Today’s News May 11, 2015

  • SmartKnowledgeU Podcast #6: Deciphering the Language of Lies

    Very rarely, if ever, is there a failure of regulators, a failure of central bankers, a failure of commercial bankers, failures on the war on drugs, failures in military wars, etc. because all of these institutions and people deliberately plan, execute and achieve exactly what they intend to accomplish. This is the big secret they don’t want us to realize. One of the greatest scams our “leaders” have pulled off is creating a language of lies that ironically convinces us even further believe, adopt and internalize their lies, so much so, that even many activists embrace these lies in their activism against them. For example, during the fallout of the global market crashes of 2008, I witnessed a lot of anti-banker activists protest their dastardly deeds with chants of “End Capitalism” because they believed the banker lies that capitalism and a “lack of regulation” caused the economic devastation of 2008. One of the core tenets of capitalism is a free market. If we don’t have a free market, then capitalism cannot exist. In order to have a free market, the markets, not Central Bankers, must be setting interest rates based upon free market dynamics. Consequently, it is literally impossible for a Central Bank and a free market to co-exist in the same nation. Bankers wanted people to falsely blame capitalism, free markets, and a failure of regulation for the economic crashes of 2008 in order to divert blame away from the real culprits – them. And apparently, due to the clever narratives they built with their language of lies they even succeeded in convincing anti-banker activists to promote their rubbish lies.

     

    The truth about this carefully woven web of deceit created by bankers, politicians, media hacks, and industrialists known as the language of lies is almost as mind-blowing as the conclusion in the film Interstellar (Warning: Spoiler Alert. Stop reading only the rest of this paragraph if you have not yet watched Interstellar). After watching Interstellar, you must conclude that NASA pilot Cooper must travel into space in order for his daughter Murphy to receive the message to tell his father not to leave her and not to travel into space. And that if Cooper never traveled to space, then Murphy would never have received the message she received from her father in which he was trying to warn himself not to go. If thinking about that didn’t make your brain hurt, then perhaps listing to our latest podcast will.

     

    In fact with mainstream media so inundated and saturated with as little facts as possible and as much propaganda as possible at any point during my lifetime, all of which is constructed with the intent of convincing us to embrace false narratives that will keep us passive and in a perpetual state of inertia, I can think of no better time than right now for the subject of today’s SmartKnowledgeU Podcast #6: Deciphering the Language of Lies.

    deciphering the language of liesplease click on the above image and click the link “Watch this video on YouTube” to play Podcast #6: Deciphering the Language of Lies

     

     

    About the podcast’s creator: JS Kim is the Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU, a research, education and consulting firm with a mission of helping Main Street avoid the fraud of Wall Street.

    For more information, please visit us at https://www.smartknowledgeu.com, and join the SmartKnowledgeU LinkedIn Gold & Silver Wealth Preservation Strategy Group.



  • Euro Slides After Reports Troika Is Preparing Greek Plan B, C, & D Including Parallel Currency

    Earlier we detailed reports that The IMF was preparing a contingency plan in the event of a Greek default, and furthermore that Andrea Merkel was under increasing pressure to “let Greece go,” and now, as Eurogroup ministers begin to gather for today’s crucial ‘deal-or-no-deal’ meeting, Die Welt reports The Troika has 4 scenarios for Greece  – one positive and three increasingly negative ranging from the need for further bailouts to paying staff in IOUs and issuing a parallel currency.

     

    While Austria’s Hans Jorg Schelling sticks to his statement that:

    “There’s nothing to it The Plan B was not discussed..”

    It appears, yet again, another European elite was lying (because it was important), as now, as Die Welt reports (via Google Translate), hope is fading fast for a deal…

    Shortly before the meeting of euro zone finance ministers in Brussels an agreement of Greece’s creditors is obviously further out of reach,with the danger of national bankruptcy looming.

     

    Although the new negotiator from Athens is more “human pleasant” than the former team including the Greek Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis said one of the negotiators of the creditors, “in terms of content but does not go ahead.”

    And as Bloomberg headlines suggest, all is not well…

    • *TROIKA GREEK PLANS INCL 1 POSITIVE, 3 NEGATIVE SCENARIOS: WELT
    • *ONE TROIKA SCENATIO INCLUDES GREECE PAYING STAFF IN IOUS: WELT
    • *WELT NEWSPAPER CITES PARTICIPANT IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH GREECE

    And here is Die Welt explaining the scenarios (via HuffPo)…

    Only one of four scenarios expects a success of the talks

     

    One of the negotiators said the “world”: “The Greeks have just passed a law called ‘democratization of the public service’, which decides on the reinstatement of 13,000 civil servants.” This is clearly against the spirit of reform agreements with the troika of the IMF, European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission.

     

    Given the difficult situation planning IMF, European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission with a positive and three negative scenarios, told the daily newspaper of negotiation circles.

     

    Only the Positive provides that Greece complies with all its obligations, so that Athens receives money until the end of the second auxiliary program.

     

    “Almost all of Greece would be poorer than they are today”

     

    The three other scenarios currently being discussed are negative from the perspective of all negotiators in gradations.

     

    Scenario 1 assumes that a reform-minded government actually presents substantial proposals today, but the Greeks have thereby overestimated their financial reserves. The most important prerequisite for possible assistance to the ECB: “The Greeks really show good faith at the negotiating table,” it says in Brussels.

     

    Scenario 2 assumes that half-hearted proposals the Greeks will not be accepted. Sometime during the next few weeks, Greece will be the debt with the IMF and the ECB can no longer pay off. If the Greek Government then willingly shows the further course of the crisis, when it quickly closes reform agreements with the Europeans and then turns on its debt, the whole thing could not get a grip, so the scenario of the Troika experts.

     

    In Scenario 3, the troika of a completely uncooperative Greek government estimates. She begins to pay its employees and retirees in government IOUs known as IOUs, the beginning of the introduction of a parallel currency.

     

     

    Three, four very hard years could come to Greece, puts it in Brussels. And almost all in Greece would then poorer than they are today.

     

    Also in the CDU is now open talk about the “Plan B”: Compared with “image” said the CDU chairman in the Bundestag Budget Committee, Norbert Brackmann: “Of course, we play the various alternatives for Greece by. For this purpose a part, Grexit ‘as well as a third aid package. “

     

    “Plan B” assumes more and more shape.

    *  *  *

    As we noted previuously, The Greeks have already drawn up the “New Drachma” notes… just in case…

    As News247 reported in 2013, the
    6 banknotes (designed by Paul Vatikioti) of 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000 and
    10,000 drachmas have pictures of Cornelius Castoriadis, Odysseus
    Elytis, Yiannis Moralis, Georgios Papanikolaou, Melina Mercouri and
    Maria Callas…

    *  *  *

    Good luck

    *  *  *

    The result, for now, is some weakness in EURUSD – which we assume will be bid away gently as Europe opens to ‘prove’ that Grexit is nothing to worry about…



  • 'Resilience' Is The New Black

    Via Raul Ilargi Meijer's The Automatic Earth blog,

    This is another essay from our friend Dr. Nelson Lebo III in New Zealand. Nelson is a certified expert in everything to do with resilience, especially how to build a home and a community designed to withstand disasters, be they natural or man-made, an earthquake or Baltimore. Aware that he may rub quite a few people the wrong way, he explains here why he has shifted from seeing what he does in the context of sustainability, to that of resilience. There’s something profoundly dark in that shift, but it’s not all bad.

    Nelson Lebo III: Sustainability is so 2007. Those were the heady days before the Global Financial Crisis, before $2-plus/litre petrol here in New Zealand, before the failed Copenhagen Climate Summit, before the Christchurch earthquakes, before the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)…the list continues.

    Since 2008, informed conversations on the economy, the environment, and energy have shifted from ‘sustainability’ to ‘resilience’. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this shift, but I’ll focus on just two: undeniable trends and a loss of faith. Let me explain.

    Since 2008, most of the pre-existing trends in income inequality, extreme weather events and energy price volatility have ramped up. Sustainability is about halting and reversing these trends, but there is essentially no evidence of that type of progress, and in fact the data shows the opposite.

    Plenty of quantitative data exists for the last seven years to document these accelerated trends, the most obvious is the continually widening gap between rich and poor everyone else. The second wave of commentary on the Baltimore riots (after the superficiality of the mainstream media) has been about the lack of economic activity and opportunity in many of the largely African-American neighbourhoods.

    Tensions have been simmering for years (decades) and overzealous police activity appears to have been just been the spark. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has read The Spirit Level, or any similar research on the correlation between wealth inequality and social problems.

    You can only push people so far before they crack. For residents of Baltimore’s disadvantaged neighbourhoods the inequities are obvious. People are not dumb. We can see the writing on the wall, and know for the most part that government on every level has not taken significant steps to embrace sustainability be it economic, environmental or social . To me it seems we are running on the fumes of debt on all three: over-extended financially on nearly all levels; over-extended on carbon emissions (and post oil peak); and a powder keg of social unrest waiting for a tipping point.

    Which brings me to my second point: a loss of faith.

    For most of my adult life I have banged the drum for sustainability. I don’t anymore. Sustainability is about voluntarily balancing three factors: human needs, environmental health, and economic viability. My observation is that it has been a failed movement and that the conversation has naturally shifted to resilience.

    These observations do not come casually. I have worked full-time in the environmental/sustainability/resilience field for twenty-five years and I have a PhD in science and sustainability education.

    Dennis Meadows, a well-known scientist who has been documenting unsustainable trends for over 40 years, puts it this way:

    The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.

    This is the same quote that Ilargi recently highlighted here at The Automatic Earth. Clearly it resonated with me.

    This is not to say we cannot and should not be proactive. It is more about where we direct our ‘proactions.’ Being proactive about resilience means protecting one’s self, one’s family, and one’s community from the trends that make us vulnerable economically, socially and environmentally, as well as to sudden shocks to the system.

    The recent earthquake in Nepal is another reminder of the critical importance of resilience. Before that it was Christchurch and Fukushima. In the wake of earthquakes we often hear about a lack of food and water in the effected area, along with disruptions to energy supplies in the wider region. In Nepal these have lead to significant social unrest.

    Whether it is Kathmandu over the last month or New Orleans after Katrina, we know that we cannot count on “the government” for significant assistance in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters. Along the same lines, we cannot count on governments to protect us from unnatural disasters such as the TPP and TTIP.

    Whether it is a potential earthquake or the next mega-storm and flood, the more prepared (ie, resilient) we are the better we will get through. Even rising energy prices and the probable effects of the TPP will siphon off money from our city and exacerbate social problems in our communities.

    In most cases, the same strategies that contribute to resilience also contribute to a more ‘sustainable’ lifestyle. But where for most people sustainability is largely abstract and cerebral, resilience is more tangible. Perhaps that’s why more and more people are gravitating toward it.

    Resilience is the new black.

    A resilient home is one that protects its occupants’ health and wealth. From this perspective, the home would have adequate insulation, proper curtaining, Energy Star appliances, energy-efficient light bulbs, and an efficient heater. By investing in these things we are protecting our family’s health as well as future-proofing our power bills. Come what may, we are likely to weather the storm.

    Beyond the above steps, a resilient household also collects rainwater, grows some of its own food, and has back-up systems for cooking and heating. When we did up an abandoned villa in Castlecliff, Whanganui, we included a 1,000 litre rain water tank, three independent heat sources, seven different ways to cook (ok, I got a little carried away), and a property brimming with fresh fruit and vege. These came on top of a warm, dry, home and a power bill of $27 per month. (We did it all for about half the cost of an average home in the city.)

    A loss of power and water for two or three days would hardly be noticeable. A doubling of electricity or fresh vege prices would be a blip on the radar. During the record cold week in 2011 our home was heated for free by sunshine.

    Sustainability may be warm and fuzzy, but resilience gets down to the brass tacks.

    Above all else, I am deeply practical and conservative. The questions I ask are: does it work?; is it affordable?; can I fix it myself?; and, importantly, is it replicable? Over the last decade I have developed highly resilient properties in North America and New Zealand. All of these properties have been shared as examples of holistic, regenerative permaculture design and management. We have shared our experience locally using open-homes, workshops and property tours, as well as globally through the internet.

    When the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, which all the trends tell us will happen, I know that I have done my best to help my family and community weather any storm be it a typhoon, an earthquake, rising energy prices, or the TPP.



  • Merkel Under Pressure To Let Greece Go As Default Risk Rises

    In case you forgot, Greece is on the brink of insolvency and without an agreement with creditors in the very near future, will default on its obligations to either the IMF, the ECB, its own citizens, or all of the above. The most pressing concern is a €750 million payment due to the IMF on Tuesday, a payment Greek FinMin Yanis Varoufakis says Athens will make, although it doesn’t seem as though anyone has a clear idea about exactly where the money will come from.

    The important headlines from last week included an apparent split between the IMF and the rest of the Troika on what constitutes an acceptable list of reforms, a report that Greek banks were being cut off from interbank trading, and news that Varoufakis had distributed a Greek recovery “blueprint” containing estimates and assumptions that bore little resemblance to figures presented by PM Tsipras and his reshuffled negotiating team. 

    Now, with less than 48 hours to go until three quarters of a billion euros comes due to the IMF, Greece faces marathon negotiations on Monday with eurozone FinMins including the incorrigible, hot-tempered Wolfgang Schaeuble who made a splash on Saturday when he suggested that Athens may default “by accident” if the government continues to vacillate. 

    Via FAZ (Google translated):

    Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has warned of the possibility of surprising Greek default. “Experiences elsewhere in the world have shown that a country can suddenly slip into insolvency,” Schaeuble told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (FAS). He wanted a date in his first newspaper interview since detailed months but not speculate.

     

    When asked whether the government had made preparations for such an eventuality, he said: “There are issues that can not answer a sensible politician. Otherwise there will be misunderstandings. Jean Claude Juncker once said, one must not take it then sometimes the truth always as accurate. I see these things more complicated. Therefore I say to prefer nothing at all. “

    And while Schaeuble indicated that if Greece left the euro it would not be “because of” Germany, Bloomberg is reporting that Chancellor Merkel’s own party bloc now supports a Greek exit. Here’s more: 

    Members of Merkel’s Christian Democratic bloc are openly challenging her stance of keeping Europe’s most-indebted country in the 19-nation currency region. Even some officials in the Finance Ministry are leaning toward the conclusion that the euro area would be better off without Greece, two people familiar with the matter said.

     

    “The euro would be strengthened if Greece left,” Alexander Radwan, a Merkel-affiliated lawmaker who voted for granting Greece a temporary extension of its bailout in February, said in an interview. “The other countries could then move closer together and apply the rules more strictly.”

     

    With European finance ministers due to resume talks on Greece on Monday, hardening sentiment in Germany risks sending mixed signals to investors as Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras’s government attempts to reach a deal with creditors.

     

    Merkel has repeatedly voiced public support for keeping the country in the euro, partly for geopolitical reasons. Other officials in her government view Greece as a rule-breaker and a drag on the region’s economy, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing the deliberations.

     

    Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, a prominent German advocate of European unity for decades, has given plenty of signs of exasperation with Greece since Tsipras and Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis took office in January on an anti-austerity platform.

    Clearly, any statement from the Eurogroup on Monday has the potential to move markets, but we would also note that the ECB last week reserved judgement on hiking haircuts on collateral pledged by Greek banks for ELA until after tomorrow’s meeting. So although there’s probably room to extend and pretend from a political perspective, any move by the ECB to tighten the screws on the Greek banking sector could cause the situation to deteriorate rapidly and indeed, if an ECB ELA decision that’s ostensibly designed to push negotiations forward inadvertently causes a bank run with negotiations still stalled, Schaeuble’s “accidental” insolvency may well become reality. 



  • When Hyperinflation Hits In Japan, Robot Suits Will Help You Move Your Yen

    It’s no secret that Japan is in the midst of what is perhaps the greatest (or most terrible, depending on whether you have a penchant for Keynesian madness or not) monetary experiment the world has ever known. With the blessing of PM Shinzo Abe and under the heavy hand of Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, the BoJ is printing enough money to monetize not only the entirety of JGB gross issuance, but also the entire Japanese ETF market, with the latter effort serving to underwrite record highs on the Nikkei. 

    In sum, the printing presses are working around the clock in Japan and as WSJ reports, when the government finally gets what it wants and the country’s descent into the Keynesian Twilight Zone finally ends in the worst example of hyperinflation the world has ever seen, no one will be forced to use a wheelbarrow to cart their yen around because in the new paranormal, you use exoskeletons to move your worthless fiat currency:

    Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., the core banking unit of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc., said Thursday it has rented eight robotic suits developed by Japanese robotic maker Cyberdyne Inc. to ease the burden on the employees delivering cash. The bank says that would be a first among Japanese financial institutions.

     

    “There have been many cases when a physical burden was placed on senior employees carrying heavy parcels of bank notes and coins. By adopting Cyberdyne’s robotic suits, we can help reduce that burden,” said Tomoyuki Narita, a spokesman at SMBC, Japan’s second-largest bank by assets after Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.

     

    SMBC Delivery Service Co., which mainly collects and delivers cash between bank outlets, has approximately 1,600 workers and about 16% of them are over age 65.  “We are currently placing the robotic suits at four outposts” of the delivery service, “but we’ll consider adding them in more places including the bank’s branches after assessing the effects,” Mr. Narita said.

     

    He said the Hybrid Assistive Limb or HAL suit could reduce the burden of carrying a heavy object by about 40%, so that carrying a 10-kilogram container of bank notes and coins would feel like six kilograms…

     

    The robotics company shares a name with the fictional defense firm behind Skynet, the artificial intelligence system that turned Earth into an apocalyptic wasteland in the Terminator series.

    *  *  *

    Welcome to the future…



  • Who Won The War?

    Something went wrong…

     

     

    Source: Knuckledraggin’



  • Goldilocks Unemployment: A Disgusting Bowl Of Porridge

    Submitted by Mark St. Cyr

    Goldilocks Unemployment: A Disgusting Bowl Of Porridge

    It’s no wonder we find ourselves in this collective business environment of malaise and atrophy when people who are supposed to be informed, or anything else relating to business, use terms to describe the most recent jobs report as a “Goldilocks” print: i.e., “Not too bad – Not too good.”

    This term was the moniker de jure of Friday’s cadre of financial media economists, analysts, and next in rotation fund manager. Nothing more than cheerleaders to stagflation is what they’ve all proven themselves to be in my opinion than anything else.

    The actual print was that the economy created 223K new jobs vs expectations of 228K. Where the overall jobless rate now stands at 5.4 vs 5.5. The kicker? Not in the labor force: 93,194,000 up from 93,175,000. Let that last number sink in a moment.

    We currently have over 93 Million able-bodied people without jobs – and growing. This is why it’s near incomprehensible, as well as outright disgusting to me that such a dismal showing in both the headline number as well as the onerous implications of such a downward revision to the month prior, coupled with the outright fallacy of suggesting the rate of unemployment has moved closer still to statistical “full employment” came with near giddiness and if not outright back slapping. i.e., “This is a Goldilocks print. Not too hot – not too cold. With a report like this – The Federal Reserve won’t dare raise rates and might actually have to contemplate instituting another round of QE if not outright QE4ever!” And yes; that was the reaction paraphrased across the financial media outlets. Again, personally – I found it all repulsive.

