers are now beginning to question their own omnipotence and as Kuroda will tell you, “the moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease to be able to do it forever.”

  • Should America Fight For The Spratlys?

    Submitted by Fred Reed via AntiWar.com,

    It appears that Washington, ever a seething cauldron of bright ideas, is looking for a shooting war with China, or perhaps trying to make the Chinese kowtow and back down, the pretext being some rocks in the Pacific in which the United States cannot possibly have a vital national interest. Or, really, any interest. And if the Chinese do not back down?

    Years back I went aboard the USS Vincennes, CG-49, a Tico class Aegis boat, then the leading edge of naval technology. It was a magnificent ship, fast, powered by a pair of airliner turbines, and carrying the SPY-1 phased-array radar, very high-tech for its time. The CIC was dark and air-conditioned, glowing with huge screens – impressive for then – displaying all manner of information on targets in the air. Below were Standard missiles, then on a sort of chain drive but in later ships using the Vertical Launch System. It was, as they say in Laredo, Muy Star Wars. (The Vincennes was the ship that later shot down the Iranian airliner.)

    The Vincennes. The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened.

    The Vincennes. The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened.

    Being something of a technophile, I took all of this in with admiration, but I thought – what if it gets hit? As a kid in my preteens I had read about the battleships of WWII, the Carolinas but in particular the Iowa class, fast, brutal ships with sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets that an asteroid would bounce off of. The assumption was that ships were going to get hit. They were built to survive and continue fighting.

    By contrast, the Vincennes was thin-skinned, hulled with aluminum instead of steel, and the radar, crucial to combat, looked perilously fragile. A single hit with anything serious, or perhaps even a cal .50, but certainly by anything resembling a GAU-8, and she would be hors de combat until refitted.

    One hit.

    The Iowa, BB-61. I went aboard her at Norfolk at the Navy’s invitation. It altered my appreciation of guns. I came away thinking that if you can’t crawl into it, it isn’t really a gun. And solid: There is a reason why no battleship was sunk after Pearl Harbor.

    The Iowa, BB-61. I went aboard her at Norfolk at the Navy’s invitation. It altered my appreciation of guns. I came away thinking that if you can’t crawl into it, it isn’t really a gun. And solid: There is a reason why no battleship was sunk after Pearl Harbor.

    I also knew well that the Navy played Red Team-Blue Team war games in which our own submarines – then chiefly 688s – tried to “sink” the surface fleet. The idea was that if the sub could get into firing position, it would send up a green flare. The subs were then running if memory serves the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo, a wicked wire-guided thing with a long range. Sailors told me that invariably the subs “sank” the surface force.

    When I mentioned this at CHINFO, the Navy’s PR operation in the Pentagon, flacks told me that the potential bad guys only had piddling diesel-electric subs, far inferior to our nukey boats, and couldn’t get near the fleet in open seas. Yes, no, maybe, and then. It sounded like happy talk to me. In WWII, diesel-electrics certainly got in range of surface ships, perhaps the most famous example being when Archer Fish sank Shinano.

    I do not know a great deal about the Chinese Navy, having been out of that loop for years. I do know that the Chinese are smart, and that they have optimized their forces specifically to take out carrier battle groups near their territory. They do not try to match the US ship-for-ship in the kind of war America wants to fight. They would lose fast, and they know it. The key is to swarm the fleet with cruise missiles arriving all at once, accompanied perhaps by large numbers of aircraft. Would this work? I don’t know, but that is certainly the way I would bet.

    DF-21D anti-ship (read: anti-carrier) missile. This is not the place for detail, but China has anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill carriers, and is working on others, hypersonic glide vehicles, that are not real interceptible. I do not know how well they work. If I were a carrier, I would make a point of not finding out.

    DF-21D anti-ship (read: anti-carrier) missile. This is not the place for detail, but China has anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill carriers, and is working on others, hypersonic glide vehicles, that are not real interceptible. I do not know how well they work. If I were a carrier, I would make a point of not finding out.

    The Navy has not been in a war for seventy years. It has sat off various shores and launched aircraft, but the fleet has not been engaged. Over decades of inaction, complacency sets in. Unfortunately, wars regularly turn out to be otherwise than expected. Further, the American military’s standard approach to a war is to underestimate the enemy (there is probably a manual on this).

    Yet further, great emotional and financial capital resides in a carrier-battle group, one of the most impressive achievements of the human race. (I mean this: the technology, organization, and competence involved in, say, night flight ops are…”astonishing” is too feeble a word.)

    This assures reluctance to question the fleet’s effectiveness in the face of changing conditions. Such as high-Mach, stealthed, maneuvering, sea-skimming cruise missiles. Or terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles. America is accustomed to fighting enemies who can’t fight back. This may not include the Chinese.

    There is also the fact that the American military simply doesn’t matter, which reduces concern with whether it can fight and who it can fight. It doesn’t defend the US, since there is nothing to defend it against. (What country has the remotest possibility of invading America?) So the military is used for what are essentially hobbyist wars, keeping Israel happy, providing markets for the arms companies, and for social engineering: we have girl crews who would be a disaster at damage control, but we assume that there will never be any damage to control.

    Uh…yeah. The evidence is that these ships are fragile:

    The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile. Something to think about.

    The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile. Something to think about.

    USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage.

    USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage.

    What would happen if in a shooting war the Chinese crippled the American fleet? Washington is rampant with large egos, especially that of John McCain, the senator from PTSD. If it were discovered that China could disable the Navy, many other countries might conclude that they could do it too. They most certainly would think of this. Washington could not accept the discovery: Fear of the carriers is a large element in Washington’s intimidation of the world. To save face, the US would be tempted to go nuclear, or seriously bomb China proper, with unforeseeable results.

    The Air Force and Navy could hurt China badly by conventional means, yes, for example by cutting off oil from the Mideast, or destroying the Three Gorges dam. For a variety of reasons this would be playing with fire. The economic results of any of these bright ideas would be godawful.

    USS Cole, 2000. Blown up by suicide guys in a small boat.

    USS Cole, 2000. Blown up by suicide guys in a small boat.

    Washington seems not to realize that it wields far less military power than it thinks it does, and that the power it does wield is ever less useful than before. As a land power, it is very weak, being unable to defeat Russia, China, or peasants armed with rifles and RPGs. Air power has regularly proved indecisive.

    If Washington somehow won a naval war with China, so what? It would provide the satisfactions of vanity, but China’s danger to the US imperium lies in increasing economic power and commercial expansion through Asia, where it holds the high cards: it is there, Washington isn’t. Grrr-bowwow-woofery in the far Pacific, even if successful, is not going to stop China’s commercial expansion, and a defeat would end the credibility of the Navy forever.

    As I say, Washington is full of bright ideas.

  • After The Novelty Of McDonalds' All-Day Breakfast Wears Off

    They appear to have resorted to a ‘new’ dollar menu item…

     

     

    h/t @ianbremmer

  • The Quick "Bull" Vs "Bear" Case In 8 Charts

    “What happens next?” Everyone wants to know the answer, but nobody has it (if they do, they are lying).

    Still, one attempt at framing the narrative, comes from BofA’s Savita Subramanian. Here is the 30,000 foot cliff notes version of the two sides of the story.

    First, the bear case, or as BofA calls it “an economic shock derails a fragile economy.”

    Concern over global growth has become more wide-spread, as suggested by the charts below. We believe that outside of an exogenous geopolitical event, an economic shock would most likely be tied to credit, where signs of stress are building the most.

    • Growth expectations have come down over the past 12 months, per the Global Fund Manager Survey
    • More investors are starting to believe we’re in the “late cycle”
    • There are signs of stress in the high yield market, with distress ratio increasing recently
    • More companies in the S&P 500 are projected to lose money than those with negative EPS 12M ago.

     

    And here is the “4 chart summary” of the bull case, which as usually expected, is “more aligned” with BofA’s economists’ current outlook (which does not foresee a recession any time in the coming decade), where they see stable to improving growth in developed markets. This requires that China’s economy does not collapse. But much of the uncertainty may be reflected is asset process, and we see several reasons to remain positive.

    • Valuations are still below average – see Chart 2 for the normalized P/E
    • Short interest has risen over time and is at the highest levels since 2008
    • Investors are underweight the US by a net 10% (per the Global FMS)
    • Sentiment is still bearish, with our Sell Side Indicator in “Buy” territory (see Chart 12) and cash levels at mutual funds also generating a “Buy” signal per the Global FMS.

    A more detailed version of the above to follow tomorrow.

  • Halloween Surprise: How Will The US Banks Plug Their $120B Capital Shortfall? Trick Or Treat?

    scary banker

     

    Source: searchglobalnews.wordpress.com

    The Federal Reserve had a nasty surprise for the financial markets right before the Halloween weekend (the perfect timing to sweep something under the carpet and hoping the markets will have forgotten about it by Monday). At 8PM on Friday night (again, perfect timing, the Fed made sure all Bloomberg terminals were switched off and the average Wall Street trader was already spending his salary in a fancy Manhattan bar), a statement was issued, confirming the major banks in the USA would need an additional capital injection of $120B to secure the safety of the financial system and to get rid of the capital shortfall.

    The governors of the Federal Reserve have confirmed and approved a draft version of the proposal, and it will now be made available for public comments. The remarkable part of the proposal is the fact the council of governors is proposing to fill the gap by raising additional debt, instead of issuing new shares to increase the equity level on the banks’ balance sheets.

    Banks capital shortfall 1

    Source: opengov.com

    The six major banks will be hit by this new proposal, and it’s widely expected JP Morgan and Citigroup will have the hardest task to comply with the Fed’s requirements. So okay, if the $120B could be covered by new (probably subordinated) debt issues, the damage could be limited to the banks just paying a few billions in interest expenses per year. Nothing to lose your sleep over.

    However, what’s really disturbing here is that these same banks, 6 years after the global financial crisis, are still facing shortcomings on the balance sheet front. Despite the government and the Federal Reserve claiming that the ‘crisis is over’ and the American economy is ‘healthy again’, apparently the banks would still have difficulties to deal with any decent-sized economic crisis.

    Banks Capital Shortfall 3

    But wait, that’s not all. On Friday, the European Central Bank also announced the results of a review of the situation of the Greek banks in the Euro-system. Apparently, there still is a huge hole in the Greek financial sector (surprise, surprise), and the Greek banks would need an additional capital injection of in excess of $15B , just to survive any adverse economic scenario in the country.

    Banks Capital Shortfall 2

    Source: politico.com

    And this will very likely prove to be a much tougher challenge for these banks as the combined market capitalization of the four largest banks in Greece is less than $5B. Oops. Do you see the problem here?

    It will be close to impossible to inject another $15B in those 4 Greek banks without a complete nationalization or at least absorption by a larger entity. And okay, yes, approximately $25B of Greece’s next rescue package is earmarked to be used to support the banks, but that’s only kicking the can further down the road.

    Let it be clear. We are NOT out of the danger zone yet, and with a shortfall of $120B at the six largest banks in the USA and a $15B shortfall in Greece (roughly 3 times the market capitalization of the four largest Greek banks COMBINED), the situation actually looks pretty bad. There’s no way the Federal Reserve could maintain its position that ‘everything is going great in the USA’.

    >>> Read our Latest Gold Report!

    Secular Investor offers a fresh look at investing. We analyze long lasting cycles, coupled with a collection of strategic investments and concrete tips for different types of assets. The methods and strategies are transformed into the Gold & Silver Report and the Commodity Report.

    Follow us on Facebook @SecularInvestor [NEW] and Twitter @SecularInvest

  • Mainstream Media Looks In The Mirror

    Could Not Be Clearer…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • Blatant Gold/Silver Manipulation Reflects The Complete Corruption Of The U.S. System

    Submitted by Dave Kranzler via Investment Research Dynamics,

    The morning of the FOMC announcement on Wednesday (Oct 28) gold was up $14 overnight, close to $1080 and the cartel’s dreaded 200 day moving average.  The “premise” was that the market was expecting another rate hike deferral.

    A friend called me that morning and I told him to not get excited because when the FOMC policy decision hits the tape, they will annihilate gold and push the S&P 500 up toward 2100.   I was only 10 pts off on the S&P call, as the S&P 500 closed at 2090, up an absurd 24 points.  

     

    Gold was taken to the cleaners:

     

    What’s incredible is not one mainstream media analyst or reporter questions this market action. If the premise behind the gold sell-off was a “hawkish” FOMC statement and the threat of a rate hike in December (yawn), then the exact same premise should have cause a big sell-off in stocks. Since when does the threat of tighter monetary policy not hit the stock market?

    Just to recount the play-by-play in gold, the moment the FOMC announcement hit the tape, the Comex computer system was bombarded with sell orders. At this point in the trading day, the ONLY gold/silver market open is the Comex computer Globex system. In the first 30 minutes 29.6k contracts were unloaded – 2.6 million paper ounces. In the entire hour after the announcement 50.5k contracts were unloaded – 5.1 million ounces. Note that the Comex is showing around 200k ounces to be available for delivery.

    The blatant, unfettered manipulation and intervention in the gold and silver market is sponsored by the Fed and the U.S. Treasury, executed by the big bullion banks and fully endorsed by the CFTC.

    Dan Norcini vomited up a theory that the hit on Wednesday was a product of long side (hedge fund) liquidation.  That view proved to be utter scatological regurgitation from an analyst who’s analysis and views have gone completely off the rails.  As it turns out, open interest increased by over 4,000 contracts on Wednesday.  So much for that “long liquidation” idiocy.

    The manipulation of the gold and silver market is a nothing but a product of complete systemic corruption.  The only way that the Fed and the politicians can claim that the economy is “fine” and QE “worked” is to make sure that the one piece of obvious evidence which would say otherwise is kept highly restrained.

    I’ve told colleagues for years that the only way the elitists will let the Comex default, causing gold and silver to launch in price toward Pluto, is when they know they can no longer support their fraud.

    If I’m wrong, how else to do you explain the fact that the front-running candidate to be the next President of the United States is openly a criminal and traitor who should be devoting her entire resource base toward defending herself from being throw in jail forever?  This person, by the way, issues a statement today giving the U.S. economy an “A.”

    On a positive note, I do believe that this country is in its 9th inning and there will be no extra innings in this game.   Gold and silver do appear to be back in an uptrend, with a lot of pressure from the part of the world that demands physical delivery.

  • Goldman's 4 Word Summary Of Q3 Earnings Season: "Adequate Earnings, Dismal Sales"

    Haven’t bothered to check in on the third quarter earnings season (which at this rate will mark the first two back-to-back quarters of earnings declines since 2009, aka an earnings recession)? Then here is the 4 word summary from Goldman Sachs: “adequate earnings, dismal sales.

    With results from 341 companies (77% of total market cap) in hand, the 3Q reporting season thus far can be summed up as simply as “adequate earnings, dismal sales.” Earnings have been in line with history, with 48% of firms surprising on the bottom line (above the historical average of 46%), for an average EPS surprise of 4% versus the historical average of 5%. On the other hand, sales results have been disappointing, a function of slowing economic growth and a stronger dollar. Just 21% of companies beat consensus revenue estimates by more than one standard deviation, well below the 10-year average of 32%. Excluding Energy, 49% of companies has surprised on EPS, while 20% has surprised on the top line.

    If companies beat on earnings do they also beat on revenues?

    Stocks delivering positive sales surprises have been more likely to surprise on earnings, but a top-line shortfall has not necessarily led to a bottom-line miss. 21% of firms has posted positive 3Q sales surprises, while 14% of stocks beat on both the top and bottom line, meaning firms that beat on sales were also likely to beat on earnings (see Exhibit 1). Stocks surprising on both the top and bottom-line include AMZN, JNPR, NOC. Interestingly, 71% of companies that beat on earnings either negatively surprised on revenue, or reported sales results in-line with expectations, suggesting that margins have surprised to the upside thus far.

     

    So as corporate teams seek to push margins even higher in the coming quarters, there will be even more layoffs in the coming quarters, and even more disappointing employment numbers… which is great news for a “lower for longer” addicted market.

    What is the cause of the ongoing revenue slowdown, aside from lack of capital investment of course? The strong dollar is the biggest culprit, a dollar which keeps getting stronger.

    FX headwinds and a slowing US economy have caused positive and negative revenue surprises to diverge significantly from historical averages. Through the first 22 days of 3Q earnings season, only 21% of companies has positively surprised on revenue, nearly 12 percentage points below the 10-year average at this point in the earnings season. Around one third of S&P 500 companies have disappointed on revenue, significantly above the 21% average (see Exhibit 2).

     

     

    Historically, as positive sales surprises become scarce, investors are more likely to reward beats on the top line (see Exhibit 3). This trend has been evident during 3Q reporting season. 73% of companies surprising on revenue outperformed the S&P 500 the day following the announcement, the second best hit-rate in the past decade. 3Q sales for NKE, which was aided by surprisingly strong revenue growth in China, beat consensus expectations and subsequently outperformed the S&P 500 by nearly 900 bp during the following day. In contrast, companies surprising on earnings have outperformed the market 64% of the time.

     

    For those wondering if the weak top line number means a slowing economy, the answer is yes.

    Disappointing sales results reflect below-average 3Q economic growth. GDP growth equaled just 1.5% in 3Q. Solid growth from  consumer-facing sectors was offset by a drag from inventories. While real personal consumption expenditures increased by 3.2%, inventory accumulation subtracted 1.4 percentage points from growth.

    It’s not bad news for all though: the biggest companies will survive and will likely get even bigger.

    Company results thus far suggest the largest S&P 500 companies have weathered the challenging growth environment better than their smaller counterparts. 58% of S&P 500 market cap has positively surprised on earnings versus an equal-weighted average of 48%, implying better-thanexpected results from larger companies. In fact, 66% of the 50 largest companies in the S&P 500 has beat earnings expectations versus 45% for the remainder of the index. 32% of the 50 largest companies beat on sales versus 19% for the remainder of the S&P 500 (See Exhibit 4).

     

    … something the market has noticed and rewarded.

    Better-than-expected earnings results for larger companies have coincided with large-cap outperformance. As measured via the Russell 1000 versus the Russell 2000, large-cap stocks have outperformed small-cap stocks by 257 bp since the end of 3Q. Looking beneath the surface, Consumer Discretionary and Health Care sectors in the Russell 1000 have crushed the Russell 2000 sector indexes, both by more than 400 bp.

    Finally here is the full sector and industry performance broken down in various periods:

     

    * * *

    Finally, this is where Goldman sees the S&P trading in 1 year: “We expect the S&P 500 will likely trade at 2075 in 12 months (-0.7%).

  • The Power Of Fear & The Gullibility Of The Masses

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    “We know now that in the early years of the twentieth century this world was being watched closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own. We know now that as human beings busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinized and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacence men went to and fro over the earth about their little affairs … In the thirty-ninth year of the twentieth century came the great disillusionment. It was near the end of October. Business was better. The war scare was over. More men were back at work. Sales were picking up.” – Opening monologue of  War of the Worlds broadcast – October 30,1938

    It was 77 years ago this week that Orson Welles struck terror into the hearts of Americans with his live radio broadcast of the HG Wells classic War of the Worlds. The broadcast began at 8:00 pm on Mischief Night 1938. As I was searching for anything of interest to watch the other night on the 600 cable stations available 24/7, I stumbled across a PBS program about Welles’ famous broadcast.

     

    As I watched the program, I was struck by how this episode during the last Fourth Turning and how people react to events is so similar to how people are reacting during the current Fourth Turning. History may not repeat exactly, but it certainly rhymes.

    It was the ninth year of the Fourth Turning. The Great Depression was still in progress. After a few years of a faux recovery (stock market up 400% from the 1932 low to its 1937 high) for the few, with the majority still suffering, another violent leg down struck in 1938. GDP collapsed, unemployment spiked  back towards 20%, and the stock market crashed by 50%. The hodgepodge of New Deal make work programs and Federal Reserve machinations failed miserably to lift the country out of its doldrums. Sound familiar? The average American household had not seen their lives improve and now the foreboding threat of war hung over their heads.

    The national hysteria over a play about the ridiculously impossible plot of Martians attacking Grover’s Mill, New Jersey seems crazy without the benefit of context. The nation was already on edge. They had just suffered another economic blow to their solar plexus, and now the drumbeats of war in Europe were growing louder. Welles’ biographer Frank Brady described the mindset of the nation:

    “For the entire month prior to ‘The War of the Worlds’, radio had kept the American public alert to the ominous happenings throughout the world. The Munich crisis was at its height. … For the first time in history, the public could tune into their radios every night and hear, boot by boot, accusation by accusation, threat by threat, the rumblings that seemed inevitably leading to a world war.”

    Studies discovered that fewer than one-third of frightened listeners understood the invaders to be aliens; most thought they were listening to reports of a German invasion or a natural catastrophe. The public allowed their emotions to overcome their rational mind. Playing upon people’s fears becomes easier when they are emotionally susceptible and beaten down from years of bad news. Even though it was specifically stated the show was a work of fiction, the mental state of the country was so panicked, people believed something bad was on the verge of happening and allowed themselves to believe.

    Much of the credit for the realism of the broadcast goes to Welles, a brilliant showman, who went on to create one of the greatest movies ever made just three years later – Citizen Kane. Welles thought the script was dull, just a day or two before the broadcast.  He stressed the importance of inserting news flashes and eyewitness accounts into the script to create a sense of urgency and excitement. The nation had gotten used to breaking news bulletins during the Munich Crisis.

    Another important issue was the fact the Mercury Theater on the Air was a radio show without commercial interruptions, adding to the program’s realism. The entire episode lasted 90 minutes and at the end of the play Welles assumed his role as host and told listeners the broadcast was a Halloween concoction: the equivalent, he said, “of dressing up in a sheet, jumping out of a bush and saying, ‘Boo!'” Despite the announcements before and after the show, the outrage and calls for Orson Welles’ head were deafening.

    What struck me while watching the PBS retrospective were the similarities between then and now. The gullibility of the masses, the power of fear, the overreaction by the media, busy bodies calling for the government to do something, and the effectiveness of propaganda are all commonalities between that Fourth Turning and today’s Fourth Turning.

    Evidently some listeners heard only a portion of the broadcast because they had been tuned into the Edgar Bergen Show and switched to CBS radio after the play had begun. Some of these people were overcome with fear as  the tension and anxiety prior to World War II led them to mistake it for a genuine news broadcast. Thousands of those people rushed to share the false reports with others, or called CBS, newspapers, or the police to ask if the broadcast was real. The telephone switchboards were overcome with volume and policeman overstepped their authority and entered the CBS studios to try and stop the show mid-broadcast. Evidently, the authorities weren’t big fans of the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment in 1938 either.

    Retrospective analysis has found the hysteria was not as widespread as purported by the mainstream media. The fact the play was performed in NYC, the media capital of the world, and the fictional attack was occurring in New Jersey provided much more publicity to the event. In reality, most of the dupes who were gullible enough to believe that Martians were actually attacking were old people and women. The timeline of the show should have revealed its falsehood to any critical thinking person, as the military somehow was mobilized and defeated within a 30 minute window.

    It seems our society will always have a large swath of people who will believe anything they are told by the media or the government. Our government run public education system now matriculates millions of functionally illiterate zombie like creatures into society, who can be easily manipulated and controlled through the use of  mass media and false propaganda. Those who constitute the invisible government behind the Deep State duly noted the psychological power of fear during this episode in history.

    The master of propaganda during that age even noted the impact on the American public. Adolf Hitler referenced the broadcast in a speech in Munich on November 8, 1938. Welles later remarked that Hitler cited the effect of the broadcast on the American public as evidence of “the corrupt condition and decadent state of affairs in democracy”. It likely confirmed his belief the democratic countries of the world would not have the guts to stand up to a man willing to wage all out war. He invaded Poland less than one year later, initiating the bloodiest war in history.

    Fear is a potent emotion to manipulate by the ruling class among a populace incapable or unwilling to think for themselves. The men behind the curtain, after decades of perfecting the psychological methods of molding the opinions, tastes, and ideas of the masses, believe they can control society through the use of fear. In 1938 Americans feared Germans, economic hardship, war, and evidently Martian invasions. Today they are taught to fear phantom Muslim terrorists, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, gun owners, anyone who questions government overreach, and anyone who disagrees with the social justice warrior agenda. The father of Propaganda, Edward Bernays, portrayed it succinctly in 1928:

    “In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

    As I watched the despicable display of yellow journalism by the pathetic excuses for journalists during the CNBC presidential debate the other night, I was reminded of the PBS show and how the press completely blew the War of the Worlds broadcast out of proportion to its actual impact. Within three weeks, newspapers had published at least 12,500 articles about the broadcast and its impact, although the story dropped off the front pages after a few days. It was essentially a tempest in a teapot that has lived on for decades because the press created the outrage and fear.

    This is no different than what happens on a daily and weekly basis today. The mainstream media attempts to work the masses into a frenzy over a meaningless debt ceiling “showdown”, the latest hurricane or snowstorm, the latest fake terrorist warning, the collapse of Greece, the imminent acquisition of a nuclear bomb by Iran, the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia, or whatever sensationalist storyline that will get them ratings and strike the necessary fear into the hearts of the masses.

    Every looming threat is relegated to the back pages of the legacy media rags a few days later. The degraded faux journalists prefer to distract the willfully ignorant masses with the latest Kardashian/Lamar Odom/Caitlyn Jenner reality TV episode, Oscar fashion shows, professional sports, how to get rich in the stock market infomercials, and how you can have the perfect body segments on one of the dozens of faux news shows.

    What I found fascinating in the PBS episode is the never ending calls from busy bodies, control freaks, and lovers of government coercion to do something about everything they don’t like. In the days following the broadcast, there was widespread outrage in the media. The program’s news-bulletin format was described as deceptive by some newspapers and public figures, leading to an outcry against the perpetrators of the broadcast and calls for regulation by the Federal Communications Commission. How dare Orson Welles broadcast a play, described beforehand as a work of fiction, in a creative, exciting, and realistic manner. Do you see any similarities to calls for the FCC to control the internet, where anti-establishment websites dare to speak the truth?

    There will always be a sociopathic segment of the population who want control over everything and everyone. They want bigger government, more laws, more regulations, more restrictions, more taxes and more control over your life. The 1930’s marked a huge turning point for this country, with the majority supporting the New Deal and government intervening deeply into our everyday lives. Today, the government, in the control of bankers, crony corporate interests, billionaires, and captured political hacks, has smothered our freedoms, liberties, entrepreneurial spirit, intellectual debate, and ability to change the system from within.

    Shortly after the Welles broadcast, the nation came together and endured seven years of shared sacrifice, with the young men of the country fighting and dying on continents and islands far from our shores in a struggle against aggression. Today, I feel the aggression is coming from within. It’s our own government and the men who control it who are the real enemy. The coming struggle during this Fourth Turning is more likely to be American versus American. A prominent figure from the last Fourth Turning saw into the future decades ago, and he was right.

    “I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any treat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.” ? Douglas MacArthur

  • First Images Of Russian Passenger Jet Crash Site Emerge

    Earlier today, ISIS claimed responsibility for the downing of a commercial airliner over the the Sinai Peninsula.

    The crash killed all 224 people on board. 

    Islamic State described the passengers as “crusaders” and “praised God” for their deaths:

    Breaking: Downing of Russian airplane, killing of more than 220 Russian crusaders on board.

     

    Soldiers of the Caliphate were able to bring down a Russian plane above Sinai Province with at least 220 Russian crusaders aboard.

     

    They were all killed, praise be to God. O Russians, you and your allies take note that you are not safe in Muslims lands or their skies.

     

    The killing of dozens daily in Syria with bombs from your planes will bring woe to you. Just as you are killing others, you too will be killed, God willing.

    Although analysts have disputed the idea that ISIS could have brought down the plane from the ground, if the video circulated online is authentic, then someone knew exactly when to start filming and that, in and of itself, seems to suggest that this was premeditated. Then again, reports indicate that even IS Sinai claim the video is fake. 

    Whatever the case, tragedy struck in the skies above Egypt today and below, find the first images and footage from the crash site.

    As we noted earlier, the question now is whether Russia will expand its Mid-East operations and commence airstrikes in Egypt because one thing is clear: if the Russian population had any qualms about continuing the campaign against “terrorists”, they were just eliminated in perpetuity.

    As for figuring out exactly what went wrong with the Airbus A321 that crashed this morning, don’t worry, John Kerry will soon get to the bottom of things: 

    “Secretary Kerry spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov today to express the United States’ deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed in the crash in Egypt of Kogalymavia Flight 9268. Secretary Kerry also offered to provide US assistance, if needed.”

  • Did The PBOC Just Exacerbate China's Credit & Currency Peg Time Bomb?

    Submitted by Doug Noland via Credit Bubble Bulletin,

    October 30 – BloombergView (By Matthew A. Winkler): “Ignore China’s Bears: There's a bull running right past China bears, and it’s leading the world’s second-largest economy in a transition from resource-based manufacturing to domestic-driven services such as health care, insurance and technology. Just when the stock market began its summer-long swoon, investors showed growing confidence in the new economy — and they abandoned their holdings in the old economy. These preferences follow Premier Li Keqiang's directive earlier in the year at the National People's Congress to ‘strengthen the service sector and strategic emerging industries.’”

    Bubbles always feed – and feed off of – good stories. Major Bubbles are replete with great fantasy. Even as China’s Bubble falters, the recent “risk on” global market surge has inspired an optimism reawakening. August has become a distant memory.

    In the big picture, the “global government finance Bubble – the Granddaddy of all Bubbles” is underpinned by faith that enlightened global policymakers (i.e. central bankers and Chinese officials) have developed the skills and policy tools to stabilize markets, economies and financial systems. And, indeed, zero rates, open-ended QE and boundless market backstops create a “great story”. Astute Chinese officials dictating markets, lending, system Credit expansion and economic “transformation” throughout a now enormous Chinese economy is truly incredible narrative. Reminiscent of U.S. market sentiment in Bubble years 1999 and 2007, “What’s not to like?”

    Never have a couple of my favorite adages seemed more pertinent: “Bubbles go to unimaginable extremes – then double!” “Things always turn wild at the end.” Well, the “moneyness of Credit” (transforming increasingly risky mortgage Credit into perceived safe and liquid GSE debt, MBS and derivatives) was instrumental the fateful extension of the mortgage finance Bubble cycle. At the same time, Central banks and central governments clearly have much greater capacity (compared to the agencies and “Wall Street finance”) to propagate monetary inflation (print “money”). Most importantly, this government “money” and the willingness to print unlimited quantities to buttress global securities markets now underpin securities markets on a global basis (“Moneyness of Risk Assets”). And unprecedented securities market wealth underpins the structurally impaired global economy.

    China has been a focal point of my “global government finance Bubble” thesis. Unprecedented 2009 stimulus measures were instrumental in post-crisis global reflation. Importantly, China – and developing economies more generally – had attained strong inflationary biases heading into the 2008/09 crisis. Accordingly, the rapid Credit system and economic responses to stimulus measures had the developing world embracing their newfound role of global recovery “locomotive”. I contend that the associated “global reflation trade” was one of history’s great speculative episodes. I have posited that the bursting of this Bubble (commodities and EM currencies) marks a historical inflection point for the global government finance Bubble. I find it remarkable that this analysis remains so extremely detached from conventional thinking.

    Conventional analysis revels in seemingly great stories. As an analyst of Bubbles, I methodically contemplate a fundamental question: Is the underlying finance driving the boom sound and sustainable? Over the past 25 years, I’ve pondered this puzzle on too many occasions to count – about market, asset and economic Bubbles – at home and abroad. Arguably, it’s been 25 years of progressively destabilizing global Monetary Disorder. Looking today at the U.S., Europe, Japan and EM – I strongly believe the underlying finance driving the lackluster boom is hopelessly unsound. I as well appreciate that today’s acute monetary instability remains inconspicuous to most analysts.

    As a macro analyst, I view China as the global Bubble’s focal point – the weak link yet, at the same time, the key marginal source of Bubble finance. In the short term, China’s ability to stabilize its stock market, incite lending and reestablish their currency peg have been instrumental in the resurgent global “risk on” backdrop. At the same time, I’m confident that the underlying finance driving this historic Bubble is unsound. This will remain a most critical issue.

    I have argued that the global government finance Bubble elevated “too big to fail” from large financial institutions to encompass global risk markets more generally. Importantly, so-called “moral hazard” and associated risk misperceptions evolved into a global phenomenon. And nowhere has this dynamic had more far-reaching consequences than in China. Underpinned by faith that China’s policymakers will backstop system liabilities (i.e. deposits, intra-bank lending, etc.), Chinese banking assets (loans and such) have inflated to double the size of the U.S. banking system. China’s corporate debt market has ballooned to an incredible 160% of GDP (double the U.S.!), again on the view of central government backstops. Then there’s the multi-Trillion (and still growing) “shadow banking” sector, possible only because investors in so-called “wealth management” products and other high-yielding instruments believe the government will safeguard against loss.

    International investors/speculators have been willing to disregard a lot in China. Corruption has been almost systemic. The historic scope of malinvestment is rather conspicuous. China is in the midst of a historic apartment construction and lending Bubble. There’s a strong case to be made that the amount of Chinese high-risk lending is unprecedented in financial history. The massive Chinese banking system is today vulnerable from the consequences of extremely unsound lending to households, corporations and local governments. Chinese lenders are also likely on the hook for hundreds of billions of loans provided to finance China’s global commodities buying binge.

    Throughout the now protracted boom, perceptions have held that Chinese officials have things under control. And with a massive trove of international reserves, the Chinese have been perceived to possess ample resources for stimulus as well as banking system recapitalization, as necessary. Erratic Chinese policy moves were widely assailed this summer. And while down $500 billion over recent months, China’s $3.5 TN of reserves have been sufficient to underpin general confidence (once Chinese officials convinced the marketplace that they would stabilize their currency).

    Last week’s CBB succumbed to the too colorful language “Credit and Currency Peg Time Bomb.” China’s policy course appears to focus on two facets: to stabilize the yuan versus the dollar and to resuscitate Credit expansion. For better than two decades, similar policy courses were followed by myriad EM policymakers in hopes of sustaining financial and economic booms. Many cases ended in abject failure – often spectacularly. Why? Because when officials resort to such measures to sustain faltering Bubbles it generally works to only exacerbate systemic fragilities. For one, late-stage reflationary measures compound Credit system vulnerability while compounding structural impairment to the real economy. Secondly, central bank and banking system Credit-bolstering measures create liquidity that invariably feeds destabilizing “capital” and “hot money” outflows.

    As the globe’s leading superpower and master of the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. has experienced quite contrasting dynamics (to EM). The U.S. financial system has enjoyed the freedom to aggressively expand Credit, with “capital” and “hot money” outflows invariably (and effortlessly) “recycled” right back into U.S. financial assets. With U.S. corporations, households and financial institutions borrowing almost exclusively in dollars, the Fed has enjoyed extraordinary flexibility when it comes to monetary inflation. Post-tech Bubble reflationary policies and dollar devaluation did not risk an EM-style asset/liability currency mismatch. Moreover, post-mortgage finance Bubble QE-amplified liquidity outflows were largely absorbed by China and EM central banks as they accumulated international reserve holdings (flows conveniently recycled back into Treasury and agency securities).

    Importantly, faith in the dollar as the unrivaled global reserve currency underpinned confidence in Federal Reserve Credit – while the unfettered inflation of Fed Credit underpinned confidence in the U.S. securities markets and financial system right along with the American economy. It’s worth noting also that the juggernaut German economy has provided considerable flexibility to the ECB and euro currency and Credit management. Unique attributes have also thus far afforded the Bank of Japan phenomenal stimulus and devaluation latitude without inciting a crisis of confidence in the yen or Japanese financial assets. Overall, faith in central bank Credit has inflicted immeasurable damage.

    Conventional thinking holds that China’s currency is on the verge of “reserve” status. It is believed that Chinese officials will enjoy similar dynamics and policy flexibility as the U.S., Europe and Japan. The “Credit and Currency Peg Time Bomb” thesis rests upon the view that China is not a leading “developed” economy, but rather one massive “developing”-economy Credit and economic Bubble. I could be wrong on this. But the issue “Developing or Developed?” has profound ramifications for China’s future, as well as for global finance, the international economy and geopolitics more generally.

    China presents the façade of a highly advanced, high-tech “developed” economy. But in terms of corruption, reckless lending and state-directed uneconomic investment – China is “developing” at its core. In terms of corporate governance – it’s “developing”. Extreme wealth disparities? Right, “developing.” The government’s obtrusive role in finance and in the real economy, on full display over recent months, is pure “developing.” In short, China simply doesn’t have the history, capitalistic institutional structures or governance to function as a grounded and well-developed market economy. They were moving in the right direction before fatefully losing control of finance.

    I really hope China pulls out of this Bubble period without calamity. But I fear they are locked in a precarious policy course of perpetual Credit excess – a progressively unsound Credit boom destined for a crisis of confidence. They face constant “capital” outflow pressures – from both domestic-based and international sources. Wealthy Chinese will continue to try to get “money” (and their families) out of the country, as international investors and speculators flee an increasingly chaotic backdrop. How enormous is the Chinese speculative “carry trade” playing high-yielding Chinese debt instruments?

    I used “time bomb” terminology because throwing previously inconceivable quantities of new Chinese Credit atop “Terminal Phase” excess ensures exponential growth in systemic risk. Ironically, the huge reserve holdings – perceived to support systemic stability – actually ensure excesses are allowed to run unchecked to catastrophic extremes. I expect “capital” flight will continue to deplete reserve holdings. Markets will fret covert activities employed to support the yuan and bolster reserves. At some point, the markets will contrast the rising mountain of problem and suspect loans (and bonds) to the dwindling stock of reserves – and turn jittery. At some point there will be plenty to worry about in the Chinese banking system and corporate debt markets.

    I expect the downside of this historic Credit cycle to come with negative currency ramifications. Reminiscent of the nineties SE Asian Bubbles, Chinese officials are keen to postpone the day of reckoning. Rather than more gradual and less disruptive currency devaluation, determination to cling to reflationary policies coupled with a pegged currency regime ensures a major currency dislocation becomes part of a disruptive general crisis in confidence.

    At the end of the day, the massive unabated inflation of government finance – the unprecedented issuance of sovereign debt and central bank Credit – ensures a crisis of confidence in the underlying value of this “money.” Unfettered “money” in the hands of politicians and contemporary central bankers is risky business. Confidence in EM finance has waned, although an ebb and flow has seen sentiment improve over recent weeks. Optimism’s revival has much to do with perceptions of China’s stabilization. Count me skeptical that confidence in China is anything more than skin deep. “Developing or Developed?” How long will they enjoy the flexibility of unfettered Credit and a currency tied to the dollar?

  • Greek Bad Debt Rises Above 50% For The First Time, ECB Admits

    It was almost exactly one year ago, on October 26, 2014, when the ECB concluded its latest European Stress Test. As had been pre-leaked, some 25 banks failed it, although the central bank promptly added that just €9.5 billion in net capital shortfall had been identified. What was more surprising is that to the ECB, the Greek banks – Alpha Bank, Eurobank Ergasias, National Bank of Greece, and PiraeusBank had entered Schrodinger bailout territory: they had both failed and passed the test at the same time. To wit:

    These banks have a shortfall on a static balance sheet projection, but will have dynamic balance sheet projections (which have been performed alongside the static balance sheet assessment as restructuring plans were agreed with DG-COMP after 1 January 2014) taken into account in determining their final capital requirements. Under the dynamic balance sheet assumption, these banks have no or practically no shortfall taking into account net capital already raised.

    Got that? According to the ECB, last October Greek banks may have failed the stress test, but under “dynamic conditions” they passed it. What this meant was unclear at the time, although as we explained this was nothing more than an attempt to boost confidence in Europe’s banking sector. This was the key quote from the ECB’s Vítor Constâncio: “This unprecedented in-depth review of the largest banks’ positions will boost public confidence in the banking sector. By identifying problems and risks, it will help repair balance sheets and make the banks more resilient and robust. This should facilitate more lending in Europe, which will help economic growth.”

    It didn’t.

    Eight months later when it became very clear what the ECB meant in practical terms, when the entire Greek financial system found itself in cardiac arrest as a result of increasing hostilities between the Greek government which was on the verge of severing its ties with Europe and an ECB backstop, and only €90 billion in Emergency Liquidity Assistance from the ECB – which also was this close from being withdrawn forcing Greece to implement draconian capital controls – prevent the total collapse of the Greek financial system which now, it is clear to everyone, has become a hostage of European “goodwill.”

    Fast forward to today, when the ECB repeated its annual exercise in confidence-boosting futility, when it released the results of its latest stress test focusing on Greek banks, i.e., the “AGGREGATE REPORT ON THE GREEK COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT 2015

    This is what the ECB said in its executive summary:

    The exercise is based on updated macroeconomic data and scenarios that reflect the changed market environment in Greece and has resulted in aggregate AQR-adjustments of €9.2 billion to participating banks’ asset carrying value. Overall, the assessment has identified capital needs totalling, post AQR, €4.4 billion in the base scenario and €14.4 billion in the adverse scenario.

     

    Covering the shortfalls by raising capital would then result in the creation of prudential buffers in the four Greek banks, which will facilitate their capacity to address potential adverse macroeconomic shocks in the short and medium term and their capacity to improve the resilience of their balance sheet, keeping an adequate level of solvency.

     

    Banks have to propose remedial actions (capital plans) in order to cover the entire shortfall (€14.4 billion), out of which a minimum of € 4.4 billion (corresponding to the AQR plus baseline shortfall) is expected to be covered by private means.

    The tabulated capital shortfall results for the same 4 banks which a year ago “dynamically” passed the ECB’s “stress test” with flying colors, but failed it in every possible way this time around, were as follows:

    Bloomberg’s take:

    Greece’s four main banks must raise 14.4 billion euros ($15.9 billion) in fresh capital, after a review by the European Central Bank, as investors and taxpayers face the cost of repairing the damage resulting from six months of wrangling between the country’s government and its creditors.

     

    The asset-quality review resulted in valuation adjustments of 9.2 billion euros at National Bank of Greece SA, Piraeus Bank SA, Eurobank Ergasias SA and Alpha Bank AE, the Frankfurt-based ECB said in a statement Saturday. In the stress tests, the banks’ capital gap amounted to 14.4 billion euros under a simulated crisis, and 4.4 billion euros under the baseline scenario. The four banks will have to submit recapitalization plans to the ECB’s supervisory arm by Nov. 6.

     

     

    National Bank of Greece, the country’s biggest bank by assets, has a total capital shortfall of 4.6 billion euros, of which 1.6 billion euros arises from the baseline scenario. Piraeus has the biggest shortfall of all the lenders, having to raise 2.2 billion euros under the baseline scenario, and 4.9 billion euros in total. Alpha Bank only needs to raise 263 million euros under the baseline scenario, of a total shortfall of 2.7 billion euros. Eurobank has the lowest aggregate shortfall, totaling 2.2 billion euros, of which 339 million euros corresponds to the baseline scenario.

    There was no commentary on the “odd” twist how in the span of one year, the same banks which last October were deemed stable and “dynamically” not needing any bailouts, not only had to implement capital controls to avoid a terminal deposit outflow, but now need to raise at least €14 billion.

    None of this contradictory confusion is surprising, and neither was the reason for today’s stress test: it is just the latest desperate attempt to restore confidence in a country’s banking sector, a country which still has and will have capital controls for a long time, and to give depositors the confidence that keeping their cash with the local insolvent banks is safe.

    The European Commission said in a statement that it is “encouraged” by the results, while Eurobank said that it targets maximum participation of high quality private funds in its capital increase. Alpha Bank said in a filing to the stock exchange that the result “demonstrates resilience,” despite “higher hurdle rates and the repayment of 940 million euros of state preference shares in 2014, which further improved the quality of capital.”

    As Reuters further writes, today’s result was merely another optical exercise in putting lipstick on the Greek bank pig:

    The fact, however, that the declared capital hole is smaller than the 25 billion euros earmarked to help banks in the country’s bailout may encourage investors such as hedge funds to buy shares.

     

    Germany’s Deputy Finance Minister Jens Spahn said attracting investors would reduce the support needed from the euro zone’s rescue scheme, the European Stability Mechanism.

    The ECM, which is the source of funds for the third Greek bailout, also promptly chimed in: “the comprehensive assessment conducted by European Central Bank on Greek lenders shows that ESM-backed loan program to Greece is adequately funded to accommodate additional capital needs in these banks, a spokesman for ESM says in an e-mail to Bloomberg. He added that the ECB stress test EU14.4b shortfall is “well within” EU25b buffer earmarked by ESM for Greek bank recapitalizations. After approval by euro-area member states, EU10b, which have already been mobilized and sitting in segregated account managed by the ESM, will be made available quickly to Greece.

    He ended on a hopeful note: “with sufficient private-sector participation, the remaining EU15b won’t be needed.”

    Well, a year ago Greeks were told there was nothing to fear and that no new capital was needed. This was a lie. Today we learn that, as expected, billions are needed… but less than the €25 billion set aside over the summer for the Greek bank bailout, so this is great news: after all it’s “better than expected.”

    Alas, this is just the latest lie, and one year from today, we can be certain that tens of billions more in new capital will be required.

    The reason: the biggest surprise from today’s stress test results was not in the capital shortfall measures, which will be promptly adjusted once again when the next Greek systemic crisis arrives – as it will because despite all the talk, absolutely nothing has changed either since last October or since the third Greek bailout. The surprise was the ECB’s admissions that the biggest problem not only for Greece, but all of Europe, the relentless surge in bad debt, continues without stopping.

    Recall what we said in July, when noting that Greek Non-Performing Loans had risen to €100 billion.

    Data from banks show that repayments declined to between 20 and 50 percent of performing loans, creating the conditions for a major increase in bad loans. This trend is in line with the estimates of the Bank of Greece, according to which NPLs amounted to 40 percent of the total at the end of 2014, with the likelihood they will grow further in the first half of the year.

     

    As a reference point, there is a little over €210 billion in total Greek loans, both performing and non-performing, currently and about €120 billion in deposits. There is also about €90 billion in Emergency Liquidity Assistance from the ECB.

     

    The total amount of bad loans (those which have remained unserviced for at least 90 days) has reached 100 billion euros, and the BoG data show that 70 percent of the loans that have entered payment programs remain nonperforming.