    We now have the lowest participation rate since 1977 when Jimmy Carter was president. Although I was young during that period, I was around and working. (and when I wasn’t working, I was out looking daily) I will tell you this: one of the words never bandied about during that period when it came to describe any jobs or employment report was “Goldilocks.”

    As a matter of fact it was during that period of time the term “stagflation” came into prominence. The difference? It was used to describe an abysmal economy while hoping at some point the winds would change and we could regain our bearings to move out from under such stifling economic conditions. Today?

    As these conditions have once again reared their ugly head the difference is today: these conditions are celebrated by the so-called “smart crowd” as reason to JBTFD! (just buy the dip) For this malaise sends the “right” signals to the Federal Reserve they should dare not raise interest rates off the zero bound anytime soon, and instead prolong this economic atrophy with the possible infusion of yet another round of QE. After all with economic malaise like this – NASDAQ™ 10K here we come!

    The best term I’ve heard yet to describe the current economic malaise, as well as market conditions, was coined by Bruno de Landevoisin: Stealthflation. The term says it all. Under the radar there’s deflation or the now less offensive “dis-inflation” happening everywhere.

    Currently under the guise of “economic omnipotence” resulting from the outright adulterations of the capital markets, along with its cancerous effects metastasized within our economy; they’re spoon-feeding bogus “analysis” to an uninformed as well as ill-informed populace by a bunch of next in rotation “financial experts” that now have more in common with school cafeteria workers plopping out this weeks version of mystery meat. All while smiling and reciting: “Trust us, it’s good for you.” (My apologies to “lunch ladies” everywhere)

    Scenes resembling the above can be seen daily when the next in rotation economist, fund manager, or big bank chief investing guru comes on to tout “how all this bad is just terrific for the markets.”

    If you question the validity of the data? You’re either shouted down, talked over, or insulted with charges of: “You’re mad because you’ve been on the wrong side of the trade for X number of points, or months, or _________.”(fill in the blank)

    Unless you stand in line like these roving bands of porridge seekers with bowls out pleading in their best Oliver Twist voice at the altar of the FOMC “Please, may I have another round of QE?” you’re the one who’s scolded or branded as some “economic heretic.”

    It wouldn’t surprise me if CNBC™ in some desperate attempt to regain viewers might contemplate a reality segment where they actually “Put to the stake Live and On Air!”  any who dare question their cafeteria “smart crowd.” Who knows, it can’t do worse than they are already. But I digress.

    Again the economic stealth of all this malaise is that it seems that there are “economic benefits” as a result. There are – if the economy was only about “The Markets.”

    The markets are vital when they are allowed to function according to the rules inherent within free market capitalism: where markets are allowed to clear through the true price discovery model. But that’s not what’s going on today.

    People today look at these markets, or hear the latest prints touted as “proof” we’re on the right path. i.e., “The markets were up today near 300 points!” Or, “Employment figures show we created over 200K once again, and the UE figure dropped to 5.4%. Hooray!” However that porridge being spoon fed down the throats of the populace has more in common with the repulsive process for making Foie gras than anything else. And just like the goose – it’s just as harmful when used to evaluate the health of one’s financial future.

    What doesn’t get near any of the attention that it should buried within these reports are the other figures that are hidden in plain sight as they are “reported” in a stealth like fashion. i.e,, “Oh, and the prior month’s numbers that were horrible? They were revised downward to – horrific. Nothing to see here, carry on, hope you enjoy your lunch.”

    Unaware by many; the prior month’s abysmal report of 126K was revised lower to a pathetic 85K. That’s a reduction or “miss” of over 30%!

    If we use the same revision or “miss” used to calculate last month’s report it’s entirely plausible today’s Goldilocks’ print of 223K could actually be closer to 153K. If so, what happens to Goldilocks?

    Keep in mind – these are the stats of the BLS, and as such is it unreasonable to contemplate they would try to throw the best possible outcome or “look” to these reports? And even they felt the need to revise down last months figures from lackluster to abysmal! So what faith should one put into today’s report? That alone should send a shiver down one’s spine. But it doesn’t end there.

    This financial meddling causes even greater distortions and malfeasance throughout the entire economic landscape.

    Companies that should go out of business or downsize to better address their true economic health – don’t. They’re able to saddle their companies with burdensome debt prolonging their sclerotic endeavours leaving no room for the upstarts or level competitors that can beat them handily in both practice and ingenuity; for many will be unable to secure the financing needed because the “big boys” or “favored lobbied status” are allowed to continually operate and compete at “cash burn” rates with buy backs and more that would make a Silicon Valley startup jealous.

    And speaking of “The Valley” here too the stealth of malfeasance plays out its onerous part just under the surface. Here companies that shouldn’t even be listened too, let alone funded, are able to burn through cash and subsequent rounds of funding in direct proportion to the availability of cheap and fast money made possible via the QE mechanism.

    With so much “free cash” still sloshing around looking for anything with a possible “One out of Million” shot of making a penny. The game is still on as: to throw as many darts as possible. Rather, than take the time required to effectively sift through and gauge reality with fantasy. Because it’s still an “odds bet” rather than an “objective financial analysis” concern.

    And it’s precisely in this type of environment startups that have real potential – for real profits – get lost in the quagmire of unicorn and rainbow pitch funding.

    Today’s latest reincarnation of Oliver Twist by those of the so-called “smart crowd” with their bowls out pleading for another round of QE, are also the first to espouse their reasoning for why you, or I don’t get why all this putrid porridge is good for us. All they’ll say is, “It’s different this time.” Well maybe they have a point.

    Back during those roaring days of screaming sideways into nowhere land known as the “Carter years,” then president Jimmy Carter gave what has been labeled as “The Malaise speech.” Actually the real name designated was “A Crisis of Confidence.”

    That speech was an attempt in theory as to help bolster confidence that the economic conditions of poor employment, poor GDP growth, and a list of other economic measures could in fact be overcome if we regained our composure, and had faith and confidence, we could do better. The issue today?

    The economic “smart crowd” is now confident (if not to a fault) that the malaise along with the deterioration in GDP as well as nearly every (if not all!) recent macro data point – is just the right mix of “not too hot – and not too cold” we need to stay right smack dab in it, waiting for the next meeting of the FOMC to see if the cafeteria will reopen so they can beg “Please…can they have another round?”



  • Paul Craig Roberts: Economic Disinformation Keeps Financial Markets Up

    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Friday’s payroll jobs report is more of the same. The Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that 223,000 new jobs were created in April. Let’s accept the claim and see where the jobs are.

    • Specialty trade contractors are credited with 41,000 jobs equally split between residential and nonresidential. I believe these are home and building repairs and remodeling.
    • The rest of the jobs, 182,000, are in domestic services.
    • Despite store closings and weak retail sales, 12,000 people were hired in retail trade.
    • Despite negative first quarter GDP growth, 62,000 people were hired in professional and business services, 67% of which are in administrative and waste services.
    • Health care and social assistance accounted for 55,600 jobs of which ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and social assistance accounted for 85% of the jobs.
    • Waitresses and bartenders account for 26,000 jobs, and government employed 10,000 new workers.
    • There are no jobs in manufacturing.
    • Mining, timber, oil and gas extraction lost jobs.
    • Temporary help services (16,100 jobs) offered 3.7 times more jobs than law, accounting architecture, and engineering combined (4,500 jobs).

    As I have pointed out for a number of years, according to the payroll jobs reports, the complexion of the US labor force is that of a Third World country. Most of the jobs created are lowly paid domestic services.

    The well paying high productivity, high value-added jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners who work for less. This fact, more than the reduction in marginal income tax rates, is the reason for the rising inequality in the distribution of income and wealth.

    Offshoring middle class jobs raises corporate profits and, thereby, the incomes of corporate owners (shareholders) and executives. But it reduces the incomes of the majority of the population who are forced into either lowly paid and part time jobs or unemployment.

    The extraordinary decline in the labor force participation rate indicates shrinking opportunities for the American labor force. No economist should ever have accepted the claim that the economy was in recovery while participation in the labor force was declining.

    The officially documented decline in the labor force participation rate casts additional doubt on the claimed increases in payroll jobs. If jobs are growing, the labor force participation rate should not be declining.

    Having looked at the actual details of the payroll jobs report, which are seldom if ever reported in the financial media, let’s look at what else goes unreported in the media.

    The government’s economic statistical agencies are under pressure not to roil the financial markets. Consequently, initial reports, which are always the headline reports, are as close as possible to the “consensus forecast” prepared by economists in the financial sector, whose jobs are to maintain a good atmosphere for financial instruments.

    This practice results in optimistic advanced estimates and first estimates. The real reporting comes later in revisions. For example, today the headline was 223,000 new jobs, recovery on track, stock market up. What was not reported by the media is that the prior month’s (March) payroll jobs growth was cut to 85,000 jobs, substantially below population growth.

    The same thing happens with the reporting of GDP growth. The first quarter GDP advanced estimate was kept in positive territory with a 0.2%–two-tenths of one percent–growth. When the revisions arrive, which we already know will be negative GDP growth due to the trade figure, they will not receive the same attention.

    There are many additional problems with the economic reporting. I have written about a number of them in past reports. Here I will provide one more example. According to the payroll jobs report oil and gas extraction lost 3,300 jobs in April. This low number is inconsistent with what we know about layoffs from fracking operations. According to Challenger Gray, a private firm that tracks job cuts announced by corporations, in April 20,675 jobs were lost as a result of falling oil prices. That is more than six times the loss reported by the payroll jobs report.

    Challenger Gray reports that during the first four months of this year, corporations have announced 201,796 job cuts. Obviously, corporations are not creating new jobs. That is why the BLS looks to waitresses, bartenders, remodeling contractors, government, and social services for employment growth.

    Jobs offshoring has shriveled the employment opportunities for Americans. These shriveled opportunities are largely responsible for stagnation and decline in real median family incomes, for the falling labor force participation rate, for the rising inequality in the income and wealth distribution, and for student loans that cannot be repaid from the lowly paid jobs available. Corporations and Wall Street in pursuit of short-term profits have given the economy away. Much of the former US economy now belongs to China and India. Corporate executives and shareholders got rich off of this give-away.



  • IMF Preparing Greek Default Contingency Plan

    The biggest slow motion trainwreck in history, one that everyone knows how it ends just not when (especially since the “when” is about 5 years overdue), that of the Greek sovereign default may just got a bit more exciting earlier today when the WSJ reported that the IMF can no longer lie – like Mario Draghi did to Zero Hedge in 2013 – that there are preparation for a Plan B. To wit: “the International Monetary Fund is working with national authorities in southeastern Europe on contingency plans for a Greek default, a senior fund official said—a rare public admission that regulators are preparing for the potential failure to agree on continued aid for Athens.”

    According to the WSJ, the IMF is focusing on nations neighboring Greece, asking their national banking supervisors to “ensure that subsidiaries of Greek banks have enough assets that they can exchange for emergency financing at their own central banksin case financing from their parent institutions is suddenly cut off—and that deposit-insurance funds are at sufficient levels, Mr. Decressin said.”

    In other words, have a Greek default Plan B ready, preferably right now.

    “We are in a dialogue with all of these countries,” said Jörg Decressin, deputy director of the IMF’s Europe department. “We are talking with them about the contingency plans they have, what measures they can take.”

     

    Greek banks are big players in some of its neighbors’ financial systems. In Bulgaria, subsidiaries of National Bank of Greece SA, Alpha Bank SA, Piraeus Bank SA and Eurobank Ergasias SA own around 22% of banking assets, roughly the same as Greek banks own in Macedonia. Greek banks are also active in Romania, Albania and Serbia.

    Should anyone be worried that a day before the critical Eurozone meeting which was supposed to conclude the Greek bailout negotiations, not only is there not a deal but Greece is once again on the edge of collapse?

    “It would be foolish for anyone in the policy world not to be worried at this stage,” Mr. Decressin said.

    Thanks for the warning.

    And while we have covered the background story in detail, here it is again: “European officials expect no breakthroughs at a meeting of the currency union’s finance ministers on Monday. That means Greek lenders will remain under pressure, dependent on relatively expensive liquidity from the Greek central bank and at risk of bank runs in case doubts emerge over their ability to pay out deposits.”

    As noted above it is not if, but when. Here’s why.

     

    Going back to the WSJ story, while there is nothing that has actually changed in the narrative, it is almost as if the IMF, having failed to spur a wholesale bank run in Greece, one that would have toppled the government, is now trying to spur bank runs in Greek bank subsidiaries in neighboring nations.

    One scenario that the IMF is concerned about is what could happen if panic over Greece’s finances pushes savers in the region to pull their money out of Greek-owned banks. “These banks…may be totally fine, but there could still be in the population a perception, these are Greek banks and they are not fine, and people would turn up and try to withdraw their deposits. That is something you cannot model,” Mr. Decressin said.

     

    National safety nets have in the past been vulnerable to rumor-fueled bank runs. In June last year, the Bulgarian government had to take over Corporate Commercial Bank, after depositors pulled out their savings amid negative news reports about the lender’s main shareholder. It took the government six months to compensate the bank’s depositors, far longer than the 25 days mandated under European Union law.

    Of course, if there is a Greek default and suddenly it becomes clear to everyone that the unbreakable monetary union is quite, well, breakable, the IMF will have to worry not about bank runs in Bulgaria et al, but the countries in Europe’s periphery, such as the one with the second largest amount of sovereign debt outstanding: Italy, as well as Spain, Portugal and so on. Because if the common people have learned one thing, it is that if a political party is elected that the ECB does not approve of, that country’s days of financial mirth are over, and insolvent reality is just around the corner.

    And just to make sure that the IMF’s concerns are unwarraned, the NYT reports that “discussions in the Greek government have included assessing the pros and cons of not paying the central bank and the monetary fund, said two people who were briefed on the discussions but who spoke on the condition of anonymity. In such a case, which was described as a last-ditch option and not a plan for action, Greece would keep paying debts owed to private sector bondholders and other European governments.”

    What is most shocking is that it has taken the Greeks five years to realize there are no more pros to perpetuating the massive con that is it failed zombie nation status, one that has resulted in the biggest national depression in history.



  • China To Build Military Base In Africa Next To Critical Oil Transit Choke Point

    One year ago, we reported that while the west was scrambling to assure the world that it wasn’t collapsing courtesy of record central bank debt monetization even as number of people not in the US labor force steadily approaches 100 million, while peripheral Europe is saddled with 25% unemployment and 50%+ youth unemployment (but… but.. the stock markets are at all time highs), China was busy colonizing a new continent not only infrastructurally…..

     

    … but militarily, in this case in the southern African nation which recently had achieved the pinnacle of Keynesian economic dogma: hyperinflation through currency debasement. Recall what the Zimbabwean wrote in March of 2014:

    China is planning to set up a modern high-tech military base in the diamond-rich Marange fields, says a German-based website, Telescope News.

     

    The news of the agreement to set up the first Chinese military airbase in Africa comes amid increasing bilateral cooperation between Zimbabwe and China – notably in mining, agriculture and preferential trade. China is the only country exempted from the indigenisation laws which force all foreign investors to cede 51% of their shareholding to carefully selected indigenous Zimbabweans.

     

    The Marange story quoted unnamed military officials and a diplomat admitting knowledge of the plan to set up the base. Efforts to get a comment from the Zimbabwe Defence Forces were fruitless, as spokesperson Lt Col Alphios Makotore was consistently unavailable and did not respond to emails by the time of going to press.

     

    The website speculated that China could be positioning itself for future “gunboat diplomacy” where its military presence would give it bargaining power against superpowers like the US. It would also be safeguarding its significant economic interests in Zimbabwe and the rest of Africa.

    And while this is not a story about Zimbabwe, we should remind readers that Zimbabwe’s despotic ruler, a person widely loathed by the west (after being an object of “democratic” admiration in the 1980s and 1990s), Robert Mugabe has recently become a pawn of none other than China:

    Confidential Central Intelligence Organisation documents leaked last year suggested that China had played a central role in retaining President Robert Mugabe in the July 31 elections, indicating that high level military officers had worked closely with the local army in poll strategies while Beijing bankrolled Zanu (PF).

     

    China is Zimbabwe’s biggest trading partner after South Africa and has strategic economic interests in many African countries to guarantee raw materials, job sources and markets for its huge population. The new Chinese Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Lin Lin, recently said trade between the two countries last year exceeded the $1 billion mark. Yet Zimbabwe is only 26th on the list of China’s 58 biggest African trading partners.

     

    The Asian country has supplied Zimbabwe with military hardware, including MIG jet fighters, tanks, armoured vehicles and rifles, since Independence.

    Bottom line: one year ago China was well on its way to marking its territory in southern Africa, with a core military presence near the all important for global trade Cape of Good Hope which is the transit point for about 10% of global seaborne-traded oil.

    Fast forward to today when AFP reports that after securing Southen Africa, China is now in process of securing the second critical geopolitical area in Africa: the horn, which just happens to be right next to the infamous Bab el-Mandeb Strait located by the recently infamous country of Yemen, which in recent months has been overrun by US-armed Houthi Rebels.

    According to AFP, China is negotiating a military base in the strategic port of Djibouti, the president said, raising the prospect of US and Chinese bases side-by-side in the tiny Horn of Africa nation. “Discussions are ongoing,” President Ismail Omar Guelleh told AFP in an interview in Djibouti, saying Beijing’s presence would be “welcome”.

    Why Djibouti? So China can have a bird’s eye view of everything that happens at the Bab el-Mandeb Strait: one of the top 5 oil choke points in the world: “An estimated 3.8 million bbl/d of crude oil and refined petroleum products flowed through this waterway in 2013 toward Europe, the United States, and Asia, an increase from 2.9 million bbl/d in 2009. Oil shipped through the strait decreased by almost one-third in 2009 because of the global economic downturn and the decline in northbound oil shipments to Europe. Northbound oil shipments increased through Bab el-Mandeb Strait in 2013, and more than half of the traffic, about 2.1 million bbl/d, moved northbound to the Suez Canal and SUMED Pipeline.”

    Ironically, Djibouti is already home to Camp Lemonnier, the US military headquarters on the continent, used for covert, anti-terror and other operations in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere across Africa.

    The US is not alone: France and Japan also have bases in the port, a former French colony that guards the entrance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, and which has been used by European and other international navies as a base in the fight against piracy from neighbouring Somalia.

    And now here comes China.

    China is already financing several major infrastructure projects estimated to total more than $9 billion, including improved ports, airports and railway lines to landlocked Ethiopia, for whom Djibouti is a lifeline port.

     

    “France’s presence is old, and the Americans found that the position of Djibouti could help in the fight against terrorism in the region,” Guelleh said.

     

    “The Japanese want to protect themselves from piracy — and now the Chinese also want to protect their interests, and they are welcome,” he said. 

     

    Djibouti overseas the narrow Bab al-Mandeb straits, the channel separating Africa from Arabia and one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, leading into the Red Sea and northwards to the Mediterranean.

    The US will be very angry, especially since Washington was already angry when Djibouti and Beijing signed a military agreement allowing the Chinese navy to use Djibouti port in February 2014. Surely the US top diplomat will not be happy to learn that now China aims to install a permanent military base in Obock, Djibouti’s northern port city.

    Then again, John Kerry and the US State Department may have more than enough domestic scandals on their plate, now that everyone is demanding (or should be) to learn out why said Department will not investigate Hillary Clinton’s breach of protocol and abuse of her foundation for personal financial gain offset by US diplomatic “favors.”

    Meanwhile, China’s colonization – both peaceful and military – of Africa will continue, as will its increasing presence in determining who decides which way the world’s oil flows.



  • The 'Lumbering' US Economy

    While Crude and Copper get all the glory, the fact is, as we have detailed previously, Lumber prices are the most correlated with economic activity (ISM and GDP) of all industrial commodities. That is quickly becoming a major problem for the "Q1 was weather and now we get the epic bounceback" narrative writers.

    Now where have seen this before?

     

    Or this…

     

    And for good measure, builder remain oblivious to their key raw material's diminished demand (or mal-invested supply)…

     

    It's just a matter of time, as we detailed previously.

    But consensus sell-side economist dreams remain oblivious…

     

    But perhaps it's time to start paying attention to Lumber and The Atlanta Fed model…

     

    Charts: @Not_Jim_Cramer



  • Which Countries Are The Most Paranoid?

    They say it’s not paranoia if they are really out to get you.

    Following first the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden that the NSA was indeed out to get virtually every American, as well as last week’s Federal appeal’s court decision that the NSA’s mass spying and collection of virtually all American phone records was not authorized by the Patriot Act and was thus illegal, for Americans it was confirmed that wasn’t paranoia, but none other than the government was out to get them all.

    As such, we find it somewhat odd that in the following chart showing global sentiment toward paranoia, measured by responses whether others are out to take advantage of you or, instead, others try to be fair, the US ranks almost smack in the middle, with respondents in countries such as Japan, Argentina, Turkey and even Germany ranking more “paranoid” than Americans (offset by such socialist utopias as Sweden and Norway, where altruism seems to reign supreme; the presence of China in this grouping is somewhat questionable).

    Then again. considering the survey was originally conducted in 2011 by the World Values Survey organization, somehow we doubt the US would rank quite as netural now as it did 4 years ago.

    Source: John Nelson



  • Chart Of The Day: Record Stock Buybacks Hit Escape Velocity

    As regular readers are no doubt aware, the persistent bid under the US equity market during Q1 came courtesy of price insensitive corporate managment teams who, in a rush to take advantage of rock-bottom borrowing costs just in case the Fed decides to go crazy and actually raise rates later this year, have issued a record amount of debt and plowed the proceeds back into their own shares, artificially inflating the bottom line and boosting their own equity-linked compensation in the process.

    As we noted earlier today, repurchase authorizations hit a record $141 billion last month, providing investors (and the SNB) with an excellent opportunity to frontrun corporate buybacks and giving the centrally-planned, 6-year rally one more excuse to continue for a few more months. 

    With that said, we present the following chart from Deutsche Bank which explains just how it is that US stocks are near record levels even in the absence of a bid from households and institutions.

    *  *  *

    Bonus chart:



  • The Most Imminent And Paramount Question For Americans Today!

    Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,

    Quite rightfully, there appears to be an increasing amount of debate around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Ah yes ‘free trade’.  If I had a nickel for every time I got into a free trade debate I’d be a very rich man.  This is one of those great topics for which both sides can make a very strong academic case and so everyone walks away from the discussion feeling they won.  This is why it’s such a popular debate amongst academics.  But this particular free trade discussion needs to address not so much the deal itself but the delivery process.  Allow me to explain.

    The thing about free trade is that it really has nothing to do with free trade.  It’s a regulatory maneuver pure and simple.  We know the champions of free trade are corporations because they are the profiteers of reallocating working capital out of heavy US regulatory environments and into much lighter emerging market regulatory environments.  This is very much a distinction that needs to be made.

    What supporters of free trade argue is that it allows a free flow of trade to regions with competitive advantages and thus putting capital to use in the most efficient ways (if they don’t, that is the argument they should be using).  However, the stark reality is emerging markets rarely have competitive advantages in any realm over developed industrial nations.  For instance, the Chinese workers are less productive than American workers and so the cost advantage from labour is not due to higher productivity in China but to much softer wage regulations.

    The result is that Americans are losing out on critical manufacturing sector jobs, which is where the American middle class was built.  The free trade champions will argue that because we no longer have a competitive advantage in that type of work we should retrain workers into areas we still have that advantage.  But again, this has nothing to do with competitive advantage.  It’s a convenient argument because it sounds logical if the facts are true.  But the fact that we don’t have a competitive advantage in manufacturing is just not true.  What we have are large dislocations in regulation.  For better or worse, American regulation require corporations to provide a much higher level of overall compensation for domestic employees than regulation does for foreign employees.  And the free trade deals very clearly provide a mechanism by which US corporations can swap heavy i.e. costly US regulation for very light foreign regulation.

    Now that’s a fairly standard style free trade debate but the current debate over TPP is more about the legality of the executive branch request to fast track this free trade deal hidden behind a wall of secrecy, i.e. the details are classified.  I’m really at a loss on this one.  If you read my work regularly you are familiar with my angst on American apathy toward our Constitutional rights.  Every week another slew of Constitutional rights are being creatively and quietly withdrawn.  This has been ongoing for decades but at an extraordinary pace over the past 15 years.

    The fact that Americans have been so willing to part with their guaranteed Constitutional rights has really emboldened our legislature and executive branches of government to go full bore against the Constitution.   We allow them to spy on us, to imprison us without due process and now to remove us completely from the legislative process.  So in effect we are no longer a self-governed democracy in any way, shape or form.  Somebody somewhere explain to me why that proposition is untrue.  And please do not go down the road of well we vote for a representative and that is how we impose our will on the legislative process.  Save that for whatever dumbshit, drunkass moron it worked on last night at the bar because that doesn’t meet the required standard of debate here sir.

    In short we have yet another example of blatant disrespect and disregard for the very process that defines our nation as a self-governed democracy.  Each time we allow the President or legislature to circumvent the will of the people without prosecuting them we place another set of chains around our necks.  This nation has imprisoned millions of men and women for smoking marijuana, an activity that will be legal in all 50 states at some point in the near future.  At the same time, we have not prosecuted one president, policymaker or legislator for breaking Constitutional laws that have now resulted in the unjustified deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers and innocent civilians and the immeasurable destruction of the very system promised us by those that created this once great nation.

    That is heavy heavy stuff.  Yet for some reason we apparently feel much more threatened by a guy smoking a joint in his house than we do by the most powerful men in the world tacitly rendering our Constitution a paper tiger.

    Is it that we don’t care?  Is it that we don’t see it?  Is it that we are masochists? What is it about us that makes us so apathetic to the atrocities against our Constitutional rights?  They are there for our protection and so, to we the people, they are assets that require maintenance but we are leaving them to be destroyed by the political elements.  I am really at a loss on this one.  It seems to go in the face of the basic instinct for self survival.

    Now I get that inner cities are being supported by government hand outs and so they will be hesitant to rock the boat.  Although that is becoming less and less the case isn’t it.  But I mean even amongst well versed, well educated and very interested Americans there seems to be very little concern, judging by reaction, to the fact that our Constitutional rights are quite blatantly at this point, being taken away from us.  Why is that not creating more of an agitated response??

    This is the discussion, this is the debate that needs to happen over TPP.  Corporations will always push for higher profits, that we know, but why does our government feel confident enough to blatantly negate our Constitutional rights so openly in America now?  That is with certainty, the most imminent and paramount question we need to be working on as a free society today or soon we won’t have the right to discuss such things.



  • "Bush vs Clinton" – If The Election Were Held Today, Who Would Win?

    According to a new poll conducted by Bloomberg Politics/Purple Insights there is now even less of a clear frontrunner for GOP presidential candidate with than there was several months ago. The reason: Marco Rubio’s support among GOP primary voters has been rising while Jeb Bush’s has fallen off, depriving him of his leading spot in the polls.

    The poll was conducted by Purple Insights, and found that while Rubio’s support has doubled from 5% to 11% since a similar poll conducted in February, Bush has dropped 5% to 11%, putting him into second place behind Rand Paul and Scott Walker tied for first.

     

    Some of the key highlights from the Bloomberg poll:

    • Scott Walker leads when first and second choices among likely GOP primary voters are combined — a positive sign for his prospects in N.H. He’s backed by 24% in that case, followed by 21% for Bush and Paul and 20% for Rubio.
    • Paul leads the GOP field in support among independents, with 18% support. Bush is relatively weak among independents — while drawing support from 15% of Republicans, he has the backing of just 6% of independents.
    • Trump was selected by 8% of likely GOP primary voters—up 5 percentage points from February.
    • When asked to choose whether Clinton or Bush would be the next president, 33% of N.H. likely general-election voters said Clinton, 27% didn’t venture a guess, 22% said someone else and 18% said Bush.

    And while there is much confusion in the GOP field, Democrats are far more clear who they will pick as their candidate. With 62% support among likely Democratic primary voters – her best showing in this poll since November, Hillary Clinton has an insurmountable lead, suggesting the relentless wave of negative stories about the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private e-mail server have not hurt her among the party’s base.

    Clinton’s closest New Hampshire primary competitor, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has 18%.

     

    But since the outcome of the primaries has already been largely pre-determined, and America will soon to be presented with the next dynastic iteration of the “Bush vs Clinton” false dilemma, here is how the key (non) question breaks down as of this moment: if the 2016 election were held today, for whom would you vote?

    It is not only Bush who is “close” to Clinton. According to the pol. three GOP candidates are now within three points of Hillary. In addition to leading Bush by a small margin, she is also ahead of Paul (46-43%) and Rubio (44-42%).

    Bloomberg suggest that these are “warning signs” for Clinton. Since the last poll in February, three of the top-polling Republican candidates—Bush, Paul, and Rubio—have moved into striking distance and are now within the poll’s margin of error of tying her in hypothetical match-ups.

    Perhaps because nothing makes a competition more “credible” than giving the impression that there is an actual choice.

    And while nothing shows more clearly that America has absolutely no real options if all it boils down once more is another case of “Bush vs Clinton”, some naive, delued invidiuals – elsewhere known as “independents” – still believe that the US democratic machine is not only functioning but well greased.

    “Clinton’s strength in the primary remains historic,” said Purple Insights’ Doug Usher. “But she’s facing the laws of political gravity among independent voters more quickly than her campaign might have hoped.”

     

    Clinton’s numbers with independent voters were destined to fall at some point, Usher said, as the campaign becomes more fully formed and intensely competitive. 

     

    Among independent general-election voters in New Hampshire, Clinton is tied or nearly tied with Bush, Paul and Rubio. She does better against Walker with this group, leading 42 percent to 36 percent.

     

    Poll respondent Stephanie Korb, 57, a Republican dental assistant from Belmont, N.H., said she is leaning toward Rubio.

     

    “He seems like a less offensive choice than the others,” she said. “I want to hear what the candidates want to do to turn this country around and you’re not hearing that.”

    Part of Paul’s strength is his ability to attract independent voters, a key group especially in New Hampshire, where they can vote in partisan primaries. He’s supported by 18 percent of independents who said they were likely to vote in the Republican primary, easily the most of anyone in the field. That means he’s going to want to see the state’s Democratic primary remain a lopsided affair, prompting independents to stick with the action on the Republican side and continue to support him.

     

    Bush is relatively weak among independents. While drawing support from 15 percent of Republicans, he has the backing of just 6 percent of independents. That’s a potential problem for Bush, especially if he runs poorly in the Iowa caucuses set for the week before New Hampshire’s primary. A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed Bush in 7th place in Iowa, so he might need a top finish in New Hampshire to rebound.

    One can read more about America’s so-called decisionmaking process over at the Bloomberg website.



  • When Obama Talks About His "Massive Fight" With Wall Street, What Exactly Does He Refer To?

    On one hand, none other than the company whose very future depends on the continuity of the financial status quo (that would be Bloomberg whose 200,000 Bloomberg terminals are the cashflow lifeblood of the company and for which another financial crash would mean a huge hit to the bottom line as millions of financial workers are again laid off) has a cover story, as well as a cover, depicting Elizabeth Warren as Wall Street’s bogeyman.

     

    On the other hand, we now learn that Warren is also warning that Obama’s pet trade project, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is supposed to counter the ascendence of China in global trade, has been warning about the potential damage of the trade deal and has been arguing that the deal would cost American jobs (for more on the topic, see “Free Trade Is Plutocratic Propaganda“).

    And Obama is not happy: according to the NYT, Obama called Warren “absolutely wrong” in his criticism of the TPP.

    “The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” Mr. Obama told Matt Bai of Yahoo News in an interview conducted on Friday at Nike’s headquarters near Beaverton, Ore. “And, you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there, and I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny.”

     

    Ms. Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has become an outspoken leader of those Democrats who argue that the agreement would cost American jobs.

    But neither the fate of the TPP, nor what happens with global trade (spoiler alert: it continues to collapse in a world in which central banks micromanage everything and in which there is a global race to the currency bottom), nor the increasingly hostile relationship between the president and the potential Democratic presidential candidate (not to mention a big part of his liberal base) is what we would like to focus here, but the following quite amusing excerpt from the NYT piece:

    [Obama] seemed most irritated at Ms. Warren’s suggestion that the trade pact could be used as a vehicle to undercut the financial overhaul that Mr. Obama signed in 2010 in response to the Wall Street excesses that led to the recession.

    The punchline:

    “She’s absolutely wrong,” Mr. Obama said in the interview. “Think about the logic of that, right? The notion that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure that we don’t repeat what happened in 2007, 2008, and then I sign a provision that would unravel it?” He added, “I’d have to be pretty stupid.”

    One simply does not know how to respond here, because when Obama talks of a “massive fight” with Wall Street, is he referring to:

    • the tens of billions in handouts handed to each and every bank, unleashing the age of socialized losses and privatized profits?
    • the condification of the Too Big To Fail concept?
    • presiding over a Department of “Justice” that openly admitted it would not prosecute certain bankers over fears of systemic collapse consequences, thus mathin up TBTF with Too Big To Prosecute?
    • the implementation of Barney Frank which was supposed to rein in banks and instead had Citigroup lawyers and lobbysists write the language write the language in the Derivatives Swaps Out provision of the Omnibus bill as a result of $70.3 trillion in total Citigroup derivatives, which the bank knows will one day require another taxpayer bailout?

    Needless to say we are very confused just which “unraveling” of Obama’s “massive fight” with Wall Street the president is refering to.

    As for Obama “having to be pretty stupid“, we’ll let readers decide that one.



  • The Age Of Cryptocurrency

    “Bitcoin represents a monumental paradigm shift that will transform the social, political and economic landscape,” according to Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey in this presentation. Since its advent, Bitcoin has gained a reputation for instability and illicit business; naysayers fear its power to eliminate jobs and upend the concept of a nation-state. Vigna and Casey show that cryptocurrencies can also bring good. For one, they remove the middleman from the financial system, giving the power to the people and safeguarding from the devastation of a 2008-type crash. They also promote financial equality; Bitcoin has already given the world’s unbanked – those marginalized billions who’ve never had a bank account – unprecedented access to the global economy.

     

    Source: ValueWalk



  • If The Clintons Had Body Cameras

    …but what difference would it make…

     

     

    Source: Townhall



  • Something Doesn't Add Up – Strong Jobs, Weak Spending, Sagging Sales

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    The problem with the employment report is not just about how it is calculated but more so that it is taken as the definitive measure of economic performance. The notion itself, conceptually at least, isn’t assaultive as the modern economy is entirely about the division of labor and specialization, so anything that deals in that subject matter is already in the right place. This particular brand of economic account, however, isn’t so definitive as to have earned such blind faith, especially during this “cycle.”

    As it is, the Establishment Survey and unemployment rate are lagging indications, not forward-looking. The unemployment rate, at its best, may be able to say something about what just happened but is far less intuitive about what will happen. That point really gets lost in the shuffle, especially from the “establishment” that is clinging to anything that might suggest there will never be any economic refutation to monetary “magic.”

    March’s bad jobs numbers plus a slew of other bad economic data — which combined for a pathetically slow GDP growth number for the first three months of the year — had some worried that the reasonably strong jobs and overall growth of 2014 had come to a halt. The good news is that March, and the first quarter, may have been a bit of a blip — today’s report also indicated that February’s numbers were even stronger than expected, adding 266,000 jobs.

    That’s some sure selective reading about the economy, not the least of which is the internals of the payroll report itself. The economy has “come to a halt” in terms of both big and small; the big being in late 2007 as the level of actual and beneficial employment since then has shrunk in even absolute terms, and in relative terms it is something of a depression. In the “small”, there is the matter of the “dollar.”

    Just as the economy, via the Establishment Survey, was taking off, the rest of it did the opposite. That much is clear from the spending figures all over the place, from PCE to retail sales, that show this sinking nature is much more the baseline and anything high and “great” the deviation.

    ABOOK May 2015 Payrolls FT Spending

    It is not consistent with a booming economy, recovery or anything else that the count of employment should so rapidly increase but nothing else does in association. Not only is household spending declining at the retail level, wholesale sales continue to fall off too. And we have yet to see inventory turn lower with sales, meaning the twin (potential) disaster of overcapacity and overproduction simultaneously.

    The latest estimates from the Commerce Department show that wholesale sales for March were down again by 1.3% year-over-year. In seasonally-adjusted terms, sales have declined now for eight consecutive months.

    ABOOK May 2015 Wholesale SA Eight

    Balanced against those declines is inventory still rising. Y/Y in the unadjusted set, wholesale inventories were up again, this month by 4.9%. That has left inventories split from sales to a degree not seen since the worst days of the Great Recession. You can make the argument that conditions now are far better than those, and that businesses will hold on to high levels of inventory in anticipation of the turnaround everyone has been talking up incessantly, but businesses have been told that story before (notably just last year) to no avail and the particular conventions of business have not been repealed as monetary faithholders would have everyone believe. Inventory is inventory, and it must be dealt with when it gains these kinds of extremes.

    ABOOK May 2015 Wholesale SAAR Sales Inv

    While sales have tailed off, there is no sign of that in the inventory part. The common defensive instinct is to write that off as a matter purely of petroleum, but the fact is that non-petroleum inventories have gotten way out of hand in relation to non-petroleum sales; and they have done so in coincidence to all this great job creation.

    ABOOK May 2015 Wholesale Ration ex Petrol

    In seasonally-adjusted terms, wholesale sales ex petroleum are down 3% since so far in 2015, showing no net growth since July of last year. Again, that is the same period as when the Establishment Survey shows the greatest gains since the late 1990’s. The incongruence is astounding, yet for all economic commentary it is the raw job count of the highly adjusted BLS figures that stands in for what might actually be happening; and then worse, those same, dubious “payroll” figures are used for forecasting where the economy is going next.

    From that, you can begin to see why the recovery economists are so sure is right around the corner never is. What we can reasonably assume here is that the economy was bumped in a manner not seen since the Great Recession, and that we still don’t know how that will be resolved. The inventory problem is enormous and it at least suggests far more humility about assured rebounds that have never yet arrived and to which are based on arguable figures that at best are backward facing.