     

    This is a major problem for the Greek Banks but even more so for The ECB as there is not much it can do to ‘control’ NPLs and given provisions for bad loans are a mere EUR40bn – there is a big hole here that no one is accounting for.

     

    And since, this unprecedented and ongoing increase in NPLs is really all that matters, the only relevant data point from today’s ECB exercise was the following as cited by Reuters: “As controls on cash withdrawals have squeezed the economy, loans at risk of non-payment have increased by 7 billion euros to 107 billion euros.

    The punchline: following yet another tortured admission of just how ugly Greek balance sheets are, the ECB has confirms what we knew months ago, namely that more than  half of all Greek loans are now nonperforming, and that as much as 57% of the loans made by Piraeus Bank the bank which fared worst, are at risk with the other Greek banks not much better off.

    What happens next?

    As expected, the Greek parliament did not waste any time to approve legislation outlining the process of recapitalising the country’s banks, which it did earlier today. According to the FT, “the bill states that bank rescue fund HFSF will have full voting rights on any shares it acquires from banks in exchange for providing state aid. Under the bill the bank rescue fund will have a more active role, assessing bank managements.

    The exact mix of shares and contingent convertible bonds the HFSF will buy from banks in exchange for any fresh funds it will provide will be decided by the cabinet.

     

    The capital hole has emerged chiefly due to the rising number of Greeks unable or unwilling to repay their debt.

    And therein lies the rub, because in the span of three months, Greek NPLs have risen from 47.6% of total to 51%: an increase of just over 1% in bad debt every month.

    Which means that whether or not the latest attempt to boost confidence by the ECB, ESM, and the Greek parliament succeeds is moot. Yes, a few hedge funds may invest funds alongside the ESM, but in the end, as the NPLs keep rising and as long as Greek debtors refuse – or simply are unable – to pay their debt or interest, the next Greek crisis is inevitable.

    The biggest wildcard is whether or not the Greek population will accept this latest promise of stability in its banking sector at face value: a banking sector which since July is operating under draconian capital controls. Granted, we should point out that in the past two months the deposit outflow from banks has stopped, and even reversed modestly adding about €900 million in deposits in the past two months, although that is mostly due to the inability of households and corporations to withdraw any sizable amount of funds.

    The real answer whether Greek banks have been “saved” will wait until the shape of the final bank recapitalization takes place, even as NPLs continue to mount. Remember: Greek lenders are currently kept afloat only by the ECB’s ELA but there is a rush to get the recapitalization finished. If it is not done by the end of the year, new European Union rules mean large depositors such as companies may have to take a hit in their accounts.

    If the proposed recap is insufficient – and it will be since under the surface the Greek economy continues to collapse and NPLs continue to mount – and a bank bail-in of depositors takes place (a bail-in which took place immediately in the case of Cyprus back in 2013 when Russian oligarch savings were “sacrificed” to bail out the local insolvent banking system), the next leg in the Greek bank crisis will promptly unveil itself, only this time Greece will have some 200% in debt/GDP to show for its most recent, third, bailout.

    Finally, the real question is: having read all of the above, dear Greek readers, will you hand over what little cash you have stuffed in your mattress to your friendly, neighborhood, soon to be recapitalized bank?

    Source: ECB, Bank of Greece

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News October 31, 2015

  • Shantytown, Stockton, California, USA

    I made a visit to Stockton, California the other day and came across a jarring sight: an actual shantytown, here in America.

    Shantytown in Stockton, CaliforniaShantytown in Stockton, CaliforniaShantytown in Stockton, California

    (Click on images for a larger view.  Note: all images are Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International by chumbawamba@zerohedge)

    This is at the corner of S Grant Street and E Worth Street.  To give some geolocational context, this is the start of the neighborhood literally next door to the shantytown:

    Shantytown next to neighborhood in Stockton, California

    Here’s more of the shantytown, which is sprawled out over several acres, with lots of empty space in between each hovel (for now at least…plenty of room for development!)  The first photo is around the corner from the part shown above as viewed from S Stanislaus Street.  The second is a few hundred feet away as seen from E Hazelton Avenue:

        Shantytown in Stockton, California Shantytown in Stockton, California

    You’ll recall that the City of Stockton declared bankruptcy in 2013.  I’ve had business in Stockton since about 2009, primarily around the dead center of the downtown, and the place is definitely depressed.  A lot of small businesses in and around the downtown are closed.  A small general store that I patronized to make photocopies one day wasn’t there when I needed copies made a few months later.  It’s hard to even find a convenience or liquor store to get something as simple as a soda.  The only place I see doing a bustling business is the county courthouse, and the surrounding legal firms and notaries.  I think Stockton will eventually recover, as there are a lot of good real estate deals to be had, and they’ve made some infrastructure investments and improvements (primarily in prettying up the downtown harbor area with a nice cinema and shops) but any real recovery is probably not going to come until private money starts to flow in to re-develop this old, large and very interesting city.  But what do I know.  It might just get worse and stay a shithole for decades, like Detroit.

    After I got back home I did a search and found this report on a local Fox News affiliate (includes video of the shantytown) from July 10 of this year.  It includes this quote:

    “People don’t get moved out they’ll sort of set up shop for awhile,” Jon Mendelson, the Associate Director with Central Valley Housing told FOX40. The Central Valley Housing Organization said a lack of shelters and support programs may be contributing to these semi-permanent communities.

     

    “Well the tents and shantytowns are certainly not a permanent solution,” Mendelson claimed.

     

    The organization said a more viable option would be to provide housing and rehabilitation programs.

     

    “It includes just basic life skills and support that a lot of folks on the streets don’t have right now,” Mendelson told us.

    They want to teach these people “basic life skills”?  I’d say the ability to assemble your own shelter (if crude) is a basic life skill.  These people don’t need social services, they need a fucking revolution in government, as do we all.  The Banksters that have commandeered our government created this fucking disgrace.

    I’ve traveled a fair bit to various parts of the world and have seen shantytowns in the Middle East and central and South America, so it’s not like I haven’t witnessed something like this before.  But when I accidentally came across this shantytown right here in America–the ostensibly “greatest nation on earth”–it was a disconcerting sight.  I know we had tent cities form at the peak of the last crisis a few years ago, but this is a straight up shantytown: destitute people making shelters with whatever garbage they can find.  As an aside, it should come as no surprise that the streets around this area are filled with hookers, drug dealers, and all manner of shady characters.

    A big part of this, I’m sure, is the lack of affordable housing anywhere.  These people are just at the last rung of the housing ladder.  Housing prices in California (for both sales and rentals) are at all time highs.  It’s ridiculous.  I see shacks in the part of the SF Bay Area where I live renting for $500+/mo.

    A big component of this price inflation in housing we have now is the result of unchecked American consumption throughout the 2000s.  Sow and reap.  Follow me now: the Fed made credit cheap, everyone partook of the credit binge buffet and bought enormous loads of shit like new cars, boats, vacation homes, etc.  All this shit (or major components of) was manufactured in China.  Americans sent gobs of money to China which, in return, sent back gobs of cheap products and raw materials.  So Americans became shit rich but money poor, and the Chinese (the connected ones at least) became nigger rich.  Now, these newly rich Chinese with more dollars than they know what to do with, trying to keep them from the clutches of the Chinese government (understandably so), are coming to America with their piles of dollars, and what are they doing with them?  Investing in American real estate.  Paying cash for million dollar houses, bidding them up 50-100% over asking price.  So as a result we have $2 million shacks for sale in Palo Alto, and shantytowns in Stockton.

    I saw this coming years ago.  Jim Willie talked about a “Chinese colonization” in his newsletters, and that’s exactly what is happening.  I don’t believe it’s a concerted strategical move by China (though it could be) but rather the result of an organic move of capital naturally fleeing a despotically greedy regime.  Whatever the case, the fact remains the Chinese are taking over California real estate (and I believe single-handedly propping up Tesla), and pricing natives (like me) out of the market, and at the lower end of the spectrum the result of this inflation is shantytowns.  Oh well, this is still (if vaguely) a capitalist system.  I don’t complain, I just wait for the next down cycle (I believe we’re peaking now), and will take advantage of Chinese dumping their formerly very desirable California properties for whatever they can get, just like the Japanese had to do in the early 90s after they bought up the USA with all their imported dollars (acquired selling cheap shit to the USA from the 70s through the 80s) and forgot or were just too ignorant to understand that things work in cycles: what goes up shall eventually come down.  History doesn’t always repeat, but it rhymes, so I’ll be a patient boy and wait in the shadows for the next trough.

    In the meantime, I expect to see this shantytown expand.  Perhaps some cash rich Chinese will come in and buy up the best plots.

    I am Chumbawamba.

  • The Constitution's Big Lie

    Submitted by Antonius Aquinas via AntoniasAquinas.com,

    One of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon Americans at the time of its telling and which is still trumpeted to this very day is the notion that the U.S. Constitution contains within its framework mechanisms which limit its power. The “separation of powers,” where power is distributed among the three branches – legislative, executive, judicial – is supposedly the primary check on the federal government’s aggrandizement.

    This sacred held tenet of American political history has once again been disproved.

    Last Friday (October 23), the Attorney General’s office announced that it was “closing our investigation and will not seek any criminal charges” against former Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner, or, for that matter, anyone else from the agency over whether they improperly targeted Tea Party members, populists, or any other groups, which voiced anti-government sentiments or views.

    The Department of Justice statement read:

    The probe found ‘substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime.’ (My emphasis)

    Incredibly, it added:

    We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.

    That the DOJ will take no action against one of its rogue departments demonstrates the utter lawlessness and totalitarian nature of the federal government. The DOJ’s refusal to punish documented wrongdoing by the nation’s tax collection agency shows the blatant hypocrisy of Obummer, who promised that his presidency would be one of “transparency.”

    It can be safely assumed that Congress will not follow up on the matter, as Darrell Issa (R-Ca.), who chaired a committee to investigate the bureau’s wrong doings, admitted that its crimes may never be known. The DOJ and Issa’s responses are quite predictable once the nature of the federal government and, for that matter, all governments are understood.

    Basic political theory has shown that any state is extremely reluctant to police itself or reform unless threatened with destruction, take over, or dismemberment (secession). The Constitution has given to the federal government monopoly power where its taxing and judicial authority are supreme. It will not relinquish such a hold nor will it seek to minimize such power until it is faced with one of these threats.

    While it was called a federated system at the time of its enactment and ever since by its apologists, the reality of the matter is quite different. As the Constitution explicitly states in Art. VI, Sect. 2, the central government is “the supreme law of the land.” The individual states are inferior and mere appendages to the national government – ultimate control rests in Washington.

    In fact, it was the Constitution’s opponents, the much derided Antifederalists, who were the true champions of a decentralized system of government while their more celebrated opponents such as Madison, Hamilton and Jay wanted an omnipotent national state.

    Thus, in the American context, the only method for those oppressed by the federal government is to either threaten or actually go through with secession. Attempts to alter its dictatorial rule through the ballot box or public protests are futile. While there will naturally be outrage at letting the IRS off the hook, focus and anger must be redirected away from participation within the current political system to that of fundamental change.

    Congress’ refusal to prosecute an executive bureau that has deliberately used (and is still using) state power to oppress and harass opponents of the Obama regime demonstrates the bankruptcy of the idea that separation of power limits tyranny. Federal power and the corresponding tyranny and corruption which it has bred has never been countered by the checks and balances and separation of powers of the supposed “federal republic” created a little over two centuries ago.

    Until the “big lie” of the Constitution is realized, agencies like the IRS will continue to target and tyrannize anti-government organizations, groups, and individuals. The Constitution provides no real mechanism for the redress of grievances from the subjects which it rules. Only when the breakup of the federal Union has taken place, will American liberties and freedoms be secured.

  • Dear Janet, Seriously!!

    The Fed's confidence trick this week was, once again, the Keyser Soze gambit (via Beaudelaire)-  "convincing the world of Yellen's hawkishness, when no such character trait exists." However, unlike the movies, stocks and FX markets have already seen through the con, leaving Fed Funds futures alone to believe the hype. As we noted previously, "The Fed Can't Raise Rates, But Must Pretend It Will," repeating its pre-meeting hawkishness to dovishness swing time and again in a "Groundhog Day" meets "Waiting For Godot"-like manner. Time is running out Janet, tick tock…

     

    This is what we are to believe a "data-dependent" Federal Reserve is thinking…

    Source: @Not_Jim_Cramer

    And for now, Fed Funds Futures are falling for it…

     

    But the broad equity markets aren't…

     

    Nor are Financials…

     

    And nor is The Dollar…

     

    Because, as we noted previously, the market (and The Fed) know perfectly well that raising short-term rates would be like taking away the punch bowl just as the party gets going. As rates rise, the economy’s production and employment structure couldn’t be upheld. Neither could inflated bond, equity, and housing prices. If the economy slows down, let alone falls back into recession, the Fed’s fiat money pipe dream would run into serious trouble.

    This is the reason why the Fed would like to keep rates at the current suppressed levels. A delicate obstacle to such a policy remains, though: If savers and investors expect that interest rates will remain at rock bottom forever, they would presumably turn their backs on the credit market. The ensuing decline in the supply of credit would spell trouble for the fiat money system.

    To prevent this from happening, the Fed must achieve two things.

    First, it needs to uphold the expectation in financial markets that current low interest rates will be increased again at some point in the future. If savers and investors buy this story, they will hold onto their bank deposits, money market funds, bonds, and other fixed income products despite minuscule yields.

     

    Second, the Fed must succeed in continuing to postpone rate hikes into the future without breaking peoples’ expectation that rates will rise at some point. It has to send out the message that rates will be increased at, say, the forthcoming FOMC meeting. But, as the meeting approaches, the Fed would have to repeat its trickery, pushing the possible date for a rate hike still further out.

    If the Fed gets away with this “Waiting for Godot” strategy, savings will keep flowing into credit markets. Borrowers can refinance their maturing debt with new loans and also increase total borrowing at suppressed interest rates. The economy’s debt load can continue to build up, with the day of reckoning being postponed for yet again.

    However, there is the famous saying: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” What if savers and investors eventually become aware that the Fed will not bring interest rates back to “normal” but keep them at basically zero, or even push them into negative territory?

    If a rush for the credit market exit would set in, it would be upon the Fed to fill debtors’ funding gap in order to prevent the fiat system from collapsing. The central bank would have to monetize outstanding and newly originated debt on a grand scale, sending downward the purchasing power of the US dollar — and with it many other fiat currencies around the world.

    The “Waiting for Godot” strategy does not rule out that the Fed might, at some stage, nudge upward short-term borrowing costs. However, any rate action should be minor and rather short-lived (like they were in Japan), and it wouldn’t bring interest rates back to “normal.” The underlying logic of the fiat money system simply wouldn’t admit it.

  • Offshoring The Economy: Why The US Is On The Road To The Third World

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    On January 6, 2004, Senator Charles Schumer and I challenged the erroneous idea that jobs offshoring was free trade in a New York Times op-ed. Our article so astounded economists that within a few days Schumer and I were summoned to a Brookings Institution conference in Washington, DC, to explain our heresy. In the nationally televised conference, I declared that the consequence of jobs offshoring would be that the US would be a Third World country in 20 years.

    That was 11 years ago, and the US is on course to descend to Third World status before the remaining nine years of my prediction have expired.

    The evidence is everywhere.

    In September the US Bureau of the Census released its report on US household income by quintile. Every quintile, as well as the top 5%, has experienced a decline in real household income since their peaks. The bottom quintile (lower 20 percent) has had a 17.1% decline in real income from the 1999 peak (from $14,092 to $11,676). The 4th quintile has had a 10.8% fall in real income since 2000 (from $34,863 to $31,087). The middle quintile has had a 6.9% decline in real income since 2000 (from $58,058 to $54,041). The 2nd quintile has had a 2.8% fall in real income since 2007 (from $90,331 to $87,834). The top quintile has had a decline in real income since 2006 of 1.7% (from $197,466 to $194,053). The top 5% has experienced a 4.8% reduction in real income since 2006 (from $349,215 to $332,347). Only the top One Percent or less (mainly the 0.1%) has experienced growth in income and wealth.

    The Census Bureau uses official measures of inflation to arrive at real income. These measures are understated. If more accurate measures of inflation are used (such as those available from shadowstats.com), the declines in real household income are larger and have been declining for a longer period. Some measures show real median annual household income below levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

    Note that these declines have occurred during an alleged six-year economic recovery from 2009 to the current time, and during a period when the labor force was shrinking due to a sustained decline in the labor force participation rate. On April 3, 2015 the US Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that 93,175,000 Americans of working age are not in the work force, a historical record. Normally, an economic recovery is marked by a rise in the labor force participation rate. John Williams reports that when discouraged workers are included among the measure of the unemployed, the US unemployment rate is currently 23%, not the 5.2% reported figure.

    In a recently released report, the Social Security Administration provides annual income data on an individual basis. Are you ready for this?

    In 2014 38% of all American workers made less than $20,000; 51% made less than $30,000; 63% made less than $40,000; and 72% made less than $50,000.

    The scarcity of jobs and the low pay are direct consequences of jobs offshoring. Under pressure from “shareholder advocates” (Wall Street) and large retailers, US manufacturing companies moved their manufacturing abroad to countries where the rock bottom price of labor results in a rise in corporate profits, executive “performance bonuses,” and stock prices.

    The departure of well-paid US manufacturing jobs was soon followed by the departure of software engineering, IT, and other professional service jobs.

    Incompetent economic studies by careless economists, such as Michael Porter at Harvard and Matthew Slaughter at Dartmouth, concluded that the gift of vast numbers of US high productivity, high value-added jobs to foreign countries was a great benefit to the US economy.

    In articles and books I challenged this absurd conclusion, and all of the economic evidence proves that I am correct. The promised better jobs that the “New Economy” would create to replace the jobs gifted to foreigners have never appeared. Instead, the economy creates lowly-paid part-time jobs, such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks, and ambulatory health care services, while full-time jobs with benefits continue to shrink as a percentage of total jobs.

    These part-time jobs do not provide enough income to form a household. Consequently, as a Federal Reserve study reports, “Nationally, nearly half of 25-year-olds lived with their parents in 2012-2013, up from just over 25% in 1999.”

    When half of 25-year olds cannot form households, the market for houses and home furnishings collapses.

    Finance is the only sector of the US economy that is growing. The financial industry’s share of GDP has risen from less than 4% in 1960 to about 8% today. As Michael Hudson has shown, finance is not a productive activity. It is a looting activity (Killing The Host).

    Moreover, extraordinary financial concentration and reckless risk and debt leverage have made the financial sector a grave threat to the economy.

    The absence of growth in real consumer income means that there is no growth in aggregate demand to drive the economy. Consumer indebtedness limits the ability of consumers to expand their spending with credit. These spending limits on consumers mean that new investment has limited appeal to businesses. The economy simply cannot go anywhere, except down as businesses continue to lower their costs by substituting part-time jobs for full-time jobs and by substituting foreign for domestic workers. Government at every level is over-indebted, and quantitative easing has over-supplied the US currency.

    This is not the end of the story. When manufacturing jobs depart, research, development, design, and innovation follow. An economy that doesn’t make things does not innovate. The entire economy is lost, not merely the supply chains.

    The economic and social infrastructure is collapsing, including the family itself, the rule of law, and the accountability of government.

    When college graduates can’t find employment because their jobs have been offshored or given to foreigners on work visas, the demand for college education declines. To become indebted only to find employment that cannot service student loans becomes a bad economic decision.

    We already have the situation where college and university administrations spend 75% of the university’s budget on themselves, hiring adjuncts to teach the classes for a few thousand dollars. The demand for full time faculty with a career before them has collapsed. When the consequences of putting short-term corporate profits before jobs for Americans fully hit, the demand for university education will collapse and with it American science and technology.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that ever happened to the United States. The two main consequences of the Soviet collapse have been devastating. One consequence was the rise of the neoconservative hubris of US world hegemony, which has resulted in 14 years of wars that have cost $6 trillion. The other consequence was a change of mind in socialist India and communist China, large countries that responded to “the end of history” by opening their vast under-utilized labor forces to Western capital, which resulted in the American economic decline that this article describes, leaving a struggling economy to bear the enormous war debt.

    It is a reasonable conclusion that a social-political-economic system so incompetently run already is a Third World country.

  • Why Do We Have Wars?

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    h/t flash at The Burning Platform

  • Paul Brodsky: "Expect The Unexpected. It Might Be Time To Duck And Cover"

    From Paul Brodsky of Macro-Allocation Inc.

    Shift Happens

    The Economist ran a special report October 3 entitled “The sticky superpower”, a long essay that questioned America’s ongoing status as an effective global economic and monetary hegemon. At times the report was unsparing in describing today’s reality: “the global monetary system is unreformed, unstable and possibly unsustainable” and the world has no “credible lender of last resort”.

    The piece is noteworthy in that the Economist has a reputation for editorial conservativism; not in the libertarian sense, but in a politically centrist sort of way. It encourages a not-so obtrusive form of Keynesian economics, supporting reasonable fiscal, monetary and trade policies conjured, executed and overseen by enlightened authorities. Unlike the far Right, the magazine seems willing to play along with the notion that free market capitalism actually exists, even though the political environments in which our economies produce and distribute resources do not allow broad failure, economic contraction, or price and wage scales to be set by the marketplace. Its center-Right orientation accepts government participation as necessary when “animal spirits” drive the marketplace and capital markets to extremes. The magazine also implicitly abides un-extinguished credit as an acceptable driver of demand, and, by implication, of economic cycles.

    And so one could not read the essay without marveling how far the public conversation has shifted. Suggesting a few short years ago that the global financial architecture might very well fail to overcome compounding leverage, naturally slowing output growth, and conflicting trade incentives was economic blasphemy, radical rantings uttered only on the fringe.

    To be sure, the Economist supports the current regime where nation-state policies guide and support the commercial marketplace and capital markets, and in which sound fiscal, trade and monetary policies are supposed to provide solutions: “What the world needs is an engineer to design smart ways to tame capital flows, a policeman to stop beggar-thy-neighbor policies, a nurse to provide a safety net if things go wrong, and a judge to run the global payments system impartially”. It is a Keynesian call to arms – an S.O.S. – and its provenance is startling.

    The report needed an antagonist to advance the narrative, and used China. It suggested political competition brewing in which the US and China compete to dominate trade and soft power over other national economies, concluding “China will not be a counterbalance to or substitute for America soon”. The report’s main concern: “so what will fill the vacuum?”

    The piece had a curious conclusion; a happy ending possible through the suspension of disbelief. It called for “a fantasy American administration and Congress (that would) act in its own enlightened self-interest…to the benefit of the world.”

    The point of the report seemed to be the need for better manipulation of producer, consumer and investor incentives…and soon. Things are beginning to seem ominous to the political center. It might be time to duck and cover.

    Intermission

    We took the liberty of updating Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”:

    Billy Clinton, Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan,
    Vlady Putin, dubya, nine-eleven, off to Tehran…

    Hank Paulson, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, no place to hide,
    Lehman Brothers, all the others, quite a Black Swan…

    Save the bank, Dodd Frank, Gentle Ben, tell us when,
    QE, Obamacare, Vlady Putin’s back again…

    Nukes for Iranians, Janet Yellen has no friends,
    ZIRP, ISIS, buy the dips, Donald Trump in the chips…

    We didn’t start the fire
    Their model’s forecast
    That we’d start to hire…

    Political Shades of Gray

    These days it’s hard to tell the players without a scorecard. Actually, we know the players, but the challenge now is in recognizing which team each player is on. As it stands, Janet Yellen, the Chair of the Fed, is publicly jawboning a rate hike while Christine Lagarde, the Managing Director of the IMF, is warning against one. Meanwhile, Larry Fink, Chairman of the world’s largest asset manager is openly touting interest rate normalization while Larry Summers, the third of three de-activated members of Time magazine’s Committee to Save the World, can’t seem to get enough air time to argue against it. And those are just the progressives.

    Geopolitical alliances are also not as straightforward as they once were. We know Russia’s Crimean annexation triggered broad sanctions by a US-led coalition; however, Russia’s help was instrumental in allowing the West to negotiate the Iranian nuclear agreement. Meanwhile, the US in the process of cozying up to Iran and Russia as it shifts its position on Syria, signaling it will let Bashar al-Assad stay in power. (What will this mean for US relations with Israel or the Kurds?) It seems “the enemy of our enemy is our friend” has evolved into “our enemies are our friends, but being our friends may not be such a prize”.

    Speaking of Syria, the mass emigration of Syrian refugees into Germany has caused major riffs between Angela Merkel’s and one of her staunchest backers, the state of Bavaria, which is suffering from the massive inflow. If you want a friend in Washington (or Berlin), get a dog.

    The relationship between the two largest global economies, the US and China, is also becoming more complicated. The countries directly exchange nearly $600 billion of goods and services annually, and yet China’s construction of potentially militarized islands in the South China Sea endangers America’s absolute hold on global shipping lanes, which has given the US enormous influence not only over materials and energy destined for China, but also over the entire region’s bilateral trade.

    Sino-American relations have been further complicated through China’s successful establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The Bank was formed to give sovereign borrowers an alternative to the World Bank and IMF – US dominated lending organizations that dole out American soft power around the world. The only major nation absent from the AIIB’s founding was the US.

    And what really happened behind the scenes that prompted the sudden opening of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba this year? We don’t know, but the point is it occurred.

    Clearly, things are changing quickly around the world, as they were destined to at some point. Following the demise of the Soviet empire, the US stood as the world’s only superpower, enjoying almost absolute control over the global monetary system and terms of trade. This unilateralism would eventually have to be challenged and current events seem to suggest that the geopolitical landscape is now experiencing major tremors. They have become so obvious and frequent that the established order (i.e., the Economist) cannot ignore it.

    There is little in the political dimension today that investors can hang their hats on. It would be a mistake to assume that stated positions or even ostensibly bedrock principles are static, whether they are related to geopolitics or trade, fiscal, tax and monetary policies. Warm, fuzzy political blankets we can wrap ourselves in to escape the reality that politics = expedience are gone. We should expect the unexpected.

    Shift Happens

    Eventually, and then all at once, “over time” becomes yesterday. The future becomes the past. Hopes are tested. Expectations are met, or not. Time moves on and only then do we know what we don’t know now.

    Most investors don’t take kindly to change. “The market” chooses to stay in the here and now; each human component vibrant and alert while the whole is passive and inert…like a herd of wildebeests, protected by its mass and collective wisdom that each one of them is statistically safe from lions as long as they stay together.

    In the current investment environment, marked by near zero sovereign interest rates, tight credit spreads, full equity valuations, over-leveraged balance sheets, expedient politicians performing daily volume triage, and policy makers stringing new high wires and walking them without a nets; risk-adjusted opportunity lies in change.

    The Economist’s special report should be taken seriously, if not for its conclusion than for its mere existence. They don’t normally do hyperbole, but they surely did this month.

    Our challenge is to imagine where the wildebeests will be, and our sense is that the herd will migrate over time towards liquidity. With the return on money near zero, we don’t feel intense pressure to pick when it will go there, at least for our MACAW portfolio.

  • Tsipras Blames Western Military Meddling For Syria Crisis: "You Reap What You Sow"

    As anyone who followed Greece’s protracted bailout negotiations with creditors is no doubt aware, Athens had very little in the way of leverage when it came to countering German FinMin Wolfgang Schaeuble at the bargaining table. Try as they might, Alexis Tsipras and Yanis Varoufakis were ultimately unable to use the threat of Grexit to extract concessions from Brussels and the IMF. 

    In hindsight, what’s interesting about the incessant back and forth between Athens, Brussels, and Berlin is that both sides were attempting to use a euro exit to bolster their positions. That is, Germany was attempting to scare Greece with the prospect of a depression in the event the country reverted to the drachma and Greece was attempting to scare Germany by throwing the entire idea of the euro’s indissolubility into question. In the end, Berlin prevailed as the purse string proved mightier than Syriza ideology. 

    But while tacitly threatening to disprove the notion of the euro’s indissolubility proved insufficient as a bargaining chip, one thing that Alexis Tsipras and, before he was banished from the party, Panagiotis Lafazanis, were able to employ somewhat effectively was the idea of a Russian pivot. On a number of occasions, it appeared as though Moscow was ready to come to the aid of the Greeks in defiance of the EU and predictably, the proposed partnership centered around an energy deal. In effect, there were rumors that Gazprom would advance Athens some $5 billion against future revenues from the Greek section of the Turkish Stream pipeline and although that deal never panned out, it was enough to worry Angela Merkel, as the last thing the EU wanted in the midst of the Ukraine crisis was to see Russia effectively annex Greece. 

    Fast forward four months and Greece is on the front lines of Europe’s migrant crisis and while Alexis Tsipras may not be the man he once was thanks to the troika’s deplorable campaign to strip Syriza of everything it stood for in January just to send a message to Spain and Portugal, sometimes the old Tsipras shows up out of the blue to remind the world that the fire hasn’t been completely extinguished. Case in point: on Friday, Tsipras lashed out at Brussels for the bloc’s handling of the migrant crisis but more notably, he also suggested that the West’s military meddling is the root cause of Syria’s prolonged civil war. Here’s AP

    Greece’s prime minister lashed out Friday at European “ineptness” in handling the continent’s massive immigration crisis after 31 more people — mostly children — drowned in shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea.

     

    “I want to express … my endless grief at the dozens of deaths and the human tragedy playing out in our seas,” he told parliament. “The waves of the Aegean are not just washing up dead refugees, dead children, but (also) the very civilization of Europe.”

     

    “What about the tens of thousands of living children, who are cramming the roads of migration?” he said.

     

    Tsipras blamed the migrant flows on western military interventions in the Middle East, which he said furthered geopolitical interests rather than democracy.

     

    “And now, those who sowed winds are reaping whirlwinds, but these mainly afflict reception countries,” he added.

     

    “I feel ashamed of Europe’s inability to effectively address this human drama, and of the level of debate … where everyone tries to shift responsibility to someone else,” Tsipras said.

    So apparently, there’s at least one European leader who “gets it” when it comes to explaining why hundreds of thousands of people who were living with a repressive regime for decades suddenly decided it was time to flee to Europe.

    That is, it’s not like Syrians didn’t know their government had autocratic tendencies – a couple of hundred thousand people didn’t just wake up one day and say “hey, this guy might be a dictator, let’s leave and settle in Germany.” Rather, the West and its regional allies armed multiple Sunni extremist groups on the way to starting a civil war and now, Europe is discovering what happens when you foment sectarian violence in the Mid-East. 

    Of course it won’t matter. No one listens to Tsipras anymore thanks to the troika’s efforts to subvert democracy in Greece and discredit someone who might otherwise have become an important figure in the world of geopolitics. And so, the charade will continue: first blame the “brutal dictatorship,” then claim the Russians are making it worse.

  • How We Got Here: The Fed Warned Itself In 1979, Then Spent Four Decades Intentionally Avoiding The Topic

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    It bears repeating and re-emphasizing, but had the guts of the actual global financial system been fully appreciated in a timely manner the current state of the global “dollar” would be cause for celebration. It would matter not that the eurodollar is in full and often violent retreat because that is the exact method by which a real recovery would be born; if only there were a reasonable market for money (actual, not ephemeral and pliable) and money dealing in place to absorb the transition. The happenstance of the current state of the “dollar” owes itself to the rededicated financialism of every central bank as if 2008 never happened. Rather than look for an actual solution, views of cyclicality ruled where the panic was judged nothing more than a temporary disruption.

    It is that general outline that accounts for the recovery, lack of. Market forces practically begged for a total re-alignment, especially since the status quo only survived through the greater oligarchy in money of TBTF. The larger banks have only gotten larger and now they have very little competition since there are practically no new banks anymore. Wholesale continues to dominate, amazingly even more so now than pre-crisis which more than suggests the rotten nature of the very antics proclaimed as monetary heroism.

    Except that the wholesale banks themselves no longer want the job of supporting that system. Before 2008, prop trading and spreads were not just favorable but undoubtedly so as any number of unrelated firms suddenly became FICC centric. GE Capital became a leading provider of mortgage warehousing as well as “investing” while formerly uninteresting insurance companies like AIG transformed into both securities dealers and prime purveyors of dark leverage, especially CDS. It was all, of course, artificially inflated by the nature of that time, the Great “Moderation” because the whole system long ago departed basic and operational sense.

    Behind it all was the eurodollar. As I wrote at the outset above, some timely appreciation for it might have saved a whole lot of acute trouble and maybe would have pushed for some real reform (and then a real recovery to follow). What is really frustrating, maybe criminally so, however, is that monetary officials were debating eurodollars not in 2006 but rather 1979. At that early stage, the Fed along with other central banks couldn’t quite make out what it was, how it got there or where it was all going. They were even debating at that time whether a eurodollar was actually “money” at all:

    It has long been recognized that a shift of deposits from a domestic banking system to the corresponding Euromarket (say from the United States to the Euro-dollar market) usually results in a net increase in bank liabilities worldwide. This occurs because reserves held against domestic bank liabilities are not diminished by such a transaction, and there are no reserve requirements on Eurodeposits. Hence, existing reserves support the same amount of domestic liabilities as before the transaction. However, new Euromarket liabilities have been created, and world credit availability has been expanded.

     

    To some critics this observation is true but irrelevant, so long as the monetary authorities seek to reach their ultimate economic objectives by influencing the money supply that best represents money used in transactions (usually M1). On this reasoning, Euromarket expansion does not create money, because all Eurocurrency liabilities are time deposits although frequently of very short maturity. Thus, they must be treated exclusively as investments. They can serve the store of value function of money but cannot act as a medium of exchange.

    In other words, at least parts of the Fed all the way back in 1979 appreciated how Greenspan and Bernanke’s “global savings glut” was a joke. Rather than follow that inquiry to a useful line of policy, monetary officials instead just let it all go into the ether of, from their view, trivial history. But the true disaster lies not just in that intentional ignorance but rather how orthodox economists and policymakers were acutely aware there was “something” amiss about money especially by the 1990’s. Because these dots to connect were so close together the only reasonable conclusion for this discrepancy is ideology alone. Economists were so bent upon creating monetary “rules” by which to control the economy that they refused recognition of something so immense because it would disqualify their very effort.

    And so, the Fed and central banks bent over backwards to avoid the eurodollar, even taking to ridiculous efforts to do so. Not only was Greenspan waddling on in the “global savings glut”, the Fed itself discontinued M3 in 2005 just to avoid the topic altogether. That part has to be considered purposeful negligence, because by that point the eurodollar figures were not unimportant but simply too immense to calculate.

    When M3 was discontinued, the Fed wrote that it, “does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years.” Given the time period, that was a material discrepancy upon reality. It was, after all, Greenspan himself in 1996 (the “irrational exuberance” speech) who first reported that traditional monetary figures like M2 were no longer correlating much to economic expectations. So cutting out M3 by 2005 is nothing but a tangled mess of contradictions that, again, point to nothing but religious-like expedience over proper science.

    It would, as we know now, come back to haunt the world only a few years later:

    But the second part of that official justification should have been something of a warning about all things in the monetary realm. The “costs of collecting” excuse was greeted by Fed critics with more than a hint of derision since it smacked of too much disingenuousness. It seemed like a lame attempt to hide banking gone into overdrive.

     

    The Fed, however, was actually honest here, and that should have been, and should be still, meaningful in the context of monetary engineering and the economy’s paradigm shift in 2008/09. Those two elements of M3, repos and eurodollars, were the epicenter of crisis. The fact that it would have cost the Fed too much to attempt to measure these “money” aggregates shows just how far the banking system strayed from the light of the regulated regime. Yet, as the Fed demonstrated in the first sentence of its official rationale, our central bank had little interest in that monetary/banking arena.

    Nothing has changed in that regard, as global central banks still have little interest in wholesale banking. The reason is just as simple and the same; they haven’t figured out how to incorporate the factor into their “rules.” As it was, nobody had any idea just how far the eurodollar system had expanded and penetrated because they weren’t even looking at it – and we still don’t know (witness now China and the potential for an “Asian dollar”). The BIS in October 2009 came up with a conservative estimate just in the “global dollar short” of at least $2.5 trillion for European banks alone. But that was just the money dealing, as that liquidity support was angling about:

    The outstanding stock of banks’ foreign claims grew from $10 trillion at the beginning of 2000 to $34 trillion by end-2007, a significant expansion even when scaled by global economic activity (Figure 1, left panel). The year-on-year growth in foreign claims approached 30% by mid-2007, up from around 10% in 2001. This acceleration took place during a period of financial innovation, which included the emergence of structured finance, the spread of “universal banking”, which combines commercial and investment banking and proprietary trading activities, and significant growth in the hedge fund industry to which banks offer prime brokerage and other services.

    So while the US central bank was showing and delivering even less appreciation for wholesale banking, the scale was an enormous up-to-30% per year expansion by 2007. I have never worked for a central bank but even an outsider would be easily impressed that a $24 trillion increase in offshore banks’ “foreign claims” should have been not just a part of the monetary setting but perhaps the lone and central focus. That is especially true as the great and massive increase during the ultimate mania (in finance) occurred exactly as the Fed was raising its federal funds target; as with dark leverage, we see now what should have been easily seen then, that the Fed’s traditional mode of operation was wholly and totally obsolete. Monetary policy had not just been reduced, it had been disemboweled and obliterated by an “outside” force. The lack of curiosity, let alone appreciation, is staggering and telling.

    Again, going back to 1979, the FRBNY discussion predicted the exact manner of liquidity crash that followed just more than a quarter-century later:

    One of the traditional responsibilities of any central bank is to act as lender of last resort – to supply funds to a solvent bank or to the banking system generally in an emergency that threatens a sharp contraction of liquidity. This role normally has been framed with respect to commercial banks in the domestic banking system. But the emergence of the extraterritorial Euromarket created ambiguities about which central bank would be responsible for providing lender-of-last-resort support for overseas operations.

     

    No final resolution of those ambiguities has yet been reached, and it is doubtful that central bankers will ever codify their respective roles or lay down conditions for lender-of-last-resort assistance.

    ABOOK Oct 2015 Dollar Late Geography ABOOK Oct 2015 Dollar Late Geography2

    Here was the Fed debating in 1979 the very geographic divide in the “dollar” that would condition the full weight of panic by September 2008. Worse, it continues now especially after the events of 2011 and with the amplification of wholesale eurodollar retreat post-June 2014. There is a great deal that disqualifies orthodox economics from the levers of economic power, but this is not close to the top but the very top of that list. When that prescient conjecture was written nearly forty years ago, the eurodollar intrusion had already grown to an estimated 10% of M3 (and that was just, again, what was reported on-the-books).

    Yet, from 10% to wiping out M3 altogether over three decades, the Fed studiously ignored it all. They took greater care in not looking anywhere close in the direction of the eurodollar than they did about their own ridiculous attempts at soft central planning. It could not be, now, anymore asinine than what we have: the Federal Reserve religiously neglecting to incorporate the very case the institution warned itself about four decades ago even though that warning has now been applied in two separate and dangerous episodes (one still to reach its ultimate settled state). There is no analogy or metaphor suitable for this level of carelessness and deliberate stupidity. You might make the argument that it wasn’t clear in 1979 the trajectory of the wholesale direction, but by at least the mid-1990’s there was no longer any doubt. Again, it could only be ideologically-driven blindness that would prevent acknowledgment and appreciation of such obvious shifts and alterations – especially of that magnitude.

    The relevance to today’s discontinuity is as I wrote at the beginning; if the eurodollar decay was occurring in a regime of planned obsolescence and retreat, with a waiting solution ready to take up the slack of the global work eurodollars still, badly, engage, then the cause of financialism would be welcomed toward extinction. Rather than that useful paradigm alteration, however, central banks simply persist as if there has been no wholesale violence at all at any time; leaving the global “dollar” system to again bear the brunt of the obvious and again gaining savagery. After all that has transpired and the great cost in terms of time and bubbles (globally) we remain on Step 1 in the program out of a “lost decade.” We are still fighting to recognize that we have a problem and to plead the obvious about what that exactly is.

    That is why the only answer, in my opinion, will be political. If after all that has taken place in the past forty years (really fifty or sixty) and orthodox economics still denies direct and easy observation then it is equally obvious that it never will (and why that is). “Markets” may still aspire in pieces to central banks as the ultimate guarantor, but that is just the business end of intentional financial illiteracy.

  • Macro Dump, Earnings Slump & Hawkish-Fed Pump Spark 4th Best October For Stocks Since 1929

    Why we rallied… (BTFD short squeeze)

    Because… (the central banks conditioned traders)

    How it will end… (The markets are at 2:00 in this clip)

    *  *  *

    Before we start… This!

     

    And this…

     

    October – Just For Fun

    Everything is awesome around the world (except Ukraine and Venezuela)…

    • This is the 4th biggest October S&P rally since 1929!!

    • Best overall month for the S&P since October 2011
    • Nasdaq's best month since September 2010

    In The US, Nasdaq the big winner and Trannies underperformed (weak close today)…

     

    With Materials, Energy, and Tech the huge winners…

     

    Leaving stocks the most overbought since Nov 2014…

     

    And then there's Valeant…

     

    The Dow still did not quite make it back to green for 2015… even as The S&P surge back into the green (and Nasdaq nears cycle highs once again)

     

    While October was a big month for stocks, it was less exciting across the other asset classes…

     

    Treasury yields tumbled initially on poor payrolls.. then yields went nowhere for 3 weeks til The FOMC…

     

    The US Dollar managed some modest gains (once again driven by China rate cuts, ECB and FOMC moves)

     

    Silver surged over 7% on the month as copper slid over 1% amid China growth concerns. Crude and Gold (after the former's meltup) were equally higher on the month…

    *  *  *

    So back to this week…

    The Dow actually closed lower of 4 of the 5 days this week, but the melt-up after The FOMC turned hawkish-er saved stocks for the week..

     

    And stocks have given all of the fomc gains back…

     

    Although today was weak..with an ugly close…

     

    Most mind-blowingly, "Most Shorted" was notably weak post-FOMC and stunningly roundtripped to perfectly unchanged on the month – after the massive squeeze post-payrolls…

     

    Since The FOMC Statement…Gold is the loser, stocks gave back gains, with only crude higher…

     

    Something remains majorly broken in The VIX Complex…

     

    Treasury yields pushed on higher this week with the long-end outperforming overall (after yesterday's ugliness which was rumored to be dominated by rate-locks on heavy issuance)…

     

    The USDollar drifted lower again today, giving up all of its Hawkish FOMC gains…

     

    And it seems US equities are catching on to what FX markets think…

     

    Commodities generally drifted lower on the week, apart from crude…

     

    Crude ripped higher on the latter half of the week – running stops above last week's highs before fading…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Obamacare Is A Disaster: Co-Op Insurers Across America Are Collapsing, And Now There Is Fraud

    Two weeks ago we reported that in what at the time was still a rather isolated incident, Colorado’s largest nonprofit health insurer (aka co-op), Colorado HealthOP is abruptly shutting down, forcing 80,000 Coloradans to find a new insurer for 2016.

    At the time, we said that the health insurer had been decertified by the Division of Insurance as an eligible insurance company because the cooperative relied on federal support, and federal authorities announced last month they wouldn’t be able to pay most of what they owed in a program designed to help health insurance co-ops get established.

    In other words, one of the 24 co-ops funded with Federal dollars and created to give more policyholders control over their insurers – especially those who wished to stay away from various corporate offerings, had failed simply because the government was unable to subsidize it: the same government that spends $35 billion in global economic “aid” but can’t support its most important welfare program.

    Fast forward to today, when we learn that another co-op, this time New York’s Health Republic Insurance – the largest of the nonprofit cooperatives created under the Affordable Care Act – is not only shuttering, but was engaging in fraud.

    The fate of Health Republic Insurance was first revealed a month ago when the WSJ reported it would shut down after suffering massive losses “in the latest sign of the financial pressures facing many insurers that participated in the law’s new marketplaces.”

    The insurer lost about $52.7 million in the first six months of this year, on top of a $77.5 million loss in 2014, according to regulatory filings. The move to wind down its operations was made jointly by officials from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; New York’s state insurance exchange, known as New York State of Health; and the New York State Department of Financial Services.

     

    In a statement, Health Republic said it was “deeply disappointed” by the outcome, and pointed to “challenges placed on us by the structure of the CO-OP program.”

     

    Health Republic has about 215,000 members, with about half holding individual plans and half under small-business coverage, a spokesman for the insurer said.

    Today we learn that not only was this largest Co-op insolvent, it had also committed fraud. According to Politico, the collapsing insurance company that is creating headaches for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, misled state and federal officials about its finances, and will not be able to remain in business through the end of the year as originally hoped.

    Because incompetence is one thing, but corruption: now that’s real government work, right there.

    The accelerated wind down is clearly a problem: the more than 200,000 customers insured with the co-op will lose their coverage Dec. 1, and must find a new plan by mid-November, according to the state and federal government. Health Republic insures about 20 percent of the state’s individual market.

    As Politico adds, the plan had been for Health Republic to make it through the end of the year. As recently as last week, company officials said there was enough in cash in reserve. But that apparently wasn’t true.

    Health Republic’s finances are “substantially worse than the company previously reported in its filings,” according to the state Department of Financial Services, which oversees insurance in New York, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    One wonders just how much of the over $100 million “lost” in under two years was due to incompetence, and how much due to pure embezzlement by the co-ops operators. Somehow we doubt we will find the anwer where this taxpayer money has gone.

    This does, however, lead to a more serious question: the implosion of Health Republic is merely the latest in what has become an epidemic of governmental failure. In fact, there are a total of ten co-ops, all of which were created by the Affordable Care Act and seeded with billions in federal funding, that have now failed, leading to questions whether the entire business model underpinning Obamacare is unsustainanble for everyone but a select few corporations.

    For some more thoughts on this disturbing, if perfectly predictable epidemic, we go to Forbes’ Edmund Haislmaier who answers “Why Obamacare Co-Ops are failing at a rate of nearly 50%”

    Cooperative health insurers (or co-ops) created under a federal grant and loan program in the Affordable Care Act seem to be falling like dominoes.