    ABOOK May 2015 Wholesale Ratio



Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News May 10, 2015

  • Schäuble Warns of “Sudden” Greek Default

    Wolf Richter   www.wolfstreet.com   www.amazon.com/author/wolfrichter

    The governments of Greece – new and old – screwed up. Other debt-sinner countries are able to borrow at near-zero or negative interest rates, simply taking money from investors with a promise to return it on a given day in the future if investors give it new money to do so. These investors, it must be said, had their brains washed by the ECB and other central banks in order to allow this to happen. But the governments of Greece somehow missed that gravy train.

    Now, no one wants to lend Greece money at negative interest rates, least of all the Greeks themselves, who know their governments better than anyone else on the planet and have less trust in it than anyone else on the planet: they’re yanking their euros out of their banks even as the ECB is propping them up with fresh euros that ultimately belong to taxpayers elsewhere.

    This weekend, representatives of the “institutions” – the unmentionable “Troika” – are trying the hash out a reform package with the new team from Greece that does not include Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, who’d been shoved aside. On Monday, the finance ministers of the Eurogroup will meet in Brussels.

    Without an agreement on the implementation of the reforms, Greece won’t get the outstanding relief funds of €7.2 billion. And then what? The government has practically no funds left. Time is running out. Monday is it. The Big Day. Again.

    “I don’t see that everything will be solved by then,” German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said in an interview in the Sunday edition of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest papers, throwing cold water on any hopes. He doubted that the Greek government even knew what exactly was going on in its finances.

    “Such processes also have irrational elements,” Schäuble warned. “Experiences elsewhere in the world have shown that a country can suddenly slide into insolvency.”

    On the principle that a country is slowly zigzagging down that path paved with lots of good intentions, false hopes, and lofty promises and, BAM, suddenly, it’s over. So maybe Monday? Or next month? He refused to nail down a specific point in time.

    When asked if the German government has made preparations for such an eventuality, he said:

    “There are issues that a prudent politician must not answer. Otherwise there will be misunderstandings. Jean Claude Juncker [President of the European Commission and former President of the Eurogroup] once said that sometimes you must play fast and loose with the truth. For me, these things are more complicated. Therefore, I rather say nothing at all.”

    That’s a resounding “yes.” Germany is prepared. The financial markets have no doubts and refuse to get panicky. The German government is going to handle this just fine, they’re saying.

    But in August 2013, during the run-up to the general elections in the fall, when the cost of the Greek bailouts to German taxpayers was one of the themes, Schäuble had this to say, thus playing fast and loose with the truth:

    “One thing is certain: there won’t be a second debt cut for Athens.”

    The first one having been the 70% haircut imposed “voluntarily” on private-sector bondholders in 2012. The second one would hit public institutions, such as the ECB and the bailout funds, and ultimately taxpayers in Germany and other countries.

    The “one thing” that was certain in 2013 before the election is now out the window. A Greek default would almost certainly entail some kind of debt relief for Greece, hence a haircut for taxpayers in other countries. They just haven’t been told yet.

    But Germany would “do everything to keep Greece under responsible conditions in the Eurozone,” he said. “It must not fall apart because of us.” On this issue, he and Chancellor Angela Merkel are in complete agreement, he said.

    There have long been voices that confirmed that if Greece defaults, there could be a haircut for public bondholders in some form (swapping existing debt for zero-interest debt with a 1,000-year maturity?) while Greece remains in the Eurozone. That appears to be the direction the German government is heading.

    And Schäuble defended his best buddy Varoufakis. Few people have managed to rise to such media adulation and then plunge from it as quickly as Varoufakis. Whatever he was trying to do, it didn’t work. Forget game theory. “We both are finance ministers and bear responsibility, so we work well together,” Schäuble said. “First, the media make Varoufakis into a superstar, now they’re writing him off. The one is as wrong as the other.”

    With this immaculately-timed interview, the German government acknowledged that it’s ready for Greece’s insolvency and default, whenever it may come, including Monday, after having denied it for years, and that it would continue working with Greece to keep the Eurozone together. What’s sacred for the Merkel government is the Eurozone, not its taxpayers. They already got shafted.

    But here is the thing: the Greeks could solve the crisis on their own, if they wanted to. Or do they know something that others don’t? Read…  If Greeks Did This, the Terrible Crisis Would Be Over



  • Isolated? China & Russia Celebrate Victory Day Together, Obama Absent

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Screen Shot 2015-05-08 at 3.38.45 PM

    BEIJING — When a Chinese honor guard joins a military parade in Russia’s capital this weekend, watched by China’s President Xi Jinping, it will mark more than just a symbolic recognition of the two countries’ contributions to the Allied victory in 1945.

     

     

    China’s participation also reflects an upgrade of its military ties with Russia, including joint naval exercises and a revival of arms purchases, that could complicate U.S.-led efforts to counter both nations’ expanding military activities, analysts and diplomats say.

     

    They’ve basically come to a consensus that despite their differences over some national interests, they really face the same common enemy,” said Gilbert Rozman, an expert on China-Russia relations at Princeton University.

     

    – From the Wall Street Journal article: China Parades Closer Ties in Moscow

    One of the key themes here has been the carelessness and ineptitude of those in charge of crafting U.S. foreign policy. I’m not naive, and I fully understand that the world is a dangerous place. Just as I believe individuals should have the right to defend themselves and their families with the right to bear arms, I also understand the importance of strong national defense.

    The problem with current U.S. foreign policy is that it is not defensive in nature. Rather, all indications are that the U.S. government is acting offensively; primarily driven by ego and the will to dominate. Much of the world has come to see the U.S. not as a powerful partner, but as a narcissistic master. What American leadership fails to understand, is that by taking such a posture it is simply making others overseas feel paranoid and threatened, thus drawing them closer to each other and farther from the U.S.

    The examples of U.S. foreign policy disaster since 9/11 are many, and I have listed several of them at the end of the post. However, the one I want to highlight today is the ongoing slow motion train wreck with regard to Russia.

    As readers will be well aware, the U.S government has been attempting to apply severe pressure on the Russian economy in an attempt to weaken Vladimir Putin’s position at home, and ultimately topple his government. It is now clear that this strategy has completely failed. To make matters worse, the “strategy” has merely solidified the view amongst emerging powers of the need for a counter to U.S. aggression. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than with the increasingly close relationship between Russia and China.

    To summarize, not only did the U.S. foreign policy clowns’ strategy fail, it has actually served to weaken the American position considerably by bringing potentially dangerous geopolitical rivals closer together.

    We learn of the following from the Wall Street Journal:

    BEIJING — When a Chinese honor guard joins a military parade in Russia’s capital this weekend, watched by China’s President Xi Jinping, it will mark more than just a symbolic recognition of the two countries’ contributions to the Allied victory in 1945.

     

     

    China’s participation also reflects an upgrade of its military ties with Russia, including joint naval exercises and a revival of arms purchases, that could complicate U.S.-led efforts to counter both nations’ expanding military activities, analysts and diplomats say.

     

    The 102 Chinese troops who will join the Victory Day parade in Moscow on Saturday were seen during a rehearsal this week marching through streets near Red Square singing the Russian wartime ballad “Katyusha”, according to video footage posted online.

     

    The only other foreign countries with troops in the parade are India, Mongolia, Serbia and six former Soviet states.

    Yeah, just Russia, China and India. No big deal. Without France, they’re nobody.

    Three Chinese navy ships also made a rare foray into the Black Sea on their way to join commemorations in Russia’s southern port of Novorossiysk on Saturday.

     

    The Chinese ships—two missile destroyers and a supply vessel — will then take part in joint exercises with the Russian navy in the Mediterranean Sea for the first time, according to Chinese and Russian authorities.

     

    Both sides say the drills aren’t directed at other countries, but the timing, after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the location, on NATO’s southern flank, have compounded Western concerns about an emerging Moscow-Beijing axis.

    Gotta love that, “compounded Western concerns about an emerging Moscow-Beijing axis.” An axis that is happening precisely due to the aggressive and inept U.S. foreign policy to begin with.

    On Wednesday, Russia’s government unveiled a draft cybersecurity deal with China under which both countries agree not to conduct cyberattacks against each other and to counteract technology that might disrupt their internal politics.

     

    Mr. Xi also appears to share a personal affinity with Russian President Vladimir Putin who is seen by many in China as a strong, patriotic leader.

     

    Last year, Moscow and Beijing staged joint naval exercises for the first time in the East China Sea, where China is embroiled in a territorial dispute with Japan. In September, Mr. Putin and some of his troops will join a military parade in China to mark the anniversary of Japan’s defeat in 1945.

     

    The Pentagon says China is also now pursuing a new joint design and production program with Russia for diesel-electric submarines, which could be used to try to prevent U.S. ships from intervening in a conflict in Asia.

     

    They’ve basically come to a consensus that despite their differences over some national interests, they really face the same common enemy,” said Gilbert Rozman, an expert on China-Russia relations at Princeton University.

     

    “I think they’re both sending a message that their relationship is stronger than outsiders generally expect and if others put pressure on either in their own arenas, the two will stand together.”

    You can thank the idiotic neocons in both the Republican and Democratic parties for this outcome.

    *  *  *

    Furthermore, here is how Chinese media portrays Obama's absence…

     

    * * *

    But lest we forget…



  • Hundreds Leave "Boss-less" Zappos As "Get-Paid-To-Quit" Scheme Backfires

    Many workers dream of one day being their own boss. At online clothing retailer Zappos — an independent subsidiary of Amazon — employees can realize that dream via the company’s “Holacratic” corporate culture. Holacracy is, in the words of CEO Tony Hsieh, “a system that removes traditional managerial hierarchies allowing employees to self-organize to complete work in a way that increases productivity, fosters innovation and empowers anyone in the company with the ability to make decisions that push the company forward.” So essentially, it’s a boss-less structure aimed at driving productivity and innovation by allowing employees to take ownership of their respective goals and responsibilities. 

    On the surface, one might imagine that everyday employees would be thrilled to work in an environment free from overbearing supervisors (that class of non-farm laborer who, in America, is enjoying record wage growth even as those they manage have seen their pay stagnate) harboring false notions of superiority. This is probably why Hsieh felt comfortable distributing a memo which criticized the company’s lack of progress in shifting to a completely Holacratic structure, to Zappos’ 1,500 employees. 

    In the memo, Hsieh essentially gives employees a deadline for full implementation before reminding them that they are free to take “the offer”, a reference to Zappos’ practice of offering to pay employees to quit. The rationale behind the practice is to ensure that everyone who works at Zappos truly wants to be there. Historically, only around 1-3% of employees accept the pay-to-quit proposition and as such, it likely came as quite a surprise to Hsieh when more than 200 people chose to take the money and run rather than work in an environment with no managers. Here’s WSJ:

    About 14%, or 210, of the company’s roughly 1,500 employees have decided to leave the firm, according to Zappos. The exodus comes amid the company’s transition to an unusual management structure called Holacracy, in which employees essentially manage themselves, without traditional bosses or job titles.

     

    The company has acknowledged that the transition to this new form of self-management has been a difficult one. In March, Mr. Hsieh sent a 4,700-word memo to staff stating that Zappos, an independent subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc., was taking too much time switching to this new management structure. He offered all employees at least three months’ severance if they decided by April 30 that working in Holacracy was not for them.

     

    In its training for new hires, Zappos promises a month’s pay to anyone who decides the company’s playful culture, in which employees have dressed up in animal costumes during the firm’s all-staff meeting, isn’t for them.

    Here are excerpts from Hsieh’s memo:

    We’ve been operating partially under Holacracy and partially under the legacy management hierarchy in parallel for over a year now. Having one foot in one world while having the other foot in the other world has slowed down our transformation towards self-management and self-organization. While we’ve made decent progress on understanding the workings of the system of Holacracy and capturing work/accountabilities in Glass Frog, we haven’t made fast enough progress towards self-management, self-organization, and more efficient structures to run our business. (Holacracy is just one of many tools that can help move us towards self-management and self-organization, but simply abiding by the rules of Holacracy does not equal self-management or self-organization.)

     

    After many conversations and a lot of feedback about where we are today versus our desired state of self-organization, self-management, increased autonomy, and increased efficiency, we are going to take a “rip the bandaid” approach to accelerate progress towards becoming a Teal organization (as described in the book Reinventing Organizations)…

     

    Teal organizations attempt to minimize service provider groups and lean more towards creating self-organizing and self-managing business-centric groups instead. As of 4/30/15, in order to eliminate the legacy management hierarchy, there will be effectively be no more people managers…

     

    Self-management and self-organization is not for everyone, and not everyone will want to move forward in the direction of the Best Customers Strategy and the strategy statements that were recently rolled out. As such, there will be a special version of “the offer” to everyone who reads Reinventing Organizations and/or meets some other criteria (outlined towards the end of this email).

    We’re sure there are lessons in here somewhere both about workers’ desire for guidance and structure and about whether it’s a good idea to force people into choosing between a seemingly unpopular ultimatum and free money, but we’ll leave you with the following gem from the Zappos employee who we cannot say is “in charge” of the transition to Holacracy because to say that would be to violate Holacratic principles, so we’ll just say he’s ‘interested’ in facilitating the transition:

    “Whatever the number of people who took the offer was the right number.”

    It’s hard to argue with that.



  • Transformer Explosion At The Indian Point Nuclear Facility Near New York Is 'Contained'

    The words "explosion", "New York", "black smoke", and "nuclear" strike fear into the heart of most people but according to Entergy – who runs Indian Point, "the nuclear facility has been safely shutdown following a transformer failure." Reports of a loud blast at the nuclear facility just 38 miles north of New York, with dense black smoke rising from Unit 3 are no concern and represent "no danger to public health and safety." The plant, which dates back to 1962 (although the currently used reactors were installed later in the 70s) had just been brought back online on Friday, after being shut down for a steam leak repair.

     

     

    Indian is just 38 miles north of New York City, and as RT reports, produces some 25 percent of New York City’s and Westchester’s electricity. The combined power generated by the two units amounts to over 2000 megawatts. The facility employs some 1,600 people.

    The plant has been a subject of controversy due to its proximity to NYC. Several environmental groups have been calling for Indian Point’s permanent shutdown for years. It also has a history of transformer accidents and various leaks, including a 2012 explosion in the main transformer that spilled oil into the river and caused Entergy to pay a fine of a $1.2 million.

    Witnesses posted alarming images of smoke billowing from the plant on social media, saying it followed a large blast and fire. “It was a huge black ball of smoke and alarms went off immediately,” tweeted Gustavus Gricius, a witness near the scene.

    The plant’s Unit 2 reactor has continued operating and the fire was put out by the automatic sprinkler system and on-site personnel, Entergy Corp spokesman Jerry Nappi told Reuters. No people were reported injured.

    The facility's operator tweeted…

    * * *

    One wonders what the rate for a good Geiger counter is in NYC these days?

    *  *  *

    Just coincidence?

    • 2031ET *EDF'S FRENCH BUGEY 2 REACTOR HAS UNPLANNED HALT: RTE



  • A Multinational Trojan Horse: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Submitted by Dave Pruett via Like The Dew blog,

    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison in The Federalist Papers.

    You don’t have to know much about the “trade” deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to be more than a little suspicious.

    First, there are the very peculiar bedfellows. Supporting the TPP are President Obama and most Congressional Republicans, the same Republicans who’ve vehemently opposed his every initiative for the past six and one-half years.

    Against the TPP are most (but not all) Congressional Democrats, Ford Motor Company, virtually all trade unions and environmental groups, watchdog groups such as Public Citizen, and usual Obama allies such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who, in a testy open letter to the President on April 25, called for greater transparency on the TPP.

    Furthermore, when asked to lend his support for so-called “Fast Track” authority for the TPP, Obama water-carrier and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chafed, “So the answer is not only no, but hell no.”

    Also opposed: liberal icon Noam Chomsky, Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee, many Tea-Party groups, and conservative Republican editorialist and former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan. Conspicuous by silence: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    What’s going on here? Why the strange alliances?

    Peel back the layers of the TPP and you’ll find what some believe to be a “corporate Trojan horse.” Disguised as “free trade,” the TPP’s provisions and tactics undermine Constitutional safeguards and national sovereignty. But there’s also a silver lining. The TPP exposes who, in the marbled halls of political power, is working for whom. It forces politicians to put their cards on the table, and by their hands you will know them.

    In a recent interview, Chomsky called each word false in the euphemism “free trade agreement.” There’s nothing “free” about it. With nearly 30 chapters, only a half-dozen or so about international commerce, it’s not really primarily about “trade.” And, having been conducted in secret, shielded from the watchful eyes of the public and their congressional representatives, it’s hardly a broad “agreement.”

    Every citizen has an obligation to find out what’s in this “deal.” That’s difficult, because the Obama administration has decided to treat TPP documents as classified. Indeed, we know the outlines of the TPP only because of leaks.

    For a quick primer on what is known, start with former Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s two-minute video. Follow with Pat Buchanan’s op-ed “Obama’s Republican Collaborators.” And finish with Amy Goodman’s 13-minute interview on Democracy Now! with Public Citizen’s Lori Wallach.

    If you still haven’t made up your mind, read the chilling “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Death of the Republic” by Ellen Brown of the Public Banking Institute. Is it all hyperbole, or could things be as ominous as they seem?

    The TPP, which involves 12 nations and 40% of the earth’s trade, has been called “NAFTA on steroids.” (NAFTA, recall, was the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement of 1993 negotiated during the Clinton Presidency). Every such agreement has been sold to the public by the promise that free trade floats all boats. What’s the reality? According to Buchanan, “… almost all [the big trade agreements] have led to soaring trade deficits and jobs lost to the nations with whom we signed the agreements.” Over the past four decades of free trade, America, cites Buchanan, has lost 55,000 factories and 5-6 million manufacturing jobs, all while racking up $11 trillion dollars in trade deficits.

    So, who, if anyone, benefits by so-called “free trade?” Only the multinational corporations set “free” to scour the earth for the hottest sweatshops and the cheapest labor. Free trade is a global race to the bottom.

    Given the dismal track record of such deals, one would expect future agreements to be negotiated in the light of day by representatives of all stakeholders. So, who’s at the table crafting the TPP?

    “The Administration’s 28 trade advisory committees on different aspects of the TPP have a combined 566 members, and 480 of those members, or 85%, are senior corporate executives or industry lobbyists,” the Warren-Brown letter asserts. “Many of the advisory committees — including those on chemicals and pharmaceuticals, textiles and clothing, and services and finance — are made up entirely of industry representatives.” Absent from that table are all congressional representatives.

    In April, the Obama administration began the process of petitioning Congress for “Fast Track” authority on the TPP. Some believe that Fast Track (which originated with Richard Nixon) is executive usurpation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power… to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” An end run around Congress, Fast Track minimizes oversight and public debate. It cedes negotiating authority to the executive branch and then binds Congress to an up or down vote, severely constrained by time and without adequate discussion or filibuster.

    Where are the hair-on-fire Republicans incensed over the imperial presidency of Barack Obama? Firmly in Obama’s camp! The self-proclaimed party of the Constitution, the family, and God seems only too happy to sell out all three to its prime constituencies: Wall Street and K-Street. Buchanan admits the painful truth: “Fast Track is the GOP payoff to its bundlers and big donors.”

    The most troubling aspect of the TPP, asserts Ellen Brown, is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, which “first appeared in a bilateral trade agreement in 1959.” Brown continues:

    According to The Economist, ISDS gives foreign firms a special right to apply to a secretive tribunal of highly paid corporate lawyers for compensation whenever the government passes a law … that [negatively impacts] corporate profits — such things as discouraging smoking, protecting the environment or preventing nuclear catastrophe.

    Imagine a scenario in which the U.S., coming to its senses about climate change, imposes a revenue-neutral carbon fee on fossil energy. According to provisions of the TPP, a fossil-fuel company in a signatory nation could then sue the U.S. for lost profits, real or imagined.

    The threat is not idle. In 2012, the U.S.’s Occidental Petroleum received an ISDS settlement of $2.3 billion from the government of Ecuador because of that country’s apparently legal termination of an oil-concession contract. Currently, the Swedish nuclear-power utility Vattenfall is suing the German government for $4.7 billion in compensation, following Germany’s phase-out of nuclear plants in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster.

    The ISDS provisions of the TPP are insidious: the means by which signatory nations voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to the authority of corporate tribunals, without appeal, and apparently without exit provisions. No wonder the negotiations are secret.

    Packaged as a gift to the American people that will renew industry and make us more competitive, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Trojan horse. It’s a coup by multinational corporations who want global subservience to their agenda. Buyer beware. Citizens beware.



  • Two Years Later, The VaR Shock Is Back

    In “Bursting Bund Bubble: 2 Charts And Some Lessons From History,” we recapped the sell-off in German government bonds, touching on the severity of the yield spike (with emphasis on Thursday’s intraday move above 77bps), the breakdown in the historical relationship between Bunds and Treasurys/Gilts, and parallels between the rout and the 2003 sell-off in JGBs. On the latter issue, we presented the following chart from Barclays which shows the degree to which this most recent incarnation of government bond carnage mirrors the 2003 manifestation. 

     

    While various exogenous factors have likely contributed to the big Bund battering — including profit-taking, the frontrunning of positive EGB supply in May, and short calls from several bond market heavyweights — it’s worth noting that at the heart of the carnage are two embedded self-fulfilling feedback loops which, together with decreasing liquidity, have made for a rather precarious situation.

    The first loop is related to the structure of PSPP (i.e. no purchases below the depo rate) and has been described by Goldman as follows:

    As the decline in yields that has followed the liquidity injections has made its way to intermediate maturities, the market has extrapolated that the Bundesbank would have to purchase a larger share of longer maturity bonds to fill its quota. This is a self-reinforcing expectations loop, where lower yields beget lower yields. Given its nature, the loop can also switch direction. As yields rise, more bonds become eligible for central bank purchases, and the price action goes into reverse. 

    The second self-feeding dynamic is something we’ve discussed at length before, most notably in 2013 when volatility-induced selling — reminiscent of the 2003 JGB experience — hit the Japanese bond market again, prompting us to ask the following rhetorical question: 

    What happens to JGB holdings as the benchmark Japanese government bond continues trading with the volatility of a 1999 pennystock, and as more and more VaR stops are hit, forcing even more holders to dump the paper out of purely technical considerations? 

    The answer was this: A 100bp interest rate shock in the JGB yield curve, would cause a loss of ¥10tr for Japan’s banks.

    What we described is known as a VaR shock and simply refers to what happens when a spike in volatility forces hedge funds, dealers, banks, and anyone who marks to market to quickly unwind positions as their value-at-risk exceeds pre-specified limits.

    Predictably, VaR shocks offer yet another example of QE’s unintended consequences. As central bank asset purchases depress volatility, VaR sensitive investors can take larger positions — that is, when it’s volatility times position size you’re concerned about, falling volatility means you can increase the size of your position. Of course the same central bank asset purchases that suppress volatility sow the seeds for sudden spikes by sucking liquidity from the market. This means that once someone sells, things can get very ugly, very quickly. 

    Here’s more from JPM on the similarities between the Bund sell-off and the JGB rout that unfolded two years ago:

    The sharp rise in bond volatility over the past week or so is reminiscent of the VaR shocks of October 2014 in US rates and April 2013 in Japanese rates. The common feature of these rate volatility episodes was that there was no clear fundamental trigger. Instead, positions and flows experienced a sharp swing making these VaR episodes appearing more technical and unpredictable in nature. In October 2014, a violent capitulation on short positions at the front-end of the US curve had caused a collapse in UST yields. In April 2013, profittaking in long duration exposures post BoJ’s QE announcement caused a sharp rise in JGB yields that started reversing two months after. 

    What is causing VaR shocks and why are they happening often? We argued before that one of the unintended consequences of QE is a higher frequency of volatility episodes or VaR shocks: investors who target a stable Value-at-Risk, which is the size of their positions times volatility, tend to take larger positions as volatility collapses. The same investors are forced to cut their positions when hit by a shock, triggering self- reinforcing volatility-induced selling. This, we note, is how QE increases the likelihood of VaR shocks.  

     

    The proliferation of VaR sensitive investors, such as hedge funds, mutual fund managers, risk parity funds, dealers and banks raise the sensitivity of bond markets to self- reinforcing volatility-induced selling. These investors set limits against potential losses in their trading operations by calculating Value-at-Risk metrics. Value-at-Risk (VaR) is a statistical measure that investors use to quantify the expected loss, over a specified horizon and at a certain confidence level, in normal markets. Historical return distributions and historical market volatility measures are often used in VaR calculations given the difficulty in forecasting volatility. This in turn induces investors to raise the size of their trading positions in a low volatility environment, making them vulnerable to a subsequent volatility shock. When the volatility shock arrives, VaR sensitive investors cut their duration positions as the Value-at-Risk exceeded their limits and stop losses are triggered. This volatility induced position cutting becomes self- reinforcing until yields reach a level that induces the participation of VaR-insensitive investors, such as pension funds, insurance companies or households.  

     

    The VaR shock in the JGB market in April 2013 contained most of the above characteristics. By looking at quarterly Flow of Funds data from the BoJ, it was Japanese banks, Broker/Dealers and foreign investors who sold JGBs at the time. And it was VaR insensitive investors, such as Pension Funds and Insurance Companies and Households (via investment trusts) who absorbed that selling along with the BoJ.

    And as for just how illiquid the Bund market (where Mario Draghi sees no signs of PSPP-induced trouble) has become…

    The 30-year Bund futures contract in particular has been at the core of the latest VaR shock as it was the one experiencing the highest volatility. Figure 1 shows a price to volume based indicator of volatility for the first 30y Bund futures contract [and] shows how big the deterioration in 30y Bund futures market breadth has been over the past week since April 29th. A stabilization in this, or similar volatility indicators, is perhaps needed to make us confident that this latest VaR shock is behind us.

     


     

    But it is not only market breadth which deteriorated sharply over the past week or so. Another important dimension of market liquidity, market depth, i.e. the ability to execute a large trade without moving markets too much has also seen a decline. This is shown in Figure 2 where we proxy market depth by the 5-day average of the tightest three bids and asks each day, measured in number of Bund futures contracts. What is also striking in Figure 2 is how big the deterioration in the market depth of the 30y Bund futures contract has been during 2014 before even the ECB started its QE purchases. For example, our market depth proxy of Figure 2 suggests that one could have traded around 100 contracts without moving markets too much at the beginning of 2014 but this number has fallen to below 20 this week. One of the reasons for this deterioration is perhaps the almost secular contraction in the German repo market by 30% over the past five years. This contraction in German repo markets started five years ago as shown in Table 1 and continued up until the most recent data in 2014. It intensified during the euro debt crisis as flight to quality made investors unwilling to depart from their “precious” German collateral. The net withdrawal of Bund collateral as a result of ECB’s QE and lower issuance by the German government makes it likely that the German repo market contraction will continue if not intensify this year hampering market trading liquidity further.


    *  *  *

    Between a hopelessly illiquid market, deeply negative German supply in June and July, a central bank determined to prove it has not lost control in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and all of the dynamics discussed above, it’s safe to say the fireworks aren’t over yet.



  • Russell Napier Explains What's In Store For Gold If Cash Is Outlawed

    By Russell Napier of the Electronic Research Interchange

    Why we didn’t have negative nominal yields in the Depression and the end of QE

    Oh the time will come up
    When the winds will stop
    And the breeze will cease to be breathin’,
    Like the stillness in the wind
    ’Fore the hurricane begins —
    The hour when the ship comes in.

     

    And the words that are used
    For to get the ship confused
    Will not be understood as they’re spoken,
    For the chains of the sea
    Will have busted in the night
    And will be buried at the bottom of the ocean.

         –  When The Ship Comes In (Bob Dylan 1963)

     

    The Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund (discussed in the November 12th edition of The Solid Ground) is almost ready for launch. It offers a unique combination of attributes to investors. It has significantly better risk/reward characteristics than both deposits and government debt securities. In short, it is a room full of Euro banknotes.

    The launch of the fund will clearly mark the limits to monetary policy and thus the end to QE in Europe. The fund’s many attractive features include:

    • a small negative yield (my fee), but it yields more than Euro bank deposits and most Euro denominated government debt securities.
    • the assets are a liability of the central bank and not the commercial banks. While bank deposits, above the level guaranteed by governments, can be bailed-in and frozen during any bank reconstruction, the banknotes nominal value is assured by the central bank. The fund thus offers significant capital protection and enhanced liquidity to any bank deposit.
    • unlike longer-dated debt securities of the government, the banknote will not suffer a loss in value should fears of inflation rear their ugly head. While the markets will begin to price future inflation into longer-dated fixed interest securities, the banknote holder suffers no loss at such apprehension. The fund would seek to move from banknotes should recorded inflation appear, as this would impact the real value of investments. The nominal value of the fund cannot decline if inflation expectations rise, ensuring significant protection compared to government debt securities.
    • banknotes could be bid up, relative to deposits, as the authorities seek to restrict access. Last week Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen reported that a Swiss bank had refused to transform the deposits of a Swiss pension fund into banknotes and that the Swiss National Bank confirmed that they were against the hoarding of banknotes to avoid negative deposit rates. The ECB is just as likely to be against such bank runs as the SNB. Any move to restrict access to central bank liabilities (banknotes) and enforce the holding of commercial bank liabilities (bank deposits) is likely to lead to a premium of one over the other. Given the capital risk and lower yield on bank money, Gresham’s Law is likely to see banknotes becoming a store of value, while people seek to use the inferior bank deposit as a means of transaction. Banknotes traded at premiums to bank deposits, albeit in closed banks, in the US in the 1930s. A premium for banknotes would provide a rising nominal value for the fund.
    • the fund would hold only Euro notes with a serial number beginning with X, the X denoting that these notes have been printed by Germany. Such notes could also be bid up relative to deposits and even other notes, should investors fear the demise of the Euro and the re-birth of the DM or a northern European ‘NEuro’. Should this occur, the nominal value of the fund would once more rise.
    • a banknote owner will be able to shift capital to any jurisdiction where the Euro remains fungible. Restrictions on banknote withdrawals and transfers of deposits were imposed in Cyprus, as part of the plan to prevent the funding base of the Cypriot banks moving to other banks in the European Union. The ability to shift capital across borders, should such movement be outlawed, would likely lead to a premium developing for banknotes. Should this occur, the nominal value of the fund would, yet again, rise.
    • notes would be held in denominations of 50 Euros. The authorities are already minded to ban the Euro 500 note (known by some as the ‘Bin Laden’ because it is known to exist but is rarely seen). It is rarely seen because the ‘Bin Laden’ is prized by criminals and those seeking to avoid taxation, meaning it’s increasingly likely to be recalled and abolished. Any ban on large denomination notes to combat illegal activity is unlikely, however, to affect the 50 Euro note given its key role in everyday transactions in Europe. Those bent on illegal activity may just have to get themselves bigger suitcases to stash their smaller denomination notes. A premium may develop for such notes, and such suitcases, and should this occur the nominal value of the fund would, you’ve guessed it, rise.

    The fund produces an enhanced yield over bank deposits and most government debt securities, and cannot be subject to a decline in nominal value unlike bank deposits or government debt securities. In some fairly extreme cases it may even produce a capital gain relative to most money (bank deposits). The only likelihood of loss is in the case of an instant and material rise in inflation that would undermine the real value of the fund. However, unless such inflation developed virtually overnight the fund could be liquidated, without capital loss unlike government securities subjected to an inflationary shock.

    The inflation protection offered by banknotes is thus significant given the current yield on government bonds. While government bond prices may rise somewhat further in a deflation, the banknote arbitrage opportunity suggests that the upside for government bond prices in a deflation is very limited. Government debt securities did not have negative nominal yields in the Great Depression despite gross deflation so why should they they have them now? Thus, those speculating on government bonds to see negative nominal yields go ever lower may not get the capital gains they think are coming their way. Banknotes may even perform as well in a deflation as government debt securities and offer much better protection should an inflationary future appear more likely.

    Given this combination of risk characteristics, why would you want to own a government bond or a bank deposit when the Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund is available? (Before I am inundated with e-mails looking for a prospectus, I should point out that I am independent financial consultant and, am not regulated to look after client monies. Also, I don’t have a basement or a machine gun.)

    The attraction of a banknote fund arises due to an arbitrage which creates a limit to monetary policy. It is that limit which contains the key information about financial market reactions for investors. QE cannot force the price of government debt securities much higher and yields much lower, as increasingly banknotes and even bank deposits become attractive to investors compared to government debt. A limit to QE is a big story.

    Such an arbitrage opportunity would limit the profits one makes in such bonds during a deflation and both notes and deposits offer major protection from capital losses should there be a major change in inflationary expectations. This would be a world of deflation where the scale of negative nominal rates would have a floor. Indeed, bond yields could overshoot into negative territory and then rise into a deflation as the limits to negative nominal yields became increasingly clear. Thus the recent rise in the yields of Euroland government securities may not be a signal of inflation at all, but rather a realization that we have reached the arbitrage limits of how far yields can fall.

    A world of less growth and deflation, but one where interest rates are clearly stuck in nominal terms, is a very dangerous world for equity investors with surprisingly few gains for bond investors.

    Historically the shift from deposits to banknotes was associated with the fear of commercial bank insolvency or illiquidity. That was called a bank run. Today a bank run is the natural consequence of forcing too much central bank liquidity (bank reserves) onto a system which simply does not want them. A banker does not want to accept this short-term funding if he cannot lend the proceeds at a profit.

    The only way for the banking system in aggregate to repel such funding is to offer interest rates on deposits (bank liabilities) which force investors into banknotes (someone else’s liability). Tighter regulation and collapsing long-term interest rates mean that profits from lending for Euroland bankers are increasingly illusory. Banks are keen to repel deposits given the lack of opportunity to use them. If QE reduces the banks’ ability to lend money and also creates an arbitrage from bank deposits into banknotes, will it reflate the economy?

    If you think the answer is ‘no’ then European QE will have to stop with fairly negative consequences for the equity market and positive implications for the Euro exchange rate. Evidence of selling of government debt securities with negative yields is thus not necessarily a sign of inflation. A move to bank deposits or banknotes from government debt securities can instead indicate that the limits for QE have been reached.

    The more investors focus on the limits to the scale of negative nominal rates, the more they focus on the failure of QE or on Ken Rogoff’s paper on killing cash: “Costs and benefits to phasing out paper currency By Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University.”

    While he doesn’t quite label banknotes a ‘barbarous relic’, he comes pretty close. The direction of travel in seeking to ban the use of cash is the same as those who railed against gold as a form of money. Once gold was considered too hard a money for society but now paper may be too hard for us to bear. It seems we need the digital money of deposits that shrink when subjected by central bankers to the hot light of negative nominal interest rates!

    If banknotes are outlawed you will be forced to hold money that is a liability of a commercial bank (deposits) and refused access to money that is the liability of the central bank (bank notes). You will be forced to accept the risk of losses on a bank failure and banned from an instrument which promises no adjustment in nominal value. Any such ban would have to be a decision of government and not of the central bank. This means we’ll all have plenty of warning that it is on its way! We will be forced by law to liquidate the Napier Euro High Yield Capital Guarantee Fund and return capital or watch the fund’s value fall to zero as it holds something which has been stripped of legal tender status.

    Euroland is not the only place where the limits to monetary policy are becoming more apparent. In the JPMorgan Chase annual report President and CEO Jamie Dimon warned that banks are having to turn away even USD deposits. This analyst has now spoken with three investment managers who have been asked to close their deposit accounts with JPM. At this stage other bankers still offer positive nominal yields on bank deposits, but how long will that last as orphaned deposits roam the streets of Manhattan, like Oliver Twist, in search of somewhere they can call home? These orphaned deposits will put downward pressure on interest rates for large-scale depositors and eventually, even in the US, the much reviled greenback may be seen as a store of value relative to bank deposits or Treasuries.

    So, should we reach the limits to monetary policy, what’s in store for that ‘barbarous relic’ sometimes known as gold? It would be a period of rapidly rising real interest rates, as a floor on negative nominal interest rates had been set in a period of accelerating deflation. This should be bad for gold. As The Solid Ground has argued before, the de-leveraging which always comes with deflation and falling cashflows would be very positive for the USD. This would also be bad for gold.

    However, in such a world, zero-yielding gold would be a high-yielding instrument. If the authorities ever sought to restrict access to banknotes, then gold would suddenly find itself enfranchised as money for the first time in many decades. So, given the scale of these competing forces, it is just too early to say what might happen to the gold price, but the allure of gold will grow the more it becomes clear that central bank fiat has failed and the age of government fiat is dawning.

    The time is ever nearer when the price of gold will rise in an era of deflation. In due course, though no time soon, the full force of government fiat will engineer a reflation, albeit one replete with the misallocations of savings and capital so beloved by the bureaucrat. Then the PhD standard, in which the value of money is linked only to the words of the over-educated, will have ended. The gold price will rise even further, ‘And the words that are used for to get the ship confused will not be understood as they’re spoken, for the chains of the sea will have busted in the night’. And that’s ‘The hour when the ship comes in.’



  • Putin Celebrates 70th Anniversary Of Victory Over Hitler, Warns Of Dangers From Unipolar World

    Below is the transcript of the speech given by Vladimir Putin at the military parade on Red Square in Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of Russia’s victory in the 1941–1945 “Great Patriotic War.”

    * * *

    Via the Kremlin:

    Fellow citizens of Russia,

    Dear veterans,

    Distinguished guests,

    Comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers,

    Comrade officers, generals and admirals,

    I congratulate you all on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War!

    Today, when we mark this sacred anniversary, we once again appreciate the enormous scale of Victory over Nazism. We are proud that it was our fathers and grandfathers who succeeded in prevailing over, smashing and destroying that dark force.

    Hitler’s reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology.

    Today, seventy years later, the history calls again to our wisdom and vigilance. We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever. The war affected almost 80 percent of the world population. Many European nations were enslaved and occupied.

    The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy’s attacks. The elite Nazi forces were brought to bear on it. All their military power was concentrated against it. And all major decisive battles of World War II, in terms of military power and equipment involved, had been waged there.

    And it is no surprise that it was the Red Army that, by taking Berlin in a crushing attack, hit the final blow to Hitler’s Germany finishing the war.

    Our entire multi-ethnic nation rose to fight for our Motherland’s freedom. Everyone bore the severe burden of the war. Together, our people made an immortal exploit to save the country. They predetermined the outcome of World War II. They liberated European nations from the Nazis.

    Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, wherever they live today, should know that here, in Russia, we highly value their fortitude, courage and dedication to frontline brotherhood.

    Dear friends,

    The Great Victory will always remain a heroic pinnacle in the history of our country. But we also pay tribute to our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.

    We are grateful to the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the Victory. We are thankful to the anti-fascists of various countries who selflessly fought the enemy as guerrillas and members of the underground resistance, including in Germany itself.

    We remember the historical meeting on the Elbe, and the trust and unity that became our common legacy and an example of unification of peoples – for the sake of peace and stability.

    It is precisely these values that became the foundation of the post-war world order. The United Nations came into existence. And the system of the modern international law has emerged.

    These institutions have proved in practice their effectiveness in resolving disputes and conflicts.

    However, in the last decades, the basic principles of international cooperation have come to be increasingly ignored. These are the principles that have been hard won by mankind as a result of the ordeal of the war.

    We saw attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the strong-arm block thinking gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable global development.

    The creation of a system of equal security for all states should become our common task. Such system should be an adequate match to modern threats, and it should rest on a regional and global non-block basis. Only then will we be able to ensure peace and tranquillity on the planet.

    Dear friends,

    We welcome today all our foreign guests while expressing a particular gratitude to the representatives of the countries that fought against Nazism and Japanese militarism.

    Besides the Russian servicemen, parade units of ten other states will march through the Red Square as well. These include soldiers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Their forefathers fought shoulder to shoulder both at the front and in the rear.

    These also include servicemen from China, which, just like the Soviet Union, lost many millions of people in this war. China was also the main front in the fight against militarism in Asia.

    Indian soldiers fought courageously against the Nazis as well.

    Serbian troops also offered strong and relentless resistance to the fascists.

    Throughout the war our country received strong support from Mongolia.

    These parade ranks include grandsons and great-grandsons of the war generation. The Victory Day is our common holiday. The Great Patriotic War was in fact the battle for the future of the entire humanity.

    Our fathers and grandfathers lived through unbearable sufferings, hardships and losses. They worked till exhaustion, at the limit of human capacity. They fought even unto death. They proved the example of honour and true patriotism.

    We pay tribute to all those who fought to the bitter for every street, every house and every frontier of our Motherland. We bow to those who perished in severe battles near Moscow and Stalingrad, at the Kursk Bulge and on the Dnieper.

    We bow to those who died from famine and cold in the unconquered Leningrad, to those who were tortured to death in concentration camps, in captivity and under occupation.

    We bow in loving memory of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, comrades-in-arms, relatives and friends – all those who never came back from war, all those who are no longer with us.

    A minute of silence is announced.

    Minute of silence.

    Dear veterans,

    You are the main heroes of the Great Victory Day. Your feat predestined peace and decent life for many generations. It made it possible for them to create and move forward fearlessly.

    And today your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren live up to the highest standards that you set. They work for the sake of their country’s present and future. They serve their Fatherland with devotion. They respond to complex challenges of the time with honour. They guarantee the successful development, might and prosperity of our Motherland, our Russia!

    Long live the victorious people!

    Happy holiday!

    Congratulations on the Victory Day!



  • The Charts That Matter – Everything's Relative

    "It's all relative," as Einstein likely said once, and the following 18 charts from Investir.ch's Loic Schmid highlight a few clear divergences – Overweight cash as "the end is near" for US equities, buy dips on weakness in EU debt and gold, position for increasing vol

    Bonds…

     

    World Stocks…

     

     

    Sector Bets…

     

    Individual Stocks…

     

    Buy Vol…

     

    Monetary Policy…

    Source: Investir.ch



  • The "Wrong" Reason Why Bernanke Is Making Bank

    Via ConvergEx's Nicholas Colas,

    Recent press accounts report that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gets seven figures from money management firms, presumably to consult on all things economic.  Fair enough – markets set prices for everything, even former Fed Chairs. But what do these firms get for their money? Today we review what the former Fed head has been writing in his blog for the Brookings Institution.  In his 10 posts so far (plus a guest spot from Larry Summers), Bernanke actually breaks little new ground. He expresses confidence in the Fed’s current low rate policies, professes some confusion about why long rates remain so low, and spends little time on the Fed’s role as regulator.  Taken as a whole, his writing very much reflects the academic underpinnings of a “Much lower for longer” Fed Funds policy.  So why is he worth $1 million and more to money managers?  Likely because they want to ascertain what he doesn’t know more than what he does.

    In thinking about the news that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke now gets millions of dollars for consulting to the money management industry, I can’t help but think of the old Saturday Night Live character of Chico Escuela.  Played by Garrett Morris, Chico was an affable Dominican baseball player whose typical response to any question posed by the press was a sincerely grateful “Baseball been very very good to me”. The study of economics, like baseball, has lots of statistics and featured events that seem to move at a snail’s pace to the uninitiated.  And, certainly, economics has been very very good to Ben Bernanke.
     
    But what do these titans of our industry get for their money?  It is certainly a feather in the cap of any portfolio manager to tell his or her clients that they are getting the very best thoughts from a former Fed Chair. He no doubt makes a splash at client events as well and can likely fill in a lot of the microscopic blanks that policy wonks wonder about daily. As a marketing expense, therefore, private access to Dr. Bernanke is no doubt worth its weight in gold.  Or $1 million in fiat currency, apparently, if the gold standard isn’t your thing.
     
    To get a sense of what – and how – Dr. Bernanke thinks, however, you don’t need to plunk down a 5 inch Halliburton aluminum briefcase jammed with Benjamins, for Ben Bernanke has a blog. It is hosted on the Brookings Institution website, where he is a Distinguished Fellow in Residence with the Economic Studies Program. The former Fed Chair has already posted 10 original pieces plus a guest entry from Larry Summers.  It may not be the same as sitting down with him in a private conference room, but let’s not forget that Bernanke has been either an academic or public servant his entire life.  The chances that what he writes publicly and what he says privately differ in any material respect are remote indeed.  He likely wouldn’t know how to do it if he tried.
     
    The topic for Bernanke’s inaugural post was “Why are interest rates so low?”  It is a prosaic topic, but it does offer the change to hear his most fundamental thoughts on the issue. They are:

    “Low interest rates are not an aberration, but part of a long term trend.”  He assigns inflationary expectations partial credit for the decline since the late 1970s.  To the degree that we’ve reached the zero lower bound for short-term rates, it is not just a function of the Financial Crisis but also a persistent secular trend to lower inflation. What will reverse this +30 year trend?  Dr. Bernanke is somewhat mum on that point.

     

    He believes that the “person on the street” holds the Federal Reserve responsible for the current low level of interest rates. That’s an odd characterization, if only because it seems unlikely that the average citizen knows very much about the Federal Reserve. Above that, if you look at Google Correlate for online searches that occur in tandem with queries for “Federal Reserve” you’ll see concurrent online interest in “T Bills” and “Treasury bill” and “Treasury bill rates”.  What you don’t see: “Mortgage rates” or “Refi rates”.  To the degree people understand the role of the Federal Reserve, they do actually link it to the level of short-term interest rates, not the long end of the curve.

     

    We bring this up because you have to ask why Dr. Bernanke is so publicly visible in his post-government life. I don’t think it is his personal legacy that he worries most about; rather, it is defending the societal value of an independent central bank led primarily by academically trained economists. After the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented interventions since 2007, he feels the need to explain both what the institution did and why it acts the way it does now.

     

    Notably absent from Dr. Bernanke’s maiden effort was any discussion of quantitative easing. Yes, $3 trillion of capital on the Fed’s balance sheet and nary a word as to why or wherefore. The topic does arise in later posts, but you’d think a program of its size would engender more commentary.

    As for the balance of his writing, Dr. Bernanke seems to have three critical points that reappear with regularity:

    He feels that governments are not doing enough to spur economic growth, relying too much on central banks to help domestic economies.  One blog entry calls out Germany by name, with recommendations for more fiscal spending on infrastructure to spur imports. Germany’s trade surplus creates structural imbalances within the Eurozone, threatening its long run stability, according to Dr. Bernanke. No doubt he also has in the back of his mind the challenges the Federal Reserve faced during the aftermath of the Financial Crisis, when fiscal austerity was a headwind to economic growth.

     

    In his comments to an International Monetary Fund conference, included in his blog, Dr. Bernanke argued that the Federal Reserve might consider maintaining a larger balance sheet than before the Financial Crisis.  His argument was essentially that it offers a more nuanced set of monetary policy options. The subtext, however, is that central banks need more firepower to help manage the economy. Given his worries over the actions of elected officials during times of economic turmoil, it’s not hard to see why.

     

    Dr. Bernanke considers the possibility that the U.S. economy is in a period of low growth “Secular stagnation”, but ultimately dismisses the notion.  To his thinking, the current slow growth in the U.S. is temporary, unemployment is declining, and inflationary expectations are within normal bounds. The only guest post so far on Bernanke’s blog is from Larry Summers, who worries that for the last 20 years or so we’ve only had healthy economic growth alongside financial and residential real estate bubbles. Bottom line: Dr. Bernanke doesn’t think things are different from prior cycles in enough ways to merit changing cyclically-minded monetary policy.

     

    Regulation and monetary policy are very different mandates, and the Federal Reserve needs to address them separately.  One central criticism of the Federal Reserve since the Financial Crisis has been its pre-2007 oversight of the U.S. banking system. Fair enough, even if the there is enough blame to go around among other regulatory bodies. Dr. Bernanke feels that the Federal Reserve should essentially firewall that issue away from monetary policy. To the degree speculative bubbles occur due to lax lending standards, regulation can address that. Monetary policy shouldn’t be used to deflate financial asset prices. The subtext here: strictly regulating systematically important financial institutions is necessary to maintaining optimal monetary policy.

    You might be thinking that much of this is familiar ground, so why would financial firms pay so much for Dr. Bernanke’s thoughts?  Aside from the marketing benefits we noted, there is one good reason. You really want to know what Dr. Bernanke doesn’t know and/or about what issues he is mistaken. As one simple example, what if the U.S. only grows at 1-2% this year and employment gains are limited to 150,000 jobs/month?  That would fly in the face of his rejection of “Secular stagnation”, a dismissal that the current Federal Reserve seems to share. Since he mentioned quantitative easing so infrequently in his writing, does he think a “QE4” would not be useful?
     
    In essence, you’d want to know what Dr. Bernanke would think if he were wrong or ill-informed about some important economic issue. That is something money managers understand in a way that academics and policymakers do not, for being wrong – and knowing what to do next – is a critical skill in the professional. Getting the most information from Dr. Bernanke, either in a one-on-one or just reading his work online, boils down to just two questions: “What doesn’t he know” and “What is he sure of that is actually wrong?"



  • Hillary 2016 (Summed Up In 1 Cartoon)

    How many more shoes need to drop?

     

     

    Source: Investors.com



  • Police Abduct 10 Children From A Family In Kentucky Because Of Their "Off The Grid" Lifestyle

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

    If the government does not like the way that you are raising your kids, they will come in and grab them at any time without giving any warning whatsoever.  Of course this is completely and totally unlawful, but it has been happening all over America.  The most recent example of this that has made national headlines is particularly egregious.  Joe and Nicole Naugler of Breckinridge County, Kentucky just had their 10 children brutally ripped away from them just because the government does not approve of how they are living their lives and how they are educating their young ones.

    Let’s be very clear about this – Joe and Nicole had done nothing to violate the law whatsoever.  All of their kids were happy, healthy and very intelligent.  But because the control freaks running things in Kentucky got wind of their “off the grid lifestyle”, they have now had all of their children unlawfully abducted from them.

    A lot of readers also lead “off the grid” lifestyles similar to what the Nauglers had been enjoying.  The Nauglers  own 26 acres in a remote area of Breckinridge County, and their family has been described as “extremely happy”.  But despite never giving them a single warning or a single indication that anything was ever wrong, Kentucky police raided their home on May 6th.  The following is how the raid was described on a website dedicated to this case

    On May 6th, 2015, Breckinridge Co. Sheriff’s officers came to their home, acting on an anonymous tip, and entered their property and home without a warrant and without probable cause. Nicole was at home with the two oldest children, while Joe was away with the others. When the officers left the home, they attempted to block the access road to the family property. Nicole and the two boys got in their car to leave the family property. The got only a short way down the road before the officers pulled Nicole over.

     

    During this stop, sheriffs deputies took their two oldest boys from Nicole’s custody, providing her no justification or documentation to support their action. Nicole was able to contact Joe briefly by telephone, but only for a short period of time, because she needed to use her phone to record the events.

     

    At that point, Nicole had been taken into custody for disorderly conduct (for not passively allowing the Sheriff to take her boys) and resisting arrest. Even though she is 5 months pregnant, she was slammed belly first into the cop car and bruised and scraped on both arms.

    And people wonder why there is such an uproar about police brutality in this country…

    How in the world can a police officer ever justify treating a pregnant woman like that?  The police officer that treated Nicole like that should immediately resign.  Talk about an utter disgrace.  You do not ever treat a pregnant woman like that.

    But this is America, where we are turning a little bit more into Nazi Germany every single day.

    You can listen to audio of Nicole’s shocking arrest right here.

    When Joe arrived on the scene, the police continued to act like Gestapo thugs

    Joe was able to arrange transportation to meet his wife where the stop had taken place. Joe attempted to get out of the car to speak with the officers and his wife, and to recover the vehicle Nicole had been driving. The Sheriff, with his hand on his sidearm, ordered Joe back into the car. Joe complied with that request. The sheriff informed Joe that he had every intention of making this as difficult as possible for them and that their car would be impounded, despite the fact that Joe was there on­site to recover it.

     

    A friend, who had driven Joe to the location, got out of the car to speak with the Sheriff. She was able to convince the Sheriff to let Joe recover the vehicle. Joe also recovered Nicole’s cell phone, which had been recording audio the entire time.

     

    The Sheriff ordered Joe to turn the remaining eight children over to Breckinridge County Sheriff’s deputies by 10:00 a.m., and threatened him with felony charges if he does not comply.

    Joe did comply with the Sheriff’s order, and now their kids have been scattered by CPS among families in four separate counties

    As of now, officials have placed the children with four families in four different counties, and as of Friday morning, the parents had not spoken with them. The four families are families that CPS chose – families the Nauglers don’t know.

    Shame on you Kentucky.  You are supposed to be better than this.

    One of the most disturbing elements of this entire incident is that Child Protective Services never visited the Nauglers a single time and never gave them any indication that anything was wrong.  The following comes from Off The Grid News

    Child Protective Services never visited the home, said Ellsworth, who believes the arrests took place because of the parents’ choice of “unschooling” for their children, and because of their simple way of life that some would call backwards. The family’s Facebook page calls it a “back to basics life.” They have a garden and raise animals. Deputies apparently were concerned about whether the children’s needs were being met, but friends say they personally have no concerns — and that the children are blessed to have Joe and Nicole as their parents.

    How would you like it if government thugs raided your home and took your children away because they considered your lifestyle to be “backwards”?

    What in the world is happening to this country?

    Like I said earlier, what happened to the Nauglers is not an isolated incident.  These kinds of things are happening all over the nation.  For example, just consider the abuse that one homeschooling family received in New Jersey

    Meanwhile, in New Jersey, a WND report highlights how parents were interrogated by a CPS caseworker who questioned Christopher Zimmer and his wife Nicole, “on everything from their son’s homeschool education to questions about vaccines and guns in the house.”

     

    Michelle Marchese aggressively demanded to enter the property after asserting Christopher Zimmer Jr. was not getting a “proper education.” Police subsequently arrived and allowed Marchese to enter the home before conducting a warrantless search.

     

    The Zimmers are now suing the CPS for $60 million in a case before the U.S. District Court in Trenton.

    I very much hope that the Zimmers win that case and collect a huge monetary award.

    All over the nation, CPS officials are running around acting like little dictators and trampling the law.  They need the courts to send them a clear message that this is a nation where the rule of law still applies.

    If we do not stand with families like the Nauglers, control freak bureaucrats will continue to harass families that have chosen to live a “basic” lifestyle all over the nation.  So let’s stand with them and make this case viral all over the Internet.

    And Kentucky, get your act together and send those kids back home.  You are supposed to be so much better than this.



  • Record Numbers Of Americans Renounce US Citizenship

    It seems like it was only yesterday when we wrote that a record number of Americans have renounced their citizenship by expatriating and handing over their US passports one last time. Well, make that recorder after Thursday’s release by the IRS of its latest “taxpatriot list” – a quarterly report that is published in the Federal Register and list the names of every person who renounced thier U.S. citizenship during the previous quarter.

    The original idea for publishing these names was that it would become a list of shame, with some government tax lawyers unofficially labeling it the “name and shame” list. But judging by the soaring numbers of people who clearly don’t mind putting their name on paper just to get rid of their US passport, it didn’t quite work out that way. In fact to many people being added to the “taxpatriot list” has become a badge of honor.

    How many? According to the IRS, in the first quarter of 2015 a record 1,335 Americans renounced their citizenship, 26% more than in the previous quarter, and 18% more than the previous all time high quarter which was in Q2 of 2013.

    If one anualizes the Q1 number, the number of 2015 expatriates is set to hit roughly 5,340, or a 56% increase to what was already the record expatriation year of 2014, in which 3415 Americans punched a hole through their passport.

    Some thoughts from Bloomberg on this “highly distressing” trend:

    “The cost of compliance with the complex tax treatment of non-resident U.S. citizens and the potential penalties I face for incorrect filings and for holding non-U.S. securities forces me to consider whether it would be more advantageous to give up my U.S. citizenship,” Stephanos Orestis, a U.S. citizen living in Oslo, wrote in a March 23 letter to the Senate Finance Committee. “The thought of doing so is highly distressing for me since I am a born and bred American with a love for my country.”

     

    London Mayor Boris Johnson, who had a tax dispute with the IRS, said earlier this year that he would give up the U.S. citizenship he received because he was born in New York. His name isn’t on the IRS list. Eduardo Saverin, a Brazilian-born co-founder of Facebook Inc., gave up his U.S. citizenship in 2012

    In any event, whether for tax purposes, because they are tired of living in an Orwellian dystopia (recall that last week a Federal appeals court found the NSA’s decade-long pervasive spying on US citizens was illegal, a move which will result in absolutely no change in America’s police status), or for any other reason, a record number of former Americans have had enough and just said no to their US citizenship. A trend, which as can be easily seen below, is far from over.

     

    As to whether the following latest IRS expat list is one of shaming, or naming 1335 taxpatriots, we leave it up to readers to decide.



  • Wall Street Is One Sick Puppy

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    The robo-traders – both the silicon and carbon based varieties – were raging again yesterday in celebration of a “goldilocks” jobs report. That is, the headline number for April was purportedly strong enough to sustain the “all is awesome” meme, while the sharp downward revision for March to only 85,000 new jobs will allegedly enable the Fed to kick-the-can yet again – this time until its September meeting. As one Cool-Aid drinker put it,

    “Probably best scenario in which the market was hoping for growth but not (so strong) that the Fed needs to hike in June,” said Ryan Larson, head of U.S. equity management at RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.).

    Yesterday’s knee jerk rip, of course, is the fifth one of roughly this magnitude since February 20th, but its all been for naught. The headline based rips have not been able to levitate the S&P 500 for nearly three months now.