     

    It started in February, when CoOportunity Health, which operated in Iowa and Nebraska, was ordered into liquidation. In July, Louisiana’s insurance department announced it was shuttering that state’s co-op. The following month brought news that Nevada’s co-op would also close. On September 25, New York ordered the shutdown of Health Republic Insurance of New York, which had the largest enrollment of all of the co-ops. Then, within the space of a week in mid-October, the number of failures doubled from four to eight, as state insurance regulators announced that they were closing the co-ops in Kentucky, Tennessee, Colorado, and one of the two in Oregon. Last week came news that South Carolina’s co-op will be closed, followed this week by the announcement that Utah’s co-op is also being shut down.

     

    In sum, of the 24 Obamacare co-ops funded with federal tax dollars, one (Vermont’s) never got approval to sell coverage, a second (CoOportunity) has already been wound down, and nine more will terminate at the end of this year.

     

    So what is behind this, so far, 46 percent failure rate?

     

    To start with, the program was a congressional exercise in not merely reinventing the wheel, but doing a bad job of it.

     

    Far from being a new idea, member-owned insurance companies—called “mutual” insurers—have a long history. For instance, life insurer Northwestern Mutual has been in business for over 150 years. Health insurers organized as mutual companies include, among others, Blue Cross plans in 10 states. Indeed, one of them, Florida Blue, converted into a policyholder-owned mutual company just last year. If having more health insurers owned by their policyholders was the goal, then there was no need for federal government action.

     

    On the other hand, if the goal was to increase competition by stimulating the creation of new health insurers, then the ACA’s co-op program was, like other parts of the legislation, badly designed.

     

    * * *

     

    The program offered federal loans and grants to startup insurers but required that they be non-profits, not have anyone affiliated with an existing health insurer on their boards, and not spend any of their federal funding on marketing.

     

    Co-ops are also subject to another provision of the ACA requiring all health insurers to pay out in claims at least 80 percent of premium revenues, or refund the difference to policyholders. By law, insurers can retain no more than 20 percent , out of which they must fund sales and administrative costs before booking any remainder as free cash. That significantly constrains a non-profit carrier’s ability to accumulate capital needed for growth, as it can’t raise funds through equity or debt offerings.

     

    As if that wasn’t daunting enough, the law also required co-ops to focus “substantially all” of their activities on offering health insurance in the individual and small group markets—just as other provisions of Obamacare were thoroughly disrupting those markets by imposing new rules on insurers and complicated new payment arrangements for many of their customers.

     

    Given all of the foregoing, 10 co-ops failing within two years is less surprising than the fact that 23 of them actually got to market in the first place.

    As we pointed out two weeks ago, following this avalanche of failures, it will merely force even more individuals into plans offered by corporations, who as a result of the failure of their co-op competitors will have even more pricing power and premium hiking leverage.

    Which means that “sticker shockers” such as the one below kindly informing them their health insurance premiums are rising by 60% crushing any desire to splurge modest “gas savings” on discretionary purchases…

    … will only get worse, as the premium increase even more with every passing year, as more Co-Ops fail, as more of the publicly-held insurers merge, and as a single-payer system, one which benefits not taxpayers but a select handful of shareholders, becomes the norm.

    Haislmaier’s take: “The bottom line: Obamacare has made health insurance costlier and the business of offering it riskier. To survive in that new world, health insurers need to be cautious, or even pessimistic, and hope that their customers can continue to pay escalating premiums. It’s not a pretty picture.”

    It isn’t but what are customers going to do: after all the “Affordable Care Act” is a tax (one which “boosts” GDP every quarter no less) and you must pay it by law; sadly the Supreme Court forgot that when it makes a service mandatory, corporations can charge any price they want. 

     And that’s precisely what they are doing.

  • First They Jailed The Bankers, Now Every Icelander To Get Paid Back In Bank Sale

    Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

    First, Iceland jailed its crooked bankers for their direct involvement in the financial crisis of 2008. Now, every Icelander will receive a payout for the sale of one of its three largest banks, Íslandsbanki.

    If Finance Minister Bjarni Benediktsson has his way — and he likely will — Icelanders will be paid kr 30,000 after the government takes over ownership of the bank. Íslandsbanki would be second of the three largest banks under State proprietorship.

    “I am saying that the government take [sic] some decided portion, 5%, and simply hand it over to the people of this country,” he stated.

    Because Icelanders took control of their government, they effectively own the banks. Benediktsson believes this will bring foreign capital into the country and ultimately fuel the economy — which, incidentally, remains the only European nation to recover fully from the 2008 crisis. Iceland even managed to pay its outstanding debt to the IMF in full — in advance of the due date.

    Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, Budget Committee vice chairperson, explained the move would facilitate the lifting of capital controls, though he wasn’t convinced State ownership would be the ideal solution. Former Finance Minister Steingrímur J. Sigfússon sided with Þórðarson, telling a radio show, “we shouldn’t lose the banks to the hands of fools” and that Iceland would benefit from a shift in focus to separate “commercial banking from investment banking.”

    Plans haven’t yet been firmly set for when the takeover and subsequent payments to every person in the country will occur, but Iceland’s revolutionary approach to dealing with the international financial meltdown of 2008 certainly deserves every bit of the attention it’s garnered.

    Iceland recently jailed its 26th banker — with 74 years of prison time amongst them — for causing the financial chaos. Meanwhile, U.S. banking criminals were rewarded for their fraud and market manipulation with an enormous bailout at the taxpayer’s expense.

  • China's Communist Party Bans… Golf

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    High up Yuntai mountain in China’s Henan province is a glass bridge that lets tourists walk out across the sky and look down at the lush valley floor over 3,000 feet below.

     

    Glass walkways like this are quite popular across China, stunning visitors with both beauty and the thrill of danger.

     

    Recently, this one cracked. And many tourists took to social media claiming that pieces of glass in the walkway broke away altogether.

     

    The government of course is spinning a different story.

     

    They reported that the glass walkway is completely safe, even though they’ve decided to close the bridge ‘temporarily’.

    This is probably the best metaphor for the entire Chinese economy right now, because the glass is cracking everywhere.

    China’s manufacturing sector has been weak for months, and its industrial sector is completely in the dumps.

    This week the deputy head of the China Iron and Steel Association said that “China’s steel demand has evaporated at unprecedented speed as the nation’s economic growth slowed.”

    There are more signs of contraction all across the economy.

    Most notably, years and years of idiotic capital allocation are beginning to muster serious consequences.

    In an effort to stimulate growth and create employment, China’s national, provincial, and local governments have spent unfathomable amounts of money on useless infrastructure, primarily funded with debt.

    You’ve heard of these infamous bridges to nowhere and empty train stations.

    Now several Chinese companies have started to default on these debts, including two state-owned enterprises.

    The bursting of this debt bubble has already caused major problems in the banking sector (which is a massive 3x the size of China’s economy), as well as in financial markets.

    Chinese stocks saw a major collapse several months ago, and we may see a major crisis in the banking sector very soon.

    Local Chinese with any real savings have been scrambling for months to move their money offshore.

    And this ‘capital flight’ is reaching epic levels. In August alone, $141 billion was sucked out of China. That’s more than the entire GDP of Nevada or Ukraine.

    Sooner or later (probably sooner) the combination of loan defaults and capital flight is going to cause major problems in the Chinese banking sector.

    Chinese banks simply won’t have enough liquidity, or reserve capital, to remain operating.

    I expect we’ll see the mother of all bank bail-ins and withdrawal controls in China.

    But what really gets me is the Chinese government’s Jekyll and Hyde approach to the crisis.

    The Chinese are known for being strategic thinkers. This goes back thousands of years to the days of Sun Tzu. Leaders don’t act haphazardly, they make long-term plans and execute in a disciplined manner.

    But it’s becoming pretty obvious now that the Chinese government is in REACTION mode.

    The stock market crash over the summer wasn’t planned. So they reacted. Poorly, at that.

    In response, they jailed stock speculators, and even did the unimaginable–encouraging citizens to borrow money using their homes as collateral, then invest the loan proceeds in the stock market.

    They promised several times to not devalue the renminbi. But then they did.

    Then in order to stem the debilitating capital flight, they imposed even more severe capital controls and withdrawal restrictions for Chinese citizens traveling overseas.

    But then yesterday in a nod to the IMF, they announced a pilot program to EASE capital controls and allow citizens to directly purchase foreign assets.

    Last week they went on a crazy anti-corruption binge, banning excessive drinking, golf, and even extramarital sex.

    And now, poof, they ended three decades of the One Child Policy.

    None of this makes any sense. There’s no common thread or direction in Chinese policies anymore. No more long-term thinking.

    Now it’s all extremely reactive. The grand plans and strategy have gone out the window, and instead they’re taking it day-by-day, making it up as they go along.

    To me, this is a sign of how bad things really are.

    Their system is based on a bunch of unelected policymakers sitting in a room and making decisions to control one of the largest economies in the world.

    This just doesn’t work.

    As China’s example shows, there are too many moving parts, too many levers to control. And it’s impossible to expect that some committee is going to get it right without eventually faltering.

    But as you can probably realize, it’s not just the Chinese who have engaged this absurd system. Most of the world does it too. In fact, the West invented it.

    The US and Europe have their own unelected committees sitting in rooms making policy decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of everyone engaged in economic activity.

    And for us to simply sit back and trust them to be smart enough to flawlessly steer the ship is incredibly foolish.

  • IIF Warns Household Wealth Gains Will Disappear Unless Fed Normalizes Rates Soon

    "Easy policy has passed the point of diminishing return and keeping it longer would only increase moral hazard and distort financial markets," exclaims the Institute of International Finance, warning that the gap between the value of Americans' holdings of stocks, bonds and other financial assets and the trend growth rate of the economy is still large and not far off the level that prevailed in 2007 before the financial crisis. "The Fed should start to normalize policy as soon as possible," removing the excess as the 'gap' "typically ends up being narrowed by a correction in the stock market."

    As Bloomberg details, household financial assets have ballooned, far outstripping the growth of the economy since 2013, as the Federal Reserve's ultra-easy monetary policy fuels excesses in the markets…

    That's the message from a measure compiled by the Institute of International Finance (which represents close to 500 banks and financial services companies worldwide) which compares the rise in the value of Americans' holdings of stocks, bonds and other financial assets to the trend growth rate of the economy.

     

    While the gap between the two has narrowed in recent months as the bull market in equities has stalled, it is still large and not far off the level that prevailed in 2007 before the financial crisis.

     

     

    Hung Tran, an executive managing director at the institute, said the inflated level of asset prices is one reason the Fed needs to begin raising interest rates from the near-zero levels that have prevailed since 2008.

     

    "The Fed should start to normalize policy as soon as possible—meaning liftoff this year," he said. "Easy policy has passed the point of diminishing return and keeping it longer would only increase moral hazard and distort financial markets."

     

    Under the IIF's measure, a positive financial asset gap suggests that stock and bond prices are overvalued relative to their long-term trends and the underlying growth of the economy. When it is negative, as happened in 2009, it implies that financial assets are undervalued.

     

    When the difference is large and positive—as it is now—it typically ends up being narrowed by a correction in the stock market. Tran said that's what he expects to happen again, although the timing of the price decline is difficult to predict.

    *  *  *
    For now, The Fed appears to have listened (talking hawkish despite the economic turmoil) and has the market starting to believe in December liftoff.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Weekend Reading: Fed Stampedes The Bulls

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    What a difference a day can make? Last week the world was consumed with fears of a slowing economy, weak demand and volatile markets. But that was "so last week."

    As I penned this past Tuesday:

    "In a more normal market, I would already be well convinced that the bullish trend had ended, particularly against the backdrop of an earnings recession and weak economic data. But this is by no means a normal market given the ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve to support asset prices.

     

    It is worth noting that contractions/expansions in the Fed's balance sheet have a very high correlation with subsequent market action as liquidity is pushed into the financial system. As shown in the chart below, the Federal Reserve has already once again began to quietly expand their balance sheet following the recent downturn. Not surprisingly, the market has responded in kind with the recent push higher. My suspicion is that if such minor interventions fail to stabilize the market, a more aggressive posture could be taken."

    Fed-Balance-Sheet-SP500-102615

    "Tomorrow, the Fed will announce their latest FOMC rate policy decision. My expectation is that they will once again forgo hiking rates with few changes to their verbiage of their decision. However, any indications that recent economic weakness will push rate hikes further into the future will likely be cheered by the "bulls" pushing the index back towards recent highs."

    That is precisely what happened. Despite continued weak economic data, stocks soared toward market highs as the promise was made that "rates would be lifted in December." 

    The interesting part of this is that "tighter" monetary policy is not good for equities longer term. Furthermore, with economic growth at 2%, there is very little margin of error for the Fed with respect to monetary policy mistakes.

    However, those are just my thoughts.

    This weekend's reading list is a compilation of views, both "bullish" and "bearish" with respect to the Fed's recent rate decision, the markets reaction and the potential of future outcomes. The bulls are cheering, the bears are growling, but for investors the only thing that matters is how to position yourself for what happens next.


    THE LIST

    1) A Most Confused Critique Of The Fed by Lawrence Summers via Washington Post

    “My friends Mike Spence and Kevin Warsh, writing in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, have produced what seems to me the single most confused analysis of U.S. monetary policy that I have read this year. Unless I am missing something — which is certainly possible — they make a variety of assertions that are usually exposed as fallacy in introductory economics classes.

     

    My problem is not with their policy conclusion, though I do not share their highly negative view of quantitative easing (QE). There are many harshly critical analyses of QE, such as those of Martin Feldstein, which are entirely coherent and consistent with the macroeconomics of the last 50 years. My differences are based on judgements about empirical magnitudes and relative risks — not questions of basic logic."

    Read Also: An Unsteady Hand At The Fed by Desmond Lachman via American Enterprise Institute

     

    2) Connecting The Dots by Market Anthropology

    “Outstanding of Fed policy, a major near-term potential catalyst to help instigate a move higher in yields is the hint by Draghi last week of his willingness to advocate a material increase in the ECB's stimulus program. With some now speculating (see Here) – as we comparatively suggested in September (see Here), of more than doubling the initial size; it would follow the Fed's playbook of how they expanded (2X) and built out their own stimulus programs in March 2009.

     

    Our general take on the intermediate-term effects – which have been borne out in the markets since 2009 (*including the ECBs initial salvo this March – Figure 2), is that QE has historically supported yields as investors are shaken out of the safe-haven corners of the government bond market and into more reflationary asset positions that invariably weakens the dollar (Figures 6 & 7).

     

    Moreover, from our perspective – and despite conventional wisdom that sees a weaker euro as the best remedy for what ails Europe, we would argue that a broadly weaker US dollar would have the greatest efficacy in the long-term, as it could reflexively affect inflation expectations worldwide – most notably in emerging markets that the IMF estimates will account for more than 70 percent of global growth through the end of this decade.
    "

    InterestRates-Dollar-102915

    Read Also: Dollar Breaks Out As Fed Stands Pat by Michael Kahn via Barron's

     

    3) Four Takeaways From The Fed's Announcement by Mohamed El-Erian via Bloomberg

    “Of critical importance to markets is that a decision to raise interest rates for the first time in almost 10 years is now more of a "live" possibility at the Fed's next policy meeting, in December. In reasserting this policy flexibility and making it explicit, the central bank refrained from providing specifics about the elements that would drive the decision.

     

    The Fed's message conveyed greater unity among its policy-making officials. Only one member of the Federal Open Market Committee — Jeffrey Lacker, the president of the Richmond Fed, dissented. The near unanimity was an important accomplishment by Chair Janet Yellen, especially given the range of views expressed in the weeks leading up to the meeting, including by the usually united governors."

    Read Also: Fed Sets Stage For December Rate Hike by Brian Wesbury via First Trust

     

    4) The Fed Lives In A Flawed Delusional World by John Curdele via New York Post

    "Let me make a prediction now: The Fed won't have another chance to raise rates until seasonal anomalies in government statistics next spring make the economy look better than it really is.

     

    But that's not the real story that came out of the Fed's policy-making meeting this week. This is: The Fed remains delusional.

     

    In its statement, the Fed said the economy was expanding 'at a moderate pace' and 'household spending and business fixed investment has been increasing at solid rates in recent months.'

     

    Solid? That statement stands in contradiction to retail sales reports, consumer spending, durable goods orders, consumer confidence surveys and a raft of other economic data."

    Read Also: Just One Question For Janet Yellen by Tyler Durden via ZeroHedge

    Read Also: 5 Bad Reasons To Raise Rates by Paul Kasriel via Advisor Perspectives

     

    5) Rate Hikers At Fed Running Out Of Ammo by Jeff Cox via CNBC

     

    Read Also: Yellen Has 6 Million Reasons To Wait by Craig Torres via Bloomberg


    Other Reading


    “It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.” – Howard Ruff

    Have a great weekend.

  • 'Happy' Halloween Kids!

    Trick… No Treat!

     

     

    Source: Investors.com

  • MOMO Rules: In A "World Of Disappointments" Trade Like An Idiot, Citi Recommends

    In a “world of disappointments”, where beta is king and where alpha has become a joke (or, now that equity is a risk-free asset and debt is risky, is outright punished) where growth no longer exists, drowning under the weight of $200 trillion in debt, and where value strategies have been all but forgotten replaced instead with “stories” about companies that have no cash flows but just might be “the next big thing” (one day), what should one to do? Why, engage in the most idiotic of strategies: chase momentum.

    At least that is Citi’s recommendation, and – we are very sad to say – in this broken “market”, it works.

    Here is the summary from the note by Citi’s Jonathan Stubbs

    World of disappointments… — The post-GFC world has been consistently disappointing, in terms of growth expectations. Economists and analysts have both consistently lowered GDP and EPS growth expectations at a global level.

     

    …has not stopped equity bull — Despite this backdrop, equity markets have performed strongly over the same period. There has been enough growth to support rising share prices. The growth “hurdle rate” on Planet QE appears to be pretty low.

     

    Disappointments drive momentum bull — This world of disappointment has been responsible for one of the most important equity market themes of the past few years: outperformance of momentum strategies, eg earnings, dividends, estimates.

     

    Favoured Research Quant style — Our research Quant colleagues, Chris Montagu and team, have placed a strong emphasis on the importance of Estimates Momentum over the last few years. It remains one of their preferred Quant styles.

     

    Momentum winning — We show that investors who have run disciplined earnings and dividend momentum strategies over the last 5 years in Europe have performed strongly. Our Research Quant colleagues show the same on a style basis.

     

    Momentum strategies — We show momentum strategies using relative earnings trends and a) P/E relative, b) P/E relative vs 10-year range, c) normalised P/E, d) price/book relative. Insurance, Banks, Autos and Utilities appear in all four. We also show momentum strategies using relative dividend trends and DY relative. Three sectors look attractive on both measures = Media, Insurance and Banks.

     

    Momentum stocks — Stocks with positive earnings momentum and a) low P/E relative = UBS, Unicredit, Daimler, IAG, b) normalised P/E = Peugeot, KPN, Aegon, Total, Aviva, c) low price/book relative = UBS, Intesa Sanpaolo, Veolia, Bouygues. Stocks which score well on positive relative dividend trends and DY above market DY = Next, Lloyds, ING, Allianz.

    * * *

    Missed out on “trading” like an idiot? Don’t worry: the global economy is in a tailspin, so you will have ample opportunity to give your inner idiot access to an E-trade terminal.

    This cycle has disappointed, in terms of growth. But, asset prices, including share prices, have enjoyed super-strong nominal and real returns. Economists and equity analysts have been under-whelmed by (almost) perpetually downgrading GDP growth and EPS growth estimates. But, this has not hampered the post-2009 equity bull market. Disappointments = a lot and often; European equity returns since 2009 lows = 170% (global = 187%).

     

    This world of disappointment has been responsible for one of the most important equity market themes of the past few years — outperformance of momentum strategies, eg earnings, dividends, estimates. Companies, and sectors, which have been able to avoid disappointments (or downgrades) have tended to outperform in the last few years. We have consistently allocated a high weight to momentum within our models, eg we currently have a combined 20% weight to earnings and dividend momentum in our European Sector Attribution Model.

     

    Economists and analysts have tended to over-estimate potential GDP and EPS growth rates since 2009. Both groups have spent most of their time downgrading respective forecasts.

    Well that’s great news right? Maybe not. But this is:

    Despite a backdrop of consistent downgrades to GDP and/or earnings growth forecasts over the last 5 years, equity markets have performed strongly. Growth has been disappointing, consistently so. But, overall, there has also been enough growth to support rising share prices so far in this cycle. As we have previously argued, the growth “hurdle rate” on Planet QE appears to be pretty low.

     

     

    Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the performance of a disciplined earnings momentum strategy in Europe, using our own European Forecast Monitor database. At the start of every quarter we “buy” or “sell” stocks based on the 6-month change in their 12- month forward earnings relative to the market. A 6-month change above 8% goes into the long bucket and below -8% goes into the short bucket. We then hold and observe for the following 6-months. Each bar in these charts represents the 6- month relative return of these buckets.

     

    Positive momentum strategies continue to do better than negative momentum ones. We have written much over the years about this. In short, positive momentum stocks tend to have longer duration. Negative momentum stocks have often underperformed in the months leading up to inclusion in the short bucket and can perform better should relative earnings underperformance slow.

    The summary:

    This cycle has disappointed, in terms of growth. But, asset prices, including share prices, have enjoyed super-strong nominal and real returns. This world of disappointment has been responsible for one of the most important equity market themes of the past few years — outperformance of momentum strategies.

     

    Citi’s economists continue to see a world of low/modest/disappointing GDP growth in 2016-17. Additionally, they acknowledge downside risks, primarily from China, to their modest forecasts. If this plays out, then it is likely that momentum strategies will continue to perform well within the equity market. This report looks at where investors should be positioned currently on this basis.

    Why is this a strategy for idiots? Because, as the “heatmap” below shows, all you do is go long the green and short the red and pray it works. Rinse. Repeat.

    As we said, a “strategy” for idiots.

    Thank you Ben and Janet for forcing all of us to become idiots if we want to make any money in your “market.”

  • S&P Downgrades Saudi Arabia On Slumping Crude, Ballooning Fiscal Deficit

    Over the course of the last several months, the consequences for Saudi Arabia of deliberately keeping crude prices suppressed in an effort to, i) bankrupt uneconomic producers in the US, and ii) pressure Moscow into giving up Bashar al-Assad have begun to make themselves abundantly clear. 

    Not only has the kingdom been forced into liquidating its SAMA reserves…

    … but the pressure from simultaneously maintaining the riyal peg and preserving the standard of living for everyday Saudis has driven Riyadh back into the debt market in an effort to offset some of the pressure on the country’s vast store of USD-denominated petrodollar assets (see second pane below).

    Meanwhile, the war in Yemen is also weighing on the budget and now, the Saudis are staring down a fiscal deficit that amounts to some 20% of GDP and the first current account deficit in years.

    All of the above have caused to market to lose faith in Riyadh’s ability to keep the situation under control and now, S&P has downgraded the kingdom to AA- negative citing “lower for longer” crude and the attendant ballooning fiscal deficits. 

    *  *  *

    From S&P:

    We expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (Saudi Arabia’s) general government fiscal deficit will increase to 16% of GDP in 2015, from 1.5% in 2014, primarily reflecting the sharp drop in oil prices. Hydrocarbons account for about 80% of Saudi Arabia’s fiscal revenues.

    Absent a rebound in oil prices, we now expect general government deficits of 10% of GDP in 2016, 8% in 2017, and 5% in 2018, based on planned fiscal consolidation measures.

    We are therefore lowering our foreign- and local-currency sovereign credit ratings on Saudi Arabia to ‘A+/A-1’ from ‘AA-/A-1+’.

    Standard & Poor’s is converting its issuer credit rating on Saudi Arabia to “unsolicited” following termination by Saudi Arabia of its rating agreement with Standard & Poor’s.

    The outlook remains negative, reflecting the challenge of reversing the marked deterioration in Saudi Arabia’s fiscal balance. We could lower the ratings within the next two years if the government did not achieve a sizable and sustained reduction in the general government deficit or its liquid fiscal financial assets fell below 100% of GDP.

    *  *  *

    Of course this will only get worse should Riyadh decide to launch a sequel to “Operation Decisive Storm” in Syria and indeed, the IMF recently warned that absent higher oil prices, the Saudis could literally go broke in the space of five years:

    Sharply lower oil prices have significantly affected the fiscal prospects of oil exporters across MENA and the CCA.1 The Brent oil price is projected to average $53 a barrel in 2015, down from almost $110 a barrel in the first half of last year. Exporters’ fiscal balances have turned from sizable surpluses to large deficits, with MENA and CCA export revenues dropping by $360 billion and $45 billion, respectively, this year alone.

     

     

    For oil exporters, the main policy issue is fiscal adjustment and rebuilding buffers over the medium term. The Brent oil price is projected to recover only modestly to about $66 a barrel by the end of the decade, with MENA and CCA export receipts remaining $345 billion and $30 billion, respectively, below the 2014 level, even in 2020. In the absence of adjustment, fiscal balances will remain in deep deficit in most countries, with public debt ratios rising rapidly (red lines in Figure 4.2). 

     

     

    Even under the IMF baseline scenario, however, public debt ratios will continue to rise in many GCC and CCA exporters (blue lines in Figure 4.2). In a number of countries, mediumterm fiscal balances will fall well short of the levels needed to ensure that an adequate portion of the income from exhaustible oil and gas reserves is saved for future generations (Figure 4.3). Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia have medium-term fiscal gaps of some 15–25 percentage points of non-oil GDP, while conflict-torn Libya has a gap of more than 50 percent of non-oil GDP. 

     

    The large and sustained drop in oil prices has increased fiscal vulnerabilities in MENA and CCA oil-exporting countries. The issue of fiscal space has become critical as oil exporters decide how quickly to adjust their fiscal policies to the new reality of persistently lower oil prices. This box considers several alternative measures of fiscal space. A good starting point is the size of governments’ financial assets—commonly referred to as “fiscal buffers.” In general, countries with larger buffers can afford to maintain fiscal deficits further into the future, so as to reduce the impact of lower oil prices on growth. On current trends, however, all non-GCC MENA oil exporters are already projected to run out of liquid financial assets in the next three years (see Chapter 1). In, contrast, CCA oil exporters have at least 15 years’ worth of available financial savings,1 while GCC countries are split evenly between countries with relatively large buffers (Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—more than 20 years remaining) and countries with relatively smaller buffers (Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia—less than five years).

    As a refresher, here’s BofAML’s sensitivity analysis which shows how long Riyadh’s SAMA reserves will last under various scenarios for crude prices and debt issuance:

    One important takeaway from the above is that if the Saudis were to burn through their reserves it would represent a nearly $700 billion global liquidity drain as Riyadh dumps its USD-denominated assets. That would amount to a complete reversal of the petrodollar virtuous circle that’s underwritten decades of dollar dominance and which has served to underpin the global economic order for as far back as most market participants can remember. 

    And while it’s by no means a foregone conclusion that oil prices will remain “lower for longer” as the Saudis are to a certain extent the masters of their own destiny in that regard, one thing worth noting is that not only is Iranian supply set to come back online, but Tehran seems determined to supplant Riyadh as regional power broker. Both of those eventualities will have very real consequences for crude prices and thus for the future of The House of Saud.

    So enjoy it while it lasts King Salman…

  • Mother Yellen's Little Helper – The Rate-Hike Placebo Effect

    Via ConvergEx's Nicholas Colas,

    Americans are increasingly likely to respond positively to a placebo in a drug trial – more so than other nationalities. That’s the upshot of a recently published academic paper that looked at 84 clinical trials for pain medication done between 1990 and 2013. Over that time, Americans reported an almost 30% incremental reduction in pain symptoms when given a sugar pill or other placebo as compared to a 10% reduction for in non-U.S. studies.  Why the difference? The paper’s authors suggest that drug advertising – only allowed in New Zealand and America – may be giving trial populations more confidence that a drug – any drug – will work.  Also a factor: drug trials are better funded now, and therefore have more participants and go longer.  All that may well spark more confidence in trial participants, even those taking placebos. 

     

    These findings, while bad for drug researchers, does shed some light on our favorite topic: behavioral finance.

     

    Trust and confidence makes placebos work, and those attributes also play a role in the societal effectiveness of central banks. That’s what makes the Fed’s eventual move to higher rates so difficult; even if zero interest rates are more placebo than actual medicine, markets believe they work to support asset prices.

    I keep a mental list of underappreciated scientific developments of the 20th century, and near the top is the placebo. While you can argue that the roots and herbs of ancient societies were the first faith-based medicines, modern placebo research dates to a relatively recent 1955. That was the year Harvard research Henry Beecher published “The Powerful Placebo” in the Journal of the American Medical Association.  It was essentially a huge “You’re doing it wrong” to the pharmaceutical industry and showed that drug tests needed to be performed against a placebo and dual blind (neither subject nor researcher knows whether they were taking/dispensing a real medicine or a sugar pill). 

    The only problem is that placebos are really stiff competition.  As Beecher noted, many subjects in non-placebo trials reported feeling better even when the drug in question was later found to be totally ineffective.  And over the years, researchers have found ways to make placebos “Work” even better: yellow placebos work great as antidepressants, red pills are “Uppers”, branded pills work better than generics, and a placebo painkiller given 4 times a day performs better when you take only twice daily.   The upshot of all this is that in highly competitive areas like depression medication, drug companies have to spend billions to produce products that beat the placebo. 

    Medical researchers know that the placebo effect has risen over the last 15 years, but one recent paper attributes this to a very specific reason: Americans Dr. Jeffrey Mogil and his team at McGill University in Montreal looked at 84 drug trials dedicated to ameliorating pain caused by nerve damage.  Here’s a summary of their findings and working theories:

    Since the mid-1990s, Americans in drug trials to assess pain medication have reported a 30% increase in the efficacy of placebos.  In Non-U.S. studies, that number is closer to 10%. Taken as a whole, therefore, American drug trials explain most of the increase in the global placebo effect.

     

    The researchers at McGill do not have an explanation for this disparity, but suspect the changing scale of U.S. drug trials. We know that placebos tend to work better when patients trust their doctors (Kelley et al 2009). American drug companies have been extending the time involved in drug trials over the last decade as well as increasing their population size, in part to compete against the potentially wide variance of the placebo effect on smaller groups.  As it turns out, large drug trials where researchers get to know the patients well after weeks of contact are exactly the type of environment where placebos can shine.

     

    The other idea forwarded in the press coverage around this study is that the U.S. is one of only two countries (New Zealand is the other) where drug companies can advertise directly to the population at large.  Pharma companies spend just over $4 billion/year on U.S. advertising, mostly on television ad buys.  Some of the study’s authors posit that this has a halo effect on drug companies generally, since Americans are unique in viewing these advertisements.  If called to participate in a drug trial, they may increasingly assume that they are going to get something new, innovative, and (presumably) effective.  Even if it’s just a sugar pill.

    We see the placebo effect as medicine’s version of behavioral economics, that wing of the dismal science that recognizes the fallibility of mankind rather than assuming an economic actor will always behave as the models say they should.  If human psychology played no role in drug testing or medicine, you wouldn’t need a placebo option. If humans behaved like the wealth/utility maximizing animals described in economic models, you wouldn’t need a behavioral part of the discipline to explain why they often don’t.  The truth is human emotion gets in the way of both, so we need placebos and psychologists.

    The central lessons placebos have for medicine is remarkably simple.

    First, the patient/doctor bond plays a large role in the success of a placebo.  We know that from earlier studies and from surveys of doctors (one released two years ago in the U.K) which show they routinely prescribe placebos to their patients.  The doctors mean no harm, and the most often given reason for the practice was to ward off requests for medication inappropriate to the patient’s condition.

     

    Second, as the McGill study seems to show, is that some populations will react to placebos more readily than others. The preconditions seems to be background messaging (all those ads no TV) and large/lengthy trials that encourage confidence among the patients in the company performing the trial as well as the researchers on staff.

    To draw the analogy to economics, try this model on for size:

    • Central bankers around the world are the researchers, looking for effective treatments for slow global growth and sluggish price inflation.
    • The general population are the people engaged in the trials to see which treatments are most useful.

    The American Federal Reserve ran the most successful trial with its Quantitative Easing program.  Asset prices went up, unemployment went down, and we don’t really have to care what parts of those outcomes were caused by the actual medicine of zero interest rates/bond buying versus the placebo effect of trust in Federal Reserve.  Now, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank are running the same experiment and hoping for the same outcome.  Whether the actual cure shows up or just the placebo effect is the big question just now. 

    The challenge for the Fed now is that no one is quite sure how much of the “Cure” was medicine and how much was the placebo effect.  The first Fed rate hike will begin to tell the story, whenever that is, especially for equity markets.  It will all come down to how much investors actually trust the Federal Reserve to reduce the dosage of low interest rates and at what speed.  That is where the comparison to medical science is frustratingly inadequate.  Medicine cures, but when it comes to economics there’s always another illness coming around the corner.

  • Tying The Valeant Roll-Up Together: Presenting The Goldman "Missing Link"

    While the Valeant soap opera has had constant, heart-pounding drama for weeks and following yesterday’s report that it allegedly fabricated prescriptions, even an element of career-ending (and prison-time launching) criminality, so far one thing had been missing: an antagonist tied to Goldman Sachs.

    Thanks to a profile by Bloomberg, we are delighted to reveal the “missing link”, one which ties everything together. Its name is Howard Schiller.

     

    Schiller was, between December 2011 and June 2015, the CFO of Valeant, and is currently on its board of directors.

    More importantly, prior to joining Valeant, he worked for 24 years at Goldman Sachs as chief operating officer for the Investment Banking Division of Goldman Sachs, responsible for the management and strategy of the business.

    How and why did Schiller end up at Valeant? Jeff Ubben, of the hedge fund ValueAct Capital, helped bring in J. Michael Pearson from McKinsey to run Valeant. Pearson then helped lure Schiller from Goldman Sachs.

    And, as Bloomberg notes, “Goldman Sachs and other banks brought in investors, making many millions in fees in the process.”

    All thanks to the “roll-up” strategy that blossomed and ballooned under Schiller.

    Because much more important than using Valeant as a Wall Street fee piggybank, which in turn resulted in a circular loop whereby virtually every analyst covering the company had a “buy” recommendation as we showed two weeks ago…

     

    …. which then pushed its price ever higher, making it even easier to acquire smaller (or larger) companies using the stock as currency, and creating the impression of virtually perpetual growth (simply due to the lack of any purely organic growth comps), and even more important than the company’s current fiasco involving Philidor (which may or may not involve a criminal investigation before too long), was that Valeant was nothing more than a massively indebted serial acquirer, or a “roll-up”, taking advantage of the recent euphoria for specialty pharma exposure, and with Ackman on board, a sterling activist investor to provide his stamp of approval (recall the surge of Weight Watchers stock just because Oprah Winfrey came on board).

    That aggressive roll up strategy was the brainchild of Schiller (and Pearson) which in turn was developed with Wall Street’s help in one massive monetary synergy, whereby everyone profited, as long as the stock kept going up.

    With the price crashing, the entire business model of the Valeant “roll-up” has now come undone.

    So now that the time to count bodies has begun, let’s meet the architect who was the brain behind Valeant aggressive expansion spree.

    Schiller ran Goldman Sachs’ health-care practice until 2009, when he became the chief operating officer of Goldman’s investment bank. The next year, the bank advised Valeant on its breakout purchase of Biovail Corp.

     

    After Schiller arrived at Valeant, in late 2011, the drug company orchestrated some of its most controversial deals. In the process, Valeant enriched its shareholders. Its market value soared from $14 billion to $70 billion during Schiller’s tenure as CFO, as one Wall Street analyst after another placed “buy” on its stock.

    It also enriched Wall Street:

    Under Pearson and Schiller, Valeant became a lucrative client for Wall Street. Goldman Sachs, for instance, was entitled to more than $15 million in fees for the Biovail deal. The firm also earned about $55 million for helping the drug maker raise $9.3 billion in debt and equity financing for the 2013 acquisition of Bausch & Lomb Inc., including its role as sole underwriter of a $2 billion stock sale, regulatory filings show.

    … Goldman at this point, of course, was Schiller’s former employer. Surely there was no conflict of interest there.

    Goldman Sachs Lending Partners served as the lead lender among a group of banks that provided a credit line and term loans to Valeant. Later, the same banking group agreed to raise as much as $8 billion in financing for Valeant’s proposed acquisition of Allergan Inc. Goldman Sachs didn’t participate in that group offering financing and stepped down as the banking group’s administrative agent because it was involved in defending Allergan against the deal.

    We don’t understand: why would that stop the bank that was just fined a whopping $50 million for wilfully and criminally stealing inside information (which helped it make who knows how many billions in profits) from the New York Fed?

    And then, just as abruptly as when Hank Paulson quit Goldman to join the Treasury just so he could cash out of his GS stock tax free, Schiller announced his resignation one short month after Valeant’s failed attempt to acquire Allergan (in collusion with Bill Ackman who made hundreds of millions buying calls on Allergan having material non-public information that a hybrid strategic/financial bid was coming) fell appart after it was outbid by Actavis Plc.

    As Bloomberg observes, “it was an opportune exit.” Under the terms of his departure, he stands to continue vesting in a stock and options package that made up the bulk of his $46 million in pay through 2014, according to company filings.

    It gets better: before stepping down, he sold $24 million of Valeant stock to pay taxes, including a portion when the shares were trading above $200, company filings show.

    Call him lucky, just don’t call him a criminal.

    But while he is no longer CFO, he most certainly has present this past Monday on a conference call in which Valeant defended its relationship with Philidor: “Valeant turned to him, rather than to a company officer, to walk investors through a big part of Valeant’s presentation about its ties to Philidor.”

    Schiller told listeners that Valeant had launched a pilot prescription-fulfillment program through Philidor, and based on its success decided to strengthen its relationship with the specialty pharmacy. Then, last December, Valeant “acquired the option to acquire Philidor,” he said.

    Just four days later, after news broke that Philidor was fabricating prescriptions, that view changed at 5 am this morning when the company announced that “we have lost confidence in Philidor’s ability to continue to operate in a manner that is acceptable to Valeant and the patients and doctors we serve.”

    Call it unlucky, just don’t call it criminal.

    During the Monday call, Umer Raffat, an analyst at Evercore ISI, raised a question on many people’s minds: Why did Schiller leave when he did? “I feel like no one’s satisfied, and I keep getting that question from many investors in many meetings. So, would appreciate all your input there,” Raffat said.

    Schiller reiterated that after two careers over 30 years, he wanted to “do some things on my own.”

    He continued: “The timing was right. And again, just to be absolutely crystal clear, if I had –- and which I’m guessing, it could be an undertone of the question, if I had any concerns whatsoever about Valeant or Mike I would not have stayed on the board. It’s as simple as that.”

     

    Pearson quickly followed up. He said Schiller had called him shortly after the stock-commentary site Citron Research, run by short-seller Andrew Left, sent Valeant’s stock into a tailspin with a report questioning the company’s accounting and its relationship with Philidor, the pharmacy. Pearson has since called for authorities to investigate Citron.

    Good, and when those authorities find nothing wrong with Citron, which merely blew the whistle on a rollup that many others had suspected for years, they can focus all their attention on Valeant.

    For their benefit, here is a quick primer from HBS on the rapid rise and even more rapid collapse of some of the best known (and most infamous), as well as unknown roll-ups yet, and what exactly bursts their bubble:

    The notion behind roll-ups is to take dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of small businesses and combine them into a large one with increased purchasing power, greater brand recognition, lower capital costs, and more effective advertising. But research shows that more than two-thirds of roll-ups have failed to create any value for investors.

     

    We were interested to find that many roll-ups were afflicted by fraud—among them, MCI WorldCom, Philip Services, Westar Energy, and Tyco—but we won’t focus on those in this article because for the most part the lesson is simply, “Don’t do it.” Instead, let’s look at the fortunes of Loewen Group. Based in Canada, it grew quickly by buying up funeral homes in the U.S. and Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. By 1989, Loewen owned 131 funeral homes; it acquired 135 more the next year. Earnings mounted, and analysts were enthusiastic about the company’s prospects given the coming “golden era of death”—the demise of baby boomers.

     

    Yet there wasn’t much to be gained from achieving scale. Loewen could realize some efficiencies in areas like embalming, hearses, and receptionists, but only within fairly small geographic proximities. The heavy regulation of the funeral industry also limited economies of scale: Knowing how to comply with the rules in Biloxi doesn’t help much in Butte. A national brand has little value, because bereaved customers make choices based on referrals or previous experience, and being perceived as a local neighborhood business is actually an advantage. In fact, Loewen often hid its ownership. And it damaged whatever reputation it did have with its methods of shaming the bereaved into buying more expensive products and services (such as naming its low-end casket the “Welfare Casket”).

     

    Nor did increased size improve the company’s cost of capital. Funeral homes are steady, low-risk businesses, so they already borrow at low rates. The cost of acquiring and integrating the homes far outweighed the slight scale gains. What’s more, the increase in the death rate that Loewen had banked on when buying up companies never happened. Fast-forward several years and the company filed for bankruptcy, after rejecting an attractive bid. (Relaunched under the name Alderwoods, Loewen was sold to the same suitor for about a quarter of the previous offer.)

     

    Often roll-ups cannot sustain their fast rate of acquisition. In the beginning, all that matters is growth—buying a company or two or four a month, with all the cultural and operational issues that accompany a takeover. Investors know that profitability is hard to decipher at this point, so they focus on revenue, and executives know that they don’t have to worry about consistent profitability until the roll-up reaches a relatively steady state. Operating costs frequently balloon as a result. Worse, knowing that the company is in buying mode, sellers demand steeper prices. Loewen overpaid for many of its properties. In another case, as Gillett Holdings and others tried to roll up the market for local television stations in the 1980s, the stations began demanding prices equal to 15 times their cash flow. Gillett, which bought 12 stations in 12 months and then acquired a company that owned six more, filed for bankruptcy protection in 1991.

     

    Finally, roll-up strategies often fail to account for tough times, which are inevitable. A roll-up is a financial high-wire act. If companies are purchased with stock, the share price must stay up to keep the acquisitions going. If they’re purchased with cash, debt piles up. All it took to finish off Loewen was a small decline in the death rate. For Gillett, it was an unexpected TV ad slump. When you go into a roll-up, you need to know exactly how big a hit you can withstand. If you’re financing with debt, what will happen if you have a 10%—or 20% or 50%—decline in cash flow for two years? If you’re buying with stock, what if the stock price drops by 50%?

    This is precisely what just happened to junk-rated Valeant (which has leverage of just over 6 times) which – even if found innocent of any Philidor wrongdoing – is essentially finished: the rollup bubble has burst and now it has to show it can be profitable and generate cash.

    Judging by its stock price today, few are hanging around to see if it can.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News October 30, 2015

  • Spot The Defense Minister

    Trick question…

     

    They all are! (from left to right): Sweden (Karin Enstrom), Norway (Ine Eriksen Søreide), Russia ( Sergei Shoigu), Netherlands (eanine Hennis-Plasschaert), Germany (Ursula von der Leyen)

  • Bank Of Japan Disappoints The World – Leaves Monetary Policy Unchanged

    The last time The BoJ increased QQE it was a close vote (just 5 to 4) as The Fed ended QE3 and with 16 of the 36 'qualified' economists forecasting additional easing tonight, uncertainty was high going in with USDJPY and NKY drifting lower (and JGB yields rising) as recent data suggests Japan will escape a technical recession (even as household spending slides ever lower) buying Kuroda time (before unleashing his own bazooka). Then, just 25 minutes late, Kuroda unleashed… nothing:

    • *BOJ VOTES 8-1 TO KEEP MONETARY BASE TARGET UNCHANGED
    • *BANK OF JAPAN LEAVES MONETARY POLICY UNCHANGED
    • *BOJ RETAINS PLAN FOR 80T YEN ANNUAL RISE IN MONETARY BASE

    It appears Kuroda-san has chosen to wait til December and 'react' to The Fed, even though his inaction may just be the catalyst for keeping The Fed on hold for longer once again. USDJPy tumbled and global stocks are following for now.

    The Bank of Japan Statement:

    1. At the Monetary Policy Meeting held today, the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan decided, by an 8-1 majority vote, to set the following guideline for money market operations for the intermeeting period: The Bank of Japan will conduct money market operations so that the monetary base will increase at an annual pace of about 80 trillion yen.

     

    2. With regard to the asset purchases, the Bank decided, by an 8-1 majority vote, to continue with the following guidelines:

     

    a) The Bank will purchase Japanese government bonds (JGBs) so that their amount outstanding will increase at an annual pace of about 80 trillion yen.  With a view to encouraging a decline in interest rates across the entire yield curve, the Bank will conduct purchases in a flexible manner in accordance with financial market conditions.  The average remaining maturity of the Bank's JGB purchases will be about 7-10 years.

     

    b) The Bank will purchase exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and Japan real estate investment trusts (J-REITs) so that their amounts outstanding will increase at annual paces of about 3 trillion yen and about 90 billion yen respectively. 

     

    c) As for CP and corporate bonds, the Bank will maintain their amounts outstanding at about 2.2 trillion yen and about 3.2 trillion yen respectively. 

    Japanese stocks and USDJPY were drifting lower in to the statement….and dumped on the NOTHING

     

    US equity futures are giving back some of the after-hours gains…

     

    And JGB yields were heading higher into the statement… and rose further after The BoJ did nothing…

    • *JGB 10-YR FUTURES DOWN 0.22, SET FOR BIGGEST DROP SINCE AUG.

     

    Next up the press conference… to explain how this is really dovish…

    Bank will release updated inflation and GDP forecasts at 3:00 p.m. local time, and Governor Haruhiko Kuroda’s press conference will start at 3:30 p.m.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • The Demobilization Of The American People & The Spectacle Of Election 2016

    Submitted by Tom Engelhardt via TomDispatch.com,

    You may not know it, but you’re living in a futuristic science fiction novel. And that’s a fact.  If you were to read about our American world in such a novel, you would be amazed by its strangeness.  Since you exist right smack in the middle of it, it seems like normal life (Donald Trump and Ben Carson aside).  But make no bones about it, so far this has been a bizarre American century.

    Let me start with one of the odder moments we’ve lived through and give it the attention it’s always deserved.  If you follow my train of thought and the history it leads us into, I guarantee you that you’ll end up back exactly where we are — in the midst of the strangest presidential campaign in our history.