     

     

    In fact, however, the incoming data since February 20 has been uniformly bad. The chop depicted in the graph, therefore, only underscores that the market is desperately churning as it attempts to sustain an irrationally exuberant high. Indeed, today’s jobs data was not bullish in the slightest once you get below the headline. Specifically, the number of full-time jobs dropped by 252,000 in April—–hardly an endorsement of the awesomeness theme.

    True enough, the monthly number for this important metric bounces around considerably. Yet that’s exactly why the algo fevers stirred by the incoming data headlines are just one more piece of evidence that the stock market is completely broken. What counts is not the headline, but the trend; and when it comes to full time jobs there are still 1.1 million fewer now than at the pre-crisis peak in Q4 2007.

    Needless to say, a net shrinkage of full-time job after seven and one-half years is not exactly something that merits a 20.5X multiple on the S&P 500 or 75X on the Russell 2000. That’s the case especially when that same flat lining jobs trend has been underway for nearly a decade and one-half. To wit, since April 2000 the BLS’ full time job count has grown at only 0.35% annually.

    Now how in the world do you capitalize earnings at a rate which implies gangbusters growth of output and profits as far as the eye can see, when the US economy is self-evidently trapped in a deep rut that represents a drastic downshift from all prior history? Thus, compared to the 0.35% rate since the turn of the century, full-time employment grew by 1.8% per annum during the prior 15 years.

    When a trend rate downshifts by 80%, you just aren’t in Kansas any more—even if Keynesian economists and MSM financial journalists don’t know it. On that score, MarketWatch’s headline says it all:

    “Jobs growth is ‘back on track,’ economists say after payrolls report”

    The problem is that they blithely assume its the same old, same old cyclical track diagramed in the Keynesian textbooks of yesteryear. Well, let’s see. Between 1985 and 2000, the adult civilian population (16 years +) grew by 34 million and the number of full time jobs increased by 26 million or by fully 76% of the population gain.

    By contrast, during the fifteen years since the turn of the century, the adult population grew from 212 million to 250 million, but the number of full time jobs rose by only 6.2 million. In short, the nation gained 38 million more adult consumers, but only 15% of them have been employed as full-time producers. And that dismal trend is guaranteed to get worse because its baked into the demographic cake. That is, today’s 45 million retirees will become 75 million less than two decades down the road.

    In welfare state America its virtually certain that through one artifice or another taxes will go up and the national debt burden will rise to crushing heights in order to keep the baby boomers’ entitlements funded. While Keynesians and Wall Street stock peddlers are clueless about the implications of this – it actually doesn’t take too much common sense to get the drift. Namely, under a long-term path of fewer producers, higher taxes and more public debt, the prospects for rejuvenating the previous historically average rates of real output growth are somewhere between slim and none – to say nothing of the super-normal rates implied by the markets’ current bullish enthusiasm.

    As we explained a few days ago, the growth rate of the US economy is in a profound downward trajectory. Based on even the deficient national income and products accounts (NIPA), the growth of real final sales has dropped from 3.6% per annum during the golden era of 1953-1971 to only half that level or 1.8% since the year 2000, and to only 1.1% since the pre-crisis peak in late 2007.

    So absent the Fed massive money printing campaigns since 2000 and the resulting drastic falsification of financial prices, cap rates or PE multiples would be going down, not stretching into the nosebleed section of recorded history. But in a central bank driven casino, there is no honest price discovery or discounting of the forward prospects for business growth and profits. The only thing that is actually “priced-in” is the expected short-term actions by the FOMC—–where today the consensus quickly concluded that the dreaded day in which carry trade gamblers would be required to pony-up the onerous sum of 25 bps for their chips would be deferred until September.

    The level of simple-minded complacency that the Fed’s suffocating dominance of Wall Street has generated was well expressed by Diane Swonk, one of the CNBC economist cheerleaders:

    “The porridge is still too cool from my perspective and certainly from the Fed’s perspective and that’s why you are not going to see a June rate hike,” she said on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street.”

    Call this the poison of Keynesian incrementalism. Monetary central planning channels the narrative emanating from Wall Street into a constrictive one headline/one month at a time framework that is utterly devoid of context and history. Accordingly, today’s “goldilocks” chatter is no different than that of 2007 or 1999. It implied that the business cycle would never end, and that none of the self-evident structural and short-term headwinds, as readily evident today as they were at the two previous cyclical inflection points, even exist.

    Stated differently, the Cool Aid drinkers who rationalize the markets liquidity-driven bubbles, are about the closest thing we have in this day and age to children dressed in adult garments. They appear to naively believe that the party will never end and that the Fed somehow has finally gotten it right and has extinguished the business cycle once and for all.

    In fact, the current business cycle is getting long in the tooth and the Fed has crab-walked itself onto the far end of a limb. At 70 months of age, the current recovery is already well beyond the 60-month average of the nine previous business cycles since 1950.

    Moreover, even the 60-month average is flattered by the extended cycles of the 1980s and 1990s. But these were one-time runs that reflected a domestic credit boom that can’t be replicated in an era of peak debt; and a global growth boom fueled by money-printing EM central banks which was the exact macroeconomic opposite of the current deflationary global environment. Accordingly, the odds that these extended cycleses can be duplicated are laughably low—-nay, non-existent.

    Length of Recoveries - Click to enlarge

    Length of Recoveries – Click to enlarge

    Even apart from the structural headwinds, there is the simple matter of short-term mechanics. Owing to the bullish feasting on stock option winnings that is now rampant in the C-suites, corporate business has been building inventories at a ferocious rate during the last two years, culminating in the record $122 billion gain in Q1——an aberration that will surely reverse and cause a liquidation of reported GDP in the quarters just ahead.

    Indeed, based on the Atlanta’s Fed’s deadly accurate Nowcast projection, it is likely that economic growth will record something close to a “stall speed” rate of growth at under 1% during the first half. And even that assumes no sudden, sharp liquidation of bulging inventories that already reflect the highest ratio against business sales since October 2008.

    So the weakest recovery in modern times is on the verge of stalling out at a point in the business cycle when it is already long-in-the-tooth on a calendar basis. That hardly merits record valuation multiples, but then Wall Street is not capitalizing the future; its simply frolicking on the Chuck Prince dance floor under the false impression that the music will never stop.

    As evident as that is at the macro-level, it is even more dramatically apparent in the surreal world of momo stocks. In the bottled air category, Tesla ended the week with about $30 billion of market cap, and up 5% for the week and nearly 30%  since its last earnings report.

    And, no, it did not surprise to the upside—-notwithstanding the usual “ex-items” gamesmanship:

    The company lost 36 cents a share in the first quarter, less than the 49-cent loss estimated by analysts. Tesla shares rose 2.8 percent to close at $236.80, the highest in more than five months.

    In fact, Tesla’s Q1 net of negative $154 million and ($1.22) per share was its worst on record—–a record that comprises an unmitigated flow of losses since it began filing with the SEC in 2007. Of course, that’s GAAP accounting income—-apparently a matter of no import whatsoever when Wall Street’s equivalent of the “vision thing” is at issue.

    But here is the real thing. In a world saturated with excess automotive capacity and dominated by some of the most formidable engineering, manufacturing and marketing organizations on the planet—Toyota, BMW and Ford, to name just three—–there is no way that an amateurish circus barker like Elon Musk will ever make a profit selling electric vanity cars to the 1%.

    In any event, what was relevant about this week’s (un)earnings release was that Tesla burned $570 million of cash in the just completed quarter alone. And needless to say, that’s exactly par for the course—–after it reported free cash flow of negative $450 million in Q4 and negative $330 million in the quarter before that. In fact, during the 21 quarters since 2010, when Goldman flogged its IPO, Tesla has reported negative free cash flow of $2.7 billion (i.e. cash from operations less CapEx and investments).

    That number is not at all accidental. During the same period Tesla has raised $2.8 billion in the public debt and equity markets, net of its $465 million “early” repayment of its government loan.

    In short, Tesla is a cash burn baby. Like much else on the leading edge of the Fed’s third and greatest bubble of this century, it is providing absolutely nothing that the market is willing to pay for—–and that is even after giving effect to more than $1 billion of green energy credits that have been booked by both the company and its affluent customers.

    You might describe Tesla as $30 billion of capitalized hopium, but that would be too generous. In an honest free market, Tesla would have long ago been carted off to the chapter 11 junk shredder.

    It lives for another day, however, because the sick puppy known as Wall Street has not yet stopped yipping.



  • Why There Is No Treasury Liquidity In One Chart

    It was back in 2012 that Zero Hedge first warned about a topic that now has not only the buyside, but also prominent pundits, regulators and – ironically – even the Federal Reserve scrambling: the collapse of Treasury liquidity, manifested in the multiple-sigma, i.e. “flash crash (or smash)” moves in the Japanese JGB, the US Treasury and most recently the German Bund markets.

    What we said, and what it has taken the mainstream some 3 years to figure out, is that the primary culprit for the collapse in sovereign bond market liquidity are the central banks themselves, first the Fed, then the BOJ, and now, the ECB. Because as we noted in September 2012, “here is a snapshot of the Fed’s nominal holdings by CUSIP spread by maturity. Some may be surprised that the Fed already owns 70%, or the maximum allowed without the Fed destroying all liquidity in a given CUSIP, in various issues, primarily in the 7-10 year window.”

    Before:

    … and After (as of 2012):

     

    Unfortunately, while the Fed’s holdings expressed in 10 Year duration terms have so far peaked at around 35% of total, a level which many expected wouldn’t be dire enough to lead to the evaporation of bond market depth also known as liquidity, what happened since then is that coupled with the surge of HFTs in bond market trading which contrary to popular opinion not only doesn’t provide, but soaks up liquidity, as can be seen on the Nanex chart below…

    … the 30% 10 Year duration threshold which had previously been greenlighted by the TBAC, ended up being far too high and as a result events such as the October 15 flash smash, and the May 2015 Bund flash crash, have become a normal and regular feature of the fragmented, central bank-manipulated and HFT-dominated markets.

    So in case any readers have missed our constant coverage over the past 6 years, predicting accurately not only the breaking of markets due to the advent of HFTs, but the soaking up of all market liquidity by the Fed which in its increasingly more desperate attempts to reflate assets to record levels (remember when years ago it was blashpemy to suggest that the Federal Reserve is pushing the market higher – good times) has broken the markets even further and in fact made selling virtually impossible, thus trapping all those who have put their funds into the so called market, here is the chart showing how much bond market “depth” there is, or rather isn’t, as a result of 6 years of Fed central planning.

    The data comes courtesy of Stone McCarthy:

    The amount of ten-year equivalents held by the Fed decreased to $1.835 trillion from $1.849 trillion in the prior week, which reduces the amount available to the private sector to $3.944 trillion from $3.919 trillion in the prior week. There were $5.778 trillion ten-year equivalents outstanding, up from $5.768 trillion in the prior week.

     

    After the Treasury issuance, maturing securities, rising interest rates, and Fed operations during the week, the Fed owned about 32.05% of the total outstanding ten year equivalents. This is above the 32.03% from the prior week, and the percentage of ten-year equivalents available to the private sector decreased to 67.95% from 67.97% in the prior week.

    And here is a visual representation showing how much of the entire bond market expressed in 10 Year equivalents is now held by the Federal Reserve: a chart regular Zero Hedge users have seen consistently over the past 3 years.

    The chart above also explains why absent a massive debt-funded government spending campaign, the Fed will be unable to launch QE4, for the simple reason that QE, which is nothing more than the Fed’s deficit-funding coupled with a boosting of asset prices via the outside money reserve channel, would promptly soak up all the remaining bond market depth, and even as the S&P hit all time highs, it would lead the government bond market to terminal instability.

    Which is why, paradoxically, for the status quo to persist, either the government will have to lower taxes which would require far greater debt issuance by the Treasury, and thus provide far more dry powder for the Fed to monetize, or the US will finally have to launch that deficit ballooning war it has been itching so hard to start since 2013.

    That, or the Fed may finally realize that by reflating asset prices it does nothing to boost the actual economy as the S&P has and always will refuse to trickle down to the middle class, and the Fed will finally engage in what has been the endgame from day one: paradropping bricks of cash all over the continental US in the last ditch desperate effort to reflate a debt-load which has now pushed not only the US but the world into secular stagnation.



  • Free Trade Benefits Vs. Fears Of Foreign Goods

    Submitted by Richrd Ebeling via Epic Times blog,

    Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke before a joint session of the U.S. Congress on April 29, 2015 and offered his “eternal condolences to the souls of all American people that were lost during World War II,” but never directly said that he was sorry for Imperial Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

    The real purpose for his visit to Washington, D.C. and his address before Congress was to push for Congressional approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the U.S., Japan and 10 other nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam).

    Meant to extend and widen trade and related commercial relationships between the participating countries, it is also been presented as a way for the U.S. to maintain his economic and political power in East Asia in the face of the rising influence of China in that part of the world.

    TPP is a “Managed Trade” Agreement – Not Free Trade

    With negotiations among the twelve governments going on “behind closed doors,” proponents and critics have offered alternative accounts of what is being negotiated and whose benefit will be served in the final agreement.

    What should be most clear is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not a free trade agreement. Parts of it may, no doubt, lower some trade barriers, thus making easier the production, sale and purchase of a wider variety of imports and exports. However, TPP, like all other trade agreements in the post-World War II era is a managed trade agreement.

    That is, governments of the respective participating nations negotiate on the terms, limits and particular conditions under which goods and services will be produced and then bought and sold in each other’s countries. The Japanese government, for instance, is determined to maintain a degree of trade protectionism for the benefit of Japan’s rice producers, who are fearful of open competition from their American rivals.

    The U.S. government is under pressure from the American auto industry, for example, to continue limiting greater competition from the Japanese automobile industry. American labor unions want to restrict the importing of goods produced at lower labor costs abroad than U.S. manufactured goods, because American consumers might prefer to buy the lower priced foreign products and thus risking the loss of some of their union members’ jobs.

    Free Trade Can be Simple and Unilateral

    A real free trade agreement, on the other hand, can be a very simple matter. Congress would pass and the President then sign a short piece of legislation stating something to the affect:

    “The United States government herewith eliminates all existing barriers, restrictions, and prohibitions on the free and unrestricted importing and exporting, buying and selling of all goods and services between the United States and any and all nations in the world. The U.S. government declares that all forms of peaceful and non-fraudulent trade, commerce and exchange is the private matter of the individual citizens of the United States and any and all others situated in another country. This law takes affect immediately upon passage.”

    Indeed, the United States does not even need the mutual agreement of any other nation to implement free trade. The U.S., with just such a piece of legislation, can establish free trade unilaterally; even if other nations kept some or all of their own trade-restricting barriers in place, America would still be better off.

    Let us remember why people trade with one another. Each of us has limited skills, abilities and resources. And there is only so much time in a day to do all the things we might wish to do to produce the goods and services we desire to have.

    Division of Labor and Gains from Trade

    Furthermore, some of us are better at doing some things than others. The noted Scottish economist, Adam Smith (1723-1790), in fact, began his famous book on The Wealth of Nations (1776) with explaining the benefits from a division of labor. In a small group of tribesmen, one of them sees that a fellow tribe member is better at making a bow and arrows than himself, and in less time than when he employs his own labor to make such a weapon for hunting.

    On the other hand, he is quite talented and efficient at tanning animal hides, and offers to trade such a tanned animal hide (that can serve as the covering of a small tent, for instance) in exchange for a set of bow and arrows from the other tribesman who is not very adept at such tanning activities.

    Others may offer the bow and arrows “expert” some product that they are relatively good at producing – one who may be good at producing primitive hatchets or knives, another who has superior cooking skills, etc. – in trade for one of his weapons.

    Over time, Adam Smith argued, each would find that they could improve the quantities and the qualities of the goods that could be in their possession if instead of trying to self-sufficiently manufacture these things on their own, they were to specialize in what they could do better than their fellow tribesmen and trade their specialized good for the similarly specialized products of their neighbors.

    Through a division of labor, productivity is increased far above what individual men in economic isolation can ever hope to attain. It also acts as a stimulus for industry, since now the variety and quality of goods than can be obtained through the exchange of specialized productions work as incentives for each to increase his own output of tradable wares as the means of acquiring what others may have for sale.

    And the more extensive the market becomes on which goods can be sold, the greater now the potential benefits from a more intensive development of the division of labor.

    Birth of Free Market Economics cartoon

    People Trade, Not Governments – For the Benefit of Imports

    From these insights, economists like Adam Smith and who came after him demonstrated that trade among nations is mutually beneficial, and in no way harmful to any nation’s “interest.” Why? Because “nations” do not trade, individuals do. And no individual enters into and participates in any exchange unless at the time of the transaction they view themselves being made better off from what they receive in a trade than what they have to give up to get it.

    Furthermore, the advantage from all forms of trade, whether between two immediate neighbors, or between people living in two different states such as California and Ohio, or between those residing and working in two different countries separated by thousands of miles, comes not from the ability to “export” but from the opportunity to “import.”

    Though I certainly enjoy my job as a professor of economics in an institution of higher learning, the reason I work is to earn a salary that then enables me to buy all the various goods and services that I wish to use and consume. In other words, I “export” my teaching services to others who are willing to pay me for services rendered so I can have the financial wherewithal to “import” all the other goods I wish to buy.

    Exports are only the means through which people in one nation can acquire from those in other nations the products that they cannot produce at home, or cannot produce at a cost less than the prices at which others offer them in another country. Trade among nations offers the consumers of each participating country more goods, and different and less expensive goods than if the demanders of those desired commodities were limited to the production possibilities in their own land.

    The final demonstration of the mutual benefit from trade among nations came with the development of the theory of comparative advantage by economists inspired by Adam Smith. That trade is beneficial is seen clearly enough if each nation can produce some product that its trading partners cannot produce at all, or if each nation can produce some product at a lower cost that none of their trading partners can match.

    Trading Benefits Among the More and the Less Productive

    But what was now shown was that trade was mutually beneficial even if one of these nations was absolutely more cost-efficient in producing every product in comparison to its potential trading partners.

    Suppose I hire a housekeeper to clean my cloths and cook by food even if I can do both of these tasks better and in less time than they can, but if by paying them to do so, they free my time to do things in the market place that generates a higher income that may more than compensates for what I pay them.

    For instance, suppose that I could do these two activities for myself in four hours of time each day, while the professional housekeeper will take six hours to complete these same tasks and for which they will charge me $10 an hour for a total cost of $60.

    But suppose that by freeing me from four hours of household chores, I can produce and sell a product or offer some labor service, myself, which would earn me the equivalent of an income of $25 per hour, or a total of $100. By hiring the housekeeper, I net an extra $40 ($100 earned minus $60 paid to the housekeeper), that otherwise would not be available to me to buy things I might desire.

    If I value more highly what that extra $40 of net income will enable to be buy more than staying home and making a tastier meal for myself and folding my cleaned clothes a little neater, then I will hire the less efficient housekeeper to free up my time so I can do those things for which the market places a higher value than the housekeeper’s abilities.

    Specializing at What You are Relatively Most Productive

    The same logic explains the trade among nations.

    Suppose that the people in the nation of Superioristan can produce a yard of cloth in four hours and can harvest a bushel of wheat in one hour, while the people in the nation of Inferioristan take, respectively, twelve and two hours to perform the same two tasks.