    To get a full frontal sense of what that means, however, let’s return to late September 2001.  I’m sure you remember that moment, just over two weeks after those World Trade Center towers came down and part of the Pentagon was destroyed, leaving a jangled secretary of defense instructing his aides, “Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

    I couldn’t resist sticking in that classic Donald Rumsfeld line, but I leave it to others to deal with Saddam Hussein, those fictional weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Iraq, and everything that’s happened since, including the establishment of a terror “caliphate” by a crew of Islamic extremists brought together in American military prison camps — all of which you wouldn’t believe if it were part of a sci-fi novel. The damn thing would make Planet of the Apeslook like outright realism.

    Instead, try to recall the screaming headlines that labeled the 9/11 attacks “the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century” or “a new Day of Infamy,” and the attackers “the kamikazes of the twenty-first century.”  Remember the moment when President George W. Bush, bullhorn in hand, stepped onto the rubble at "Ground Zero" in New York, draped his arm around a fireman, and swore payback in the name of the American people, as members of an impromptu crowd shouted out things like “Go get ‘em, George!” 

    “I can hear you! I can hear you!” he responded. “The rest of the world hears you! And the people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” 

    “USA!  USA!  USA!” chanted the crowd.

    Then, on September 20th, addressing Congress, Bush added, “Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941.”  By then, he was already talking about "our war on terror."

    Now, hop ahead to that long-forgotten moment when he would finally reveal just how a twenty-first-century American president should rally and mobilize the American people in the name of the ultimate in collective danger.  As CNN put it at the time, “President Bush… urged Americans to travel, spend, and enjoy life.” His actual words were:

    “And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry and to tell the traveling public, get on board, do your business around the country, fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Go down to Disney World in Florida, take your families and enjoy life the way we want it to be enjoyed.”

    So we went to war in Afghanistan and later Iraq to rebuild faith in flying.  Though that got little attention at the time, tell me it isn’t a detail out of some sci-fi novel.  Or put another way, as far as the Bush administration was then concerned, Rosie the Riveter was moldering in her grave and the model American for mobilizing a democratic nation in time of war was Rosie the Frequent Flyer.  It turned out not to be winter in Valley Forge, but eternal summer in Orlando.  From then on, as the Bush administration planned its version of revenge-cum-global-domination, the message it sent to the citizenry was: go about your business and leave the dirty work to us.

    Disney World opened in 1971, but for a moment imagine that it had been in existence in 1863 and that, more than seven score years ago, facing a country in the midst of a terrible civil war, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg had said this:

    “It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom at Disney World — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish for lack of vacations in Florida.”

    Or imagine that, in response to that “day of infamy,” the Pearl Harbor of the twentieth century, Franklin Roosevelt had gone before Congress and, in an address to the nation, had said:

    “Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our airlines, with the unbounding determination of our people to visit Disney World, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.”

    If those are absurdities, then so is twenty-first-century America.  By late September 2001, though no one would have put it that way, the demobilization of the American people had become a crucial aspect of Washington’s way of life.  The thought that Americans might be called upon to sacrifice in any way in a time of peril had gone with the wind.  Any newly minted version of the classic “don’t tread on me” flag of the revolutionary war era would have had to read: “don’t bother them.”

    The Spectacle of War

    The desire to take the American public out of the “of the people, by the people, for the people” business can minimally be traced back to the Vietnam War, to the moment when a citizen’s army began voting with its feet and antiwar sentiment grew to startling proportions not just on the home front, but inside a military in the field.  It was then that the high command began to fear the actual disintegration of the U.S. Army. 

    Not surprisingly, there was a deep desire never to repeat such an experience.  (No more Vietnams!  No more antiwar movements!)  As a result, on January 27, 1973, with a stroke of the pen, President Richard Nixon abolished the draft, and so the citizen’s army.  With it went the sense that Americans had an obligation to serve their country in time of war (and peace).  

    From that moment on, the urge to demobilize the American people and send them to Disney World would only grow.  First, they were to be removed from all imaginable aspects of war making.  Later, the same principle would be applied to the processes of government and to democracy itself.  In this context, for instance, you could write a history of the monstrous growth of secrecy and surveillance as twin deities of the American state: the urge to keep ever more information from the citizenry and to see ever more of what those citizens were doing in their own private time.  Both should be considered demobilizing trends. 

    This twin process certainly has a long history in the U.S., as any biography of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover would indicate.  Still, the expansion of secrecy and surveillance in this century has been a stunning development, as ever-larger parts of the national security state and the military (especially its 70,000-strong Special Operations forces) fell into the shadows.  In these years, American “safety” and “security” were redefined in terms of a citizen’s need not to know.  Only bathed in ignorance, were we safest from the danger that mattered most (Islamic terrorism — a threat of microscopic proportions in the continental United States).

    As the American people were demobilized from war and left, in the post-9/11 era, with the single duty of eternally thanking and praising our "warriors” (or our "wounded warriors”), war itself was being transformed into a new kind of American entertainment spectacle.  In the 1980s, in response to the Vietnam experience, the Pentagon began to take responsibility not just for making war but for producing it.  Initially, in the invasions of Grenada and Panama, this largely meant sidelining the media, which many U.S. commanders still blamed for defeat in Vietnam.

    By the First Gulf War of 1991, however, the Pentagon was prepared to produce a weeks-long televised extravaganza, which would enter the living rooms of increasingly demobilized Americans as a riveting show.  It would have its own snazzy graphics, logos, background music, and special effects (including nose-cone shots of targets obliterated).  In addition, retired military men were brought in to do Monday Night Football-style play-by-play and color commentary on the fighting in progress.  In this new version of war, there were to be no rebellious troops, no body bags, no body counts, no rogue reporters, and above all no antiwar movement.  In other words, the Gulf War was to be the anti-Vietnam. And it seemed to work… briefly.

    Unfortunately for the first Bush administration, Saddam Hussein remained in power in Baghdad, the carefully staged post-war “victory” parades faded fast, the major networks lost ad money on the Pentagon’s show, and the ratings for war as entertainment sank.  More than a decade later, the second Bush administration, again eager not to repeat Vietnam and intent on sidelining the American public while it invaded and occupied Iraq, did it all over again.

    This time, the Pentagon sent reporters to “boot camp,” “embedded” them with advancing units, built a quarter-million-dollar movie-style set for planned briefings in Doha, Qatar, and launched its invasion with “decapitation strikes” over Baghdad that lit the televised skies of the Iraqi capital an eerie green on TVs across America.  This spectacle of war, American-style, turned out to have a distinctly Disney-esque aura to it.  (Typically, however, those strikes produced scores of dead Iraqis, but managed to “decapitate” not a single targeted Iraqi leader from Saddam Hussein on down.)  That spectacle, replete with the usual music, logos, special effects, and those retired generals-cum-commentators — this time even more tightly organized by the Pentagon — turned out again to have a remarkably brief half-life.

    The Spectacle of Democracy

    War as the first demobilizing spectacle of our era is now largely forgotten because, as entertainment, it was reliant on ratings, and in the end, it lost the battle for viewers.  As a result, America's wars became ever more an activity to be conducted in the shadows beyond the view of most Americans. 

    If war was the first experimental subject for the demobilizing spectacle, democracy and elections turned out to be remarkably ripe for the plucking as well.  As a result, we now have the never-ending presidential campaign season.  In the past, elections did not necessarily lack either drama or spectacle.  In the nineteenth century, for instance, there were campaign torchlight parades, but those were always spectacles of mobilization.  No longer.  Our new 1% elections call for something different.

    It’s no secret that our presidential campaigns have morphed into a “billionaire’s playground,” even as the right to vote has become more constrained.  These days, it could be said that the only group of citizens that automatically mobilizes for such events is “the billionaire class” (as Bernie Sanders calls it).  Increasingly, many of the rest of us catch the now year-round spectacle demobilized in our living rooms, watching journalists play… gasp!… journalists on TV and give American democracy that good old Gotcha!

    In 2001, George W. Bush wanted to send us all to Disney World (on our own dollar, of course).  In 2015, Disney World is increasingly coming directly to us.

    After all, at the center of election 2016 is Donald Trump.  For a historical equivalent, you would have to imagine P.T. Barnum, who could sell any “curiosity” to the American public, running for president.  (In fact, he did serve two terms in the Connecticut legislature and was, improbably enough, the mayor of Bridgeport.)  Meanwhile, the TV “debates” that Trump and the rest of the candidates are now taking part in months before the first primary have left the League of Women Voters and the Commission on Presidential Debates in the dust.  These are the ratings-driven equivalent of food fights encased in ads, with the “questions” clearly based on what will glue eyeballs.

    Here, for instance, was CNN host Jake Tapper’s first question of the second Republican debate: “Mrs. Fiorina, I want to start with you. Fellow Republican candidate, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, has suggested that your party’s frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump, would be dangerous as president. He said he wouldn’t want, quote, ‘such a hot head with his finger on the nuclear codes.’ You, as well, have raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s temperament. You’ve dismissed him as an entertainer. Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?”

    And the event only went downhill from there as responses ranged from non-answers to (no kidding!) a discussion of the looks of the candidates and yet the event proved such a ratings smash that its 23 million viewers were compared favorably to viewership of National Football League games.

    In sum, a citizen’s duty, whether in time of war or elections, is now, at best, to watch the show, or at worst, to see nothing at all.

    This reality has been highlighted by the whistleblowers of this generation, including Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and John Kiriakou.  Whenever they have revealed something of what our government is doing beyond our sight, they have been prosecuted with a fierceness unique in our history and for a simple enough reason.  Those who watch us believe themselves exempt from being watched by us.  That’s their definition of “democracy.”  When “spies” appear in their midst, even if those whistleblowers are “spies” for us, they are horrified at a visceral level and promptly haul out the World War I-era Espionage Act.  They now expect a demobilized response to whatever they do and when anything else is forthcoming, they strike back in outrage.

    A Largely Demobilized Land

    A report on a demobilized America shouldn’t end without some mention of at least one counter-impulse.  All systems assumedly have their opposites lurking somewhere inside them, which brings us to Bernie Sanders.  He’s the figure who doesn’t seem to compute in this story so far. 

    All you had to do was watch the first Democratic debate to sense what an anomaly he is, or you could have noted that, until almost the moment he went on stage that night, few involved in the election 2016 media spectacle had the time of day for him. And stranger yet, that lack of attention in the mainstream proved no impediment to the expansion of his campaign and his supporters, who, via social media and in person in the form of gigantic crowds, seem to exist in some parallel universe.

    In this election cycle, Sanders alone uses the words “mobilize” and “mobilization” regularly, while calling for a “political revolution.” (“We need to mobilize tens of millions of people to begin to stand up and fight back and to reclaim the government, which is now owned by big money.”) And there is no question that he has indeed mobilized significant numbers of young people, many of whom are undoubtedly unplugged from the TV set, even if glued to other screens, and so may hardly be noticing the mainstream spectacle at all.

    Whether the Sanders phenomenon represents our past or our future, his age or the age of his followers, is impossible to know. We do, of course, have one recent example of a mobilization in an election season. In the 2008 election, the charismatic Barack Obama created a youthful, grassroots movement, a kind of cult of personality that helped sweep him to victory, only to demobilize it as soon as he entered the Oval Office. Sanders himself puts little emphasis on personality or a cult of the same and undoubtedly represents something different, though what exactly remains open to question.

    In the meantime, the national security state’s power is largely uncontested; the airlines still fly; Disney World continues to be a destination of choice; and the United States remains a largely demobilized land.

  • The US Spends $35 Billion In Global Economic Aid (But Where Does All This Money Really Go?)

    The United States provided approximately $35 billion in economic aid to over 140 countries in fiscal year 2014.

     

    In the HowMuch.net-created map below, the relative size of each country is proportionate to the aid received from the United States and the color of each country indicates GDP per capita.

    Source: HowMuch.net

     

    Clearly, not all aid is distributed equally. The question is: Who received the largest slice of the pie from the U.S.? From the map above, the answer is clear: Israel. 

    Of the $35 billion of total economic aid distributed, almost a quarter of funds went to five countries.  Below are the top 5 recipients of economic aid in 2014.

    • Israel: $3.1 billion
    • Egypt: $1.5 billion
    • Afghanistan: $1.1 billion
    • Jordan: $1.0 billion
    • Pakistan: $933 million

    At first glance, one may wonder why Israel would receive roughly 9% of U.S. economic aid. It is important to note that foreign aid has a variety of uses depending on the current political, economic, and social climate.

    According to the U.S. State Government 2013-2015 Foreign Assistance report, all $3.1 billion of Israel’s funding was used for military financing.  In Egypt, $1.3 billion of $1.5 billion received was used for military-related activities as well.  On the other hand, the majority of funds received by Afghanistan, Jordan, and Pakistan were used for economic development purposes. 

     

    Of the $35 billion referenced in the report, $8.4 billion (24%) was used towards global health programs, $5.9 billion (17%) was used for foreign military financing, $4.6 billion (13%) was used for economic support, and $2.5 billion (7%) was used for development assistance.

    Below is a breakout of aid received by geographic region in fiscal year 2014.

    • Africa: 20%
    • East Asia and Pacific: 2%
    • Europe and Eurasia: 2%
    • Near East: 20%
    • South and Central Asia: 7%
    • Western Hemisphere: 4%
    • General Aid: 45%

    With 142 countries receiving aid out of the 188 countries listed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2014, approximately 76% of the world received some form of economic assistance from the U.S., the majority located within Africa and the Near East. 

    Depending on future geopolitical events, this allocation is subject to change; however, according to the federal government’s 2015 estimates, the approximate $33 billion requests in aid follow a similar geographic allocation.  Nonetheless, in the past three years, the economic support from the U.S. will have impacted a large majority of the world’s population, totaling $103 billion in economic support across various programs.

  • The Ghost Cities Finally Died: For China's Steel Industry "The Outlook Is The Worst Ever Amid Unprecedented Losses"

    It’s almost difficult to believe, but just 8 years ago, in 2007 and right before the world was swept in the worst financial crisis in history, China had only $7.4 trillion in debt, or 158% in consolidated debt/GDP. Since then this debt has risen to over $30 trillion (specifically $28.2 trillion as of Q2, 2014) representing a staggering 300% debt/GDP.

    Here is the summary breakdown from McKinsey.

    This means that China was responsible for more than a third of all the $57 trillion debt created since 2007, making a mockery of the QE unleashed by all the DM central banks – something we first noted about two years before the famous McKinsey report went to print.

    However, it was precisely this credit expansion that not only allowed China to completely ignore the global depression of 2008/2009 but to build lots and lots of ghost cities such as these.

     

     

    To be sure, many noticed but everyone kept quiet: after all, to build these cities China not only had to create trillions in debt, it had to import a hundreds of billions worth of commodities form places such as Brazil and Australia.

    Then, in the late summer and fall of 2014 something happened: for whatever reason, as we noticed one year ago, the most unregulated aspect of China’s financial system, its shadow banks, not only stopped lending money but actually went into reverse, thus putting a lid on China’s Total Social Financing expansion, which had been the world’s “under the radar” growth dynamo for so many years.

    At that moment not only did China’s ghost cities officially die, but it meant an imminent collapse for China’s feeder commodity economies such as the abovementioned China and Brazil.

    In the US this phenomenon was given a very simpler name by the brilliant economists: “snow.”

    And since China’s domestic demand, not only from “ghost cities” but all other fixed investment was a function of pervasive credit, suddenly China’s commodity industry in general, and steel industry in particular, entered a state of shocked stasis.

    To get a sense of how bad it is, look no further than China’s steel industry. It is here that, as Bloomberg reports, “demand is collapsing along with prices,” and “banks are tightening lending and losses are stacking up, the deputy head of the China Iron & Steel Association said on Wednesday.

    “Production cuts are slower than the contraction in demand, therefore oversupply is worsening,” said Zhu at a quarterly briefing in Beijing by the main producers’ group. “Although China has cut interest rates many times recently, steel mills said their funding costs have actually gone up.”

    Meet the deflationary commodity cycle in all its glory:

    China’s mills — which produce about half of worldwide output — are battling against oversupply and sinking prices as local consumption shrinks for the first time in a generation amid a property-led slowdown. The fallout from the steelmakers’ struggles is hurting iron ore prices and boosting trade tensions as mills seek to sell their surplus overseas. Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. forecast last week that China’s steel production may eventually shrink 20 percent, matching the experience seen in the U.S. and elsewhere.

     

    “China’s steel demand evaporated at unprecedented speed as the nation’s economic growth slowed,” Zhu said. “As demand quickly contracted, steel mills are lowering prices in competition to get contracts.”

    Actually no, it has nothing to do with China’s fabricated economic growth and it was everything to do with the unbridled credit expansion that amounted to over $3 trillion per year. That credit expansion, which has not yet been halted, is no longer making its way to the sectors in the economy, such as the abovementioned steel mills, that need it most.

    As we reported a month ago, at current commodity prices, over half the debtors in China’s commodity space are generating so little cash, they can’t even cover their interest payment. They are, therefore, utterly insolvent, and the broader Chinese bond market is well aware of this – this is the reason why suddenly credit funding has collapsed.

    But wait, it gets worse: because if the PBOC had made interest rates not artificially low (yesterday China’s 10 Year bond was yielding just about 3%), eventually demand would appear, however nobody wants to lend these companies at rates approaching those suggested by the market.

    “Financing remains an acute problem as banks strictly restricted lending to the steel sector,” Zhu Jimin said. “Many mills found their loans difficult to extend or were asked to pay higher interest.”

    And yet in an environment of plunging interest, nobody wants to be seen as paying a huge premium above market: such an admission of defeat would be quickly perceived as a signal of an imminent default.

    And this is how China’s steel (and commodity in general) sector has suddenly found itself paralyzed without access to funding, and with collapsing end demand. As a result its only option is to do more of what got it there in the first place: produce ever more in hopes of offsetting tumbling prices with surging volume, thus accelerating the deflationary spiral that much more until ultimatly steel may be literally handed away for free.

    For now, however, China’s steel mills are praying this inevitably outcome can be somehow avoided.

    Medium- and large-sized mills incurred losses of 28.1 billion yuan ($4.4 billion) in the first nine months of this year, according to a statement from CISA. Steel demand in China shrank 8.7 percent in September on-year, it said.

     

    Signs of corporate difficulties are mounting. Producer Angang Steel Co. warned this month it expects to swing to a loss in the third quarter on lower product prices and foreign-exchange losses. The company’s Hong Kong stock has lost more than half its value this year. Last week, Sinosteel Co., a state-owned steel trader, failed to pay interest due on bonds maturing in 2017.

     

    Crude steel output in the country fell 2.1 percent to 608.9 million tons in the first nine months of this year, while exports jumped 27 percent to 83.1 million tons, official data show. Steel rebar futures in Shanghai sank to a record on Wednesday as local iron ore prices fell to a three-month low.

    The conclusion, even though from Bloomberg, is quite terrifying: “China’s mills face some of their worst conditions ever and the vast majority are losing money, Citigroup Inc. said in September. The outlook is the worst ever amid unprecedented losses, Macquarie Group Ltd. said this month.”

    China’s steel production may contract by a fifth should the country’s path follow the Europe, the U.S. and Japan, Shanghai Baosteel Group Chairman Xu Lejiang told reporters in Shanghai last week. The company is China’s second-largest mill by output.”

    Considering China’s version of Glencore “Sinosteel” effectively went insolvent one week ago (followed by what may or may not have been a government bailout), the fallout is just starting.

    The cherry on top is that China itself is now trapped: it simply can’t afford to let anyone default, as one bankruptcy would cascade across the entire bond market and wipe out countless corporations leaving millions of angry Chinese workers unemployed, and is therefore forced to keep bailing out insolvent companies over and over. By doing so, it is adding even more deflationary capacity and even more production into the market, which leads to even lower prices, and even greater bailouts!

    In short: this is a deflationary toxic spiral, because while that $30 trillion in inflationary debt led to easy growth and much wealth and prosperity on the way up when prices were soaring and monetary transmission mechanisms were not clogged up, now that China has hit hit a 300% debt/GDP and the direction of the arrow is in reverse, all the growth and all the expansion of the past 7 years will be promptly unwound as mean reversion demands payment.

    But perhaps most importantly, as we first reported last week citing BofA’s David Cui, we now have an ETA when this whole Chinese debt house of cards, some $30 trillion of it, bursts with consequences that will be so devastating not only China but the entire world, as the one catalyst that pulled the Developed Markets out of depression will be, poetically enough, the same one that pushed it right back in.

    On the current trajectory, we doubt the market can stay stable beyond a few quarters, especially if some SOE and/or LGFV bonds indeed default.

    Finally for those who would rather frontrun this runaway train when it slides off the tracks, here – again – is a list of the Chinese bonds that will almost surely default first.

     

  • AsiaPac Calm Before BoJ Storm, Japanese Household Spending 'Unexpectedly' Drops As China Releveraging Continues

    As all eyes, ears, and noses anxiously await the scantest of dovishness from Kuroda and The BoJ tonight (despite numerous hints that they will not unleash moar for now), the data that was just delivered may have helped the bad-news-is-good-news case. Most notably Japanese household spending dropped 0.4% YoY (with tax hike issues out of the way) missing expectations by a mile as the 'deflationary' mindset remains mired in Japanese heads. AsiaPac stocks are hovering at the week's lows unable to mount any bid as China fixed the Yuan notably stronger and instigated a new central pricing plan for pork prices (which suggests concerns about inflation domestically). Once again Chinese margin debt reaches a new 8-week high as 'stability' has prompted releveraging among the farmers and grandmas.

     

    Japanese household spending dropped.. again… way more than expected…

     

    Well done…

     

    So, while expectations have been set that traders should not expect too much excitement tonight, Bloomberg lays out some of Kuroda's options

    The governor said earlier this year there were “many options" available for more stimulus and that the central bank may need to get creative in the case of any further expansion.

     

    The easy road would be more government bond purchases, though more radical ideas such as buying stocks or debt from local governments have been suggested by economists.

     

    Japanese Government Bonds

     

    Purchases of Japanese government bonds are already the mainstay of Kuroda’sstimulus program. The BOJ is snapping them up so that its holdings increase at an annual pace of 80 trillion yen ($664 billion) to expand the size of the monetary base and encourage a decline in real interest rates. Boosting JGBs is something it turned to in October 2014. Eleven economists in the latest Bloomberg survey point to another increase in JGB purchases.

     

    While Kuroda has indicated there’s still plenty of room to buy more JGBs, traders in the bond market complain that liquidity is drying up. BNP Paribas SA has estimated the central bank will hold 43 percent of outstanding government bonds at the end of 2016, up from 28.5 percent through the end of June. Another possibility is changing the average maturity of bonds bought from the current 7-10 years to options including 9-12 years.

     

    Commercial Paper and Corporate Bonds

     

    Kuroda’s target is to hold CP and corporate bond purchases at 2.2 trillion yen and 3.2 trillion yen a year, respectively. Unlike other parts of the current stimulus program, this was left unchanged during the surprise boost in October last year. The BOJ moved into this market after the financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008. Stepping up purchases again could raise the question of fairness in choosing which companies’ bonds and CP to buy.

     

    Exchange-Traded Funds and J-REITs

     

    The BOJ is purchasing ETFs at an annual rate of 3 trillion yen, and Japanese real estate investment trusts at a pace of 90 billion yen a year. Economists at Nomura Securities have suggested the BOJ could load up on ETFs — boosting purchases to 6 trillion yen a year — and then pare its bond buying. This could propel the Japanese stock market from a slump in August and extend a recent rally to set new highs.

     

    Purchases of J-REITs have buoyed this key market, helping breathe life back into the property industry. But the BOJ’s strict investment criteria could see it run out of securities to buy over the next year as it tripled the pace of purchases in October 2014. A boost here may require the central bank to dive into securities rated lower than AA.

     

    Local Government Debt

     

    This would be one of the more creative solutions to boosting stimulus. Several economists have suggested this idea as a fresh way to help adjust the composition of asset purchases. DBS Research said the BOJ could consider increasing the amount of “risky assets” to be purchased, including ETFs and J-REITs and incorporating new choices like local government bonds. This option has the advantage of helping revitalize regional economies but risks debates over favoritism if some areas benefit more than others.

     

    Buying Shares

     

    While this unconventional idea would raise issues of fairness, Credit Agricole has floated it as a possibility. Purchasing a composite of stocks based on a gauge like the JPX Nikkei Index 400 amounting to as much as 10 trillion yen a year could be used to raise the annual pace of monetary base expansion to 90 trillion yen, according to Credit Agricole’s Kazuhiko Ogata.

     

    Cutting Interest Rates

     

    Economists at Mizuho Research and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities predict the BOJ will cut the interest rate it pays private banks on excess reserves that they hold at the central bank when it next boosts stimulus.

     

    The BOJ wasn’t considering lowering the rate from the current 0.1 percent, though the option hadn’t been taken permanently off the table either, people familiar with discussions at the bank said in May. Kuroda said more recently that the BOJ wasn’t considering a reserve rate cut for the time being.

     

    Some economists say the BOJ could even implement a negative-interest rate policy, as has been seen in Europe.

     

    Raising the Inflation Target

     

    Consumer prices as measured by the BOJ’s main gauge stood at -0.1 percent in August, and no economists in the Bloomberg survey expect it to reach its 2 percent goal in the six months through September 2016, Kuroda’s latest time frame.

     

    To reignite inflation expectations, the governor and his colleagues could aim to overshoot the target and establish a longer time frame. One option, says JPMorgan Chase & Co. economist Masaaki Kanno, is to target 3 percent inflation and push out the horizon to 2018.

     

    Long-Term Bond Yield Target

     

    Ryutaro Kono, an economist at BNP Paribas Securities in Tokyo, has said it’s possible that the BOJ will set a target for long-term bond yields, aiming to drive rates lower. Since the BOJ began unprecedented asset purchases in April 2013, the benchmark 10-year JGB yield has swung between 1 percent and 0.195 percent. It was at 0.3 percent on Tuesday in Tokyo.

    Perhaps the most interesting (and terrifyingly tyrannical) suggestion now is that Kuroda is going to start accumulating a controlling stake in individual companies and then once he has that, demanding wage hikes and capex. As Bloomberg puts it, "if the macro didn’t work, maybe you do it on a super micro level."

    In other words, they're going to make Abenomics a success by decree.

    *  *  *

    For now, 121.00 seems like the tractor beam and NKYis not having any of USDJPY's US session excitement…

     

    AsiaPac stocks have been limping lower all week and early gains tonight are fading…

     

    Then China stepped in with a significant Yuan strengthening:

    • *CHINA RAISES YUAN FIXING BY 0.16% TO 6.3495/USD

    And more importantly, is inflation creeping in?

    • *CHINA REVISES LIVE PIG PRICE CONTROL PLAN
    • *CHINA TO PREVENT OVERLY RISE, FALL IN LIVE PIG PRICES
    • *CHINA NDRC REVISES LIVE PIG PRICES CONTROL MEASURES

    And margin debt keep screeping back up…

    • *SHANGHAI MARGIN DEBT BALANCE RISES TO EIGHT-WEEK HIGH

    But…

    • *CHINA SHANGHAI COMPOSITE SET TO OPEN DOWN 0.2% TO 3,380.28
    • *CHINA'S CSI 300 INDEX SET TO OPEN DOWN 0.1% TO 3,530.22

    So now we wait… Get back to work Mr Kuroda.

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • World Health Organization: Prolonged Exposure to Even LOW Level Radiation Increases the Risk of Cancer

    Over 300,000 Nuclear Workers from France, the UK and US Studied for Radiation-Cancer Link

    A major new study coordinated by World Health Organization’s cancer division – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – finds that even low-level radiation increases the risk of cancer, if exposure occurs over time.

    The IARC announced last week:

    New results from a study coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, show that protracted exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation increases the risk of death from solid cancers. The results, published today in The BMJ [the prestigious British Medical Journal], are based on the most powerful study to date and provide direct evidence about cancer risks after protracted exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation.

     

    “The present study demonstrates a significant association between increasing radiation dose and risk of all solid cancers,” says IARC researcher Dr Ausrele Kesminiene, a study co-author. “No matter whether people are exposed to protracted low doses or to high and acute doses, the observed association between dose and solid cancer risk is similar per unit of radiation dose.”

     

    ***

     

    A collaboration among international partners, evaluated the exposures of more than 300 000 nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the USA over a period of time between 1943 and 2005.

    The scientists involved in the study come from government agencies such as the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Public Health England Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, as well as universities including the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Drexel University.

    The study confirms – once again – what we’ve been saying for years.

    For example, a major 2012 scientific study proves that low-level radiation can cause huge health problems. Science Daily reports:

    Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society’s journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health.

     

    The review is a meta-analysis of studies of locations around the globe …. “Pooling across multiple studies, in multiple areas, and in a rigorous statistical manner provides a tool to really get at these questions about low-level radiation.”

     

    Mousseau and co-author Anders Møller of the University of Paris-Sud combed the scientific literature, examining more than 5,000 papers involving natural background radiation that were narrowed to 46 for quantitative comparison. The selected studies all examined both a control group and a more highly irradiated population and quantified the size of the radiation levels for each. Each paper also reported test statistics that allowed direct comparison between the studies.

     

    The organisms studied included plants and animals, but had a large preponderance of human subjects. Each study examined one or more possible effects of radiation, such as DNA damage measured in the lab, prevalence of a disease such as Down’s Syndrome, or the sex ratio produced in offspring. For each effect, a statistical algorithm was used to generate a single value, the effect size, which could be compared across all the studies.

     

    The scientists reported significant negative effects in a range of categories, including immunology, physiology, mutation and disease occurrence. The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance.

     

    ***

     

    “When you do the meta-analysis, you do see significant negative effects.”

     

    “It also provides evidence that there is no threshold below which there are no effects of radiation,” he added. “A theory that has been batted around a lot over the last couple of decades is the idea that is there a threshold of exposure below which there are no negative consequences. These data provide fairly strong evidence that there is no threshold — radiation effects are measurable as far down as you can go, given the statistical power you have at hand.”

     

    Mousseau hopes their results, which are consistent with the “linear-no-threshold” model for radiation effects, will better inform the debate about exposure risks. “With the levels of contamination that we have seen as a result of nuclear power plants, especially in the past, and even as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima and related accidents, there’s an attempt in the industry to downplay the doses that the populations are getting, because maybe it’s only one or two times beyond what is thought to be the natural background level,” he said. “But they’re assuming the natural background levels are fine.”

     

    “And the truth is, if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for exposures, and especially intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports.”

    And see this.

    Physicians for Social Responsibility notes:

    According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual’s risk for the development of cancer.

     

    “There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

     

    “Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,”said Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

     

    ***

     

    Radiation can be concentrated many times in the food chain and any consumption adds to the cumulative risk of cancer and other diseases.

    John LaForge writes:

    The National Council on Radiation Protection says, “… every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremen­tal increase in the risk of cancer.” The Environmental Protection Agency says, “… any exposure to radiation poses some risk, i.e. there is no level below which we can say an exposure poses no risk.” The Department of Energy says about “low levels of radiation” that “… the major effect is a very slight increase in cancer risk.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer … any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk.” The National Academy of Sciences, in its “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII,” says, “… it is unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers ….”

    Japan Times reports:

    Protracted exposure to low-level radiation is associated with a significant increase in the risk of leukemia, according to a long-term study published Thursday in a U.S. research journal.

     

    The study released in the monthly Environmental Health Perspectives was based on a 20-year survey of around 110,000 workers who engaged in cleanup work related to the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster in 1986.

     

    Scientists from the University of California, San Francisco, the U.S. National Cancer Institute and the National Research Center for Radiation Medicine in Ukraine were among those who participated in the research.

    Indeed, the overwhelming consensus among radiation experts is that repeated exposure to low doses of radiation can cause cancer, genetic mutations, heart disease, stroke and other serious illness (and see this.) If a government agency says anything else, it’s likely for political reasons.

    The top U.S. government radiation experts – like Karl Morgan, John Goffman and Arthur Tamplin – and scientific luminaries such as Ernest Sternglass and Alice Stewart, concluded that low level radiation can cause serious health effects.

    A military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq states:

    Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer.

    (Military briefings for commanders often contain less propaganda than literature aimed at civilians, as the commanders have to know the basic facts to be able to assess risk to their soldiers.)

    The briefing states that doses are cumulative, citing the following military studies and reports:

    • ACE Directive 80-63, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Low Level Radiological Hazards during Military Operations, 2 AUG 96
    • AR 11-9, The Army Radiation Program, 28 MAY 99
    • FM 4-02.283, Treatment of Nuclear and Radiological Casualties, 20 DEC 01
    • JP 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in NBC Environments, 11 JUL 00
    • NATO STANAG 2473, Command Guidance on Low Level Radiation Exposure in Military Operations, 3 MAY 00
    • USACHPPM TG 244, The NBC Battle Book, AUG 02

    Many studies have shown that repeated exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation from CT scans and x-rays can cause cancer. See this, this, this. this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

    Research from the University of Iowa concluded:

    Cumulative radon exposure is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in women.

    And see these studies on the health effects cumulative doses of radioactive cesium.

    The European Committee on Radiation Risk notes:

    Cumulative impacts of chronic irradiation in low doses are … important for the comprehension, assessment and prognosis of the late effects of irradiation on human beings ….

    And see this.

    The New York Times’ Matthew Wald reported in 2012:

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists[’] May-June issue carries seven articles and an editorial on the subject of low-dose radiation, a problem that has thus far defied scientific consensus but has assumed renewed importance since the meltdown of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan in March 2011.

     

    ***

     

    This month a guest editor, Jan Beyea [who received a PhD in nuclear physics from Columbia and has served on a number of committees at the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science] and worked on epidemiological studies at Three Mile Island, takes a hard look at the power industry.

     

    The bulletin’s Web site is generally subscription-only, but this issue can be read at no charge.

     

    Dr. Beyea challenges a concept adopted by American safety regulators about small doses of radiation. The prevailing theory is that the relationship between dose and effect is linear – that is, that if a big dose is bad for you, half that dose is half that bad, and a quarter of that dose is one-quarter as bad, and a millionth of that dose is one-millionth as bad, with no level being harmless.

     

    The idea is known as the “linear no-threshold hypothesis,’’ and while most scientists say there is no way to measure its validity at the lower end, applying it constitutes a conservative approach to public safety.

     

    Some radiation professionals disagree, arguing that there is no reason to protect against supposed effects that cannot be measured. But Dr. Beyea contends that small doses could actually be disproportionately worse.

     

    Radiation experts have formed a consensus that if a given dose of radiation delivered over a short period poses a given hazard, that hazard will be smaller if the dose is spread out. To use an imprecise analogy, if swallowing an entire bottle of aspirin at one sitting could kill you, consuming it over a few days might merely make you sick.

     

    In radiation studies, this is called a dose rate effectiveness factor. Generally, a spread-out dose is judged to be half as harmful as a dose given all at once.

     

    ***

     

    Dr. Beyea, however, proposes that doses spread out over time might be more dangerous than doses given all at once. [Background] He suggests two reasons: first, some effects may result from genetic damage that manifests itself only after several generations of cells have been exposed, and, second, a “bystander effect,” in which a cell absorbs radiation and seems unhurt but communicates damage to a neighboring cell, which can lead to cancer.

     

    One problem in the radiation field is that little of the data on hand addresses the problem of protracted exposure. Most of the health data used to estimate the health effects of radiation exposure comes from survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of 1945. That was mostly a one-time exposure.

     

    Scientists who say that this data leads to the underestimation of radiation risks cite another problem: it does not include some people who died from radiation exposure immediately after the bombings. The notion here is that the people studied in ensuing decades to learn about the dose effect may have been stronger and healthier, which could have played a role in their survival.

     

    Still, the idea that the bomb survivor data is biased, or that stretched-out doses are more dangerous than instant ones, is a minority position among radiation scientists.

    Dr. Beyea writes:

    Three recent epidemiologic studies suggest that the risk from protracted exposure is no lower, and in fact may be higher, than from single exposures.

     

    ***

     

    Conventional wisdom was upset in 2005, when an international study, which focused on a large population of exposed nuclear workers, presented results that shocked the radiation protection community—and foreshadowed a sequence of research results over the following years.

     

    ***

     

    It all started when epidemiologist Elaine Cardis and 46 colleagues surveyed some 400,000 nuclear workers from 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia—workers who had experienced chronic exposures, with doses measured on radiation badges (Cardis et al., 2005).

     

    ***

     

    This study revealed a higher incidence for protracted exposure than found in the atomic-bomb data, representing a dramatic contradiction to expectations based on expert opinion.

     

    ***

     

    A second major occupational study appeared a few years later, delivering another blow to the theory that protracted doses were not so bad. This 2009 report looked at 175,000 radiation workers in the United Kingdom ….

     

    After the UK update was published, scientists combined results from 12 post-2002 occupational studies, including the two mentioned above, concluding that protracted radiation was 20 percent more effective in increasing cancer rates than acute exposures (Jacob et al., 2009). The study’s authors saw this result as a challenge to the cancer-risk values currently assumed for occupational radiation exposures. That is, they wrote that the radiation risk values used for workers should be increased over the atomic-bomb-derived values, not lowered by a factor of two or more.

     

    ***

     

    In 2007, one study—the first of its size—looked at low-dose radiation risk in a large, chronically exposed civilian population; among the epidemiological community, this data set is known as the “Techa River cohort.” From 1949 to 1956 in the Soviet Union, while the Mayak weapons complex dumped some 76 million cubic meters of radioactive waste water into the river, approximately 30,000 of the off-site population—from some 40 villages along the river—were exposed to chronic releases of radiation; residual contamination on riverbanks still produced doses for years after 1956.

     

    ***

     

    Here was a study of citizens exposed to radiation much like that which would be experienced following a reactor accident. About 17,000 members of the cohort have been studied in an international effort (Krestinina et al., 2007), largely funded by the US Energy Department; and to many in the department, this study was meant to definitively prove that protracted exposures were low in risk. The results were unexpected. The slope of the LNT fit turned out to be higher than predicted by the atomic-bomb data, providing additional evidence that protracted exposure does not reduce risk.

     

    ***

     

    In a 2012 study on atomic-bomb survivor mortality data (Ozasa et al., 2012), low-dose analysis revealed unexpectedly strong evidence for the applicability of the supralinear theory. From 1950 to 2003, more than 80,000 people studied revealed high risks per unit dose in the low-dose range, from 0.01 to 0.1 Sv.

    A major 2012 study of atomic bomb data by the official joint U.S.-Japanese government study of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors found that low dose radiation causes cancer and genetic damage:

    Dr. Peter Karamoskos notes:

    The most comprehensive study of nuclear workers by the IARC, involving 600,000 workers exposed to an average cumulative dose of 19mSv, showed a cancer risk consistent with that of the A-bomb survivors.

    Children are much more vulnerable to radiation than adults. American physician Brian Moench writes:

    The idea that a threshold exists or there is a safe level of radiation for human exposure began unraveling in the 1950s when research showed one pelvic x-ray in a pregnant woman could double the rate of childhood leukemia in an exposed baby. Furthermore, the risk was ten times higher if it occurred in the first three months of pregnancy than near the end. This became the stepping-stone to the understanding that the timing of exposure was even more critical than the dose. The earlier in embryonic development it occurred, the greater the risk.

     

    A new medical concept has emerged, increasingly supported by the latest research, called “fetal origins of disease,” that centers on the evidence that a multitude of chronic diseases, including cancer, often have their origins in the first few weeks after conception by environmental insults disturbing normal embryonic development. It is now established medical advice that pregnant women should avoid any exposure to x-rays, medicines or chemicals when not absolutely necessary, no matter how small the dose, especially in the first three months.

     

    “Epigenetics” is a term integral to fetal origins of disease, referring to chemical attachments to genes that turn them on or off inappropriately and have impacts functionally similar to broken genetic bonds. Epigenetic changes can be caused by unimaginably small doses – parts per trillion – be it chemicals, air pollution, cigarette smoke or radiation. Furthermore, these epigenetic changes can occur within minutes after exposure and may be passed on to subsequent generations.

     

    The Endocrine Society, 14,000 researchers and medical specialists in more than 100 countries, warned that “even infinitesimally low levels of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, indeed, any level of exposure at all, may cause endocrine or reproductive abnormalities, particularly if exposure occurs during a critical developmental window. Surprisingly, low doses may even exert more potent effects than higher doses.” If hormone-mimicking chemicals at any level are not safe for a fetus, then the concept is likely to be equally true of the even more intensely toxic radioactive elements drifting over from Japan, some of which may also act as endocrine disruptors.

     

    Many epidemiologic studies show that extremely low doses of radiation increase the incidence of childhood cancers, low birth-weight babies, premature births, infant mortality, birth defects and even diminished intelligence. Just two abdominal x-rays delivered to a male can slightly increase the chance of his future children developing leukemia. By damaging proteins anywhere in a living cell, radiation can accelerate the aging process and diminish the function of any organ. Cells can repair themselves, but the rapidly growing cells in a fetus may divide before repair can occur, negating the body’s defense mechanism and replicating the damage.

     

    Comforting statements about the safety of low radiation are not even accurate for adults. Small increases in risk per individual have immense consequences in the aggregate. When low risk is accepted for billions of people, there will still be millions of victims. New research on risks of x-rays illustrate the point.

     

    Radiation from CT coronary scans is considered low, but, statistically, it causes cancer in one of every 270 40-year-old women who receive the scan. Twenty year olds will have double that rate. Annually, 29,000 cancers are caused by the 70 million CT scans done in the US. Common, low-dose dental x-rays more than double the rate of thyroid cancer. Those exposed to repeated dental x-rays have an even higher risk of thyroid cancer.

    It’s not just humans: scientists have found that animals receiving low doses of radiation from Chernobyl are sick as well.

    Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors

    Uninformed commenters (and some industry flacks) claim that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents.

    In fact, there was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

    Wikipedia provides some details on the distribution of cesium-137 due to human activities:

    Small amounts of caesium-134 and caesium-137 were released into the environment during nearly all nuclear weapon tests and some nuclear accidents, most notably the Chernobyl disaster.

     

    ***

     

    Caesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began. By observing the characteristic gamma rays emitted by this isotope, it is possible to determine whether the contents of a given sealed container were made before or after the advent of atomic bomb explosions. This procedure has been used by researchers to check the authenticity of certain rare wines, most notably the purported “Jefferson bottles”.

    The EPA notes:

    Cesium-133 is the only naturally occurring isotope and is non-radioactive; all other isotopes, including cesium-137, are produced by human activity.

    Similarly, iodine-131 is not a naturally occurring isotope. As the Encyclopedia Britannica notes:

    The only naturally occurring isotope of iodine is stable iodine-127. An exceptionally useful radioactive isotope is iodine-131…

    (Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. Japanese experts say that Fukushima is currently releasing up to 93 billion becquerels of radioactive cesium into the ocean each day. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years … rising to some 80% as much Fukushima radiation as Japan by 2016.  Fukushima is spewing more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.)

    As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely a misnomer. Most of the radiation we encounter today – especially the most dangerous types – did not even exist in nature before we built nuclear weapons and reactors.

    Nuclear Apologists Are Going Bananas

    http://www.terry.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/banana_equals_boom.pngNuclear apologists pretend that people are exposed to more radiation from bananas than from Fukushima.

    But unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas – which our bodies have adapted to over many years – cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances.

    The EPA explains:

    The human body is born with potassium-40 [the type of radiation found in bananas] in its tissues and it is the most common radionuclide in human tissues and in food. We evolved in the presence of potassium-40 and our bodies have welldeveloped repair mechanisms to respond to its effects. The concentration of potassium-40 in the human body is constant and not affected by concentrations in the environment.

    Wikipedia notes:

    The amount of potassium (and therefore of 40K) in the human body is fairly constant because of homeostatsis, so that any excess absorbed from food is quickly compensated by the elimination of an equal amount.

     

    It follows that the additional radiation exposure due to eating a banana lasts only for a few hours after ingestion, namely the time it takes for the normal potassium contents of the body to be restored by the kidneys.

    BoingBoing reports:

    A lot of things you might not suspect of being radioactive are, including Brazil nuts, and your own body. And this fact is sometimes used to downplay the impact of exposure to radiation via medical treatments or accidental intake.

     

    ***

     

    I contacted Geoff Meggitt—a retired health physicist, and former editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection—to find out more.

     

    Meggitt worked for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and its later commercial offshoots for 25 years. He says there’s an enormous variation in the risks associated with swallowing the same amount of different radioactive materials—and even some difference between the same dose, of the same material, but in different chemical forms.

     

    It all depends on two factors:

     

    1) The physical characteristics of the radioactivity—i.e, What’s its half-life? Is the radiation emitted alpha, beta or gamma?

     

    2) The way the the radioactivity travels around and is taken up by the body—i.e., How much is absorbed by the blood stream? What tissues does this specific isotope tend to accumulate in?

     

    The Potassium-40 in bananas is a particularly poor model isotope to use, Meggitt says, because the potassium content of our bodies seems to be under homeostatic control. When you eat a banana, your body’s level of Potassium-40 doesn’t increase. You just get rid of some excess Potassium-40. The net dose of a banana is zero.

     

    And that’s the difference between a useful educational tool and propaganda. (And I say this as somebody who is emphatically not against nuclear energy.) Bananas aren’t really going to give anyone “a more realistic assessment of actual risk”, they’re just going to further distort the picture.

    Mixing Apples (External) and Oranges (Internal)

    Moreover, radioactive particles which end up inside of our lungs or gastrointestinal track, as opposed to radiation which comes to us from outside of our skin are much more dangerous than general exposures to radiation.

    The National Research Council’s Committee to Assess the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program explains:

    Radioactivity generates radiation by emitting particles. Radioactive materials outside the the body are called external emitters, and radioactive materials located within the body are called internal emitters.

    Internal emitters are much more dangerous than external emitters. Specifically, one is only exposed to radiation as long as he or she is near the external emitter.

    For example, when you get an x-ray, an external emitter is turned on for an instant, and then switched back off.

    But internal emitters steadily and continuously emit radiation for as long as the particle remains radioactive, or until the person dies – whichever occurs first. As such, they are much more dangerous.

    As the head of a Tokyo-area medical clinic – Dr. Junro Fuse, Internist and head of Kosugi Medical Clinic – said:

    Risk from internal exposure is 200-600 times greater than risk from external exposure.

    See this, this, this and this.

    By way of analogy, external emitters are like dodgeballs being thrown at you. If you get hit, it might hurt. But it’s unlikely you’ll get hit again in the same spot.

    Internal emitters – on the other hand – are like a black belt martial artist moving in really close and hammering you again and again and again in the exact same spot. That can do real damage.

    There are few natural high-dose internal emitters. Bananas, brazil nuts and some other foods contain radioactive potassium-40, but in extremely low doses. But – as explained above – our bodies have adapted to handle this type of radiation.

    True, some parts of the country are at higher risk of exposure to naturally-occurring radium than others.

    But the cesium which was scattered all over the place by above-ground nuclear tests and the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents has a much longer half life, and can easily contaminate food and water supplies. As the New York Times notes:

    Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years.

     

    At that rate of disintegration, John Emsley wrote in “Nature’s Building Blocks” (Oxford, 2001), “it takes over 200 years to reduce it to 1 percent of its former level.”

     

    It is cesium-137 that still contaminates much of the land in Ukraine around the Chernobyl reactor.

     

    ***

     

    Cesium-137 mixes easily with water and is chemically similar to potassium. It thus mimics how potassium gets metabolized in the body and can enter through many foods, including milk.

    As the EPA notes in a discussion entitled ” What can I do to protect myself and my family from cesium-137?”:

    Cesium-137 that is dispersed in the environment, like that from atmospheric testing, is impossible to avoid.

    Radioactive iodine can also become a potent internal emitter. As the Times notes:

    Iodine-131 has a half-life of eight days and is quite dangerous to human health. If absorbed through contaminated food, especially milk and milk products, it will accumulate in the thyroid and cause cancer.

    The bottom line is that there is some naturally-occurring background radiation, which can – at times – pose a health hazard (especially in parts of the country with high levels of radioactive radon or radium).

    But cesium-137 and radioactive iodine – the two main radioactive substances being spewed by the leaking Japanese nuclear plants – are not naturally-occurring substances, and can become powerful internal emitters which can cause tremendous damage to the health of people who are unfortunate enough to breathe in even a particle of the substances, or ingest them in food or water.

    Unlike low-levels of radioactive potassium found in bananas – which our bodies have adapted to over many years – cesium-137 and iodine 131 are brand new, extremely dangerous substances.

    And unlike naturally-occurring internal emitters like radon and radium – whose distribution is largely concentrated in certain areas of the country – radioactive cesium and iodine, as well as strontium and other dangerous radionuclides, are being distributed globally through weapons testing and nuclear accidents.

    Cumulative and Synergistic Damage

    As noted above, a military briefing written by the U.S. Army for commanders in Iraq points out:

    Hazards from low level radiation are long-term, not acute effects… Every exposure increases risk of cancer.

    In other words, doses are cumulative: the more times someone is exposed, the greater the potential damage.

    In addition, exposure to different radioactive particles may increase the damage. Specifically, the International Commission on Radiological Protection notes:

    It has been shown that in some cases a synergistic effect results when several organs of the body are irradiated simultaneously.

    (“Synergistic” means that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.)

    Because different radionuclides accumulate in different parts of the body – e.g. cesium in the muscles, kidneys, heart and liver, iodine in the thyroid, and strontium in the bones – the exposure to many types of radiation may be more dangerous than exposure just to one or two types.

    As such, adding new radioactive compounds like cesium and iodine into the environment may cause synergistic damage to our health.

  • The Oligarch Recovery: US Military Veterans Are Selling Their Pensions In Order To Pay The Bills

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Moore soon found himself two months behind on rent and at least 10 days from payday. In bed that night, he saw a TV ad for Future Income Payments, a company based in Irvine, Calif., that buys pensions in exchange for a lump sum. The company said it had worked with military personnel and government workers. Ten minutes later, he got up and made the call.

     

    The next day, a company representative called Moore back and explained that he would receive a $5,000 cash advance for selling part of his pension. In exchange, Moore would have to pay the company $510 a month for five years  — a total of $30,600.

     

    If it were a typical loan, that would amount to $25,600 in interest — a rate of 512 percent.

     

    Most of the companies advertise nationally on news sites and in military magazines, consumer advocates say. One ad highlighted in the recent congressional hearing on pension advances featured two smiling people in uniform below the words “This is our America.”

     

    The effective interest rates charged by pension advance companies can be abusive, Cartwright said. But it is particularly “egregious” that the companies go after military retirees, targeting income streams that are backed by the federal government, he added.

     

    – From the Washington Post article: Some Retirees are Making a Terrible Mistake with their Pensions

    Welcome to the oligarch recovery. An economic rebound so robust that an ever increasing number of Americans are being forced to borrow money at usurious rates just to pay the bills. Today, I want to introduce you to the latest scheme to profit from poverty: Pension Advance Companies.

     

    Here’s some of the Washington Post’s article on the subject from today:

    Keith Moore, a 40-year-old military veteran recovering from post-traumatic stress disorder in Oklahoma, remembers the day last year when he sold off a chunk of his pension.

     

    He had left the military after 21 years of service, because his disabilities — PTSD, arthritis and other injuries — made it difficult to work.  But the transition to civilian life came with a different struggle: the need to provide for his family and pay the same bills with only half the paycheck.

     

    Moore soon found himself two months behind on rent and at least 10 days from payday. In bed that night, he saw a TV ad for Future Income Payments, a company based in Irvine, Calif., that buys pensions in exchange for a lump sum. The company said it had worked with military personnel and government workers. Ten minutes later, he got up and made the call.

     

    The next day, a company representative called Moore back and explained that he would receive a $5,000 cash advance for selling part of his pension. In exchange, Moore would have to pay the company $510 a month for five years  — a total of $30,600.

     

    If it were a typical loan, that would amount to $25,600 in interest — a rate of 512 percent.

     

    Pension advances are complex products that offer retirees a lump-sum cash advance in exchange for all, or part, of their future pension payments. Consumer groups say they are pitched disproportionately to retired military members and federal retirees.

     

    Future Income Payments is just one of the companies that offer such products. In a 2014 report, the Government Accountability Office identified 38 companies that had recently offered pension advances. At least 30 of the 38 companies were affiliated with one another in some way, sharing a parent company, a broker or another business relationship.

     

    Future Income Payments did not return calls seeking comment.

    Would you return a phone call when your business model consists of peddling 500% interest rate loans to broke U.S. military veterans?

    Most of the companies advertise nationally on news sites and in military magazines, consumer advocates say. One ad highlighted in the recent congressional hearing on pension advances featured two smiling people in uniform below the words “This is our America.”

     

    Because pension advance companies can describe their products as pension sales and not loans, they often avoid some of the stricter oversight required of lenders. That includes laws that protect consumers from high interest rates and regulations that require lenders to clearly disclose the interest rates consumers will face.

     

    The effective interest rates charged by pension advance companies can be abusive, Cartwright said. But it is particularly “egregious” that the companies go after military retirees, targeting income streams that are backed by the federal government, he added.

     

    Moore said that in hindsight he should have read the paperwork more closely. But at the time, he was worried about providing for his family.

     

    His pension payments weren’t large enough to cover rent and electricity and other expenses for his wife and two children. Things piled on in the spring of 2014 when his car broke down.

    Of course, this is just the latest example of average Americans being preyed upon as they descend further into inescapable poverty. Recall:

    Use of Alternative Financial Services, Such as Payday Loans, Continues to Increase Despite the “Recovery”

    The Oligarch Recovery – 30 Million Americans Have Tapped Retirement Savings Early in Last 12 Months

    Another Tale from the Oligarch Recovery – How a $1,500 Sofa Costs $4,150 When You’re Poor

    Thanks for playing suckers:

    Screen Shot 2015-09-24 at 10.07.49 AM

  • 100 US CEO Have Greater Retirement Assets That 116 Million Americans

    With another year of QE almost in the history books, we were looking for some great examples of how wealth disparity in the US between the pinnacle of the “wealth pyramid”, shown below and everyone else. 

    We got it thanks to a study by the Center for Effective Government and Institute for Policy Studies called “A Tale of Two Retirements“, which found that company-sponsored retirement assets of just 100 CEOs are equal to those of more than 40 percent of American families, roughly 50 million families or 116 million people.

    Here are the findings which indicate a wealth divide so wide it could make Marie Antoinette blush:

    • The 100 largest CEO retirement funds are worth a combined $4.9 billion. That’s equal to the entire retirement account savings of 41 percent of American families – more than 50 million families and more than 116 million people.
    • On average, the CEOs’ nest eggs are worth more than $49.3 million, enough to generate a $277,686 monthly retirement check for the rest of their lives.
    • David Novak of YUM Brands had the largest retirement nest egg in the Fortune 500 in 2014, with $234 million, while hundreds of thousands of his Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC employees have no company retirement assets whatsoever. Novak transitioned from CEO to Executive Chairman in 2015.

    The rich are not only richer, they are also legally allowed to pay far less taxes than most mere mortals: Fortune 500 CEOs have $3.2 billion in special tax-deferred compensation accounts that are exempt from the annual contribution limits imposed on ordinary 401(k)s.

    • Fortune 500 CEOs saved $78 million on their 2014 tax bills by putting $197 million more in these tax-deferred accounts than they could have if they were subject to the same rules as other workers. These special accounts grow tax-free until the executives retire and begin to withdraw the funds.
    • The Fortune 500 CEOs had more in their company-sponsored deferred compensation accounts than 53.8 percent of American families had in their deferred compensation accounts.
    • Glenn Renwick, CEO of The Progressive Corporation, transferred $26.2 million of his pay into his deferred compensation account last year, the most of any Fortune 500 CEO. That reduced his income tax bill by more than $10 million in 2014.

    Remember that not only their year-end comp, but much of their retirement funds, are linked to stock performance thresholds, so the CEOs are explicitly motivated to boost their stock price. This means engaging in countless stock buybacks. However, when the debt spigot is put on hiatus and cash in must equal cash out, it means firing thousands workers. And if not firing, then merely reducing defined benefit plans should suffice.

    • Last year 18 percent of private sector workers were covered by a defined benefit pension, which guarantees monthly payments, down from 35 percent in the early 1990s. In contrast, 52 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are covered by a company-sponsored pension.
    • Nearly half of all working age Americans have no access to any retirement plan at work. The median balance in a 401(k) plan at the end of 2013 was $18,433, enough to generate a monthly retirement check of $104.
    • Of workers aged 50-64, 29 percent have no defined benefit pension or retirement savings in a 401(k) or IRA. These workers will be wholly dependent on Social Security, which pays an average benefit of $1,223 per month.

    It gets worse, and more tragic at the same time, because according to BlackRock, Americans and especially Millenials just have too much cash. No really, this is what Blackrock said:

    While Americans said that they ideally should have 33% of their net worth in cash instruments, they admit to holding 65%–far too high an allocation to achieve their retirement goals, given low interest rates and the diminishing purchasing power of their cash related to the pressures of inflation. The current asset allocation of American portfolios according to the survey includes 65% in cash, 18% in equities, 6% in bonds, 4% in property, 2% in alternatives, 5% listed as “other.”

    Well, perhaps Americans are simply not looking forward to buying what Wall Street and central banks have to sell just ahead of the ritual rug pulling that wipes out 50% of the market every few years. And then there is the question of just how much cash said Millennials have.

    Here it the problem according to the Two Retirements report:

    Younger Americans face a particularly difficult time saving for retirement. More than half of millennials have not yet begun to save for retirement, as they lack access to good jobs, and have staggering amounts of student loan debt. Americans under 40 today have saved 7 percent less for retirement than people in that age group were able to save in 1983.

    So sorry Blackrock, but your feeble mind games will not work on us, even though we realize you would love for everyone to buy your flash-crashy ETFs. The reality is that Americans simply do not have any leftover funds, period, which to fund a retirement, be it invested in cash or BlackRock triple inverse ETFs.

    CEOs, however, have nothing to worry about. Not only do they have Congress in their back pocket, they also get preferred treatment by the IRS.

    On top of their massive annual compensation, CEOs of most large U.S. corporations have amassed gilded retirement fortunes. We analyzed SEC filings of publicly held Fortune 500 firms and found that the 100 largest CEO nest eggs were worth a combined $4.9 billion at the end of 2014. That sum is equal to the entire retirement account savings of 41 percent of American families (50 million families in total).

     

    While the guaranteed monthly retirement check until death is a thing of the past for the vast majority of Americans, more than half of Fortune 500 CEOs receive company-sponsored pension plans. Their firms are allowed to deduct the cost of these often exorbitant plans from their taxes, even if they have cut worker pensions or never offered them at all.

     

    Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of Fortune 500 firms also have set up special tax-deferred compensation accounts for their executives. These are similar to the 401(k) plans that some Americans receive through their employers. But ordinary workers face strict limits on how much pre-tax income they can invest each year in these plans, while top executives do not. These privileged few are free to shelter unlimited amounts of compensation in these special pots, where their money can grow, tax-free, until they retire and start spending it.

     

    The CEO-worker retirement divide turns our country’s already extreme income divide into an even wider economic chasm. New analysis by the Government Accountability Office shows that 29 percent of workers approaching retirement (aged 50-65) have neither a pension nor retirement savings in a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account (IRA). According to a study by the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Research at the New School, 55 percent of those aged 50-64 will be forced to rely almost solely on Social Security (which averages $1,233 a month).

    And so on.

    And because we know that readers are mostly interessted in names, here is a selection.

    First, the 10 Largest CEO Retirement Funds

     

    Second, the 10 Largest CEO Deferred Compensation Accounts.

    A quick primer on these:

    In 2014, 198 Fortune 500 CEOs invested a combined $197 million more of their pre-tax income in these plans than they would have been able to invest if they’d been subject to the maximum $24,000 cap that applies to ordinary workers. If they had been subject to this limit, they would’ve owed the U.S. Treasury $78 million more in income taxes last year.

     

    The funds in these special tax-deferred accounts grow tax-free for the rest of the executives’ lives or until they are withdrawn. At that point, the executives make a one-time tax payment at an ordinary income rate. The Joint Committee on Taxation has produced a useful analysis of the financial benefits of tax deferral from the compounding of investment returns.

     

    Executives can also choose where they live when they receive this compensation, including in a low-tax state. For example, CEOs who move after they retire from relatively high-tax New York to Florida, which has no state income tax, would pay substantially lower state taxes on this deferred compensation. These accounts can even be passed on to the executive’s heirs, allowing our country’s extreme wealth concentration to be passed on to future generations. These rules are contributing to the perpetuation of a new aristocracy.

    And third, a quick look at the pension funding status at the corporations with the largest CEO retirement accounts:

     

    Finally, here is the full breakdown of Fortune 500 CEOs’ retirement assets.

  • Australia Proposes Eliminating Passports. There's Just One Problem…

    Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

    It wasn’t that long ago that you could travel from one corner of the world to another with nothing but your good looks.

    There are people still alive today, in fact, who were born into a world where passports were not widely used for international travel.

    The passport itself is a relatively recent invention, an unfortunate consequence of World War I. And they didn’t really become ubiquitous until the late 20th century.

    Now, in many respects you can’t leave your own country without one, especially if you hail from the Land of the Free.

    Americans are so ‘free’, in fact, that they can’t even go to Canada without forking over $165 to the government of the United States just to ‘apply’ for a little booklet that gives you the right to leave the country.

    Passports are nothing more than a form of control— a way to obtain oodles of personal information and to restrict one of the most basic freedoms of humanity— the freedom to move.

    Edward Snowden has been waylaid in Russia for more than two years because the US government rescinded his passport, effectively terminating his ability to travel anywhere.

    I remember being in Africa a couple of years ago watching a herd of elephants in the wild continually cross the border in and out of Zambia and Zimbabwe near Victoria Falls.

    While the elephants roam freely, we humans obstruct ourselves with imaginary barriers and demands for a bunch of silly paperwork, passports, and visas. Not exactly the pinnacle of civilization.

    So you can imagine how excited I was when I read about Australia’s government announcing a program to eliminate passports. Incredible.

    Then I saw the punch line— the idea is to eliminate physical passports. So instead of giving everyone these little colored booklets, they want to move passports ‘into the cloud.’

    Hey, it worked for Microsoft.

    The ‘cloud’, of course, is the technological Neverland where unicorns play, tech titans rake in record profits, and millions of gigabytes of data are stored.

    The cloud is what makes it possible for you to store files on remote servers and access them across multiple devices (phone, tablet, laptop) over the Internet.

    You might use Dropbox or iCloud, for example, both of which are popular cloud-based storage platforms. (Though I’d suggest switching to a more secure platform like SpiderOak or Tresorit.)

    So now Australia’s government proposes moving citizens’ personal information into the cloud, with a pilot program to test travel between Australia and New Zealand with cloud-based passports.

    It remains to be seen how it would even work once you arrive. Do you give a secret handshake? PIN code? Or do you get to bypass the immigration line altogether?

    Probably not. Cloud-based passports would likely be loaded with all sorts of biometric data, facial recognition, etc.

    And all of this data would be placed online in government databases. I mean, they might as well paint a bulls-eye on the server farm and hang a sign on it that says “Please Hack Me.”

    In the black market, that kind of data is worth billions. And governments don’t exactly have a sterling track record of tip-top network security.

    The Australian Government’s Cyber Security Centre released a report just a few months ago stating that government networks are attacked every day, and that cyber security incidents are up over 300% from 2011 to 2014.

    Over the summer the US government embarrassingly admitted to a data breach that exposed over 20 million Americans, up from an initial estimate of 4 million.

    If the thought of submitting to the indignity of biometric data and RFID chips on physical passports weren’t bad enough, the prospect of pushing all of that data online to be ‘safeguarded’ by government bureaucrats is simply agonizing.

    Who knows if there’s any nefarious intent behind this. My guess is that a bunch of politicians are desperate to look smart and innovative, so they spout off some poorly thought-out idea that is even more poorly executed.

    Small businesses that consistently fail with such bad ideas eventually go bankrupt.

    Governments, on the other hand, get to paper over the consequences of their incompetence by printing money and indebting future generations.

    They make egregious mistakes with people’s lives and livelihoods, in this case putting the private (even biometric) information of millions of citizens at risk.

    And they’re never held accountable. Ever. Leaving them free to move on to the next bad idea.

    Perhaps next time it will be implantable chips.

  • Europe's Next Refugee Crisis: Thousands Of Migrants Freezing To Death

    “It cannot be that in the Europe of 2015 people are left to fend for themselves, sleeping in fields.”

    That’s a quote from European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and he’s referring to the EU’s effort to create makeshift “holding camps” along the Balkan route to Germany designed to house some 100,000 asylum seekers as they make their way north. Eastern Europe is struggling with the influx of refugees from the Mid-East and while Hungary has simply decided to close its borders, other states in the region are attempting to strike some sort of middle ground between relenting and allowing migrants to turn the countryside into a superhighway to Germany and implementing a Viktor Orban-style crackdown that lacks any semblance of humanity (say what you will about a country’s right to protect its borders and cultural heritage, but using tear gas and water cannons in conjunction with an attempt to ignite an ultra-nationalist, religious fervor amongst the populace is dangerous at best and outright irresponsible at worst). 

    While the effort is admirable – we suppose – it may nonetheless backfire. That is, while it’s certainly not ideal to have hundreds of thousands of people sleeping in the middle of fields and building campfires out of flammable garbage, these ad hoc way stations will almost invariably become overcrowded, unsafe refugee internment camps and they’ll likely be easy targets for vociferous anti-migrant protests or worse. 

    That said, there really are no viable alternatives which is frightening considering we’re now headed into winter. Put simply, the “Schengen” concept is rapidly falling apart and unless Europe figures something out soon (and by “soon” we mean in the next couple of weeks) migrants could start to freeze to death. Here’s The Telegraph

    Migrants crossing the Balkans will begin freezing to death as winter approaches, the head of European Union has said, as leaders warned the continent was “falling apart” trying to deal with the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War.

     

    Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, said a solution was urgently needed or thousands of refugee families facing winter temperature on the hillsides and freezing river-banks of Eastern Europe, would die.

     

    “Every day counts,” he said. “Otherwise we will soon see families in cold rivers in the Balkans perish miserably.”

     

    Miro Cerar, the Slovenian prime minister, said the EU was days from collapse as his country buckled under an “unbearable” influx of migrants.

     

    “If we do not deliver some immediate and concrete actions on the ground in the next few days and weeks I believe the EU and Europe as a whole will start falling apart,” he said.

     

    Poorly dressed and under-fed, there are mounting fears they will fall victim to rougher seas and the Balkan winter that can reach minus 15C as they attempt to reach Germany and Sweden.

     

    Aid agencies and human rights groups have also weighed in on the crisis. “As winter looms, the sight of thousands of refugees sleeping rough as they make their way through Europe represents a damning indictment of the EU’s failure to offer a coordinated response to the refugee crisis,” said John Dalhuisen of Amnesty International.

    If you thought the firestorm surrounding the images of drowned toddler Aylan Kurdi was bad, just wait until the pictures of frozen migrant children start to surface on social media. 

    In many ways, Europe is damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If refugee families are left to freeze in the Balkans because a confederacy of supposedly advanced nations couldn’t figure out how to cope with the influx of asylum seekers from the war-torn Mid-East, the history books will be replete with references and images to migrant families freezing to death trying to get to Germany. Then again, if the whole of the EU adopts an open door policy and something goes wrong – or even if nothing goes wrong and the people flows simply serve to change the character of European society forever – the bloc will likely be blamed for not taking a more measured approach. 

    Meanwhile, note the bolded passage from The Telegraph article excerpted above: “…the Balkan winter that can reach minus 15C as they attempt to reach Germany and Sweden.” Well, if you though anti-migrant sentiment was on the rise in Germany (see the latest PEGIDA rally), just have a look at Sweden where as yet unidentified groups are literally torching refugee shelters. Here’s The Telegraph again:

    Sweden’s migration authorities on Wednesday moved to hide the locations of buildings earmarked for housing refugees, after attackers set more a dozen prospective refugee centres on fire in a matter of months.

     

    Mikael Ribbenvik, chief operative officer at the Swedish Migration Agency, made the decision after the thirteenth centre, a home for unaccompanied refugee children in the city of Lund, was set alight on Monday.

     

    “We have decided today that where asylum centres are located will from now on be classified information,” Johanna Uhr, a spokeswoman for the agency, told The Telegraph. “We will no longer be sending out any lists of locations.”

     

    The populist Sweden Democrat party has been harshly criticised for last week publishing a map listing the addresses of all asylum centres in and around the city of Lund.

     

    “I find it hard to see that this is anything other than an incitement to commit hate crimes,” Veronica Palm, a Social Democrat MP, told Expressen newspaper.

    File photo: A firefighter attends to the scene where arson attackers set fire to a refugee camp near Munkedal, Sweden

    File photo: A firefighter extinguishes a fire that broke out at an accommodation for asylum seekers near Munkedal, Sweden

    And so sadly, the choice appears to be between bullets, bombs, and sword-wielding jihadists in Syria and freezing to death in the Balkans or else being burned alive in Sweden – and that’s assuming you don’t die at sea in transit. 

    The reports from Sweden underscore our point that Europe’s plan to establish makeshift “holding camps” is likely a bad idea. Anti-migrant sentiment is running high among Europeans predisposed to nationalistic ideals and while the facilities torched in Sweden were apparently empty, the  migrant camps along the Balkan route won’t be. That said, the alternative is to force asylum seekers to sleep out in the cold and risk going down in history as a union of advanced economies that couldn’t even manage to cooperate enough to keep tens of thousands of people from freezing to death. 

    Of course the tragic irony is that whatever fate should befall the legions of refugees seeking asylum in Western Europe, it will all be blamed on brutal Mid-East dictators and while autocratic regimes should unquestionably be held to account for their role in creating disaffection among the citizenry, at some point the West needs to wake up and come to terms with the fact that playing Mid-East kingmaker everywhere and always has tragic consequences. Europe’s refugee crisis is just the latest example.

  • The 'Bernwashing' Of America

    Submitted by Chris Campbell via lfb.org,

    #Feelthebern…

    If you use any form of social media, and have any friends or followers at all, you’ve undoubtedly come across the hashtag.

    And you also undoubtedly feel the ‘bern’ of yet another fellow American falling… yet again… for the socialist trap.

    And here are some scary numbers to chew on this fine Monday afternoon…

    According to social media analytics firm RiteTag, #Feelthebern is tweeted 625 times per hour.

    With that, it’s getting 2.11 million views and being shared 883 times…

    Yes… PER HOUR!

    Also according to RiteTag, some of the latest pictures shared are…

    BernQuote1

    BernQuote2

    BernQuote3

    Let’s face it. Bernie Sanders is ‘hot right now.’

    And here’s the thing…

    We don’t disagree with him on everything. In fact, here are just a few things we can say, from a 10,000 foot view, we agree with…

    • Get big money out of politics.
    • Create decent paying jobs.
    • Care for our veterans.
    • End the drug war.
    • And on…

    But how he plans to do it, of course, is what we absolutely, unequivocally, without a single shred of doubt… completely… disagree with.

    He’s a one-trick pony. His only solution is to redistribute wealth. Which, if history is any guide, doesn’t work.

    Alas, some are doomed to repeat humanity’s mistakes. And they think that it makes perfect sense. Especially the majority of the millennials, who, caught in a trap of student debt, wish someone would wave a magic wand and make it all go away.

    I know many of these people. And have heard many of them, on many different occasions, tell me that they don’t plan to ever pay off their debt. Their plan is to just let it fester until it’s absolved.

    Seriously.

    Apparently, enough millennials rubbed the lamp and… miraculously… out popped Uncle Bernie, here to soothe all their ills with free stuff.

    BernQuote4

    Oh, wait. There he is now, on his white unicorn…

    BernQuote5

    How will you do it, Bernie?

    Raise the taxes.

    But just on the rich, right?

    No.

    Wait… what?

    What most bernwashed Americans don’t get is it’s not the super rich who are going to #feelthebern… it’s them.

    Everyone… we repeat… everyone is going to get taxed to death so that our government can waste more of our money on waging wars, spying on its citizens, militarizing our law enforcement, secretly running civil disobedience trainings on our soil, and making sure that this country falls to its knees and stays there.

    BernQuote6

    In the meantime, all the services that Bern is offering for free might become free — but they will also continue to degrade. And they will quickly become completely irrelevant in our society. A big waste of resources and time.

    We can already see it happening in regards to healthcare and education.

    Many think Sanders is somehow ‘new,’ and ‘edgy,’ and he’s on the fringe.

    When, in reality, he’s just spouting the same old [expletive deleted] that governments have always promised when a charismatic leader steps up in a time of crisis.

    BernQuote7

    Bigger government. Bigger government. Bigger government.

    If that mantra doesn’t keep you up at night, you need a little dose liberty in your life.

    Or maybe a whole lot. But that’s up to you to figure out.

    To help, we’ve invited Paul Kahn from Your Life Your Liberty…

    Read on…

     

    Hey, Bernie! Look Up!!!

    By Paul Kahn

    BernQuote8

    Bernie Sanders supporters seem to be everywhere. Many of his supporters are intelligent people who are sick of the corruption and greed they are seeing and know something needs to change.

    Understandably, they like him because he is one of the few politicians that actually talks about it. And he is right. Well, HALF right.

    One cannot lay the blame solely on the corporations or the people who run them. The government is the institution that actually EMPOWERS them. As government grows and continues to expand with more and more power over our lives, so grows the opportunity for large corporations to petition government, which only further expands the ultra-wealthy’s power, control, and influence.

    There is a renewed interest in socialism in this country, as if putting the word “democratic” in front of it makes it somehow unique. No matter how it is wrapped, socialism is still the belief that we can raise people out of poverty by taking money out of the hands of those who have learned how to produce.

    And it has never worked.

    Yes many of the people in the Nordic countries say they are happier, but it’s not because of socialism.

    • Denmark ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.
    • Finland ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, fiscal freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.
    • Norway ranks higher than the US in trade freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.
    • Sweden ranks higher than the US in business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property freedom and freedom from corruption.

    Taking money away from people who have figured out a way to produce a viable good or service and then giving the money to people who will do nothing but spend it, does not and can never, create economic growth and prosperity.

    Savings and investment drive production and production is what drives consumption. Real economic growth involves people taking on risk and actually creating something productive.

    Taking money from one hand and putting it in the other does absolutely nothing to grow the economy — it is simply moving the same money around.

    These ideas are completely flawed and unsound.

    The idea that there is only a certain amount of money to go around and we need someone to re-distribute it so it is more evenly dispersed is totally misguided. If there is only one fixed amount of money to go around, then how did we go from about 3 million people since our country was founded in 1776, to 300 million?

    True capitalism (what we have now is a far cry from it) produces real economic growth and the most amount of prosperity for the greatest number of people. It doesn’t come from some command and control bureaucracy that steals the money from society’s producers and then re-distributes the goodies to the rest.

    Socialism always fails because at some point people realize they don’t have to work as hard to get the same amount of stuff. It takes all the incentive away to really succeed.

    49% of Democrats now have a favorable view towards socialism. This is scary. And sad. All of the economic and productivity advancements we have seen are all the result of someone being willing to take risks. ‘Oh no,’ you say, ‘we only want to steal money from the “rich”. Really?

    Take a look at how we live in this country compared to the rest of the world. To them, we are ALL rich! Is it ok for other, more impoverished countries to steal 90% of our wealth so we are forced to pay OUR “fair share”?

    What does it really mean to say that some people should pay 90% tax? It means you believe that it is acceptable for the government to take 90% of everything you earn.

    ‘No, but we are only punishing the super rich — the people making millions every year!‘

    Wrong again.

    The super rich have dozens of tax attorneys and financial planners that make sure that their wealth is hidden. They don’t show their money through the income tax.

    Most of the money they earn is a result of tax free municipal bonds and other investments as a way to shelter the money from taxation. Income taxes don’t reach the super rich because they don’t earn their money in income.

    So who does it really hurt?

    It hurts the people who are running small businesses who are trying to grow it, so they can employ more people. A successful small business owner may report $200,000 profit on his income taxes and he is considered “rich,” as he is in the top percentile. After all the risk he has taken on, all the debt, all the people he employs (including the contractors he paid to get to where he is) he finally starts to reap the rewards of his years of dedication, effort and hard work and now we should punish him for his success? When we take the majority of his income away, he now has less money to re-invest in his business.

    That means his business doesn’t grow or takes much longer to grow, which means it takes that much longer for him to hire more people. He is less productive and we are making it harder for him to succeed. He makes good money, but it’s not enough to have a team of tax attorneys and multiple tax shelters like the big boys controlling the politicians. These policies are therefore actually protecting the super rich, as they make it more difficult for the small business owner to become really rich themselves — it prevents competition.

    Those at the top also get the government to work for them by passing legislation to keep out competitors. They don’t just do this through lobbyists. They do it by getting top executives into government itself!

    Case in point: Monsanto.

    The former Monsanto vice president, Michael R. Taylor is now running the FDA. Taylor spent years lobbying for the GMO Foods giant. The commissioner position he now holds at the FDA, affords Taylor the ability to sign off of any cancer-causing, harmful agent produced by Monsanto. In this way, no more expensive lobbyists are needed and one doesn’t need money to influence the legislators, because they ARE now the legislator!

    Whoever wins the next election is meaningless because Monsanto’s interests will be served.

    Today, we live in an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests; a merger of state and corporate power if you will. The original point behind government providing a watchdog over industry — was to keep the playing fields equal — between players and owners.

    Those days are long gone. Government is now part of most industries and those industries are part of government. As the federal government has progressively become larger over the decades, every significant introduction of government regulation, taxation, and spending has been to the benefit of some big business.

    It used to be against the law for a corporation to contribute to a political party. Now these corporations spend more on lobbyists than they pay in taxes. We now live in a system where corporations can legally purchase politicians through unlimited, undisclosed campaign donations.

    Giant corporations and the wealthy elite rule in a way to satisfy their own self-interest. It is in the interest of the ruling class to maintain the appearance that the people have a say, so more than one candidate is offered up. It’s in the interest of corporations and the wealthy elite that the winning candidate is beholden to them, so they financially support both Democrats and Republicans.

    Look at the list of the top donors to both political campaigns and it’s virtually the same donors. It’s in the interest of corporations and the wealthy elite that there are only two viable parties—this cuts down on bribery costs.

    And it’s in the interest of these two parties that they are the only parties with a chance of winning.

    The corporations and the wealthy elite directly and indirectly finance candidates, who are then indebted to them. As in the case of the example with Monsanto, it is common for these indebted government officials to appoint to key decision-making roles those friendly to corporations, including executives from these corporations.

    And it’s routine for high-level government officials to be rewarded with high-paying industry positions when they exit government. It’s common and routine for former government officials to be given high-paying lobbying jobs so as to use their relationships with current government officials to ensure that corporate interests will be taken care of.

    The United States is not ruled by a single deranged dictator but by an impersonal corporatocracy.

    Thus, there is no one tyrant that Americans can first hate and then finally overthrow so as to end senseless wars and economic injustices. Revolutions against Qaddafi-type tyrants require enormous physical courage. We all need to wake up and see that we Americans have neither a democracy nor a republic and are in fact ruled by a partnership of “too-big-to-fail” corporations, the extremely wealthy elite and corporate-collaborator government officials.

    Americans must surgically remove the corporate cancer from government through direct action like voting out the statists and cultivating new leaders from within the movement.

    If we want to solve the issues of corruption, we must start at the source by electing representatives who will reduce the size, scope and power of the functions of government.

  • Housing Bubble 2.0: Flipping A Home In These 20 Cities Results In A 102% Average Return

    When it comes to the US housing market, there are two clusters: an undisputed bubble among the luxury, bi-coastal or “flippable” markets, which serve a tiny portion of the population but a major portion of foreigners seeking to park illegal money in U.S. real estate, and a rapidly sinking market serving everyone else.

    For the purpose of this post we are more interested in the first, “bubbly” segment, and specifically that unforgettable remnant of the old housing bubble which is alive and well right now: flipping.

    According to RealtyTrac, in the third quarter there were a grand total of 43,197 single family homes and condos “flips” – units sold as part of an arms-length sale for the second time within a 12-month period – or 5.0% of all single family home and condo sales during the quarter. This was an increase of 18% from a 4.3% share in the third quarter of 2014.

    As RealtyTrac further reports, the average gross flipping profit, the difference between the purchase price and the flipped price (not including rehab costs and other expenses incurred, which flipping experts estimate typically run between 20 percent and 33 percent of the property’s after repair value), was $62,122 for completed home flips in the third quarter. That was down slightly from an average gross flipping profit of $62,521 in the second quarter but up slightly from an average gross flipping profit of $61,781 in the third quarter of 2014.

    The average gross return on investment (ROI), the average gross profit as a percentage of the average original purchase price, was 33.8 percent for completed home flips in the third quarter, down from 34.4 percent in the previous quarter but up from 32.7 percent in the third quarter of 2014.

    But we don’t care about the entire market. We only care about those markets where the Return On Flip (ROF) is highest.

    Based on RealtyTrac data, among 101 markets with at least 75 single family and condo flips in the third quarter, those with the highest average gross flipping ROI were Pittsburgh (78.4 percent), New Orleans (73.1 percent), York, Pennsylvania (64.5 percent), Punta Gorda, Florida (61.3 percent), and Clarksville, Tennessee (59.6 percent).

    Narrowing it down further, among zip codes with at least 10 completed flips in the third quarter with home price data available, those with the highest average gross flipping ROI were 21229 in Baltimore (136.0 percent) and 33063 in Tampa (130.2 percent), along with three Chicago-area zip codes: 60652 in the city of Chicago (120.4 percent), 60402 in the city of Berwyn (120.3 percent), and 60629 in the city of Chicago (115.2 percent).

    The bottom line: the gross profit from a “flip” in any of these 20 markets will result in an average profit of just over 102% in as little under 7 months. Good luck.

    Source: RealtyTrac

  • The Housing Bubble Is Biggest In These Cities

    Two convergent themes we’ve been keen on documenting this year are stagnant wage growth and the soaring cost of living.

    Needless to say, when housing prices rise inexorably but incomes remain stuck in the mud, the strain on everyday people can become overwhelming as illustrated rather poignantly in “Million Dollar Shack”, a documentary which lays bare California’s housing bubble. 

    But Silicon Valley isn’t the only place where even the upper middle class are being priced out of the market.

    Prices are soaring across the US with the cost per square foot in Manhattan hitting an all-time high in Q3. Similarly, ZIRP and NIRP have driven the housing market into the stratosphere in places like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Meanwhile, in China, the massive amount of capital flowing out of the country (courtesy of “Mr. Chen” and his Snickers bars) is still finding its way into already overpriced overseas real estate despite Xi’s best efforts to crack down on illicit transfers.

    It’s against this backdrop that we bring you the following from Bloomberg and UBS who note that when it comes to housing bubbles, London and Hong Kong are right up there with the “best” of them. Here’s more:

    London and Hong Kong are the cities most at risk of a housing bubble as real estate begins to look overvalued, according to UBS Group AG.

     

    The U.K. capital is now the second-least affordable of the 15 urban centers studied by UBS, trailing only Hong Kong, the report said. Price-to-income and price-to-rent values have surged to all-time highs even as real earnings have fallen 7 percent in London since 2007, UBS said.

     

    London risks a “substantial price correction should the fundamentals for estate investment deteriorate,” the report said. “We advise caution.”

     

    Just as PE is minting new landlords in the US, the market in London is being driven by the allure of capitalizing on rising rents: 

    London house prices have surged 40 percent since the beginning of 2013 because of demand from overseas buyers, attractive rental yields and population growth, the Swiss bank’s global real estate bubble index shows. The Bank of England has asked for more powers to regulate lending to so-called buy-to-let investors, who are attracted by rental yields of more than 5 percent compared with 1.8 percent for benchmark U.K. government bonds.

    Here’s a bit more color from The Guardian

    Price increases of 40% since the start of 2013 have more than offset losses during the financial crisis and mean that homes in London now cost more than ever before. On Wednesday, the Land Registry said the average price had almost hit the £500,000 mark, with the annual rate of inflation running at 9.6%.

     

    Meanwhile, wage growth has been sluggish, and the price increases have made London one of the most expensive cities in the world based on price-to-income and price-to-rent ratios, the UBS report said.

     

    “It takes a skilled service-sector worker approximately 14 years of average earnings to be able to buy a 60 sq m dwelling; the expense of buying a flat is comparable to renting it for 30 years,” it said.

    And here’s unequivocal validation of everything we’ve been saying for years (from UBS’ Claudio Saputelli and Matthias Holzhey):

    “House prices have decoupled most from local incomes in Hong Kong, London, Paris, Singapore, New York and Tokyo. Buying a 60-square-meter apartment exceeds the budget of most people who work even in the highly-skilled service sector. Loose monetary policy has prevented a normalization of housing markets and encouraged local bubble risks to grow” 

    In other words, far from promoting a beneficial trickle-down “wealth effect,” ZIRP has i) failed to lift household incomes, and ii) precipitated another housing bubble that is now so large and ubiquitous that even the well-off are priced out. 

    But don’t worry Londoners, you can still get a bed under the stairs for £500 a month…

    *  *  *

    While it is painfully obvious that London property prices (and now rents) are in an atmospheric bubble, it appears the policy-makers choose to ignore the reality for the average Brit in favor of ‘wealth’ creation for the few.

    As @Alex_Lomax tweets… “I have literally just been shown a bed under the stairs for £500 a month… F You London!”

     

    The ad was posted on site London2let and reads:

    One single furnished room available.

     

    We are looking for a friendly, open-minded and outgoing person to join our houseshare in a great period house in Clapham.

     

    We’re a good bunch and like to chill out a lot together – not really looking for somebody that just wants to stay in their room. Room comes with a bed.

     

    Bills to be shared – approx £60 per month each. Easy access to local tube stations.

    As Alex explains, the room lacked any utilities, but did come with a carton of Daz on the floor and coats hanging from hooks. 

    I didn’t even stay long enough to check if there was a mattress, and the landlord seemed absolutely serious.

     

    I asked him if he was joking and he seemed shocked I’d even asked.

     

    I took the pics secretly when he was making himself a cup of coffee, the cupboard was right next to the kitchen.

     

    I expected a normal single room, definitely not this. I left as quickly as I could.

  • The Debate: GOP Candidates Elevated, CNBC Eviscerated

    As Bill O'Reilly exclaimed,

    Let's get this straight. On Wednesday morning a new national poll revealed that 54% of Americans rate the economy as 'poor.' That's after nearly seven years of Barack Obama's big government solutions. Republicans, of course, are especially gloomy about the economy.

     

    That was Wednesday morning, teeing things up for CNBC, the self-described 'world leader in business news.' Surely the moderators would flood the zone with substantive questions about the U.S. economy.

     

    Instead, Becky Quick quizzed Marco Rubio about his 'lack of bookkeeping skills,' Carl Quintanilla posed questions about homosexuality and fantasy football, and the astonishingly incompetent John Harwood expressed doubt about Donald Trump's 'moral authority.'

     

    To be fair, CNBC's triumvirate asked many questions about taxes and spending and deficits and Social Security, but way too many of those questions did not elicit solid answers. They seemed crafted to bring attention to the hosts, not the candidates.

    But, as Contra Corner blog's David Stockman details, almost with out exception the GOP candidates conveyed a compelling message that the state is not our savior, while the CNBC moderators spent the night fumbling with fantasy football and inanities about which vitamin supplements Ben Carson has used or endorsed.

    But this was about more than tone. The interaction between the candidates and the CNBC moderators revealed the yawning gap between the bubble world at the intersection of Washington and Wall Street and the hard scrabble reality of economic stagnation and political alienation on main street America.

    Yes, the CNBC moderators engaged in a deplorable display of gotcha journalism punctuated by a snarky self-righteousness that was downright offensive. John Harwood is surely secretly on the payroll of the Democratic National Committee and it was more than obvious why Becky Quick excels at serving tea to blathering old fools like Warren Buffett.

    So they deserved the Cruz missile that came flying at them mid-way through the debate.

    At that point the Senator from Texas had had enough, especially from Carl Quintanilla. The latter has spend years on CNBC commentating about the “market”, but wouldn’t know honest capitalism is if slapped him upside the head, and has apparently never meet a Washington intervention that he didn’t cheer on as something to help the stock averages go higher:

    Let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. And if you look at he questions—Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math?… Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about substantive issues?”

    Nor did the Texas Senator let up:

    “Carl, I’m not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question form the media was ‘Which of you is more handsome and wise”

    As one pundit put it afterwards, “given the grievous injuries inflicted on Team CNBC”  by Cruz and the rest of the candidates, the only thing left to do was to “shoot the wounded”.

    Actually, there is rather more. Last night was billed as a debate on domestic issues and the economy, and CNBC is the communications medium of record about the daily comings and goings of the US economy and the financial markets at its center. Yet not one of the three moderators during the entire two hour period asked a question about the elephant in the room.

    They had to bring in from the sidelines the intrepid Rick Santelli to even get the Federal Reserve on the table. Its almost as if the CNBC commentators work on the set of the Truman Show and have no clue that it’s all make believe.

    In the alternative, call this condition Bubble Blindness. It’s a contagious ideological disease that afflicts the entire corridor from Wall Street to Washington, and CNBC is the infected host that propagates it.

    The fact is, the monetary madness in the Eccles Building is destroying free market capitalism by systematically and massively falsifying the prices of financial assets, and fueling a relentless, debilitating accumulation of debt throughout the warp and woof of the American economy and the rest of the world; and it’s simultaneously extinguishing political democracy by deeply subsidizing our crushing $19 trillion national debt.

    The GOP politicians appropriately sputtered last night about the bipartisan beltway scam rammed through the House yesterday by Johnny Lawnchair, but they were given no opportunity by their clueless moderators to explore exactly why this kind of taxpayer betrayal happens over and over.

    Well, there is a simple answer. The Fed’s elephantine $4.5 trillion balance sheet represents the greatest fiscal fraud ever conceived. Last year it paid the Treasury approximately $100 billion in absolutely phony profits scalped from its massive trove of Treasury debt and quasi-government GSE paper.

    That is, over time Uncle Sam has purchased $4.5 trillion worth of real economic resources——in the form of goods, services, salaries and transfer payments——from the US economy, which were paid for with IOUs.

    Under an honest financial regime these obligations would be eventually redeemed in equivalent goods and services, thereby causing a transfer from private to public use and a reallocation of savings from productive investment to the balance sheet of the state.

    But no more. The Fed’s massive purchases of the public debt are funded not with society’s real savings from current income and production, but from fiat credits it conjures out of thin air.

    And then the monetary charlatans behind the curtain at the Fed add insult to injury. Every year they send back to the US treasury the coupons earned on these airballs, causing the politicians to think the national debt is no problem; and that they can buy aircraft carriers and GS-15 salaries indefinitely while booking a “profit” on their borrowings.

    Folks, this is just plain madness. Back in 1989 when the real median household income first hit its current level of about $54,000, this entire monetization scam would have been considered beyond the pale by even the inhabitants of the Eccles Building, and most certainly by everyone else in Washington——from the US Treasury, to the Congressional budget committees, to the summer interns in the Rayburn Building.

    But after 25 years of central bank induced financialization of the US economy, there has developed a cult of the stock market and a Wall Street regime of relentless financial gambling in the guise of “investment”. Consequently, the massive aritificial inflation of financial asset values is not even recognized by CNBC and its fellow travelers in the main stream financial press—to say nothing of the very prosperous punters who inhabit the casino.

    But here’s the thing. How did the real median household income stagnate at $54,000 while the real value of the S&P 500 soared by nearly 4X during the era of Bubble Finance?

    Real Median Household Income Vs. Inflation Adjusted S&P 500 - Click to enlarge

    Likewise, how did the aggregate “market cap” of US debt and business equity soar from 200% to 540% of GDP when main street living standards were not rising at all? Could it be that something rotten and deformed has been injected into the very financial bloodstream of American capitalism—-something which the CNBC cheerleaders dare not acknowledge or even allow conservative politicians to explore in a public forum?

    Total Marketable Securities and GDP - Click to enlarge

    Worse still, this entire Fed-driven regime of Bubble Finance has inculcated in the casino and its media megaphones the insidious notion that the arms and agencies of government exist for one purpose above all others. Namely, to do “whatever it takes” to keep the bubble inflated and the stock market averages rising—–preferably every single day the market is open.

    There was no more dramatic demonstration of that proposition than after the Wall Street meltdown in September 2008 when the as yet un-house broken GOP had had the courage to vote down TARP.

    But when they were dragged back into the House chambers by Goldman Sachs and its plenipotentiaries in the US Treasury, the message was unmistakable. On one side of the CNBC screen was the House electronic voting board and on the other side was the second-by-second path of the S&P 500.  And delivering the voice-over narrative were the same clowns who could not even mention the Fed last night. The US Congress dare not vote down TARP again, they fulminated.

    It obviously didn’t. Yet right then and there the conservative opposition was broken, and the present statist regime of Bubble Finance was off to the races.

    During the coming decade the nation will be battered and shattered by a monumental fiscal crisis and the bankruptcy of the bogus “trust funds” which now pay out upwards of $2 trillion per year to 70 million citizens. At length, the bearers of pitchforks and torches descending on Washington will surely ask how this all happened.

    But they will not need to look much beyond last night’s debate for the answers. The nation’s fiscal process has been literally shutdown by the Fed and the Wall Street gamblers and media cheerleaders who insouciantly and relentlessly demand of Washington that it do “whatever it takes” to keep the bubble inflated.

    As a result, we have had the absurdity of 82 months of ZIRP and a orgy of public debt monetization that has driven the weighted average cost of the Federal debt to a mere 1.75%.  That’s close enough to free for government purposes—–so exactly which heroic politicians are going to fall on the sword to stop the debt machine when they can kick the can without visible consequences?

    And when a few courageous remnants of fiscal sanity like Senators Cruz and Rand Paul have had the courage to resist still another increase in the public debt ceiling, they have been treated as pariahs by Wall Street and the kind of snarky financial media types on display last night.

    The fact is, the President has clear constitutional powers to prioritize spending in the absence of an increase in the debt ceiling. That is, he can pay the interest on the debt, keep the Veterans hospitals open, send out the social security checks and prioritize any other category of spending that he chooses from the current inflow of tax revenues, and for as long as it takes to legislate an honest fiscal retrenchment.

    Needless to say, that would create howls of pain from the Federal vendors who wouldn’t get paid, the state and local governments which would have to wait for their grant payments and the Federal employees who would be put on furlough.

    But that is not the reason that Mitch McConnell and Johnny Lawnchair have capitulated every time a debt ceiling crisis has reached the boiling point. That kind of action-forcing circumstance was managed by Washington innumerable times in the pre-Bubble Finance world, including on upwards of a dozen occasions during my time in the Reagan White House.

    But back then no one thought that Wall Street would have a hissy fit if the government was shutdown for a few days or if the fiscal gravy train was temporarily put on hold; nor did politicians much care if it did.

    My goodness. Paul Volcker had taught Wall Street a thing or two about the requisites of financial discipline in any event.

    No, what is different now is that the establishment GOP politicians are petrified of a stock market collapse, and have been brow-beaten into the false belief that a government shutdown will create severe political costs.

    Baloney. Even the totally botched affair in October 2013 created no lasting damage—-as attested to by the GOP sweep in the 2014 elections.

    At the end of the day, all the hyperventilation about the political costs of a government shutdown or the forced prioritization of spending in the absence of a debt ceiling increase is pure Wall Street propaganda; and its an untruth amplified and repeated endlessly, loudly and often hysterically by its financial media handmaidens.

    At least last night some GOP politicians gave it back to them good and hard.

    So maybe there is some hope for release from the destructive pall of Bubble Finance, after all.

  • Valeant Tumbles After Hours As More Bad News Emerges

    Just when you (and Bill Ackman) thought the worst was over,  an avalanche of insurers and pharmacies are dumping Valeant’s Philidor and raising more questions about its activities. VRX is now down 16% on the day, back below the key $100 level (after touching $127 intraday).

     

     

    The carnage started when Dow Jones reported that two of five independent directors of Sequoia Fund, Valeant’s largest holder, resigned this past weekend:

    • *TWO SEQUOIA FUND INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS RESIGN AMID VRX NEWS: DJ
    • DJ says Vinod Ahooja and Sharon Osberg quit board this past weekend amid recent scrutiny of VRX

    Then, just before the close, we reported that  CVS Health, the second-biggest pharmacy-benefit manager in the U.S., had cut off Valeant’s specialty chain Philidor, saying that “where CVS goes, others will promptly follow, not only leading to a prompt termination of any and all overinvoicing benefits Philidor provided to Valeant, but also leading to a crack down on specialty pharma organizations everywhere, and likely finally inviting a federal inquiry into just what is going on, because for a pharmacy to admit that there was fire where until just now there was nothing but smoke, not even the Feds can ignore that.”

    This is precisely what happened literally minutes later when as Bloomberg reported minutes ago Express Scripts also terminated Philidor from its pharmacy network:

    • *EXPRESS SCRIPTS TERMINATING PHILIDOR PHARMACY FROM NETWORK
    • ESRX says in e-mailed statement evaluating all similar captive pharmacy pacts in light of Valeant’s recent revelations of its relationship to Philador.

    But the hits kept coming – add another:

        *SOME BCBS INSURERS SAID TO REVIEW VALEANT SPECIALTY PHARMACIES

    But the knockout punch was the following, which could make a Federal involvmenet here virtually inevitable:

    • *PHILIDOR SAID TO MODIFY PRESCRIPTIONS TO BOOST VALEANT SALES
    • *PHILIDOR WORKERS SAID TO BE INSTRUCTED ON CHANGING RX CODES

    Bloomberg adds that Philidor had altered doctors’ orders to wring more reimbursements out of insurers, according to former employees and an internal document.

    Workers at the mail-order pharmacy, Philidor RX Services LLC, were given written instructions to change codes on prescriptions in some cases so it would appear that physicians required or patients desired Valeant’s brand-name drugs — not less expensive generic versions — be dispensed, the former employees said. Typically, pharmacists will sell a generic version if not precisely told to do otherwise by a “dispense as written” indication on a script. The more “dispense as written” orders, the more sales for the brand-name drugmaker.

     

    Ex-employees who worked at Philidor in the last two years, and who asked that their names not be used discussing their former employer, confirmed that prescriptions were altered as the document details. They said the intent was to fill more prescriptions with Valeant products instead of generics.

    Which, incidentally, is a federal crime.

    So apart from all that, Valeant is fine and this is all nothing more than a short-selling-research shop bear raid, right?

    *  *  *

    Ahead of Bill Ackman’s conference call tomorrow, we can only wish him luck.

  • US Threatens UK With Trade Barriers If It Leaves The European Union

    One of the most important decisions Brits have to make before the end of 2017 (most likely some time next year) is whether or not to remain in the European Union, and while recent polls have those willing to stay in as the majority, there has been a spike in support for leaving the bloc…

    … which coupled with Europe’s refugee crisis has made a Brexit an all too possible outcome.

    Which probably explains why the U.S., confident it sill has veto power over democracies anywhere in the world, has just made it quite clear to UK’s citizens which way they should vote.

    According to the Guardian, the US trade representative, Michael Froman, in the first public comments from a senior US official on the matter, said that “the United States is not keen on pursuing a separate free trade deal with Britain if it leaves the European Union.”

    Just like in the case of Scotland’s vote last year, trade is being used a key bargaining chip, or rather ultimatum: vote the way we want, or else. Guardian adds that Froman’s comments on Wednesday undermine a key economic argument deployed by proponents of exit, who say Britain would prosper on its own and be able to secure bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) with trading partners.

    The US is Britain’s biggest export market after the EU, buying more than $54bn (£35bn) in goods from the UK in 2014.

    “I think it’s absolutely clear that Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU, being part of a larger economic entity,” Froman told Reuters, adding that EU membership gives Britain more leverage in negotiations.

    “We’re not particularly in the market for FTAs with individual countries. We’re building platforms … that other countries can join over time.”

    Froman’s take it or leave it condition is that if Britain left the EU, Froman said, it would face the same tariffs and trade barriers as other countries outside the US free trade network. “We have no FTA with the UK so they would be subject to the same tariffs – and other trade-related measures – as China, or Brazil or India,” he said.

    Of course, the US could craft a deal in hours if not minutes if it so wanted, and David Cameron knows this. However, it is far easier for the U.S. oversee a world which is globalizing rather than fragmenting, because if the U.K. were to leave the Union, the line of countries willing to be next would stretch around the block.

    Some more details on UK’s trade statusin the EU:

    The US is Britain’s second-largest export market for vehicles outside the EU.

     

    If Britain is not part of the EU and therefore not part of TTIP, British cars exported to the US, such as those made by Jaguar Land Rover, would face a 2.5% tariff and could be at a disadvantage to German and Italian-made competitors.

     

    British exports of fuel and chocolate could also be at a disadvantage if TTIP abolishes tariffs on those products.

    Those are the benefits of the continued UK allegiance to Washington; however just ask any orginary Brit for the trade offs and you will be listening hours later, usually involving cheap labor migration from the continent.

    But perhaps the most interesting consequence from this latest U.S. intervention in foreign affairs is how ordinary citizens will react when they realize just how aggressively the U.S. defends its strategic status quo interests. Which would then lead to a potentially fascinating pivot, one which would explain all the friendly relations between the U.K. and Beijing in recent months, including not only Xi Jinping’s recent visit, but also why China picked London as the city where to issue its first sovereign debt in Renminbi.

    Meanwhile, the biggest loser from this latest power push may be none other than the U.S. which may soon learn, the very hard way, that those whom it considered close strategic allies can just as quickly find other partners in a world where the US is no longer the only superpower on the block.

  • Today's War Against Deflation Will Make Us All Poorer

    Submitted by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

    The yearly growth rate of the US consumer price index (CPI) fell to 0 percent in September 2015, from 0.2 percent in August and, 1.7 percent in September last year.

    The yearly growth rate of the European Monetary Union CPI fell to minus 0.1 percent in September from 0.1 percent in the previous month and 0.3 percent in September last year.

    US CPI and EMU CPI

    Also, the growth momentum of the UK CPI fell into the negative in September with the yearly growth rate closing at minus 0.1 percent from 0 percent in August and 1.2 percent in September last year.

    The growth momentum of China’s CPI eased in September with the yearly growth rate falling to 1.6 percent from 2 percent in August.

    UK and China CPI

    Deflation Fears Gain Steam

    Consequently, many experts are expressing concern regarding the declining growth momentum of the CPI and are of the view that rather than tightening the monetary stance, central banks should loosen their stance further in order to counter the emergence of deflation, which is regarded as a major threat to economic well-being of individuals.

    For most experts, deflation is bad news since it generates expectations of a decline in prices. As a result, they believe, consumers are likely to postpone their buying of goods at present since they expect to buy these goods at lower prices in the future.

    This weakens the overall flow of spending and in turn weakens the economy. Hence, such commentators believe that policies that counter deflation will also counter the slump.

    Will Reversing Deflation Prevent a Slump?

    If deflation leads to an economic slump, then policies that reverse deflation should be good for the economy, so it is held.

    Reversing deflation will simply involve introducing policies that support general increases in the prices of goods, i.e., price inflation. With this way of thinking inflation could actually be an agent of economic growth.

    According to most experts, a little bit of inflation can actually be a good thing. Mainstream economists believe that inflation of 2 percent is not harmful to economic growth, but that inflation of 10 percent could be bad for the economy.

    There’s good reason to believe, however, that at a rate of inflation of 10 percent, it is likely that consumers are going to form rising inflation expectations.

    According to popular thinking, in response to a high rate of inflation, consumers will speed up their expenditures on goods at present, which should boost economic growth. So why then is a rate of inflation of 10 percent or higher regarded by experts as a bad thing?

    Clearly there is a problem with the popular way of thinking.

    Price Inflation vs. Money-Supply Inflation

    Inflation is not about general increases in prices as such, but about the increase in the money supply. As a rule the increase in the money supply sets in motion general increases in prices. This, however, need not always be the case.

    The price of a good is the amount of money asked per unit of it. For a constant amount of money and an expanding quantity of goods, prices will actually fall.

    Prices will also fall when the rate of increase in the supply of goods exceeds the rate of increase in the money supply.

    For instance, if the money supply increases by 5 percent and the quantity of goods increases by 10 percent, prices will fall by 5 percent.

    A fall in prices cannot conceal the fact that we have inflation of 5 percent here on account of the increase in the money supply.

    The Problem Is Really Wealth Formation, not Rising Prices

    The reason why inflation is bad news is not because of increases in prices as such, but because of the damage inflation inflicts to the wealth-formation process. Here is why:

    The chief role of money is the medium of exchange. Money enables us to exchange something we have for something we want.

    Before an exchange can take place, an individual must have something useful that he can exchange for money. Once he secures the money, he can then exchange it for the good he wants.

    But now consider a situation in which the money is created "out of thin air," increasing the money supply.

    This new money is no different from counterfeit money. The counterfeiter exchanges the printed money for goods without producing anything useful.

    He in fact exchanges nothing for something. He takes from the pool of real goods without making any contribution to the pool.

    The economic effect of money that was created out of thin air is exactly the same as that of counterfeit money — it impoverishes wealth generators.

    The money created out of thin air diverts real wealth toward the holders of new money. This weakens the wealth generators ability to generate wealth and this in turn leads to a weakening in economic growth.

    Note that as a result of the increase in the money supply what we have here is more money per unit of goods, and thus, higher prices.

    What matters however is not that price rises, but the increase in the money supply that sets in motion the exchange of nothing for something, or "the counterfeit effect."

    The exchange of nothing for something, as we have seen, weakens the process of real wealth formation. Therefore, anything that promotes increases in the money supply can only make things much worse.

    Why Falling Prices Are Good

    Since changes in prices are just a symptom, as it were — and not the primary causative factor — obviously countering a falling growth momentum of the CPI by means of loose a monetary policy (i.e., by creating inflation) is bad news for the process of wealth generation, and hence for the economy.

    In order to maintain their lives and well-being, individuals must buy goods and services in the present. So from this perspective a fall in prices cannot be bad for the economy.

    Furthermore, if a fall in the growth momentum of prices emerges on the back of the collapse of bubble activities in response to a softer monetary growth then this should be seen as good news. The less non-productive bubble activities that are around the better it is for the wealth generators and hence for the overall pool of real wealth.

    Likewise, if a fall in the growth momentum of the CPI emerges on account of the expansion in real wealth for a given stock of money, this is obviously great news since many more people could now benefit from the expanding pool of real wealth.

    We can thus conclude that contrary to the popular view, a fall in the growth momentum of prices is always good news for the wealth generating process and hence for the economy.

  • Yellen's Hawkish Hangover Leaves Bonds & Bullion Bruised & Stocks Steady

    This won't end well…

     

    *  *  *

    First things first, The Fed managed to convince the market – despite the collapse of fundamentals – that it will hike in December…December odds the highest they have ever been…

     

    Having dumped the post-FOMC gains early on, stocks bounced modestly… then acelerated in the last 20 minutes before last minute selling…

     

    But in the day only Trannies ended green (as a late ramp failed)

     

    All thanks to a VIX-crushing ramping S&P into the green…

     

    Though a notable VIX decouple..

     

    But bonds, gold, and crude are all red post-FOMC

     

    And on the week…Small Caps unch, Trannies biggest losers…

     

    Trannies outperformed (and did it again against crude)…pushing up to the 100DMA

     

    Financials continue to bounce (but credit remains ominously weak)…

     

    But Camera-on-a-stick crashed to record lows…

     

    And Valeant had another tough day…

     

    Credit markets decoupled from equities today…

     

    With VXX trading in a very narrow range today…

     

    But Treasury yields played catch up to stocks…

     

    As the entire curve shot up today (with the long-end underperforming 2Y +2bps, 30Y +8bps)

     

    The USDollar gave back some of its hawkish Fed gains…AUD continues to get slammed as EUR rallied back somewhat…

     

    And The Dollar slipped back against Asian FX also (but remains notably stronger post FOMC)

     

    Commodities were very mixed today…

     

    With crude dump and pumping (run stops) and dumping…

     

    And Nattie making new cycle lows…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: "Data-Dependent" Fed…

    Bonus Bonus Chart: The Bulls Are Back In Town…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News October 29, 2015

  • Embracing The Dark Side: A Short History Of The Pathological Neocon Quest For Empire

    Submitted by Dan Sanchez via DanSanchez.me,

    When Bill Kristol watches Star Wars movies, he roots for the Galactic Empire. The leading neocon recently caused a social media disturbance in the Force when he tweeted this predilection for the Dark Side following the debut of the final trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

    Kristol sees the Empire as basically a galaxy-wide extrapolation of what he has long wanted the US to have over the Earth: what he has termed “benevolent global hegemony.”

    Kristol, founder and editor of neocon flagship magazine The Weekly Standard,responded to scandalized critics by linking to a 2002 essay from the Standard’s blog that justifies even the worst of Darth Vader’s atrocities. In “The Case for the Empire,” Jonathan V. Last made a Kristolian argument that you can’t make a “benevolent hegemony” omelet without breaking a few eggs.

    And what if those broken eggs are civilians, like Luke Skywalker’s uncle and aunt who were gunned down by Imperial Stormtroopers in their home on the Middle Eastern-looking arid planet of Tatooine (filmed on location in Tunisia)? Well, as Last sincerely argued, Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru hid Luke and harbored the fugitive droids R2D2 and C3P0; so they were “traitors” who were aiding the rebellion and deserved to be field-executed.

    A year after Kristol published Last’s essay, large numbers of civilians were killed by American Imperial Stormtroopers in their actual Middle Eastern arid homeland of Iraq, thanks largely in part to the direct influence of neocons like Kristol and Last.

    That war was similarly justified in part by the false allegation that Iraq ruler Saddam Hussein was harboring and aiding terrorist enemies of the empire like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The civilian-slaughtering siege of Fallujah, one of the most brutal episodes of the war, was also specifically justified by the false allegation that the town was harboring Zarqawi.

    In reality Hussein had put a death warrant out on Zarqawi, who was hiding from Iraq’s security forces under the protective aegis of the US Air Force in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region. It was only after the Empire precipitated the chaotic collapse of Iraq that Zarqawi’s outfit was able to thrive and evolve into Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). And after the Empire precipitated the chaotic collapse of Syria, AQI further mutated into Syrian al-Qaeda (which has conquered much of Syria) and ISIS (which has conquered much of Syria and Iraq).

    And what if the “benevolent hegemony” omelet requires the breaking of “eggs” the size of whole worlds, like how high Imperial officer Wilhuff Tarkin used the Death Star to obliterate the planet Alderaan? Well, as Last sincerely argued, even Alderaan likely deserved its fate, since it may have been, “a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents…” Last contended that Princess Leia was probably lying when she told the Death Star’s commander that the planet had “no weapons.”

    While Last was writing his apologia for global genocide, his fellow neocons were baselessly arguing that Saddam Hussein was similarly lying about Iraq not having a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. Primarily on that basis, the obliteration of an entire country began the following year.

    And a year after that, President Bush performed a slapstick comedy act about his failure to find Iraqi WMDs for a black-tie dinner for radio and television correspondents. The media hacks in his audience, who had obsequiously helped the neocon-dominated Bush administration lie the country into war, rocked with laughter as thousands of corpses moldered in Iraq and Arlington. A more sickening display of imperial decadence and degradation has not been seen perhaps since the gladiatorial audiences of Imperial Rome. This is the hegemonic “benevolence” and “national greatness” that Kristol pines for.

    “Benevolent global hegemony” was coined by Kristol and fellow neocon Robert Kaganand their 1996 Foreign Affairs article “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” In that essay, Kristol and Kagan sought to inoculate both the conservative movement and US foreign policy against the isolationism of Pat Buchanan.

    The Soviet menace had recently disappeared, and the Cold War along with it. The neocons were terrified that the American public would therefore jump at the chance to lay their imperial burdens down. Kristol and Kagan urged their readers to resist that temptation, and to instead capitalize on America’s new peerless preeminence by making it a big-spending, hyper-active, busybody globo-cop. The newfound predominance must become dominance wherever and whenever possible. That way, any future near-peer competitors would be nipped in the bud, and the new “unipolar moment” would last forever.

    What made this neocon dream seem within reach was the indifference of post-Soviet Russia. The year after the Berlin Wall fell, the Persian Gulf War against Iraq was the debut “police action” of unipolar “Team America, World Police.” Paul Wolfowitz, the neocon and Iraq War architect, considered it a successful trial run. As Wesley Clark, former Nato Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, recalled:

    “In 1991, [Wolfowitz] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy?—?the number 3 position at the Pentagon. And I had gone to see him when I was a 1-Star General commanding the National Training Center. (…)

     

    And I said, “Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.”

     

    And he said: “Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t … But one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the region?—?in the Middle East?—?and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes?—?Syria, Iran, Iraq?—?before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”

    The 1996 “Neo-Reaganite” article was part of a surge of neocon literary activity in the mid-90s. It was in 1995 that Kristol and John Podhoretz founded The Weekly Standard with funding from right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

    Also in 1996, David Wurmser wrote a strategy document for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Titled, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was co-signed by Wurmser’s fellow neocons and future Iraq War architects Richard Perle and Douglas Feith“A Clean Break” called for regime change in Iraq as a “means” of “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria.” Syria itself was a target because it “challenges Israel on Lebanese soil.” It primarily does this by, along with Iran, supporting the paramilitary group Hezbollah, which arose in the 80s out of the local resistance to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and which continually foils Israel’s ambitions in that country.

    Later that same year, Wurmser wrote another strategy document, this time for circulation in American and European halls of power, titled “Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant.”

    In “A Clean Break,” Wurmser had framed regime change in Iraq and Syria in terms of Israeli regional ambitions. In “Coping,” Wurmser adjusted his message for its broader Western audience by recasting the very same policies in a Cold War framework.

    Wurmser characterized regime change in Iraq and Syria (both ruled by Baathist regimes) as “expediting the chaotic collapse” of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that, “the phenomenon of Baathism,” was, from the very beginning, “an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy.” Of course King Hussein was a bit biased on the matter, since his own Hashemite royal family once ruled both Iraq and Syria. Wurmser argued that:

    “…the battle over Iraq represents a desperate attempt by residual Soviet bloc allies in the Middle East to block the extension into the Middle East of the impending collapse that the rest of the Soviet bloc faced in 1989.”

    Wurmser further derided Baathism in Iraq and Syria as an ideology in a state of “crumbling descent and missing its Soviet patron” and “no more than a Cold War enemy relic on probation.”

    Wurmser advised the West to put this anachronistic adversary out of its misery, and to thus, in Kristolian fashion, press America’s Cold War victory on toward its final culmination. Baathism should be supplanted by what he called the “Hashemite option.” After their chaotic collapse, Iraq and Syria would be Hashemite possessions once again. Both would be dominated by the royal house of Jordan, which in turn, happens to be dominated by the US and Israel.

    Wurmser stressed that demolishing Baathism must be the foremost priority in the region. Secular-Arab nationalism should be given no quarter, not even, he added, for the sake of stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism.

    Thus we see one of the major reasons why the neocons were such avid anti-Soviets during the Cold War. It is not just that, as post-Trotskyites, the neocons resented Joseph Stalin for having Leon Trotsky assassinated in Mexico with an ice pick. The Israel-first neocons’ main beef with the Soviets was that, in various disputes and conflicts involving Israel, Russia sided with secular-Arab nationalist regimes from 1953 onward.

    The neocons used to be Democrats in the big-government, Cold Warrior mold of Harry Truman and Henry “Scoop” Jackson. After the Vietnam War and the rise of the anti-war New Left, the Democratic Party’s commitment to the Cold War waned, so the neocons switched to the Republicans in disgust.

    According to investigative reporter Jim Lobe, the neocons got their first taste of power within the Reagan administration, in which positions were held by neocons such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliot Abrams, and Michael Ledeen. They were especially influential during Reagan’s first term of saber-rattling, clandestine warfare, and profligate defense spending, which Kristol and Kagan remembered so fondly in their “Neo-Reaganite” manifesto.

    It was then that the neocons helped establish the “Reagan Doctrine.” According to neocon columnist Charles Krauthammer, who coined the term in 1985, the Reagan Doctrine was characterized by support for anti-communist (in reality often simply anti-leftist) forces around the whole world.

    Since the support was clandestine, the Reagan administration was able to bypass the “Vietnam Syndrome” and project power in spite of the public’s continuing war weariness. (It was left to Reagan’s successor, the first President Bush, to announce following his “splendid little” Gulf War that, “by God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all!”)

    Operating covertly, the Reaganites could also use any anti-communist group they found useful, no matter how ruthless and ugly: from Contra death squads in Nicaragua to the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen in Afghanistan. Abrams and Ledeen were both involved in the Iran-Contra affair, and Abrams was convicted (though later pardoned) on related criminal charges.

    Kristol’s “Neo-Reaganite” co-author Robert Kagan gave the doctrine an even wider and more ambitious interpretation in his book A Twilight Struggle :

    “The Reagan Doctrine has been widely understood to mean only support for anticommunist guerrillas fighting pro-Soviet regimes, but from the first the doctrine had a broader meaning. Support for anticommunist guerrillas was the logical outgrowth, not the origin, of a policy of supporting democratic reform or revolution everywhere, in countries ruled by right-wing dictators as well as by communist parties.”

    As this description makes plain, neocon policy, from the 1980s to today, has been every bit as fanatical, crusading, and world-revolutionary as Red Communism was in the neocon propaganda of yesteryear, and that Islam is in the neocon propaganda of today.

    The neocons credit Reagan’s early belligerence with the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union. But in reality, war is the health of the State, and Cold War was the health of Soviet State. The Soviets long used the American menace to frighten the Russian people into rallying around the State for protection.

    After the neocons lost clout within the Reagan administration to “realists” like George Schultz, the later Reagan-Thatcher-Gorbachev detente began. It was only after that detente lifted the Russian siege atmosphere and quieted existential nuclear nightmares that the Russian people felt secure enough to demand a changing of the guard.

    In 1983, the same year that the first Star Wars trilogy ended, Reagan vilified Soviet Russia in language that Star Wars fans could understand by dubbing it “the Evil Empire.” Years later, having, in Kristol’s words, “defeated the evil empire,” the neocons that Reagan first lifted to power began clamoring for a “neo-Reaganite” global hegemony. And a few years after that, those same neocons began pointing to the sci-fi Galactic Empire that Reagan implicitly compared to the Soviets as a lovely model for America!

    Fast-forward to return to the neocon literary flowering of the mid-90s. In 1997, the year after writing “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy” together, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan co-founded The Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The 20th century is often called “the American century,” largely due to it being a century of war and American “victories” in those wars: the two World Wars and the Cold War. The neocons sought to ensure that through the never-ending exercise of military might, the American global hegemony achieved through those wars would last another hundred years, and that the 21st century too would be “American.”

    The organization’s founding statement of principles called for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity” and reads like an executive summary of the founding duo’s “Neo-Reaganite” essay. It was signed by neocons such as Wolfowitz, Abrams, Norman Podhoretz and Frank Gaffney; by future Bush administration officials such as Dick CheneyDonald RumsfeldLewis “Scooter” Libby; and by other neocon allies, such as Jeb Bush.

    Although PNAC called for interventions ranging from Serbia (to roll back Russian influence in Europe) to Taiwan (to roll back Chinese influence in Asia), its chief concern was to kick off the restructuring of the Middle East envisioned in “A Clean Break” and “Coping” by advocating its first step: regime change in Iraq.

    The most high-profile parts of this effort were two “open letters” published in 1998, one in January addressed to President Bill Clinton, and another in May addressed to leaders of Congress. As with its statement of principles, PNAC was able to garner signatures for these letters from a wide range of political luminaries, including neocons (like Perle), neocon allies (like John Bolton), and other non-neocons (like James Woolsey and Robert Zoellick).

    The open letters characterized Iraq as “a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” and buttressed this ridiculous claim with the now familiar allegations of Saddam building a WMD program.

    Thanks in large part to PNAC’s pressure, regime change in Iraq became official US policy in October when Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. (Notice the Clinton-friendly “humanitarian interventionist” name in spite of the policy’s conservative fear-mongering origins.)

    After the Supreme Court delivered George W. Bush the presidency, the neocons were back in the imperial saddle again in 2001: just in time to make their projected “New American Century” of “Neo-Reaganite Global Hegemony” a reality. The first order of business, of course, was Iraq.

    But some pesky national security officials weren’t getting with the program and kept trying to distract the administration with concerns about some Osama bin Laden character and his Al Qaeda outfit. Apparently they were laboring under some pedestrian notion that their job was to protect the American people and not to conquer the world.

    For example, when National Security Council counterterrorism “czar” Richard Clarke was frantically sounding the alarm over an imminent terrorist attack on America,Wolfowitz was uncomprehending. As Clarke recalled, the then Deputy Defense Secretary objected:

    “I just don’t understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden.”

    Clarke informed him that:

    “We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States.”

    This simply did not fit in the agenda-driven neocon worldview of Wolfowitz, who responded:

    “Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example.”

    And as Peter Beinhart recently wrote:

    “During that same time period [in 2001], the CIA was raising alarms too. According to Kurt Eichenwald, a former New York Times reporter given access to the Daily Briefs prepared by the intelligence agencies for President Bush in the spring and summer of 2001, the CIA told the White House by May 1 that ‘a group presently in the United States’ was planning a terrorist attack. On June 22, the Daily Brief warned that al-Qaeda strikes might be ‘imminent.’

    But the same Defense Department officials who discounted Clarke’s warnings pushed back against the CIA’s. According to Eichenwald’s sources, ‘the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.’

    By the time Clarke and the CIA got the Bush administration’s attention, it was already too late to follow any of the clear leads that might have been followed to prevent the 9/11 attacks.

    The terrorist attacks by Sunni Islamic fundamentalists mostly from the Saudi Kingdom hardly fit the neocon agenda of targeting the secular-Arab nationalist regimes of Iraq and Syria and the Shiite Republic of Iran: especially since all three of the latter were mortal enemies of bin Laden types.

    But the attackers were, like Iraqis, some kind of Muslims from the general area of the Middle East. And that was good enough for government work in the American idiocracy. After a youth consumed with state-compelled drudgery, most Americans are so stupid and incurious that such a meaningless relationship, enhanced with some fabricated “intelligence,” was more than enough to stampede the spooked American herd into supporting the Iraq War.

    As Benjamin Netanyahu once said, “America is a thing you can move very easily.”

    Whether steering the country into war would be easy or not, it was all neocon hands on deck. At the Pentagon there was Wolfowitz and Perle, with Perle-admirer Rumsfeld as SecDef. Feith was also at Defense, where he set up two new offices for the special purpose of spinning “intelligence” yarn to tie Saddam with al-Qaeda and to weave fanciful pictures of secret Iraqi WMD programs.

    Wurmser himself labored in one of these offices, followed by stints at State aiding neocon-ally Bolton and in the Vice President’s office aiding neocon-ally Cheney along with Scooter Libby.

    Iran-Contra convict Abrams was at the National Security Council aiding Condoleezza Rice. And Kristol and Kagan continued to lead the charge in the media and think tank worlds.

    And they pulled it off. Wurmser finally got his “chaotic collapse” in Iraq. And Kristol finally had his invincible, irresistible, hyper-active hegemony looming over the world like a Death Star.

    The post-9/11 pretense-dropping American Empire even had Dick Cheney with his Emperor Palpatine snarl preparing Americans to accept torture by saying:

    “We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.”

    The Iraq War ended up backfiring on the neocons. It installed a new regime in Baghdad that was no more favorable toward Israel and far more favorable toward Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria. But the important thing was that Kristol’s Death Star was launched and in orbit. As long as it was still in proactive mode, there was nothing the neocons could not fix with its awful power.

    This seemed true even during the Obama presidency. On top of Iraq and Afghanistan, under Obama the American Death Star has demolished Yemen and Somalia. It also demolished both Syria and Libya, where it continues the Wurmsurite project of precipitating the chaotic collapse of secular-Arab nationalism. Islamic terror groups including al-Qaeda and ISIS are thriving in that chaos, but the American Death Star to this day has adhered to Wurmser’s de-prioritization of the Islamist threat.

    As Yoda said, “Fear is the path to the Dark Side.” The neocons have been able to use the fear generated by a massive Islamic fundamentalist terror attack to pursue their blood-soaked vendetta against secular-Arab nationalists, even to the benefit of the very Islamic fundamentalists who attacked us, because even after 12 years Americans are still too bigoted and oblivious to distinguish between the two groups.

    Furthermore, Obama has gone beyond Wurmser’s regional ambitions and has fulfilled Kristol’s busybody dreams of global hegemony to a much greater extent than Bush ever did. To appease generals and arms merchants worried about his prospective pull-outs from the Iraqi and Afghan theaters, Obama launched both an imperial “pivot” to Asia and a stealth invasion of Africa. The pull-outs were aborted, but the continental “pivots” remain. Thus Obama’s pretenses as a peace President helped to make his regime the most ambitiously imperialistic and globe-spanning that history has ever seen.

    But the neocons may have overdone it with their Death Star shooting spree, because another great power now seems determined to put a stop to it. And who is foiling the neocons’ Evil Empire? Why none other than the original “Evil Empire”: the neocons’ old nemesis Russia.

    In 2013, Russia’s Putin diplomatically frustrated the neocons’ attempt to deliver the coup de grâce to the Syrian regime with a US air war. Shortly afterward, Robert Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland yanked Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence by engineering a bloody coup in Kiev. Putin countered by bloodlessly annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. A proxy war followed between the US-armed and Western-financed junta in Kiev and pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.

    The US continued to intervene in Syria, heavily sponsoring an insurgency dominated by extremists including al-Qaeda and ISIS. But recently, Russia decided to intervene militarily. Suddenly, Wolfowitz’s lesson from the Gulf War was up in smoke. The neocons cannot militarily do whatever they want in the Middle East and trust that Russia will stand idly by. Suddenly the arrogant Wolfowitz/Wurmser dream of crumbling then cleaning up “old Soviet client regimes” and “Cold War enemy relics” had gone poof. Putin decided that Syria would be one “Cold War relic” turned terrorist playground too many.

    Russia’s entry into Syria has thrown all of the neocons’ schemes into disarray.

    By actually working to destroy Syrian al-Qaeda and ISIS instead of just pretending to, as the US and its allies have, Russia threatens to eliminate the head-chopping bogeymen whose Live Leak-broadcasted brutal antics continually renew in Americans the war-fueling terror of 9/11. And after Putin had taken the US air strike option off the table, al-Qaeda and ISIS were the neocons most powerful tools for bringing down the Syrian regime. And now Russia is threatening to take those toys away too.

    If Hezbollah and Iran, with Russia’s air cover, manage to help save what is left of Syria from the Salafist psychos, they will be more prestigious in both Syria and Lebanon than ever, and Israel may never be able to dominate its northern neighbors.

    The neocons are livid. After the conflicts over Syria and Ukraine in 2013, they had already started ramping up the vilification of Putin. Now the demonization has gone into overdrive.

    One offering in this milieu has been an article by Matthew Continetti in the neocon web site he edits, The Washington Free Beacon. Titled “A Reagan Doctrine for the Twenty-First Century,” it obviously aims to be a sequel to Kristol’s and Kagan’s “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” As it turns out, the Russian “Evil Empire” was not defeated after all: only temporarily dormant. And so Continetti’s updated Reaganite manifesto is subtitled, “How to confront Vladimir Putin.”

    The US military may be staggering around the planet like a drunken, bloated colossus. Yet Continetti still dutifully trots out all the Kristolian tropes about the need for military assertiveness (more drunken belligerence), massive defense spending (more bloating), and “a new American century.” Reaganism is needed now just as much as in 1996, he avers: in fact, doubly so, for Russia has reemerged as:

    “…the greatest military and ideological threat to the United States and to the world order it has built over decades as guarantor of international security.”

    Right, just look at all that security sprouting out of all those bomb craters the US has planted throughout much of the world. Oh wait no, those are terrorists.

    Baby-faced Continetti, a Weekly Standard contributor, is quite the apprentice to Sith Lord Kristol, judging from his ardent faith in the “Benevolent Global Hegemony” dogma. In fact, he even shares Lord Kristol’s enthusiasm for “Benevolent Galactic Hegemony.” It was Continetti who kicked off the recent Star Wars/foreign policy brouhaha when he tweeted:

    “I’ve been rooting for the Empire since 1983”

    This elicited a concurring response from Kristol, which is what set Twitter atwitter. Of course the whole thing was likely staged and coordinated between the two neocon operatives.

    Unfortunately for the neocons, demonizing Putin over Syria is not nearly as easy as demonizing Putin over Ukraine. With Ukraine, there was a fairly straight-forward (if false) narrative to build of big bully Russia and plucky underdog Ukraine.

    However, it’s pretty hard to keep a lid on the fact that Russia is attacking al-Qaeda and ISIS, along with any CIA-trained jihadist allies are nearby. And it’s inescapably unseemly for the US foreign policy establishment to be so bent out of shape about Russia bombing sworn enemies of the American people, even if it does save some dictator most Americans don’t care about one way or the other.

    And now that wildly popular wild card Donald Trump is spouting unwelcome common sense to his legions of followers about how standing back and letting Russia bomb anti-American terrorists is better than starting World War III over it. And this is on top of the fact that Trump is deflating Jeb Bush’s campaign by throwing shade at his brother’s neocon legacy, from the failures over 9/11 to the disastrous decision to regime change Iraq. And the neocon-owned Marco Rubio, who actually adopted “A New American Century” as his campaign slogan, is similarly making no headway against Trump.

    And Russia’s involvement in Syria just keeps getting worse for the neocons. Washington threatened to withdraw support from the Iraqi government if it accepted help from Russia against ISIS. Iraq accepted Russian help anyway. Baghdad has also sent militias to fight under Russian air cover alongside Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces.

    Even Jordan, that favorite proxy force in Israel’s dreams of regional dominance, has begun coordinating with Russia, in spite of its billion dollars a year of annual aid from Washington. Et tu Jordan?!

    Apparently there aren’t enough Federal Reserve notes in Janet Yellen’s imagination to pay Iraq and Jordan to tolerate living amid a bin Ladenite maelstrom any longer.

    And what is Washington going to do about it if the whole region develops closer ties with Russia? What are the American people going to let them get away with doing about it? A palace coup in Jordan? Expend more blood and treasure to overthrow the very same Iraqi government we already lost much blood and treasure in installing? Start a suicidal hot war with nuclear Russia?

    And the neocon’s imperial dreams are coming apart at the seams outside of the war zones too. The new Prime Minister of Canada just announced he will pull out of America’s war in the Levant. Europe wants to compromise with Russia on both Ukraine and Syria, and this willingness will grow as the refugee crisis it is facing worsens. Obama made a nuclear deal with Iran and initiated detente with Cuba. And worst of all for neocons, the Israeli occupation of Palestine is being de-legitimized by the bourgeoning BDS movement and by images of its own brutality propagating through social media, along with translations of its hateful rhetoric.

    The neocons bit off more than they could chew, and their Galactic Empire is falling apart before it could even fully conquer its first planet.

    Nearly all empires end due to over-extension. If brave people from Ottawa to Baghdad simply say “enough” within a brief space of time, hopefully this empire can dissolve relatively peacefully like the Soviet Empire did, leaving its host civilization intact, instead of dragging that civilization into oblivion along with it like the Roman Empire did.

    But beware, the imperial war party will not go quietly into the night, unless we in their domestic tax base insist that there is no other way. If, in desperation, they start calling for things like more boots on the ground, reinstating the draft, or declaring World War III on Russia and its Middle Eastern allies, we must stand up and say with firm voices something along the lines of the following:

    No. You will not have my son for your wars. And we will not surrender any more of our liberty. We will no longer yield to a regime led by a neocon clique that threatens to extinguish the human race. Your power fantasy of universal empire is over. Just let it go. Or, as Anakin finally did when the Emperor came for his son, we will hurl your tyranny into the abyss.

     

  • GOP Debate III Post Mortem: Trump Top, Fiorina Flop, Bush (& CNBC) Biggest Loser

    "Debates in Turmoil" would have been an appropriate summary for tonight's free-for-all CNBC-sponsored screamfest in Boulder, Colorado. Argumentative moderators, mis-stated facts, time complaints, and general whining was everywhere but Trump still managed to come out the other side of this gauntlet unscathed. One major highlight included Santelli and Paul pushing 'Audit The Fed', calls for gold-backed currency,and exclaimed that The Fed "has been a great problem" in US society. However, what was odd was the apparent slights to Trump and Carson (questioned less directly) which resulted in an aberrantly low 'talking time' for the leading candidates.

    Lindsey Graham won the undercard…

            

     

    But across all polls, Trump was the clear winner in the main event (and Bush nearly the biggest loser)

    Source: Drudge (left) and CNBC (right)

    And Bush was the "biggest loser"..Jeb Bush finally, 85 minutes in, gets to talk about his plan for 4% growth. It’s hard to figure how bland talk of reform is going to win him much new support. There was no applause for his explanation

    Trump also had the best "one-liners"…

     

    *  *  *

    Some highlights included:

    Christie going off on Moderator Harwoord…

    And slamming government regulation of Fantasy Football…

    Fiorina nailed government excess…

    Huckabee said something that made some sense…

    Trump reacts to Harwood…

    Cruz slams CNBC…

    Trump sent Bush a message…

        As Politico report, CNBC was also the biggest loser    

    The CNBC-moderated debate became, at crucial moments, a debate about CNBC, as various candidates and, at times, the audience, turned the tables on the network’s three moderators.

     

    The repeated bursts of anger and anarchy were prompted, in part, by questions from the moderators that veered, at times, beyond sharp into contentiousness. By the end of the first hour, the audience seemed to be siding with the candidates, booing when CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla seemed to play gotcha with Ben Carson about his past work for a questionable company.

     

     

    The pattern was established very early by Donald Trump, spurred by a question about his tax plan from CNBC’s John Harwood that suggested the businessman was running a “comic-book” campaign. Trump angrily proclaimed that the network’s own star host, Larry Kudlow, had praised his tax plan.

     

    Soon after, Texas senator Ted Cruz picked up the cudgel declaring, in response to a question from Quintanilla about raising the debt ceiling, “Let me say something at the outset. The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. The questions shouldn’t be getting people to tear into each other.”

     

    Cruz, his voice rising in indignation, cited Harwood’s “comic-book” question to Trump and one from CNBC’s Becky Quick to Carson that declared that his flat-tax plan wouldn’t bring in nearly as much revenue as he claimed. After Cruz waxed on about a double standard between Democratic and Republican debates, Quintanilla seemed visibly irritated, and he and Harwood each refused to give Cruz any extra time to answer the original question.

     

    A few minutes later, they seemed to think better of it and did give Cruz the time. But the spuriousness of the decision left them open to further expressions of outrage by other candidates whenever the moderators tried to cut them off.

     

    The unruly atmosphere was a far cry from what CNBC seemed to want and expect, from a gauzy opening photo montage to a series of promotions emphasizing what Quintanilla, at the outset, called, “CNBC’s top experts in the markets and personal finance” and “the best team in business” journalism.

     

    "The CNBC anchors are just desperately filling airtime with absolute nonsense to kill time,” conservative writer John Tabin tweeted.

    *  *  *

    @NYTGraphics did an excellent job of breaking down key aspects of each candidate's plans…

    *  *  *

    A lot of social media was notably disturbed by the lack of direct questioning and comments for Trump and Carson…

    Which led to aberrantly low talking times for the highest-ranking nominees in the polls…

     

     

     

    Finally, a little context for tonight’s debate…

  • One Trader Loses It Over Draghi And Yellen's Lies

    Epsilon Theory’s Ben Hunt is one of our favorite commentators and market analysts. He is a very rational, even-keeled and objective observer and trader of the capital markets, no matter how broken or centrally-planned they may be. Which is why we were disappointed to see that the two most recent appearances by the world’s foremost central-planners, Draghi and Yellen, managed to incense him as much as they did.

    From Ben Hunt of Salient Partners (pdf)

    Funny How?

    I was watching the Draghi press conference the other week, and I had to turn off the TV. I found myself getting so … angry … not just at what Draghi was saying, but also the live blog reaction and the live market reaction, that I decided I was better off stepping back from the actual event and trying to figure out why I was having such a powerfully negative emotional reaction to the entire charade. It’s not the charade itself. I mean, if I were outraged by every inauthentic display of central banker “communication policy” and the media lapdog response, I’d be in some sort of permanent apoplectic fit. In fact, neither the central bankers nor the media even pretend any more that extraordinary monetary policy has any sort of material impact on the real economy, which I suppose is actually progress on the authenticity scale in a perverse sort of way.
     
    I travel a lot speaking to investors and allocators of all sizes and political persuasions. I also read a lot from a wide variety of sources, also of all sizes and political persuasions. What I’m seeing and hearing on every issue that concerns capital markets and economics is not only an accelerated polarization of policy views between the left and the right (greater “distance” between the views), but also – and more troubling – a polarization (and in many cases a non-modal distribution) of policy views within the left and the right. The kicker: I think that this polarization is almost entirely driven by monetary policy and the power/wealth inequalities it creates. Central bankers are not only planting the seeds of truly systemic instability, they are watering and tending and nurturing this particularly virulent strain of “green shoots” with their entirely intentional and entirely successful efforts to inflate financial asset prices and mandate reduced volatility in capital markets.

    The fact is that maintaining massive debt and creating massive wealth – which is what central banks DO – is a political exercise, pure and simple. It’s nothing else. It’s not social science. It’s politics. Yellen and Draghi are the most powerful politicians in the world, and what makes me angry is their unwillingness to confront the essential nature of their actions, to call what they do by its real name. It makes me angry because the longer the High Church of Central Bankerdom denies and ignores the raw political impact of their actions, the more likely it is that we will have a structural political accident that will destroy every bit of the debt maintenance and wealth creation that the High Church has labored so hard to build. I think we’re getting very close to that sort of political accident.

    I’m pretty sure that I agree with absolutely none of Thomas Piketty’s policy prescriptions. And the impact of his bugbear – tax policy – on wealth inequality is laughably minor compared to the impact of a triple in the S&P 500 market cap or central bank purchases of trillions of dollars of bonds. But if you don’t recognize that Piketty has a point when he says that today’s wealth inequality is both outrageous and poisonous, you’re just not paying attention. Increased wealth inequality always leads to increased political polarization, within and between countries, within and between political entities. That was true in the 1870s, that was true in the 1930s, and it’s true today.

    What happens when you get greater political polarization? The center does not hold. You get Bizarro world. You get political outcomes that cannot be anticipated by econometric or median voter models. You get political outcomes that will be perceived as illegitimate by a meaningful number of citizens. You get the New York Times writing encouragingly that even with a more aggressive tax regime, the Federal government could still “allow” citizens to take home 50% of their income. Wait. What?

    Here’s a fairly typical example of the polarization phenomenon I’m talking about, this from the Pew Research Center based on 1994 – 2014 data. Everything in this chart is significantly worse today, and the same chart could be drawn for every other country on earth (including one-party states like China). You could also draw a chart with exactly the same dynamic for Congress. Or FOMC voting member views on raising rates. Or financial advisor views on liquid alternatives. Seeing polarization is like seeing the homeless … once you start looking for it, you will see it everywhere.

    It’s not just the distance between the median Democrat voter and the median Republican voter that concerns me, it’s the shape of the Democrat electorate and the shape of the Republican electorate. A consensus outcome, where a significant majority buys into a final decision, is more difficult when the median voters are farther apart, but by no means impossible. It’s the lack of a single modal “peak” near the median voter within each party that makes consensus so very, very difficult. Why? Because the human animal has designed any number of effective preference aggregation schemes (elections and markets, for example), but none of them work very well at all when preferences are all over the map, when there is no “peakedness” to the preference distribution. There is no voting scheme that can identify a consensus when there is no consensus to be had, and that’s true whether you’re talking about the Republican party or the American electorate at large or the FOMC or the Chinese Politburo. On the contrary, the only thing you are guaranteed to have in a “non-peaked” system is a majority of unhappy members with ANY single construction or faux presentation of consensus.

    In practice, one of two things happen in this sort of non-peaked social system. Either a new political dimension is constructed such that a peaked distribution emerges and a consensus outcome can be supported (this usually takes the form of identifying a common enemy, like Commies or Billionaires, or of appealing to a higher power, like Allah or Science), or you get a political accident where fundamental rules of markets and government shift drastically. I’m not looking forward to either.

    What does this mean for investors? It means that at some point in the next year or two, I think we are all going to have a Henry Hill “Goodfellas” moment, where we think that we understand the conversation going on around us, where we think that we’re engaged with our social system in the usual way … and then everything will go sideways in a split second, and we will suddenly and with extreme clarity realize that we don’t understand anything at all except that we’re sitting at a table with a maniac. Or if you want a more light-hearted metaphor, we will all have a George Costanza moment where we come to the realization that all of our instincts are wrong. Most of us, of course, have already endured more than a few of these George Costanza moments here in the Golden Age of the Central Banker. I think you ain’t seen nothing yet. It’s not the Minsky Moment I’m worried about, where some credit bubble internal to markets wreaks havoc as it pops. No, it’s the Sideways Moment that I’m worried about, where a political accident external to markets wreaks structural havoc on the entire market system.

    Do I understand why Draghi is doing what he’s doing? Do I understand why the Fed is getting colder and colder feet about raising rates? Sure. They’re watching inflation expectations continue to collapse. Here’s the latest chart for the primary metric for US inflation expectations, 5-year forward rates, courtesy of the St. Louis Fed.

       

    Inflation expectations are THE most important data point in the Fed and ECB models that drive monetary policy decision making. And those models, driven by this chart, say that you’re a fool if you raise rates now. Or if not a fool, then at the very least you’re taking on significant post-Fed career risk. Hard to see some big hedge fund shelling out the big bucks for another ex-Fed Chair if this is what makes everything go sideways.

    What Draghi and Yellen are doing is exactly what happens when you abdicate social policy to models, when you pretend that you’re just a technocratic financial regulator, and I suppose that’s what makes me angriest of all. I can see where this is going politically. Everyone can see where this is going politically. And maybe we’re already too far gone to change the politically polarized course we’re on. But we have to try. We have to speak honestly about the political dimensions of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy in its maintenance of massive debt and its creation of massive wealth. Because if we don’t speak, then others will speak for us. And we won’t like what they have to say.

    * * *

    Our advice to Ben, do what we do: instead of getting angry at the central planners who know the game is almost up, just laugh at them. It drives them nuts.

  • Japanese Stocks, USDJPY Tumble On 'Good' Data As China's Offshore Yuan Strengthens

    The surge in the USDollar today after The FOMC's 'hawkish' statement has prompted strength in the Offshore Yuan, narrowing once again the spread to Onshore Yuan. Another CNY10 billion cash injection hasn't done much for Chinese stocks or liquidity markets however. After better than expected Japanese industrial production however USDJPY plunged (i.e. no imminent BoJ easing) and that dragged Nikkei 225 over 200 points lower (erasing all the FOMC gains).

     

    Offshore Yuan strengthened notably (despite the USD strength against the majors) narrowing the spread to onshore yuan…

     

    As The Dollar is losing steam quickly against Asian/EM FX…

     

    In another sign of China's pullback, Aussie new home sales crashed 4.0% MoM – the largest drop since July 2014.

    And Aussie Miners have been tumbling all week…

     

    But it is Japan that got interesting…

    Japanese markets opened with a disappointingly better than expected print for industrial production…

    • *JAPAN SEPT. OUTPUT RISES 1% M/M; EST. -0.6%

    Which immediately knocked 30 pips off USDJPY

     

     

    And Japanese stocks have tumbled – giving up all the FOMC Statement gains…

     

    Good news is super bad news in Japan.

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

  • Pfizer, Allergan Said To Consider Merging; Would Be Largest Drug Deal In History

    Pfizer has an enterprise value of $221 billion.

    Allergan has an enterprise value of $160 billion.

    The two companies combined would have a joint EV of nearly $400 billion and a market cap of well over $300 billion. That would make a potential merger between the two the largest M&A deal in history, while a “mere takeover” of Allergan by Pfizer would still rank it as the fourth largest deal in history and the largest deal in a year that is shaping up as a record for M&A.

    And, according to the WSJ, such a deal may be just a few months if not weeks away. To wit:

    Drug makers Pfizer Inc. and Allergan PLC are considering combining, in what would be a blockbuster merger capping off a torrid stretch for health care and other takeovers.

     

    Pfizer recently approached Allergan about a deal, according to people familiar with the matter, with one of them adding that the process is early and may not yield an agreement. Other details of the talks are unclear.

     

    Allergan currently has a market capitalization of $112.5 billion, meaning that a deal for the company could be the biggest announced takeover in a year that is already on pace to be the busiest ever for mergers and acquisitions.

    Granted, this won’t be the first time the two pharmaceutical behemoths have been said to consider merging, although it would be the first time for Allegan in its current iteration which is a combination of Forest Labs, Watson, Warner Chilcott, Actavis and, of course Alergan; furthermore this time may be also different when one considers the recent last gasp surge in deal announcements, which is nothing more than an attempt by companies to lock in their near all time high stock prices as a merger currency, while debt is still debt.

    Will the deal pass regulatory scrutiny? If enough palms are greased, sure.

    More complex would be the whole tax-avoidance issue: “A tie-up with Allergan could also be a way for New York-based Pfizer to lower its corporate tax rate. Allergan is based in Dublin, which has a significantly lower tax rate than the U.S.”

    What is more interesting will be whether the Fed will observe what would be the mother of all mergers, and finally grasp the magnitude of the mother of all equity bubbles that it has blown. Alas, the answer will once again be a resounding now, even when this debt-funded deal leads to the CEOs becoming richer than their wildest dreams, and leads to the prompt pink slipping of several tens of thousands of workers on both sides. Simply because when the bubble is this big, there is no more stopping it.

    Finally, for those interested, here is a list of all the largest M&A deals to date courtesy of CityAM:

  • The Chart Showing What Runaway QE Looks Like

    This is Sweden.

    This is Krugman on Sweden.

    Where does this gut dislike for low rates come from? At some level it has to reflect an instinctive identification with the interests of wealthy creditors as opposed to usually poorer debtors. But it’s also driven, I believe, by the desire of many monetary officials to pose as serious, tough-minded people — and to demonstrate how tough they are by inflicting pain.

     

    Whatever their motives, sadomonetarists have already done a lot of damage. In Sweden they have extracted defeat from the jaws of victory, turning an economic success story into a tale of stagnation and deflation as far as the eye can see.

     

    And they could do much more damage in the future. Financial markets have been fairly calm lately — no big banking crises, no imminent threats of euro breakup. But it would be wrong and dangerous to assume that recovery is assured: bad policies could all too easily undermine our still-sluggish economic progress. So when serious-sounding men in dark suits tell you that it’s time to stop all this easy money and raise rates, beware: Look at what such people have done to Sweden.

    And here comes the low rates: this is Sweden on negative interest rates.

     

    And this is what runaway QE looks like – presenting Sweden’s 5th QE in 2015 alone.

     

    Well, Krugman got his wish.

  • Austria Runs Out Of 'Long Guns' As Europeans Scramble For Protection Against "Islamic Invasion"

    After decades of berating Americans for their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms, Europeans are finally starting to wake up. As SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo notes, it took over a million Islamic immigrants and violence across their union to convince them, but it appears that they finally get it.

    In Austria, the scramble for self defense firearms is on, as WND.com reports, Austrians are arming themselves at record rates in an effort to defend their households against feared attacks from Muslim invaders.

    Tens of thousands of Muslim “refugees” have poured into Austria from Hungary and Slovenia in recent months on their way to Germany and Sweden, two wealthy European countries that have laid out the welcome mat for migrants. More than a million will end up in Germany alone by the end of this year, according to estimates from the German government.

    Obtaining a working firearm and ammunition in Germany, Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands is practically impossible for the average citizen. Germany, for instance, requires a psychological evaluation, the purchase of liability insurance and verifiable compliance with strict firearms storage and safety rules. And self-defense is not even a valid reason to purchase a gun in these countries.

    The laws in Austria, while still strict, are a bit less overbearing.

    A Czech TV report confirms that long guns – shotguns and rifles – have been flying off the shelves in Austria, and Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time. They’re all sold out.

     

     

    And those arming themselves are primarily women.

     

    “If anyone wants to buy a long gun in Austria right now, too bad for them,” the Czech newscaster says. “All of them are currently sold out.”

     

    He cites the Austrian news outlet Trioler Tageszeitung as the source of his report.

     

    “We cannot complain about lack of demand,” Stephen Mayer, a gun merchant, told Trioler Tageszeitung.

     

    He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes.

     

    “People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.”

     

    They are also buying pepper sprays, which Mayer said are in big demand among those who can’t get a gun.

    So-called "projectile weapons" are available in Austria under two classifications, C and D, which are rifles and shotguns. Every adult Austrian is legally able to apply for a weapons permit but must disclose to the government their reason for wanting to own a gun.

     The Czech station cited an interview with a sociologist and an Austrian journalist, both of whom said the weapons purchases were based on unfounded fears about foreign migrants.

     

    The Viennese sociologist, identified only as Mr. Gertler, said no such fears about migrants should ever be published by any Austrian news outlet.

     

    A journalist named Wittinger said "something is very wrong here" if Austrians are buying guns to protect themselves against migrants.

     

    "Shotguns will not, after all, solve any immediate problems, quite the contrary," he said.

    The Czech TV station then reported that Islamists are promising: "We will cut the heads off unbelieving dogs even in Europe."

    "Look forward to it, it's coming soon!" the Czech newscaster said.

     

    ISIS-trained jihadists are now returning as European citizens or they are trying to infiltrate as migrants. In one propaganda video an ISIS operative informs his comrades back home in Germany to slit the throats of unbelievers in Germany, Czech TV reports.

     

    "Overall, the ministry of interior stated that Germany is in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists but that he does not have any indications of specific threats," he said.

     

    The Czech site reflects awareness of a major event in Western history, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.

     

    "Polish King John Sobieski defeated the Muslim invaders at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Another Muslim invasion is underway and Austrians are alarmed, hence their run on gun stores," Pratt told WND. "Women are right to be concerned in view of the Muslim view of women that they are good for raping and little else."

     

    The Czech TV report cited the Arab Spring as the root cause for the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe.

    And, as a reminder, the Arab Spring came into existence with the violent overthrow of the Libyan and Egyptian governments by whom again? Why Washington D.C. of course: the same "democratic" regime which after launching the Arab Spring, subsequently caused the overthrow of the duly elected president in Ukraine and has since been trying to repeat that "success" in Syria as well.

    So dear Europeans, if you are unsure who to thank for your historic refugee crisis, feel free to address your thank you letters to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

  • GOP Debate III: The Battle Of Boulder Begins – Live Feed

    It's that time again. From 'jolted' Jeb to 'cool' Carly and from 'calm' Carson to 'turmoiling' Trump, for some of the GOP presidential nominee candidates, tonight could be the last hoorah in a campaign that has seen apolitical entrants dominate the mainstream Washington muppets. Moderated by John "I never met a Republican I didn't like" Harwood, we are sure there will be some tension as the "general health of the economy" planned focus may morph into any and everything as the debate pushes beyond two hours. Please watch responsibly…

     

    As in the previous debate, the same four candidates who appeared in the last undercard debate: Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham, have fought it out starting at 6pmET… and it appears Lindsey Graham won…. "Barack Obama is an incompetent chief"

     

    *  *  *

    But as far as the main event, according to some polls, Carson is gaining (if not leading) on Trump…

    Source: Cagle Post

    As The Wall Street Journal lays out, here is a review of what each of the candidates needs to accomplish in the two hour prime time debate,

    Donald Trump

    Faced with signs he is slipping from the front of the GOP pack, Mr. Trump is likely to come out swinging.  Watch how he treats retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who has surpassed him in recent polls of Iowa Republicans. Having attacked Mr. Carson as “low energy” and wrong on immigration policy on the campaign trail, now Mr. Trump has to decide how bluntly to criticize him to his face. Mr. Trump has already accomplished one goal for the debate: He persuaded debate sponsor to CNBC to limit the event to two hours. He did not much like the three-hour marathon that was the last debate.

     

    Ben Carson

    Mr. Carson, who has jumped to first place in some Iowa polls and gained ground elsewhere, will be looking for a more prominent role in the debate to build on his momentum. His past performances have been solid but not attention-grabbing. His advisers have been coaching him on how to insert himself more into the debate without seeming too pushy. If Mr. Trump or other candidates choose to criticize him, he has to juggle the need to respond with his trademark calm demeanor — the characteristic that seems to be key to his attraction to voters.

     

    Marco Rubio

    Mr. Rubio may be tempted to stick with his road-tested debate strategy of focusing on policy and not going on the attack. His past debate performances won praise and helped propel him toward the front of the pack in many recent polls. He thrives when discussions turn to policy matters, but the debate’s focus on economic issues does not play to his greatest strength — foreign affairs. Some of his supporters have taken to sniping at Jeb Bush, but Mr. Rubio so far has turned down chances on the debate stage to criticize his one-time mentor. Will he remain so restrained now?

     

    Ted Cruz

    Mr. Cruz will need to find a way to break out from the shadow of Messrs. Trump and Carson, who have outpaced him in the hunt for voters who want an anti-establishment candidate. He has refrained from criticizing other candidates, even heaping praise on Mr. Trump for helping focus the 2016 campaign on Washington dysfunction. He has hinted that he may soon start trying to draw distinctions between himself and Mr. Trump on policy matters. Look for Mr. Cruz to appeal to evangelical voters, who seem to be gravitating to Mr. Carson.

     

    Jeb Bush

    Mr. Bush is under heavy pressure to give a game-changing performance to pull his campaign out of the ditch of sagging polls, lackluster fundraising and a big downsizing of his campaign staff. The debate’s focus on the economy could give him an opening to spotlight his record as governor of Florida, which his supporters see as a strong point that ratifies his conservative credentials. It gives him a chance to show that he, like other governors, is a doer not just a talker on job creation and economic growth. But his decade-old record may not be enough to help him convey that he is the candidate of the future not the past.

     

    Carly Fiorina

    Ms. Fiorina should be glad to get back onto the debate stage because it is the kind of forum where her star has sparkled in the last two go-rounds. She badly needs to get back some of that mojo because her profile has faded and her poll numbers have sagged since the last debate. The debate focus on job creation might be a touchy subject. She will surely have to have to defend her record leading Hewlett-Packard Co., where she oversaw the layoffs of 30,000 employees.

     

    Mike Huckabee

    Mr. Huckabee has not been a stand-out at the first two debates, and he is running out of time to break out of the back of the pack. He might make a bolder play for his core supporters — evangelical Christians — because he is facing stiff competition from Messrs. Carson and Cruz for their support.

     

    Rand Paul

    Mr. Paul should be glad to be on the main stage, because his low poll numbers threatened to relegate him to the undercard debate. With the focus on economics, he will try to promote his balanced budget and flat-tax plans, but it will be hard to get a broader boost from any debate, which is not his strongest forum.

     

    Chris Christie

    Mr. Christie also is mired in single digits in the polls and is looking for a way to get traction that has eluded him both on stage and on the trail. As the debate turns to fiscal matters, he can tout he has a comprehensive plan to rein in the growth of federal entitlement programs. But bragging about how ready he is to curb Medicare and Social Security may not be the best way to woo new supporters.

     

    John Kasich

    Mr. Kasich will be looking for a chance to revive a campaign that started late, got a quick boost, then faded. He will welcome the focus on jobs and the economy because he brags often about what he has done as Ohio governor to improve the state’s economy, eliminate its deficit, and cut taxes. He has tried to steer clear of mud slinging, but in the last debate that meant he did not have many moments to shine.

    But Trump remains the clear leader for now…

     

    Though it appesr Rand Paul is expected to have a strong showing this evening…

     

    *  *  *

    Live Feed (via CNBC)… CNBC has decided to pull a Fox and hide behind their corporate firewall (click image below to link to and validate your CNBC feed)

     

    *  *  *

    Two perspectives on how this ends…

    A Clear winner (or two)…

    Source: Cagle Post

    Or GOP self-destruction…

    Source: Cagle Post

    *  *  *

    For the kids playing at home, here's NewsWeek's Bingo…

     

    And finally, we leave it to none other than Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi to create the ultimate GOP Debate 3.0 Drinking Game

    DRINK EVERY TIME:

    1. Donald Trump brags about how much money he makes.

    2. Trump uses the words "disaster," "loser" or "head spin."

    3. Trump says he "loves" somebody or thinks he/she is a "wonderful person," before ripping him/her for being a loser or a disaster or whatever.

    4. Trump rips another candidate's poll numbers. Make it a double if he tweaks Jeb about cutting the pay of his staffers. Add a beer chaser if Trump doubles down and talks about how well, in contrast, he pays his people.

    5. Anyone references how Hillary "lied before the committee."

    6. A candidate proposes abolishing an utterly necessary branch of government, or a politically untouchable program like Medicare.

    7. Jeb Bush refers to himself as "Veto Corleone," or insists that "Washington is the pejorative term, not Redskins." Drink as much as you can stomach if he actually uses either line.

    8. Any candidate makes an awkward/craven pop-culture reference, including references to Peyton Manning or the Broncos.

    9. Any candidate illustrates the virtue of one of his/her positions by pointing out how not PC it is.

    10. Any candidate compares anything that isn't slavery to slavery. A double if it's Ben Carson.

    11. Any candidate evokes Nazis, the Gestapo, Neville Chamberlain, concentration camps, etc. Again, a double if it's Ben Carson, who has been amping up the slavery/Holocaust imagery lately.

    12. Carson cites the Bible as authority for complex policy questions.

    13. Any candidate righteously claims he/she would never have compromised on the debt ceiling thing. You may drink more if you feel sure enough that the person is lying.

    14. Carly Fiorina whips out a number that is debunked by Politifact or some other reputable fact-checking service before the end of the night. (Example: the 307,000 veterans who supposedly died last year because of Barack Obama's inept management of the VA.) Actually, drink if any candidate does this.

    15. A low-polling candidate makes a wild and outrageous statement in a transparent attempt to revive his or her campaign. Huckabee calling for summary bludgeonings of immigrants would be an example.

    16. A candidate complains about not getting enough time. This evergreen drinking game concept is henceforth known as the "Jim Webb rule."

    17. The audience bursts into uncomfortable applause at a racist/sexist statement.

    DRINK THE FIRST TIME AND THE FIRST TIME ONLY:

    18. A candidate evokes St. Reagan.

    DRINK EVERY TIME YOU HEAR:

    19. "Selling baby parts"

    20. "White Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter"

    21. "Ferguson Effect"

    22. "I'm the only candidate on this stage who…"

    23. George Bush/My brother "kept us safe"

    24. "Shining city on a hill"

    TAKE A SHOT OF JAGER IF:

    25. Anyone references a biblical justification for gun ownership, or insists an infamous historical tragedy would have been prevented if more people had been armed.

    The following rules are optional, for the truly hardcore.

    BONUS SHOTS IF:

    • Ted Cruz mentions his wife's baking skills without mentioning she worked for Goldman Sachs.
    • Rand Paul mentions the Constitution, the Framers or the founders before he mentions his children.
    • Someone makes a quiet car joke at Christie's expense.
    • Fiorina mentions being a secretary or having a husband who drove a tow truck.

    Watch responsibly.

  • Meanwhile, In An Average German City

    We can only hope that these two German ladies racist discussions do not reflect a growing undercurrent of xenophobia across such a currently open, and multi-cultural society. However, with immigrants "mysteriously disappearing," it may be too late:

    “None of us want this. We’re all scared.”“What is this? How will this be in 100 years?”
    “This is not my life. It just shows you how many of them are here already.”
    “Now there’s another 1.5 million who came this year.”
    “Every year 2-3 million arrive.”
    “It’s generally about foreign infiltration.”
    “Yes, exactly.”
    “We won’t dress like we do now.”
    “Here, no! They won’t take anything from me!”
    “Look, when I walk through the streets of the city, it’s only foreigners!”
    “There are walking 50 foreigners and I only see one European face.”
    “Look at the women! They’re all veiled!”
    “This is our future.”

     

     

    As we detailed earlier, anger is spilling over to the common people too: "In Freiberg in Saxony on Sunday evening demonstrators tried to stop asylum seekers reaching a refugee centre. The protesters tried to stop a bus with refugees from driving further down the road by staging a sit-in.

    Some people threw apples at the bus, while others set off bangers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported.

     

    Around 50 counter-demonstrators also turned up to the anti-refugee sit-in and there were tense verbal stand-offs between the two groups, although police confirmed the situation did not escalate into violence."

    Meanwhile in Mecklenberg-Western Pomerania, two local politicans have been threatened by people with presumed far right motives, reports the Hamburg Abendblatt.

    Patrick Dahlemann of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) had his car attacked with butyric acid. The foul smelling chemical was poured onto his vehicle.

    On his Facebook page Dahlemann said that he would not be intimidated in his efforts to foster a “a real culture of hospitality” in the poor north-eastern state.

    And with xenophobia slowly on the rise, the far-right elements are stirring: "Meanwhile in Mecklenberg-Western Pomerania, two local politicans have been threatened by people with presumed far right motives, reports the Hamburg Abendblatt."

    Patrick Dahlemann of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) had his car attacked with butyric acid. The foul smelling chemical was poured onto his vehicle.

     

    On his Facebook page Dahlemann said that he would not be intimidated in his efforts to foster a “a real culture of hospitality” in the poor north-eastern state.

     

    Party colleague Susann Wippermann also suffered threats when an unknown person wrote “traitor to the nation” on her car windscreen.

    This follows a warning last week from the Federal Office of Investigation (BKA) which warned that politicians who support refugees face increased danger of attack from far right groups. Earlier in October Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker was stabbed while campaigning for election by an assailant with self-declared anti-refugee motives.

    h/t Kirk

  • EuRoPeaN STaYCaTioN…

    THE HILLS ARE ALIVE

  • S&P Set For Biggest Ever Monthly Point Gain As Central Banks Go All In

    In the beginning of the month, when we showed that the NYSE short interest has risen to the highest level since July 2008, we said that this indicator either means that the market is poised for a crash as it did last time, or – more likely – would result in the biggest short squeeze in history.

    We said that “either a central bank intervenes, or a massive forced buy-in event occurs, and unleashes the mother of all short squeezes, sending the S&P500 to new all time highs.”

    Since then two things have happened: one after another central bank did intervene, leading to the biggest VIX monthly drop in history…

     

    … and yes, as Bank of America said, “It’s Not A Risk-On Rally, This Is The Biggest Short Squeeze In Years.”

    So, where does that leave us?

    While we still haven’t taken out the all time highs said squeeze would lead to – there are about 30 points to go there; but as the following chart below shows, with just two trading days left, October is on pace for the biggest monthly point jump in S&P500 history.

    … which courtesy of the earnings recession in the past two quarters, has pushed the market right beyond the point where back in May Janet Yellen said “valuations are quite high.”

  • Goldman Says The US Manufacturing Decline Is "Contained"

    A few weeks ago, William Blair analyst Ryan Merkel asked a question on Fastenal’s Q3 call that newly-minted CEO Dan Florness did not appreciate. Here’s the exchange:

    Merkel: Then just lastly, Fastenal growing zero percent here in September and in a non-recessionary environment, it’s pretty surprising, I think, for a lot of us. 

     

    Florness: The industrial environment is in a recession – I don’t care what anybody says, because nobody knows that market better than we do. You know, we touch 250,000 active customers a month.  

    Roger that, Mr. Florness. 

    Of course it’s not just the fact that 32 of Fastenal’s top 100 customers are seeing top line declines of more than 10% that leads us and others to suggest that the US may already be in a recession. Indeed, it’s not even the fact that 17 of those 32 are grappling with declines of 25% or more. Rather, the evidence is everywhere. Take bellwether Caterpillar for instance, which is in the midst of a truly historic sales slump that’s now entering its 35th month. 

    And so, while the likes of Dan Florness remain extremely concerned about the current industrial environment, one person who isn’t concerned about potential spillover effects into the “rest” of the US economy is Goldman’s David Mericle, whose last name is not to be confused with “miracle”, although as you can see from the excerpts below, that’s precisely what Dave seems to be banking on.

    First, the bad news:

    We continue to see the underlying pace of economy-wide growth as moderately above-trend. But manufacturing surveys and recent earnings reports suggest that the manufacturing sector might be following the energy sector into contraction. The large gap between the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors that opened at the beginning of this year has widened in recent months, raising concerns that the more foreign-exposed manufacturing sector could become a channel through which weaker global growth affects the US economy. 

     

     

    The sharp contraction in the energy sector has contributed to the slowdown in industrial production (IP). The left panel of Exhibit 2 shows that the deceleration of IP is less severe when energy-related categories are excluded, and we have also found evidence that an additional 0.4pp of the slowdown is due to spillovers to other industries from drilling. Nevertheless, accounting for these contributions still leaves a substantial slowdown.

     

    The good news, however, is that “this time is always, always different” – apparently:

    US states vary in the manufacturing intensity of their economies, though the variation in the mining share (which includes energy) is much larger. We find that the loss of 1 manufacturing job has been associated historically with the loss of 1.5-2 jobs outside of the mining and manufacturing sectors.

     

    But how large have spillovers from the recent slowdown been? To find out, we compare state-level employment growth outside of the manufacturing and mining sectors over the last year to three other state-level measures: (1) the manufacturing share of total payroll employment, (2) manufacturing earnings as a share of total earnings from the personal income report, and (3) exports originating in the state as a share of GDP. We do not find evidence of negative spillovers using any of these three variables, and the same holds for the manufacturing share of state GDP and growth rate of manufacturing employment over the last year.

    Goldman’s conclusion: “…while the slowdown in manufacturing is genuine and history suggests it will likely lead to some negative spillovers, the recent data do not show evidence of such spillovers yet.”

    Fair enough, but we would once again note that things seem to be deteriorating rapidly and it very well could be that the knock-on effects simply haven’t materialized yet. For instance, consider the following and draw your own conclusions as to where the manufacturing sector is headed (from late last month):

    With 14,600 manufacturing jobs lost in August, this was the worst month for the US manufacturing sector since January 2010.

    Where this data becomes more disturbing, and where it can be seen in full context, is when clustering the monthlies into full year buckets. It is here that the full impact of what is now clearly at least a manufacturing, if not yet service, recession can be witnessed.

    As the chart below shows, according to ADP, for the first time this decade, the US hasn’t created a single manufacturing job for the entire year. In fact, it has lost some 6,600 jobs.

    In other words, maybe – just maybe- Goldman is simply looking for “spillovers” prematurely. That is, if Fastenal’s Dan Florness is correct, we’ve entered a definitive recession for the industrial environment and as the charts shown above clearly demonstrate, things took a decisive turn for the worst in September.

    So we’ll take a wait and see approach here, as we wait to hear from ADP again on November 4 and as we look towards the October NFP print but we’re willing to bet that Goldman may be revising their upbeat assessment in the months ahead. Then again, who cares? It’s all about waiters and bartenders these days…

  • The 6 Reasons China and Russia Are Catching Up to the U.S. Military

    Why the Gap In Military Superiority Is Closing

    China and Russia are still behind the U.S. militarily.  But they are both showing surprising breakthroughs that – sometime down the road in the future – could threaten U.S. hegemony.

    The Washington Times reported last month:

    Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on Wednesday warned Russia and China are quickly closing the military technology gap with the U.S. as inconsistent military budgets and slower innovation threaten America’s lead in the military world.

     

    ***

     

    “It’s evident that nations like Russia and China have been pursuing military modernization programs to close the technology gap with the United States,” he continued. “They’re developing platforms designed to thwart our traditional advantages of power projection and freedom of movement. They’re developing and fielding new and advanced aircraft and ballistic, cruise, anti-ship and anti-air missiles that are longer-range and more accurate.”

    The SecDef issued this warning before Russia stunned the U.S. with its long-range missile and electronic communications-jamming capacities.

    How could this be happening, when U.S. military spending dwarfs that from the rest of the world?

    There are six reasons …

    1. Corruption and Pork.   America spends a large percentage of it’s defense spending on unnecessary military programs that:

    • The generals say aren’t helpful and don’t even want
    • Redundant personnel, programs and systems which don’t increase our war-fighting capacity
    • Equipment which is built and then immediately mothballed before it is ever used

    Indeed – as many lottery winners and star athletes will tell you – it’s easy to piss away even huge sums of money over a couple of years’ time without discipline.

    And plain old corruption is wasting huge sums and dramatically weakening our national security.

    How much are we talking about?

    Well, here's some indication: $8.5 trillion dollars in taxpayer money doled out by Congress to the Pentagon since 1996 … has never been accounted for.

    2. Fighting the Wrong Wars. A closely-related issue is that the war-fighting assets are being squandered, spread thin and distracted by fighting wars which decrease our national security.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the most expensive in U.S. history, costing between between $4 trillion and $6 trillion dollars.

    And we spent additional boatloads of money carrying out regime change in Libya, Syria and elsewhere.

    But these wars have only caused ISIS and the Taliban to flourish.

    Indeed, the majority of our defense spending is – literally – making us less secure because we’re spending money to fight the wrong wars:

    • We’re overthrowing the moderates who help insure stability
    • We’re arming and supporting brutal dictators … which is one of the main reasons that terrorists want to attack the U.S.
    • We’ve fought a series of wars for petrochemicals, instead of security
    • We expend huge sums of money on mass surveillance … but top security experts agree that mass surveillance makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorists (we’re targeting the wrong guys)

    3. Never-Ending War Destroys the Economy. We’re in the longest continuous period of war in U.S. history.  The Afghanistan War has  been going on for 14 years … as long as the Civil War (4 years,), WW1 (4 years) and WW2 (6 years) COMBINED.

    Wars which drag on are horrible for our economy.  A weak economy – in turn – makes it more difficult to sustain a leadership role in defense in the long-run.

    And Americans are sick and tired of war.  If our national security was actually threatened, it might be hard for the government to rouse our commitment and motivation.

    4. More Bang for the Buck. China has the world’s largest economy when measured by “purchasing power parity” … meaning how much Chinese can buy in their their local currency in their local economy. And see this.

    Therefore, China can buy locally-produced military parts and services more cheaply than the U.S. can.

    As Bloomberg noted last year:

    The lowest-paid U.S. soldiers earn about $18,000 a year. In comparison, in 2009, an equivalent Chinese soldier was paid about a ninth as much. In other words, in 2009, you could hire about nine Chinese soldiers for the cost of one U.S. soldier.

     

    Even that figure doesn’t account for health care and veterans’ benefits. These are much higher in the U.S. than in China, though precise figures are hard to obtain. This is due to higher U.S. prices for health care, to higher prices in general, and because the U.S. is more generous than China in terms of what it pays its soldiers. Salaries and benefits, combined, account for a significant percentage of military expenditure.

     

    But labor costs aren’t the only thing that is cheaper in China. Notice that China’s gross domestic product at market exchange rates is only two-thirds of its GDP at purchasing power parity. This means that, as a developing country, China simply pays lower prices for a lot of things. Some military inputs — oil, for example, or copper — will be bought on world markets, and PPP won’t matter. For others, like complicated machinery, costs are pretty similar. But other things — food or domestically manufactured products — will be much cheaper for the U.S.’s developing rivals than for the U.S.

     

    Those who follow global security issues have known about this issue for a long time. But somehow, this fact hasn’t penetrated the consciousness of pundits or made its way into pretty, tweet-able graphs.

    5. Theft. The U.S. Naval Institute, Fiscal Times and others document that the Chinese have greatly accelerated their weapons development timeline by spying on the West and shamelessly copying our military inventions and designs.

    If the NSA and other spying agencies had used their resources to stop foreign governments from stealing our crown jewels – instead of using them to gain petty advantages for a handful of knuckleheads – we'd be a lot better off today.

    6. Geography.  Russia is almost twice the size of the U.S.  Russia and China together are so massive – forming such a giant swath of land-based territory, so much closer to the Middle East than America is – that it gives their militaries an advantage.

    Bloomberg points out:

    The U.S., situated in the peaceful, relatively unpopulated Western Hemisphere, is very far away from the location of any foreseeable conflict. China isn’t going to invade Colorado (sorry, “Red Dawn” fans!), but it might invade Taiwan or India. Simply getting our forces to the other side of the world would require enormous up-front expenditures.

    The National Interest notes:

    “Defeating China in these scenarios [Taiwan and South China Sea] could nonetheless be difficult and costly for the United States’ primarily as a result of the geographic advantages that China enjoys, as well as specific systems capabilities.”

     

    ***

     

    A recent RAND report, “The US China Military Scorecard,” … argues that China is catching up to the U.S., is becoming more assertive and confident, and has geography on its side.

    And Russia’s proximity to Ukraine, the Baltics and other neighboring countries gives it a huge advantage.

    Postscript: Sadly, because we’ve squandered our resources, war games show that the U.S. is no longer invincible.

  • Guest Post: Inequality Undermines Democracy

    Authored by Sean McElwee, originallyu posted at AlJazeera.com,

    In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist Lane Kenworthy, often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.

    In a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger and Julian Bernauer concluded, “In economically more unequal societies, the party system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies.” Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi found in a working paper that in Europe, “Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle class or poor.” They find that when the people get what they want, it’s typically because their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their concerns.

    In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental structures influence happiness across income groups and found that today “politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite.” However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports.

    In a recent working paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician’s bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying 23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state — the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living.

    <img src=”/content/ajam/opinions/2015/10/the-more-unequal-the-country-the-more-the-rich-rule/_jcr_content/mainpar/adaptiveimage/src.adapt.480.low.AJAMInternationalEquality1a.jpg” alt=”Preferences” class=””>Preferences

     

    The same tendencies occur at the state level. Patrick Flavin, a political scientist at Baylor University, examined political responsiveness in the U.S. at the state level. He found that inequality in a state strongly correlates with political representation: More unequal states tend to be less representative.

    “The effect of income inequality is stronger than just about any other state contextual factor that I’ve looked at,” Flavin told me in a recent interview. “For example, it has a stronger predictive effect on the equality of political representation than the partisan composition of the state legislature/governor’s mansion, the median income of a state, or a state’s population.” Similarly, Elizabeth Rigby and Gerald Wright found that in more unequal states, Democrats tend to be less responsive to the poor.

    Some political scientists have found more mixed results internationally. Political scientists James Adams and Lawrence Ezrow found that European democracies are more responsive to “opinion leaders,” or highly politically engaged citizens, than to class differences. “No evidence that European parties respond disproportionately to affluent or highly educated citizens, independently of their responsiveness to opinion leaders,” Adams and Ezrow wrote in 2009. That is, to the extent that the government is more responsive to the affluent, it is because of influential opinion makers among them. However, in a recent Monkey Cage post, Ezrow notes, “levels of economic inequality condition levels of political inequality.”

    What’s the solution to rising inequality of responsiveness? More democracy, for one. In a study published last November, political scientists Yvette Peters and Sander J. Ensink examined political representation and responsiveness in 25 European countries. Using the European Social Survey from 2002 to 2010, they analyzed support for income redistribution policies across various categories.

    “Governments tend to follow the preferences of the rich more than those of the poor,” Peters and Ensink write. “Higher levels of participation in elections seem to lead to reduced differential responsiveness, even though the effect of the poor and the rich on spending is not fully equalized.”

    As I’ve argued previously, there is good reason to believe that increasing voter turnout among the poor and middle class will shift policy in their favor. For example, in a 2013 study, Loyola University’s Vincent Mahler found that voter turnout and class gaps both affect income redistribution.

    Voter turnout, of course, will not entirely solve the problem of differential representation, but it can begin to alleviate it. When turnout is in the low 40s, as it is for many U.S. elections, politicians have no reason to fear losing their seat by only representing the donor class. By contrast, with mass participation, ignoring the desires of the public could cost a representative his seat. Using American National Election Studies data, Syracuse University political scientist Spencer Piston ran a unique analysis for Al Jazeera America. His data show that in terms of median income, the median non-voter is far poorer than the median voter — $32,500 per year compared with $57,500.

    “Preferences of those with money are more likely to influence policy than the preferences of those without money, in no small part because the wealthy engage more in the political process,” Piston told me. “They vote more often, they donate more money, and they are in closer contact with public officials.” These data also understate the wealth of the donor class, since they include all donors. But the megadonors are increasing influential: the richest .01 percent of donors (25,000 people) were responsible for 42 percent of donations in 2012.

    <img src=”/content/ajam/opinions/2015/10/the-more-unequal-the-country-the-more-the-rich-rule/_jcr_content/mainpar/adaptiveimage_1/src.adapt.480.low.AJAMInternationalEquality2a.jpg” alt=”MedianIncome” class=””>MedianIncome

     

    So while voting will partially alleviate political inequality, we also need campaign-finance reforms such as public financing and more robust disclosure rules. Lobbying reforms and limits on campaign contributions have a proven track record at the state level.

    On the whole, there is a strong evidence to suspect that representative democracy is not compatible with deep economic inequality. The American Founding Fathers, classic progressives such as Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and commentators such as economist Thomas Piketty are right to worry about how inequality undermines democracy. As FDR warned, “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”

     

     

  • Need To Smuggle $10 Million Out Of China? Just Call "Mr Chen"

    Back in September, in the wake of the PBoC’s attempt to transition to a new FX regime, we recapped the method by which Chinese citizens skirt Beijing’s capital controls. 

    As a reminder, Chinese are only permitted to send $50,000 out of the country in any given year, but thanks to the notorious UnionPay conduit, getting around that limit is (or at least “was”) as easy as “buying” a luxury watch in Macau.

    The process is remarkably simple. You pretend to buy something with a credit card, receive cash from the merchant instead of merchandise, sign the receipt, and presto, you’ve successfully executed the capital control end-around.

    Here’s a real world example from Reuters:

    On a recent day at the Choi Seng Jewellery and Watches company, a middle-aged woman strode to the counter past dusty shelves of watches. She handed the clerk her UnionPay card and received HK$300,000 ($50,000) in cash. She signed a credit card receipt describing the transaction as a “general sale”, stuffed the cash into her handbag and strolled over to the Ponte 16 casino next door.

    Now that China has become particularly sensitive to capital outflows, Beijing is attempting to rein in the shenanigans. Xi’s anti-corruption campaign has helped. As we noted last month, the UnionPay end-around was greatly limited when Xi enacted substantial reforms which limited much of this grotesquely open flaunting of Chinese capital account rules. Indirectly, this has led to the recent collapse in Macau GDP – whose businesses no longer booked billions in fake “transactions” – as shown in the chart below:

    The problem for China is that there are quite a few reasons to believe that the PBoC is targeting a much larger devaluation before it’s all said and done. This keeps the pressure on as the local population, worried about losing purchasing power in the coming months and years, continues to move money out of the country. As the capital flight accelerates, the PBoC is forced into still more FX interventions to prop up the yuan and that means more FX reserve liquidation. Of course those interventions must be offset with RRR cuts in order to preserve liquidity. But the market interprets rate cuts as more easing (even if, when considered with hundreds of billions in FX reserve drawdowns, the net effect doesn’t amount to much) which only serves to put still more pressure on the yuan, prompting the entire cycle to repeat itself. Throw in a crashing stock market and it’s pretty clear that the outflows aren’t set to abate, or, as we put it previously, “it’s all about expectations and since China needs to boost exports and stimulate its economy – which is the fundamental reason why it proceeded with devaluation in the first place – any stop gap measures to halt the devaluation are doomed to fail.” 

    Now, WSJ is out with a fresh look at China’s underground bank industry, where shadowy go-betweens can connect you with Snickers bar salesmen with names like “Mr. Chen” who can help you smuggle millions out of the country via a network of fraudulent accounts. Here’s more:

    In a warren of tiny shops beneath grimy residential towers, a white-haired man selling Snickers bars and fizzy drinks from a kiosk no larger than a cashier’s booth is figuring out a way to move $100,000 out of China.

    Back to WSJ after that brief interlude:

    That is twice what Chinese are allowed to send out of the country in a year. Licensed banks won’t do it. But middlemen like Mr. Chen, perched in his mini-mart at the front lines of a vast underground currency-exchange and offshore-remittance network, can and often will.


    “There’s never a certainty that these things can be done,” said Mr. Chen, who declined to give his full name. “But, usually, when things get stricter, the fee will just be a bit higher.”

    “Higher fees,” because the bigger the risk the “Mr. Chens” of the world are taking, the larger their cut and as we’ve said on far too many occasions to count, one place the money invariably ends up is in US real estate: 

    Often hidden behind the façades of convenience stores and tea shops, they cater to a clientele ranging from corrupt officials hiding gains to middle-class Chinese trying to buy overseas property. All believe their money is safer abroad or can bring a higher return, a sentiment that has deepened since this summer’s stock-market plunge.

     


    New York real-estate agent Jiang Jinjin estimated that families of nearly 2,000 Chinese students at Columbia University are looking to buy residential properties. “I didn’t sleep much this summer. Too many kids looking for apartments,” she said.

    So “Mr. Chen” and his Snickers bars and tea are ultimately responsible for the housing arrangements of Chinese students in New York, whose parents are probably more than happy to pay a premium which helps to explain the soaring cost of living in the city. Thanks “Mr. Chen.” Back to WSJ: 

    Much of the activity has moved to cities near the border with Hong Kong and Macau, former foreign colonies with more-open financial systems. Once mainland money gets to Hong Kong, for instance, it can go pretty much anywhere in the world.


    Sometimes, large sums are divided into legally allowed amounts and then channeled out of the mainland via hundreds of bank accounts controlled by the underground banker. Underground banks also can match yuan deposited with them on the mainland with equivalent amounts in foreign currency paid into a client’s bank account elsewhere.

    Of course these are underground operations after all, which means you shouldn’t expect things to always go as planned, something a Mr. Chan found out when he tried to smuggle CNY63 million out of the country via one of the many “Mr. Chens”:

    In 2012 when Chan Tat, an elderly Hong Kong businessman, sought to move 63 million yuan from his mainland business to Hong Kong for his retirement.

     

    Mr. Chan tapped a friend at a commercial bank, who turned to a Shenzhen underground bank. It split the money into three batches. Each was divided into dozens of smaller chunks, then routed to separate bank accounts controlled by the underground bank, before being wired to Hong Kong. Once in Hong Kong, the money was regrouped in an account controlled by Mr. Chan.

     

    All except for eight million yuan he found missing. Mr. Chan, who couldn’t be reached for comment, tipped off Chinese authorities, according to the police account. 

    Chinese autorities subsequently arrested 31 people, and just to give you an idea of how truly ubiquitious this practice is, the bust netted 1,087 accounts holding some CNY12 billion.

    The 31 suspects were never heard from again. Literally.

    The go-to method among “runners” like “Mr. Chen” – or like “a young man in yellow loafers named Zhuang” whom WSJ also profiles – is “matchmaking” and despite how it sounds, that doesn’t entail connecting you with a Chinese bride: 

    With direct remittances under scrutiny, runners say a preferred method is matchmaking: Give the underground bank a sum, and a matching sum appears in Hong Kong, minus a cut of anywhere between 0.3% and 3%. No money physically or electronically crosses the border; the match is built on networks on both sides controlled by the underground bank.

    Yes, the “sum appears in Hong Kong,” and after that, it’s gone, which helps to explain why China will need to continue to interevene in the offshore market, as the spread between the onshore and offshore yuan (which disappeared amid a flurry of intervention in September) is now blowing out again: 

    Finally, for any concerned Chinese intent on circumventing capital controls on the way to protecting your purchasing power, we would note that there are other ways to move money out of the country without transacting with “Mr. Chen” and his yellow loafers at a “tea shop,” and on that note, we leave you with the following chart…

  • This Is The $64 Trillion Question From Today's Fed Statement

    While on the surface, there was something in it for both hawks and doves, with the Fed admitting, and adding, that “the pace of job gains slowed” boosting the domestic economic dovish camp (the language about business fixed investment increasing “at solid rates in recent months” will be promptly removed as the recent re-plunge in oil flows through the energy sector’s cash flow statement), it was the hawkishness about the global environment that appears to have been the primary catalyst for today’s rally as it gave the market the impression that the global economic jitters from the past three months are now well in the rear view mirror.

    Specifically, it was the complete removal of the line that “recent global economic and financial developments may restrain economic activity somewhat and are likely to put further downward pressure on inflation in the near term” and the addition that the fed is “monitoring global economic and financial developments” which were the kicker.

    This is how Bank of America’s Michael Hanson explained this change:

    The October statement removed the notice that “recent global and financial developments” had posed some risks to economic activity and inflation “in the near term.” During the September press conference and in subsequent speeches, Fed officials stressed that they wanted to be prudent in the face of these risks, but had not fundamentally altered their outlook. The FOMC was concerned that downside risks could intensify into a significant global shock, which warranted their caution. But that did not happen, and other central banks have since stepped in to ease and support their domestic economies. Equivalently, the FOMC has indicated that September was an event that got their attention, rather than a shift toward systemic concern about global growth.

    In other words, now that first the PBOC cut rates, the Riksbank boosted its QE, and the ECB (and possibly the BOJ) are about to ease as well, the Fed no longer had the leisurely option of being prevented from not raising rates due to its recently expanded mandate of being global financial regulator, and instead was forced to admit that it is the other central banks’ jobs to police their own financial conditions.

    BofA’s take on this is as follows:

    Today’s statement suggests the FOMC would need to see more bad news globally to not hike — in contrast with the market belief going into today’s meeting that the global outlook would have to improve in order for the Fed to hike.

    This is not entirely correct: a far more accurate way of saying the above is that having suffered the September swoon, Fed is now betting that the recently expanded easing by other central banks should be sufficient to offset the tightened monetary conditions that would accompany a Fed rate hike.

    This also changes the Fed’s baseline assumption that the rest of the world is somehow fixed when it was the soaring dollar strength that unleashed the Chinese devaluation and the Emerging Market debt crisis in the past few months. Today’s surge in the dollar only reminds us f the Fed’s reflexive trap: as long as the Fed postures that a rate hike may come, the dollar will keep rising. And that alone puts us right back on square one.

    The rest of the Fed statement was very much in line, and had to do with domestic economic conditions. On these issues, Bank of America’s assessment was more accurate:

    First, the gradual slowdown in the job market:

    Jobs: soft, but no reversal

     

    … the Fed acknowledged that job growth “slowed” and the unemployment “held steady” since December. But they still stressed the cumulative improvement in labor market conditions, suggesting that may be enough — or nearly enough — to allow them to hike in December. Obviously the markets will be watching the October employment report extremely closely. A number of Fed officials have recently suggested that 100,000 may be the forward-looking equilibrium pace of employment growth. Thus, a jobs report similar to the August and September140,000-range would still be a net improvement in the eyes of many Fed officials. Any further decline in the unemployment rate — as well as the U6 under-employment rate — would give further reason to think about starting to move away from zero in a gradual manner come December.

    Then, the overall economy, where the Fed is also tempering its ambitions:

    Moderate outlook may be enough

     

    The FOMC also maintained that activity is expanding “moderately,” despite the widespread anticipation of a weak 3Q GDP print. In fact, they strengthened the assessment of domestic demand, noting that consumer spending and business investment “have been increasing at solid rates in recent months,” while housing “has improved further.” That suggests the Committee is likely to look past a  soft 3Q GDP growth report; we are tracking 1.5% for GDP but 3.5% for domestic demand in 3Q.

    As noted earlier, the business spending, especially in light of the latest dismal durable goods report, will be struck down, but that will only reinforce the Fed’s gradual admission that the economy is officially fading.

    As for the market’s reaction, first there was the bond market, where the biggest variable was the jump in implied rate hike odds. Remember: the Fed will not hike unless the Fed Fund futures at least modestly expects it, so today’s jump to ~50% December odds, may be all it takes:

    Rates: repricing the liftoff date

     

    US rates increased up to 9 basis points led by the 5y sector, which is most sensitive to the path of near- to medium-term Fed expectations…. We believe the market will continue to focus on the possibility that December will be a live meeting and that a tightening cycle could materialize in coming months, steepening out the implied path of the hiking cycle currently priced in for 2016 and 2017. Indeed, the market-implied probability of a December rate hike shifted higher by around 10 to 15 percent following the statement and may now be in the range where the Fed would be comfortable moving without fear of surprising the market. Should the Fed increase rates in December, we believe they will be cognizant of strained year-end liquidity conditions, but this alone will not be sufficient to dissuade them if they believe a move is warranted.

    This brings up a whole different issue, namely whether the Fed will be able to raise the short-end via reverse repos, but that’s a whole new topic for a different day, as only afterwards will the Fed realize that it is not nearly equipped to push up the trillions parked on the short-end.

    We will be closely watching any communications from the Fed regarding how it will deploy its interest rate management tools and expect the size of overnight and term reverse repo offerings to be increased at the time of the first rate move.

    Last, and even more important than the “global” issue – because they are reflexively related – is the question how the Fed will handle the soaring dollar.

    The USD rallied broadly following the FOMC statement. Against market expectations, the Fed maintained its outlook for “moderate” growth, focusing on the economy’s cumulative improvement since early this year, and removed the risks posed by overseas developments. This suggests a much lower bar for hiking than FX markets had anticipated amidst recently slowing data momentum. Clearly the Fed is data dependent, but with the Fed explicitly signalling December is a “live” meeting the USD will be supported not only as the probability of a hike rises, but also if the market prices a faster pace of hikes thereafter. Combined with the ECB’s strong signal for an expansion and/or extension of QE (and potential depo rate cut) in December last week, rate differentials will once again play be an important FX driver into year-end. With our analysis suggesting much of the USD rally since 2014 driven by overseas developments (not the Fed), a significant shift in Fed expectations has room to propel the USD higher, particularly with positioning at its lowest level since the USD rally began. While Fed hikes could take some pressure off of G10 central banks from easing, it also suggest higher beta currencies could struggle if risk sentiment takes a hit or commodity demand comes down amidst USD strength. 

    The $64 trillion dollar question: “The key question is if the US economy is strong enough to handle a stronger USD.

    We’ll find out very soon. If the answer is no, this may be the first Fed to succeed in pushing the economy into a recession without ever having raised rates at all, by simply talking the dollar higher, and higher, and higher, just to give the impression that the economy is recovering (when it clearly is not) in the biggest game of monetary chicken in history at a time when every other central bank is rushing to devalue its currency, simply to afford itself a buffer as small as 25 bps which it can then “ease” when the official recession finally arrives.

  • Why The Friedman/Bernanke Thesis About The Great Depression Was Dead Wrong

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    In explaining to the FT’s Martin Wolf why he bailed out the Wall Street gamblers at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley while crushing millions of ordinary American savers and retirees, Bernanke typically repaired to his go to argument. It had nothing to do with the mild excesses of inventories and labor that had built up in the main street economy owing to the Greenspan housing and credit boom, as explained in Part 1.

    That’s because Bernanke was not aiming to ameliorate the mild economic liquidation that ensued after the Lehman event; and which, as previously demonstrated, would have runs its course and self-corrected without any help from the Fed in any event.

    No, Ben S. Bernanke will be someday remembered as the world’s most destructive battleship admiral. Not only was he fighting the last war, but his whole multi-trillion money printing campaign after September 15, 2008 was aimed at avoiding an historical Fed mistake that had never even happened!

    As Bernanke explained it:

    I should have done more (to mitigate anti-Fed sentiments). But I was very much engaged in trying to put out the fire. So I don’t know what to say. It was kind of predictable. The Federal Reserved failed in the 1930s. I think we did much better than in the 1930s.

    The claim that the Fed resorted to “extraordinary policies” of ZIRP and QE because it was fighting a recurrence of Great Depression 2.0 is completely, profoundly, unequivocally and destructively wrong.

    It is the giant fig leaf that obscures what really happened during and after the crisis. Namely, that the main street economy recovered on its own, and that the flood of money generated by Bernanke never left the canyons of Wall Street, thereby causing the destruction of honest price discovery in the financial markets once and for all.

    So doing, the Fed and other central banks have turned financial markets into dangerous, unstable casinos. In the name of precluding the contra-factual——that is, Great Depression 2.0—-they have generated the mother of all financial bubbles.

    There is no other possible outcome than another thundering crash after upwards of 90 months of free money subsidy to the carry trade gamblers and upwards of $19 trillion of rank monetization of the public debt and other existing assets by the Fed and its central bank fellow travelers.

    At the end of the day, however, the monetary mayhem that was unloosed in September 2008 is the responsibility of two professors of economics who got the causes of the 1930-1933 collapse of the US economy completely wrong. In the excerpts below from the Great Deformation, I refute the two great myths that still pop out of journalists’ keyboards whenever the events of September 2008 are touched upon.

    To wit, first, the Fed did not cause the banking crisis of 1930-1933 by failing to undertake a massive bond-buying campaign; and secondly, the banking system was rotten to the core with bad loans and insolvency after the artificial boom of World War I and the follow-on bubbles of the Roaring Twenties. It could not have been fixed with a 1930s version of QE or any other massive intrusion of the central bank.

    WHEN PROFESSOR FRIEDMAN OPENED PANDORA’S BOX: OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS

     

    At the end of the day, Friedman jettisoned the gold standard for a remarkably statist reason. Just as Keynes had been, he was afflicted with the economist’s ambition to prescribe the route to higher national income and prosperity and the intervention tools and recipes that would deliver it. The only difference was that Keynes was originally and primarily a fiscalist, whereas Friedman had seized upon open market operations by the central bank as the route to optimum aggregate demand and national income.

     

    There were massive and multiple ironies in that stance. It put the central bank in the proactive and morally sanctioned business of buying the government’s debt in the conduct of its open market operations. Friedman said, of course, that the FOMC should buy bonds and bills at a rate no greater than 3 percent per annum, but that limit was a thin reed.

     

    Indeed, it cannot be gainsaid that it was Professor Friedman, the scourge of Big Government, who showed the way for Republican central bankers (e.g. Greenspan and Bernanke) to foster that very thing. Under their auspices, the Fed was soon gorging on the Treasury’s debt emissions, thereby alleviating the inconven- ience of funding more government with more taxes.

     

    Friedman also said democracy would thrive better under a regime of free markets, and he was entirely correct. Yet his preferred tool of prosperity promotion, Fed management of the money supply, was far more antidemocratic than Keynes’ methods. Fiscal policy action was at last subject to the deliberations of the legislature and, in come vague sense, electoral review by the citizenry.

     

    By contrast, the twelve-member FOMC is about as close to an unelected politburo as is obtainable under American governance. When in the fullness of time, the FOMC lined up squarely on the side of debtors, real estate owners, and leveraged speculators——-and against savers, wage earners, and equity financed businessmen——-the latter had no recourse from its baleful policy actions.

     

    The greatest untoward consequence of the closet statism implicit in Friedman’s monetary theories, however, is that it put him squarely in opposition to the vision of the Fed’s founders. As has been seen, Carter Glass and Professor Willis assigned to the Federal Reserve System the humble mission of passively liquefying the good collateral of commercial banks when they presented it.

     

    Consequently, the difference between a “banker’s bank” running a discount window service and a central bank engaged in continuous open market operations was fundamental and monumental, not merely a question of technique. By facilitating a better alignment of liquidity between the asset and liability side of the balance sheets of fractional reserve deposit banks, the original “reserve banks” of the 1913 act would, arguably, improve banking efficiency, stability, and utilization of systemwide reserves.

     

    Yet any impact of these discount window operations on the systemwide banking aggregates of money and credit, especially if the borrowing rate were properly set at a penalty spread above the free market interest rate, would have been purely incidental and derivative, not an object of policy. Obviously, such a discount window–based system could have no pretensions at all as to managing the macroeconomic aggregates such as produc- tion, spending, and employment.

     

    In short, under the original discount window model, national employment, production prices, and GDP were a bottoms-up outcome on the free market, not an artifact of state policy. By contrast, open market operations inherently lead to national economic planning and targeting of GDP and other macroeconomic aggregates. The truth is, there is no other reason to control M1 than to steer demand, production, and employment from Washington.

     

    Why did the libertarian professor, who was so hostile to all of the projects and works of government, wish to empower what even he could have recognized as an incipient monetary politburo with such vast powers to plan and manage the national economy, even if by means of the remote and seemingly unobtrusive steering gear of M1?

     

    There is but one answer: Friedman thoroughly misunderstood the Great Depression and concluded erroneously that undue regard for the gold standard rules by the Fed during 1929–1933 had resulted in its failure to conduct aggressive open market purchases of government debt, and hence to prevent the deep slide of M1 during the forty-five months after the crash.

     

    Yet the historical evidence is unambiguous; there was no liquidity shortage and no failure by the Fed to do its job as a banker’s bank.

     

    Indeed, the six thousand member banks of the Federal Reserve System did not make heavy use of the discount window during this period and none who presented good collateral were denied access to borrowed reserves. Conse- quently, commercial banks were not constrained at all in their ability to make loans or generate demand deposits (M1).

    But from the lofty perch of his library at the University of Chicago three decades later, Professor Friedman determined that the banking system should have been flooded with new reserves, anyway. And this post facto academician’s edict went straight to the heart of the open market operations issue.

     

    The discount window was the mechanism by which real world bankers voluntarily drew new reserves into the system in order to accommodate an expansion of loans and deposits. By contrast, open market bond purchases were the mechanism by which the incipient central planners at the Fed forced reserves into the banking system, whether sought by member banks or not.

     

    Friedman thus sided with the central planners, contending that the market of the day was wrong and that thousands of banks that already had excess reserves should have been doused with more and still more reserves, until they started lending and creating deposits in accordance with the dictates of the monetarist gospel. Needless to say, the historic data show this proposition to be essentially farcical, and that the real-world ex- ercise in exactly this kind of bank reserve flooding maneuver conducted by the Bernanke Fed forty years later has been a total failure—a monumental case of “pushing on a string.”

     

    FRIEDMAN’S ERRONEOUS CRITIQUE OF THE DEPRESSION-ERA FED OPENED THE DOOR TO MONETARY CENTRAL PLANNING

     

    The historical truth is that the Fed’s core mission of that era, to rediscount bank loan paper, had been carried out consistently, effectively, and fully by the twelve Federal Reserve banks during the crucial forty-five months between the October 1929 stock market crash and FDR’s inauguration in March 1933.

     

    And the documented lack of member bank demand for discount window borrowings was not because the Fed had charged a punishingly high interest rate. In fact, the Fed’s discount rate had been progressively lowered from 6 percent before the crash to 2.5 percent by early 1933.

     

    More crucially, the “excess reserves” in the banking system grew dramatically during this forty-five-month period, implying just the opposite of monetary stringency. Prior to the stock market crash in September 1929, excess reserves in the banking system stood at $35 million, but then rose to $100 million by January 1931 and ultimately to $525 million by January 1933.

     

    In short, the tenfold expansion of excess (i.e., idle) reserves in the banking system was dramatic proof that the banking system had not been parched for liquidity but was actually awash in it. The only mission the Fed failed to perform is one that Professor Friedman assigned to it thirty years after the fact; that is, to maintain an arbitrary level of M1 by forcing reserves into the banking system by means of open market purchases of Uncle Sam’s debt.

     

    As it happened, the money supply (M1) did drop by about 23 percent during the same forty-five-month period in which excess reserves soared tenfold. As a technical matter, this meant that the money multiplier had crashed. As has been seen, however, the big drop in checking account deposits (the bulk of M1) did not represent a squeeze on money. It was merely the arithmetic result of the nearly 50 percent shrinkage of the commercial loan book during that period.

     

    As previously detailed, this extensive liquidation of bad debt was an unavoidable and healthy correction of the previous debt bubble. Bank loans outstanding, in fact, had grown at manic rates during the previous fifteen years, nearly tripling from $14 billion in 1914 to $42 billion by 1929. As in most credit- fueled booms, the vast expansion of lending during the Great War and the Roaring Twenties left banks stuffed with bad loans that could no longer be rolled over when the music stopped in October 1929.

     

    Consequently, during the aftermath of the crash upward of $20 billion of bank loans were liquidated, including billions of write-offs due to business failures and foreclosures. As previously explained, nearly half of the loan contraction was attributable to the $9 billion of stock market margin loans which were called in when the stock market bubble collapsed in 1929.

     

    Likewise, loan balances for working capital borrowings also fell sharply in the face of falling production. Again, this was the passive consequence of the bursting industrial and export sector bubble, not something caused by the Fed’s failure to supply sufficient bank reserves. In short, the liquidation of bank loans was almost exclusively the result of bubbles being punctured in the real economy, not stinginess at the central bank.

     

    In fact, there has never been any wide-scale evidence that bank loans outstanding declined during 1930–1933 on account of banks calling performing loans or denying credit to solvent potential borrowers. Yet unless those things happened, there is simply no case that monetary stringency caused the Great Depression.

     

    Friedman and his followers, including Bernanke, came up with an academic canard to explain away these obvious facts. Since the wholesale price level had fallen sharply during the forty-five months after the crash, they claimed that “real” interest rates were inordinately high after adjusting for deflation.

     

    Yet this is academic pettifoggery. Real-world businessmen confronted with plummeting order books would have eschewed new borrowing for the obvious reason that they had no need for funds, not because they deemed the “deflation-adjusted” interest rate too high.

     

    At the end of the day, Friedman’s monetary treatise offers no evidence whatsoever and simply asserts false causation; namely, that the passive decline of the money supply was the active cause of the drop in output and spending. The true causation went the other way: the nation’s stock of money fell sharply during the post-crash period because bank loans are the mother’s milk of bank deposits. So, as bloated, insolvent loan books were cut down to sustainable size, the stock of deposit money (M1) fell on a parallel basis.

     

    Given this credit collapse and the associated crash of the money multiplier, there was only one way for the Fed to even attempt to reflate the money supply. It would have been required to purchase and monetize nearly every single dime of the $16 billion of US Treasury debt then outstanding.

     

    Today’s incorrigible money printers undoubtedly would say, “No problem.” Yet there is no doubt whatsoever that, given the universal antipathy to monetary inflation at the time, such a move would have triggered sheer panic and bedlam in what remained of the financial markets. Needless to say, Friedman never explained how the Fed was supposed to reignite the drooping money multiplier or, failing that, explain to the financial markets why it was buying up all of the public debt.

     

    Beyond that, Friedman could not prove at the time of his writing A Monetary History of the United States in 1965 that the creation out of thin air of a huge new quantity of bank reserves would have caused the banking system to convert such reserves into an upwelling of new loans and deposits. Indeed, Friedman did not attempt to prove that proposition, either. According to the quantity theory of money, it was an a priori truth.

     

    In actual fact, by the bottom of the depression in 1932, interest rates proved the opposite. Rates on T-bills and commercial paper were one-half percent and 1 percent, respectively, meaning that there was virtually no unsatisfied loan demand from credit-worthy borrowers.

     

    The dwindling business at the discount windows of the twelve Federal Reserve banks further proved the point. In September 1929 member banks borrowed nearly $1 billion at the discount windows, but by January 1933 this declined to only $280 million. In sum, banks were not lending because they were short of reserves; they weren’t lending because they were short of solvent borrowers and real credit demand.

     

    In any event, Friedman’s entire theory of the Great Depression was thoroughly demolished by Ben S. Bernanke, his most famous disciple, in a real-world experiment after September 2008. The Bernanke Fed undertook massive open market operations in response to the financial crisis, purchasing and monetizing more than $2 trillion of treasury and agency debt.

     

    As is by now transparently evident, the result was a monumental wheel-spinning exercise. The fact that there is now $2.7 trillion of “excess re- serves” parked at the Fed (compared to a mere $40 billion before the crisis) meant that nearly all of the new bank reserves resulting from the Fed’s bond-buying sprees have been stillborn.

     

    By staying on deposit at the central bank, they have fueled no growth at all of Main Street bank loans or money supply. There is no reason whatsoever, therefore, to believe that the outcome would have been any different in 1930–1932.

    By contrast, the real cause of the Great Depression was the massive and unsustainable expansion of credit and bank lending during the Great War of 1914-1918, and the financial boom of 1924-1929.

    *  *  *

    Ironically, both of these credit bubbles were financed by the newly created Federal Reserve, as outlined in the additional sections from The Great Deformation. Indeed, even the famous banking crisis of 1933 was not what it is cracked-up to be. As explained below, both the recession and the banking crisis were over by the summer of 1932; a Hoover Recovery had actually begun.

    Indeed, the banking holiday declared by FDR upon his inauguration was the result of a 10-day run on the banks that had been caused by his actions during February 1933. In short, Bernanke has spent the last 7-years claiming he stopped a bank run like that of the 1930s, when, in fact, the actual pre-Roosevelt bank run had nothing whatsoever to do with policy actions by the Federal Reserve:

    THE GREAT WAR AND THE ROARING TWENTIES: CRADLE OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION

    FDR’s mortal blow to international monetary stability and world trade is the pattern through which the New Deal was shaped. Once Roosevelt went for domestic autarky, the New Deal was destined to be a one-armed bandit. It capriciously pushed, pulled, and reshuffled the supply side of the domestic economy, but it could not regenerate the external markets upon which the post-1914 American prosperity had vitally depended.

    Herbert Hoover had been correct: the US depression was rooted in the collapse of global trade, not in some flaw of capitalism or any of the other uniquely domestic afflictions on which the New Deal programs were predicated. Indeed, the American economy had been thoroughly internationalized after August 1914 and had grown by leaps and bounds as a great export machine and prodigious banker to the world.

    While it lasted, the export boom of 1914–1929 generated strong gains in growth had averaged nearly 4 percent annually, a rate that has never again been matched over a comparable length of time.

    The trouble was that this prosperity was neither organic nor sustainable. In addition to the debt-financed demand for American exports, stock market winnings and the explosion of consumer debt generated exuberant but unsustainable household purchases of big-ticket durables at home. So when the stock market finally broke, this financially fueled chain of economic expansion snapped and violently unwound.

    The first victim was the foreign bond market, which was the subprime canary in the coal mine of its day. Within a few months of the crash, new issuance had dropped 95 percent from its peak 1928 levels, causing foreign demand for US exports to collapse. Worse still, the price of the nearly $10 billion of foreign bonds outstanding also soon plunged to less than ten cents on the dollar, meaning that the collapse was of the same magnitude and speed as the subprime mortgage collapse of 2008.

    Foreign debtors had been borrowing to pay interest. When the Wall Street music stopped in October 1929, the house of cards underlying the American export bonanza collapsed. By 1933, US exports had dropped by nearly 70 percent.

    The Wall Street meltdown also generated ripples of domestic contraction which compounded the export swoon. Stock market lottery winners, for example, had been buying new automobiles hand over fist. But after sales of autos and trucks peaked at 5.3 million units in 1929, they then dropped like a stone to only 1.4 million vehicles in 1932. Needless to say, this 75 percent shrinkage of auto sales cascaded through the auto supply chain, including metal working, steel, glass, rubber, and machine tools—with devastating impact.

    The collapse of these “growth” industries also caused a withering cutback in business investment. Plant and equipment spending tumbled by nearly 80 percent between 1929 and 1933, while nearly half of all the production inventories extant in 1929 were liquidated over the next three years. This unprecedented liquidation of working inventories—from $38 billion to $22 billion—amounted to nearly a 20 percent hit to GDP before the cycle reached bottom.

    Overall, nominal GDP had been $103 billion in 1929 but by 1933 had shrunk to only $56 billion. Yet the overwhelming portion of this unprecedented contraction was in exports, inventories, fixed plant and equipment, and consumer durables. These components declined by $33 billion during the four years after 1929 and accounted for fully 70 percent of the decline in nominal GDP.

    The underlying story in these data refutes the postwar Keynesian narrative about the Great Depression. What happened during 1929–1932 was not a mysterious loss of domestic “demand” that was somehow recoverable through enlightened macroeconomic stimulus policies. Instead, what occurred was an inevitable shrinkage in the unsustainable levels of output that had been reached by exports, durables, and a once-in-a-life-time capital investment boom, not unlike the massive China investment cycle of 1994–2015.

    It was not the depression bottom level of GDP during 1932–1933 that was avoidably too low; it was the debt and speculation bloated GDP peak of 1929 that had been unsustainably too high. Accordingly, the problem could not be solved by macroeconomic pump-priming at home. The Great Depression was therefore never a candidate for the Keynesian cure which was inherently inward looking and nationalistic.

    The frenetic activity of the first hundred days of the New Deal, of course, is the stuff of historians’ legends. Yet when viewed in the context of this implosion of the nation’s vastly inflated export/auto/capital goods sector, it’s evident that the real cure for depression did not lie in the dozens of acronym-ridden programs springing up in Washington.

    Contrary to the long-standing Keynesian narrative, therefore, the New Deal contributed virtually nothing to the mild recovery which did materialize during the six-year run-up to war in 1939. In fact, the modest seesaw expansion which unfolded during that period had been already set in motion during the summer of 1932, well before FDR’s election.

     

    THE HOOVER RECOVERY INTERRUPTED

    The New Deal hagiographers never mention that 50 percent of the huge collapse of industrial production, that is, the heart of the Great Depression, had already been recovered under Hoover by September 1932. The catalyst for the Hoover recovery was not Washington-based policy machinations but the natural bottoming of the severe cycle of fixed-asset and inventory liquidation after 1929.

    By mid-1932, the liquidation had finally run its course because inventories were virtually gone, and capital goods and durables production could hardly go lower. Accordingly, nearly every statistic of economic activity turned upward in July 1932. From then until the end of September, the Federal Reserve Board index of industrial production rose by 21 percent, while rail freight loadings jumped by 20 percent and construction contract awards rose by 30 percent.

    Likewise, the American Federation of Labor’s published count of industrial unemployment dropped by nearly three-quarters of a million persons between July 1 and October 1. Retail sales and electrical power output also rose smartly in the months after July, and some core industry which had been nearly prostrate began to spring back to life.

    Cotton textile mill manufacturing, for example, surged from 56 percent of capacity in July to 97 percent in October, and mill consumption of wool nearly tripled during the same period. Likewise, the giant US Steel Corporation, which then stood at the center of the nation’s industrial economy, recorded its first increase in sixteen months in its order backlog.

    Related indicators also confirmed a broad and vigorous recovery. Wholesale prices rose by nearly 20 percent from their early 1932 bottom, marking the first sustained uptick since September 1929. The stock market quickly grasped the picture and rebounded from its depression low on the Dow Jones Index of 41 on July 7, 1932, to 80 in early September, before fears of a Roosevelt victory set it back.

    The most important sign of economic rebound, however, was in the be- leaguered banking sector. After having experienced nearly three hundred bank closings per month for much of the post-1929 period, bank failures dropped sharply to only seventy to eighty closings a month after June.

    Indeed, for the period of July through October 1932, deposits held by banks which were reopened during that interval exceeded those of newly failed banks, a complete break with the month-after-month deposit losses that had occurred until then. In a similar vein, the United States experienced five straight months of gold inflows after July, indicating that the panicked gold flight that had commenced after the British default of Sep- tember 1931 had decisively reversed.

    As one careful journalistic reconstruction of events published during this period noted, “With the defeat of all threatening inflationary legislation in June . . . [and] the complete restoration of foreign confidence in the American gold position—the breath of recovery began to be felt over the land.”

    No less an authority on the national mood than Walter Lippmann, then at the peak of his game and influence, later summarized, “There is very good statistical evidence . . . that as a purely economic phenomena the world depression reached its low point in mid-summer 1932 and that in all the leading countries a very slow but nevertheless real recovery began.”

    By election time, however, the rebound had cooled. Subsequently, all the indicators of economic and financial activity weakened sharply during the long interregnum between Election Day and the March 4, 1933, inauguration.

    As outlined below, there is powerful evidence that this setback can be attributed to a “Roosevelt panic” in the gold and banking markets that was avoidable and the result of FDR’s numerous errors and provocations during the presidential interregnum. The fact is, every other major industrial country in the world also began to recover in July 1932, but none had a relapse back into depression during the winter of 1932–1933.

     

    THE BANKING CRISIS THAT FDR MADE

    The Hoover recovery has largely been omitted from the history books, fostering the impression that the American economy had continuously plunged after October 1929 until it reached a desperate bottom on exactly March 4, 1933. That rendition of events was far from accurate, but it did mightily burnish the Roosevelt miracle legend; namely, that FDR decisively reopened the frozen banking system, restarted the wheels of commerce, and restored a heartbeat to capitalism through the swarm of acronyms which flew out of New Deal Washington during the Hundred Days.

    But the received version of the March 1933 banking crisis is an invention of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and other postwar commentators who postulated FDR’s “bank holiday” as the dividing line between Hooverian darkness and the Roosevelt miracles. By contrast, the most savvy and erudite financial observers at the time saw it far differently, and for a very good reason: on the Friday evening before Roosevelt’s inauguration most of the US banking system was still solvent, including the great money center banks of New York: the Chase National Bank, First National City Bank, the Morgan Bank, and many more.

    Indeed, the latter had to be practically coerced into agreeing to the New York State banking holiday signed into effect by Governor Lehman at 4:30 a.m. in the wee hours before FDR’s inauguration. As it happened, the governor was a scion of the banking house bearing his name, but the circumstances of 1933 were the opposite of those which accompanied its demise in 2008.

    Back then there had been no bank runs in the canyons of Wall Street because the great banks had largely observed time-tested standards; that is, they had been fully and adequately collateralized on their stock loans and were sitting on cash reserves up to 20 percent of deposits. The stock market crash of 1929–1930 had been brutal, of course, but in those purportedly be- nighted times officialdom had the good sense to allow Mr. Market to make his appointed rounds.

    Accordingly, stock market punters by the thousands had been felled quickly and cleanly when upward of $9 billion of margin loans were called after Black Thursday. Indeed, the banks and brokerages liquidated in a matter of months the massive margin loan bubble—$1 trillion in today’s economy—that had built up under the stock averages in the final years of the mania.

    The fact that none of the great New York money center banks closed their doors during the four years between the crash and FDR’s inauguration points to the real story; namely, that the bank insolvency problem had been in the provinces and countryside, not the nation’s money center.

    In fact, the run of bank failures was largely contained within the borders of the oversized 1914–1929 agricultural and industrial export economy. As the latter collapsed, overloaned banks in industrial boom towns like Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Youngstown, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh had taken heavy hits.

    In the case of the agricultural hinterlands, the Great Depression had started to roll in a decade before the crash, owing to the unique farm country boom and bust which had accompanied the Great War. The unprecedented total industrial-state warfare of 1914–1918 had drastically disrupted European agricultural production and markets, inducing an explosion of export demand, high prices, and soaring output in the American farm belt. There soon followed an orgy of speculation in land and real estate that ex- ceeded in relative terms even the sand-state housing boom of 2002–2007.

    Once the agricultural lands of Europe came back into production, how- ever, the great American granary lost much of its artificial war-loan export market, causing farm prices to abruptly plunge in 1920–1921 and then to continue sinking for the next decade. Not surprisingly, thousands of one-horse banks dotting the countryside had been caught up in the wartime frenzy and then suffered massive, unrelenting losses during the long post- war deflation of the farm bubble.

    Overall, about 12,000 banks failed during 1920–1933, but 10,000 of these were tiny rural banks located in places of less than 2,500 population. Their failure rate of more than 1,000 per year throughout the 1920s makes for eye-catching historical statistics, but they were largely irrelevant to the nation’s overall GDP.

    Losses at failed US banks during the entire twelve-year period through 1932, in fact, accumulated to only 2–3 percent of deposits. This extended wave of failures was an indictment of the short-sighted anti-branch banking laws that rural legislators had forced upon the states, as well as a reminder that wartime inflation and disruption had cast a long shadow on the future.

    The crucial point, however, is that these thousands of failed banks were insolvent and should have been closed. They were not evidence of some fundamental breakdown of the banking system, or failure of the Fed to supply adequate liquidity, or a systemic crisis of capitalism.

    Even after the 1929 crash, when the failure rate accelerated to about 2,400 in the twelve months ending in mid-1932, the periodic spurts of bank closures were not national in scope. Instead, they struck with distinct regional incidence in the agricultural and industrial interior. And almost without exception, these regional bank failure breakouts were centered on cities or banking chains which had indulged heavily in speculative real estate lending and other unsound practices.

    That was certainly the case with the first significant outbreak of bank runs in November 1930 when the Caldwell banking chain collapsed. A speculative pyramid of holding companies which controlled more than a hundred banks in Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina, it failed when real estate values fell sharply in the upper Cotton Belt. While there was some spillover on local banks, the runs did not spread beyond the region and quickly burned out because deposits were moved to sounder banks, not to mattresses.

    The most powerful evidence of the noncontagious nature of the pre–February 1933 bank failures occurred shortly thereafter with the famous collapse of the Bank of the United States in December 1930. An upstart New York City bank, the Bank of the United States, grew by leaps and bounds in the late 1920s through serial mergers, aggressive real estate lending, and pyramiding of holding company capital.

    The bank had been a stock market rocket ship, rising from $5 per share in 1925 to a peak of $230 before the crash. But its promoter, one Bernard Marcus, who had been the Sandy Weill of his day, had been more adept at making deals than making sound loans, and thereby soon rendered his hastily assembled banking empire insolvent. Yet there was virtually zero spillover to other New York banks when state banking supervisors shut- tered what was then the city’s third-largest institution with around seventy branches and deposits on the order of $30 billion on today’s scale.

    The same pattern occurred the following June in Chicago. There had been a giant real estate bubble in the Chicago suburbs during the 1920s, but owing to Illinois’s particularly restrictive anti-branch-banking law the Great Loop banks had been sidelined, leaving the suburban real estate lending spree to poorly capitalized newbies.

    Chicago had been an epicenter of the 1914–1929 agricultural/industrial/export boom, so when the party ended abruptly after the stock market crash, the region’s economy was hit harder than any other industrial center outside of Detroit. Real estate prices experienced a particularly devastating collapse in the newly developed suburban communities, triggering a wave of defaults in loan portfolios which were heavily laden with commercial and residential mortgages.

    Yet with one exception a year later, the Great Loop banks remained solvent and experienced no lines at their teller windows. By contrast, the “runs” on the suburban banks were both swift and warranted because they were deeply insolvent.

    In short, the Chicago case further illuminates the fact that the wave of bank failures during 1930–1932 was not the result of irrational public sentiment and “contagion,” or a fundamental breakdown of bank liquidity, but instead was evidence of a discriminating, rational flight of depositors from unsound banks and markets.

    Even when surges of bank failures extended eastward, such as in the Philadelphia runs of October 1931, there was far more rationality to the pattern than the conventional narrative acknowledges. In this case, the overwhelming share of failures was concentrated among newly formed “trust banks” which had been chartered under state law with far less stringent requirements for capital and cash reserves than was the case with national banks.

    Again, the late 1931 wave of bank failures in Philadelphia quickly burned out after deposits had moved from the lightly regulated trust banks, which had been on the leading edge of real estate lending and securities speculation, to the far better capitalized national banks. Indeed, the fundamental solvency of the US banking system was dramatically evidenced during this same period when the Fed raised the discount rate in mid-October.

    This Fed action is habitually and roundly criticized by contemporary advocates of central bank money printing, but it was actually the proper move under then-extant gold standard rules. Specifically, the initial impact of the British default on September 1931 had been a run on US gold out of fear that the United States would be the next to default. So a discount rate hike was necessary to stop the outflow and, in fact, the rate of gold losses fell sharply in the months ahead and eventually reversed to an inflow by mid-1932.

    More importantly, there was no acceleration of bank failures after the discount rate hike, and within weeks the failure rate slackened dramatically while discount borrowings actually increased. This was proof positive that banks were failing not because they were illiquid or could not get emergency funding from the Fed but because they were, alas, bankrupt.

    Indeed, Herbert Hoover’s unfortunate banking cure at the time—the emergency enactment of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in January 1932—was designed to alleviate insolvency, not provide emer- gency funding or replace hoarded deposits. Accordingly, the RFC went on to become a paragon of crony capitalism, rescuing dozens of busted railroads and recapitalizing several thousand insolvent banks.

    Yet the outcome was perverse: the stock and bondholders of bailed-out institutions were rescued, competitors were harmed, and the nation’s economy was left to slog it out with far too much railroad capacity and way too many banks that were deeply insolvent.

    *  *  *

    The Banking Crisis Was Over Before FDR Got Started

    …..The trigger for the pre-election panic, in fact, did not occur until the morning of February 14, when the governor of Michigan capriciously declared a one-week bank holiday owing to a funding crisis at Detroit’s second-largest banking chain. The Guardian Trust Group consisted of about forty banks controlled by Edsel Ford and included Goldman Sachs among its principle stockholders.

    It was another of the late-1920s banking pyramids that had been organized with a modest $5 million of capital in 1927 and had grown to a $230 million holding company two years later, through a spree of mergers and stock swaps. These maneuvers elevated the stock price from $20 per share to $350 at the 1929 peak.

    Unfortunately, the bank’s principle assets consisted of loans to insiders to buy the bank’s own stock and loans to both real estate developers and homeowners in the red-hot Detroit auto belt. Propelled by a population explosion from 300,000 to 1.6 million in the previous three decades, the volcanic price gains in the Detroit real estate market eclipsed the current era’s Sunbelt booms by orders of magnitude.

    Consequently, when auto production dropped by 75 percent and triggered mass layoffs, and the Guardian Group’s stock price plummeted by 95 percent, the bank’s loan book became hopelessly impaired. However, what might have been embarrassing investment liquidation for Edsel Ford and his cronies became a national headline when the Guardian Group crisis turned into a brawl between Henry Ford and his despised erstwhile partner and then Michigan Democratic senator, James Couzens.

    Senator Couzens was the Tyler Winklevoss (he and his twin brother were involved in the origins of Facebook) of his day and believed that he had been bilked out of his share of Ford Motor Company by Henry Ford. He could not abide a move afoot to have the RFC ride to the rescue of Edsel Ford’s mess, so he mustered his considerable weight as US senator and put the kibosh on the deal.

    President Hoover unhelpfully got himself in the thick of the brawl. However, he did quickly recognize that the Detroit headlines were becoming a catalyst for a financial panic that was already brewing due to a complete breakdown of transition cooperation and FDR’s studied silence on his prospective financial policies.

    Indeed, the increasing flow of hints and leaks from FDR’s radical brain trusters—such as Columbia professor Rexford Tugwell and secretary of agriculture designate Henry Wallace—that the incoming president would depreciate the dollar and pursue other inflationary schemes had already begun to trigger a run on gold and currency.

    Therefore, on February 18 Hoover penned an eloquent private letter to FDR outlining the peril from these developments and the urgent need for a reassuring statement from the President-elect outlining his policies with respect to gold, currency, banking and the budget…..

    By Monday morning February 27, Tugwell’s leak spread far and wide in the financial markets. The panic was on.

    As Professors Nadler and Bogen noted in their classic 1933 history of the banking crisis, the “gold room” of the New York Federal Reserve Bank soon became a center of pandemonium: “As the panic week [February 27 to March 3] progressed, long lines formed to exchange ever larger amounts of gold there, until finally the metal was being carried away in large boxes and suitcases loaded on trucks.”

    During the next five days approximately $800 million, or 20 percent, of the US gold stock was withdrawn by citizens, earmarked by foreign central banks, or implicitly purchased by speculators who took out a massive short position on the dollar. The lessons of the British default of September 1931 were still fresh, and as the smart money took aggressive actions to defend itself, the knock-on effect was almost instantly felt.

    As Wall Street historian Barrie A. Wigmore noted in his magisterial history of the Great Depression, owing to the gold hemorrhage “the lender of last resort [i.e., the Fed] for the banking system was in doubt. Frightened depositors lined up for cash, the only working substitute for bank deposits.”

    Wigmore’s point is dispositive. What financially literate citizens knew at the time, and was never grasped by postwar Keynesians, is that Federal Reserve currency notes were then required by statute to be backed by a 40 percent gold cover. The public therefore realized that only a few more days of the panicked gold drain could cause a sharp constriction of both the hand-to-hand currency supply and the banking system overall.

    Accordingly, the daily currency figures provide ringing evidence of FDR’s culpability for the crisis. By February 23, the daily increase in currency out- standing had risen from the $8 million early February level to about $40 million, and then in the crisis week soared to nearly $200 million on Monday and hit $450 million on Friday, March 3, the day before the inauguration.

    All told, the great bank teller window run and currency-hoarding crisis caused currency outstanding to rise from $5.6 billion to a peak of $7.5 billion. Yet $1.5 billion, or nearly 80 percent, of this gain occurred during the last ten days before FDR took office; that is, in the interval between the day Carter Glass said no and the morning FDR took the oath.

    Barrie Wigmore’s work consists of seven hundred pages of massive documentation and only occasional viewpoints and judgments. But on the question of culpability for the banking crisis he left no doubt: “Roosevelt exacerbated the crisis. If he had handled the ‘lame duck’ period differently, there would have been no Bank Holiday . . . the banking system was un- usually liquid prior to the bank crisis, and [the] recovery from it was unusually rapid . . . [proving] that the peculiar circumstances of Roosevelt’s transition were the cause of the crisis.”

    Four days after FDR officially closed the nation’s 17,000 banking institutions, the Senate approved, after seventy-five minutes of debate and no written copy of the bill, the Emergency Banking Act, which empowered the secretary of the treasury “to re-open such banks as have already been as- certained to be in sound condition.”

    But there was no New Deal magic in the bill at all. It had been drafted by Hoover holdovers and was a content-free enabling act which required no change whatsoever in bank procedures in order to obtain a license to “re- open,” and included no standards for review or approval by the Treasury Department.

    In fact, the legislation was the first of many FDR ruses. Once Hoover had been implicitly saddled with the blame for what appeared to be a frozen banking system and prostrate economy on March 4, FDR simply moved along to another topic, having had no intention of closing or reforming any banks.

    Accordingly, with such dispatch as would have made Internet-era number crunchers envious, the White House began opening banks the next Monday (March 13th), and by Wednesday 90 percent of the deposit basis among national banks had been reopened.

    Within the following ten days nearly all of the $2 billion in hoarded currency had flowed back into the banking system, and the Fed’s gold reserves soon reached pre-crisis levels. By early April, fully 13,000 banks with $31 billion of deposits were open and more than 2,000 more quickly followed after they had been given RFC capital injections.

    By contrast, at year-end 1933 only a thousand mostly tiny rural banks with aggregate deposits of less than $1 billion had been closed, thus demonstrating that at the time of FDR’s banking crisis only 3 percent of the nation’s bank deposits were still in insolvent institutions. In effect, the severe business cycle liquidation of the Great Depression was over even before Roosevelt was elected, and within weeks of his self-instigated banking crisis the US economy had resumed its natural rebound.

    By June 1933, economic activity levels attained in the previous September had been regained and a slow upward climb ensued, led by the steady replenishment of fixed assets and working capital. To be sure, recovery was greatly attenuated by the shutdown of international trade, but in a process that was drawn and halting, nominal GDP eventually reached the $90 billion level by 1939. After seven years of New Deal medication, the nation’s money income was still straining to reach its 1929 level.

  • Illinoisans Look To "Get Lucky" In Other States After Lottery IOU Debacle

    Two weeks ago, Illinois Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger announced that the state would skip a $560 million pension payment in November thanks to the budget battle in Springfield. The news marked the latest embarrassment in a string of setbacks tied to an increasingly serious financial crisis that was thrust into the national spotlight in May when the State Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a pension reform bid prompted Moody’s to downgrade Chicago to junk.

    As we documented back in August, the state is in fact so broke that it’s begun paying lottery winners in IOUs. 

    The practice of handing out Rauner bucks instead of Federal Reserve notes was initially limited to those who won more than $25,000, but in the wake of Geissler Munger’s announcement, the upper limit on cash payouts was reduced to just $600. That followed directly on the heels of our prediction that “anyone who wins more than a few thousand in the Illinois lottery can go ahead and figure on getting a pieces of paper with Bruce Rauner’s picture rather than Ben Franklin’s for the foreseeable future.” 

    Now that Illinois isn’t paying out lottery winners, Illinoisans are simply driving to other states to play. Here’s The Chicago Tribune:

    With Illinois delaying payouts of more than $600 because of its budget mess, neighboring states are salivating at the chance to boost their own lottery sales. Businesses near borders, particularly in Indiana, Kentucky and Iowa, say they’ve already noticed a difference.

     

    Many gas stations, smoke shops and convenience stores in states bordering Illinois say they first noticed an increase in August, when the state said payouts over $25,000 would have to wait because there wasn’t authority to cut checks that big. Now those businesses are reporting a bigger flurry since Oct. 14, when the Illinois Lottery announced it had lowered that threshold to payouts over $600.

     

    Idalia Vasquez, who manages a GoLo gas station in Hammond, said irked Illinois residents have been streaming in to buy lottery tickets. She estimates ticket sales are up as much as 80 percent since Illinois’ second delay announcement.

     

    “We have long lines, but they’re patient with it because Illinois is not paying,” Vasquez said of the store roughly 20 miles from Chicago. “They’re all coming here and saying, ‘I’m from Illinois, how do you play it here?'”

     

    The Hoosier Lottery even issued a statement welcoming Illinoisans.

     

    In Kentucky’s McCracken County, along Illinois’ southern border, there was a 13 percent jump in scratch-offs from July 1 through Oct. 9, compared with a 9 percent jump statewide.

     

    One retailer with higher sales is Paducah’s Kentucky Tobacco Outlet, where most of the customers are already from Illinois. According to manager Michael Coomer, those customers are now buying more and say trust in Illinois is gone.

     

    “It’s definitely known and very vocal,” he said of Illinois’ problems. “It’s definitely going to be better for us.”

    Yes, “definitely better” for neighboring states and definitely worse for Illinois. Note that this will only make the budget situation worse. That is, by not paying out lottery winners, Springfield has essentially sent all of the potential revenue from ticket sales across the state’s borders meaning the move to limit payouts is actually now set to exacerbate the conditions which forced the state to pay in IOUs in the first place. 

    Illinois likely won’t get much sympathy though because as State Rep. Jack Franks put it earlier this year:

    “…our government is committing a fraud on the taxpayers, because we’re holding ourselves out as selling a good, and we’re not — we’re not selling anything. The lottery is a contract: I pay my money, and if I win, you’re obligated to pay me and you have to pay me timely. It doesn’t say if you have money or when you have money.”

  • The Battle For America

    Trouble with ‘Social Justice Warriors’? Who ya gonna call?

     

     

    Source: Ben Garrison

Digest powered by RSS Digest