    Clearly Superioristan is a lower-cost producer than Inferioristan in both cloth and wheat production. Superioristan is three times more productive at cloth manufacturing (four hours instead of twelve) and twice as productive at wheat harvesting (one hour instead of two).

    But it is equally as clear that Superioristan is comparatively more cost-efficient in cloth manufacturing. That is, if the people of Superioristan forego the manufacture of one yard of cloth (four hours of work) they can harvest four bushels of wheat (each harvested bushel taking one hour) with the time that has been freed up. But when the people of Inferioristan forego the manufacture of a yard of cloth (twelve hours of work) they can harvest six bushels of wheat (each harvested bushel taking two hours).

    If Superioristan and Inferioristan were to trade cloth for wheat at a price ratio of, say, one yard of cloth for five bushels of wheat, the people of both nations would be better off, with Superioristan specializing in cloth manufacturing and Inferioristan in wheat harvesting.

    Superioristan would now receive five bushels of wheat for a yard of cloth in trade, rather than the four bushels if it harvested at home all the wheat consumed. And Inferioristan would receive a yard of cloth for only giving up in trade five bushels of wheat, rather than the six bushels if it manufactured at home all the cloth needed and used.

    The people of every nation can find a place at the table of global trade, even if they are less productive and efficient than many or all their trading partners, by producing something for which they have a comparative advantage that enables some one or more of their trading partners to specialize in those activities for which they are most productive.

    Linus's Protectionist Blanket Cartoon

    The Errors in Various Trade Fallacies

    Let us briefly review some of the objections sometimes raised against freedom of trade.

    1. Unfair Trading Practices. Many other nations directly or indirectly subsidize the exports of some of their producers to the United States at prices below their actual costs of production. To the extent that this is actually done, this means that American consumers are given a bargain.

     

    Suppose that a product that would, otherwise have cost $10 to buy now can be purchased from the subsidized foreign supplier for $6. Americans now have the desired commodity for $6 instead of $10, plus have the $4 difference left in their pocket to spend on something they otherwise would not have been able to afford. American standards of living are increased due to the foreign export subsidy.

     

    Who should view themselves as having been taken advantage of? Surely, it should be the citizens in the foreign exporting nation, who have been forced to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of the subsidy given to a privileged producer in their own country. They have been taxed so American consumers may purchase something below market-based costs to the benefit of a special interest in their own land.

     

    2. Foreign-Made Goods Cause Jobs Losses at Home. Whether subsidized or not, the charge is often made that foreign imports result in lost business and jobs for Americans. It is true that American firms that cannot successfully compete against their foreign competitors may lose business and may even in some cases go out of business.

     

    But foreign exporters do not give us their goods for free. They desire to earn revenues and income for the same reason that we do, to have the financial wherewithal to buy other goods we desire to buy as income-earning consumers.

     

    Thus, the dollars earned by foreign exporters are spent in one way or another on American goods and services that these foreign dollar-earners find attractive and desirable to buy. Thus, part of the business and jobs “lost” due to foreign competition are made up in the American the export trades as the means for supplying the goods that serve as the ultimate payment for the goods imported.

     

    At the same time, the dollars saved on purchasing less expensive foreign imports, leaves dollars in the pockets of American consumers that enables them to demand other goods here at home that they previously could not afford. This, in turn, creates part of the alternative business and employment that may have been lost as a result of those foreign imports.

     

    What changes is the composition of the types of products produced in America and the types and location of some of the jobs performed by American workers. But as long as markets in America are relatively competitive and adaptive to change, there need be no net loss of jobs. There is always work to be done as long as people have unsatisfied wants. And in this way, there is work for all who are willing to work at market-determined prices and wages, and with higher standards of living due to more and better goods at lower costs.

     

    3. Foreign Trade Barriers to American Goods. Suppose America unilaterally, lowers its trade barriers but the governments of other countries now selling more exports to the Unite States keep their trade barriers in place, not allowing their own citizens to import more American goods?

     

    Then the dollars earned by the foreign exporters either will be sold on the foreign exchange market to those interested and willing to buy American-made goods, or dollars earned from selling goods in the U.S. will remain in America and used for either direct or indirect investments in the American economy. If the latter, this increases the pool of savings and investable resources to finance capital formation in the United States, therefore assisting in enhancing America’s future productive capabilities in the global market.

     

    Suppose that the dollars earned by the foreign exporters were to be “hoarded” in that foreign nation, neither spent on American goods nor saved and invested in the American economy. To the extent this was to be done, the foreign exporters and their governments are giving Americans an implicit “interest-free loan.”

     

    That is, they have given us their goods and not demanded any goods as payment for them. In other words, it is as if they have given us their goods “on credit” and indefinitely delayed when they insist upon being paid back in the form of the goods they could demand from us by offering to trade their earned dollars for actual goods and services on the American market.

     

    For as long as, hypothetically, those dollars were to be hoarded in those foreign countries the resources and labor that would have had to be, otherwise, devoted to manufacture the exports to pay from what we had imported are freed up to be used to make other goods that Americans would like to have.

     

    4. Trade Makes Our Rivals Stronger, and Can Lead to Conflict and Possible War. The greater and more intensive our trading relationships with other nations, the more interdependent we become with them. That very interdependency can serve to reduce the likelihood of war by increasing the its cost.

     

    I sometimes explain to my students, imagine it is the year 2030. China has grown in economic and military power, and the Chinese and American governments have gotten into a political conflict with both sides rattling their sabers and threatening war.

     

    In Beijing, a young man knocks on the door of one of the top Chinese generals and enters his office. The young man says: “Pop, what are you doing? Are you going to ‘nuke’ San Francisco? Don’t you know I’m heavily invested in Silicon Valley, and your daughter-in-law and grandchildren are vacationing at our new condo near Fisherman’s Wharf looking out over the Golden Gate Bridge?”

     

    Countries have and no doubt will continue to go to war for various reasons. And trade does not guarantee that it does not happen. But strong and deeply interconnected trade relations raise the costs of conflict. You rarely improve your own economic wellbeing by killing your customers and destroying your own resource supplies and capital investments.

    Long ago, the famous Scottish philosopher, historian and economist, David Hume (1711-1776) explained the benefits from international trade and division of labor. In a well-known essay of his, “Of the Jealousy of Trade” (1758), Hume pointed that international trade offers opportunities to discover and learn about new technologies, new methods of production and new varieties of products that otherwise might never be known and taken advantage of if nations attempted to economically close themselves off from commercial interaction with their neighbors.

    He argued that if a domestic industry found it difficult to meet the competition of their foreign rivals, “they ought to blame their own idleness, or bad government, not the industry of their neighbor.”

    The fear of lost business and jobs from foreign trade, Hume said, was misplaced. “If the spirit of industry be preserved, [production] may easily be diverted from one branch to another” if markets are kept open, competitive and not hampered by the heavy hand of government regulation, control and burdensome taxes.

    All who participate gain from international trade, and all are made poorer to the extent that governments interfere or prohibit the freedom of trade among the peoples of the world.

    To slightly paraphrase from the closing paragraph of this essay of Hume’s, “I shall therefore venture to acknowledge that, not only as a man (benevolently wishing the best for all of mankind), but as an American citizen (desiring the prosperity of my own country), I pray for the flourishing commerce of Germany, Japan, Great Britain, France, and even China, Russia and Iran themselves. I am certain, that America, and all those nations, would flourish more, did their governments and political leaders adopt such enlarged and benevolent free trade sentiments towards each other.



  • Central Banking and the Greatest Con Job in the History of Finance

    One of the greatest con jobs in history was convincing ordinary people that Central Bankers care about the “economy” or Main Street.

     

    Aside from the complete lack of relevance that Main Street has for Central Bankers from a professional perspective (more on this in a moment), when do you think was the last time that Janet Yellen or her ilk spent an evening with non-banker/financial types? Years ago? Decades ago?

     

    Yellen lives in a super-affluent, gated part of Washington DC. And even within that subset of the US population she lives in a higher echelon: her entourage of security annoys her wealthy neighbors… though I suspect part of the annoyance stems from jealousy.

     

    Regard professional significance… why would Janet Yellen care about ordinary people? They’re just data points in her financial models. Ordinary people didn’t place her at the Fed (the big banks did). And they didn’t place her as Fed Chair (the financial/ political elite did… with the express intent of gaining future favors).

     

    Think of it this way… imagine there was a super cartel of English Professors who controlled what words you or I could use in daily conversation. These individuals literally could change the structure of the human language if they wanted… removing words or adding words at random.

     

    Now imagine that they randomly pick out a low level English Professor who they elevate to being the face of their organization. Do you think this professor would give a damn about how her decisions/ words affected speech? She literally was made one of the most powerful people in the world by this cartel.

     

    This is case worldwide. Most Central Bankers came up from the Too Big To Fails or Primary Dealers (or they are academics like Yellen or Banenke who get their first taste of the “real world” when they’re literally running the financial system).

     

    Literally their entire personal net worth… their professional clout… and their sense of accomplishment was derived from working at these organizations.

     

    And somehow they’re supposed to give a hoot about Joe the Plumber or Bob the Boilermaker? They don’t even deal with those people face to face when they have a problem with their homes. “Hello this is Mario Draghi… the man who controls the currency in your economy… could you please come fix the sink?”

     

    This is why Yellen, Draghi and the like can say with a straight face that maintaining ZIRP or NIRP benefits the economy. It’s why they can spent trillions to bail out/prop up banks without batting an eyelid. It’s why no one who committed fraud went to jail. It’s why lying and cheating in the financial system is allowed… even applauded… because the ones lying and cheating are the same people who picked out/ promoted the regulators.

    And this is why we’re heading for another Crisis… one that will be even bigger than 2008. The fraud that caused 2008 was not solved. Instead it was allowed to spread into the public sector. Today most Central Banks are sporting leverage ratios that would put Lehman Brothers (pre-crisis) to shame.

     

    So the next time something breaks in the financial system… it won’t be just individual banks going belly up. It will be entire countries. What’s happened in Cyprus and Greece is coming to your neighborhood… wherever you are.

     

    If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

     

    You can pick up a FREE copy at:

    http://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/roundtwo.html

     

     

    Best Regards

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     

     

     

     



  • Caught On Tape: Stunned Reporter Grills State Department Why Hillary's Breaches Won't Be Investigated

    In the past several weeks, not a day has passed without a new scandal surfacing revealing Clinton’s lack of judgment whether it involves her abuse of email protocol, or some previously undisclosed financial relation between either Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation and an outside donor. The most egregious revelation took place a few days ago when it emerged that the Democratic presidential candidate had breached her agreement with the White House to name all foundation donors during her tenure as secretary of state.

    Specifically, as Reuters reported, Clinton had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation’s top diplomat. “She also promised that the charities would let the State Department’s ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.”

    In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton’s four years at the State Department.

    The implication is that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns could and likely did curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name. The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria. And, of course, Ukraine.

    The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of “oversights”; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.

     

    The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation’s flagship health initiative.

    But the most shocking development took place yesterday when the US State Department, via spokesman Jeff Rathke, told reporters that while it “regrets” that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, it does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

    The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” Rathke told reporters.

    And while the objective, unbiased media would have been up in arms had this gross abuse of government privileges and clear pandering to foreign interests occurred under a Republican candidate, there has been barely a peep from said media as far as Hillary’s involvement is concerned.

    One person, however, did speak up: that was AP’s Matt Lee who asked why the State Department wouldn’t investigate further to determine if the tens of millions of dollars in donations had influenced her, and thus the US State Department’s, decisions in the 2011-2013 period.

    Rathke’s response: there is no evidence that these donations to the Clinton charities had any effect on Clinton’s decisions. “We’re not going to make a retroactive review on these cases and we will not make a retroactive judgment,” he said.

    Of course, the circular logic involved is so twisted even hardened, conflicted government apparatchiks would not fail to recognize that there is no way to make a determination if said previously undisclosed donations had influenced her decisions without a further inquiry, an inquiry the State Department refuses to make because it assumes that it would find nothing.

    Lee quickly noted this told Rathke that “the reason you are not aware of anything is because the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there is anything that might raise a flag.”

    What followed was 6 minutes of squirming that would make even the most hard-core Clinton supporter blush red with embarrassment at the farce and the corruption evident at every single level of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by Wall Street) candidates are involved.

    The full exchange below.



  • Solving California's Drought: From Iceberg-Towing To Bumper Stickers

    Having faced up to the dreadful reality of a dust-bowl-esque California, and following Governor Jerry Brown's mandatory water restrictions, The LA Times reports a growing list of 'plans' to solve the state's water shortage is growing. From innovations to insanity – from iceberg-towing to biodegradable towels and from 'water pipelines' to bumper stickers – officials have cataloged more than 170 messages containing suggestions and received untold more in emails, phone calls and public meetings.

     

    With the drought threatening every aspect of Californians' lives — how long they stay in the shower and what food they eat — it's not surprising that so many have opinions on how to handle the problem. In a sense, The LA Times reports, people are responding to a rallying cry from Brown, who has repeatedly cited the state's history on the cutting edge of new technology and saying the dry spell "will stimulate incredible innovation."

    But this is not the first time this has happened as a flood of drought-busting proposals is nothing new for California, where dry periods are a recurring phenomenon.

    During a parched spell in 1976 and 1977, the state opened a Resources Evaluation Office, which responded to 4,400 letters, telegrams and postcards offering ideas. Many people wanted to complain about neighbors wasting water, according to a 1978 state report.

     

     

    "Writers promised to end the drought for a price, usually to be paid in advance," the report said. "A few writers stated that it rained wherever they went for their vacations and offered to vacation in California if the state would pay their bills."

     

    The report said hundreds of people suggested importing snow from the East Coast. The state actually calculated what it would take to use snow to make up the deficit in water supply: Every train tank car in the country would have needed to make 500 trips, for a total cost of $437 billion.

    And now in 2015, the pitches run the gamut.

    Would the state like to invest in biodegradable towels that don't need to be washed with water? What about covering reservoirs to prevent evaporation? Why aren't more desalination plants being built?

     

    One person suggested a water pipeline from Alaska, an idea also offered by William Shatner. The "Star Trek" actor's proposal was more modest, reaching only to Seattle.

     

    The suggestions are recorded and categorized, such as "water supply — solar water purifier" or "conservation idea(s) — leak detection technology." Some are forwarded to the state water board for review.

     

    "There could be good ideas here," said Nancy Vogel, a spokeswoman for the California Natural Resources Agency. "We don't want to miss out."

     

    Almost none of the pitches have been successful, officials said. The state isn't in the business of investing in towels, and experts say a Shatner-esque pipeline isn't feasible. One of the more popular suggestions, desalination of ocean water, is already being pursued in San Diego, although it has not been embraced as a silver bullet because of concerns about cost and environmental effects.

     

    The "cheapest, smartest, fastest" way to address the drought is for Californians to use less water, Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the state water board, has said.

     

    Still, Dave Todd, who works on drought issues at the Department of Water Resources, said the state is keeping an open-door policy for new ideas. For example, when someone reached out to discuss irrigation technology, Todd put him in touch with a laboratory at Cal State Fresno.

    "They're being good citizens in trying times," Todd said. "We don't want to discourage people from thinking outside the box."

    Some go way outside the box. Todd said one man sketched out a plan for changing the weather by aiming abandoned airplane engines at the sky.

     

    It wasn't clear exactly how that would work, Todd said. "His physics were obviously way beyond mine."

     

    Some ideas are more grandiose. "Is there someone with whom I can speak about a project that will be approximately the scope of the Central Water Project, and perhaps save civilization?" David Newell, a 79-year-old retired engineer who lives in Sacramento County, wrote in November. He also conceded, "I sound nuts."

     

    The suggestion involved "the direct air capture of CO2 utilizing endorheic basin alkaline deposits" (essentially, pulling pollutants out of the sky in areas with high concentrations of certain minerals).

     

    Other ideas are modest. Ethan Rotman, who runs an education program for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, suggested bumper stickers, to be placed on unwashed cars, "transforming them from being a visual blight to hero status."

     

    His email last June received a form letter in response, as most of the senders do.

     

    "It seemed like a brilliant idea to me," said Rotman, 55, of Marin County. "Maybe my marketing was wrong. Maybe it wasn't a brilliant idea. I don't know."

    What about iceberg towing?

    As for iceberg towing, the email last month came from Allen Fuhs, who is retired from teaching at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

     

     

    In 1977, he attended a conference on the topic at landlocked Iowa State University sponsored by a Saudi prince who was interested in new water supplies for the Middle East. The prince even footed the bill to fly a chunk of iceberg from Alaska (it cost $7,500 — close to $30,000 in today's dollars).

     

    In an interview, Fuhs suggested testing the concept with a demonstration tow that would bring an iceberg from Alaska to the Bay Area.

     

    Asked if he had heard from state officials, Fuhs, 87, said no. But "I'd sure love to have an opportunity to make a presentation."

    "Well, it's entertaining," said Nancy Vogel, a spokeswoman for the California Natural Resources Agency.

    The problem remains



Digest powered by RSS Digest

Britain: A Functioning Democracy It’s Not

We discussed the farce that was/is the UK election last night… consider…

 

Or more clear…

  • SNP + LibDems 3.8 million votes = 64 Seats
  • UKIP 3.8 million votes = 1 Seat

 

The election results under a fair voting system:

CON 244

LAB 201

UKIP 83

LD 52

SNP 31

Greens 25

DUP 3

PC 3

SF 3

UUP 2

SDLP 2

Alliance 1

 

*  *  *

And now The Automatic Earth’s Raul Ilargi Meijer dives deeper into the fact “the people have not spoken…”

We at the Automatic Earth always try to steer clear of elections as much as possible, because there are no functioning democracies left in the west -no more than there are functioning markets-, and no journalists reporting on them either. Interesting question, by the way: how can a journalist report on a democracy that isn’t there? And where in that setting does news turn to mere opinion, and where does opinion then become news ?

Still, of course we caught some bits of the UK elections along the way regardless. The decisive moment for us must have been when Jeremy Paxman interviewed David Cameron at the BBC, and asked him if he knew how many foodbanks had been added in Britain since he took office 5 years ago.

Cameron, well duh obviously, had no idea, and instead of answering the question he started a flowery discourse praising the many volunteers who work in the foodbanks he didn’t know existed. Paxman cut him short and said there were 66 when Cameron came to power, and 421 now. Apparently in Britain, volunteers are needed to take care of the needy, they’re not going to pay people to do that. You would think that takes care of Cameron’s candidacy, but you couldn’t be more wrong.

At least Paxman seemed to try, but interviews like his should take place on the eve of an election, not 6 weeks before them like this one. That leaves far too much time for spin doctors to repair damage done by their candidate’s ignorance and gullibility. It’s crazy enough that party leaders can refuse to discuss each other, let alone the public, in public. Then again, that too would only be significant if there would be an actual democracy in Britain.

As things are, they might as well have put the royal baby in charge as soon as she was born, or for that matter the newborn macaque in Japan that ‘stole’ her name (at least there was an honest public ballot for that). Or perhaps the adorable little monkey can take over polling in the UK, since we can’t imagine any British pollsters still being employed tomorrow morning, not with the degrees to which they missed any and all election outcomes today.

A whole bunch of ‘leaders’ will leave too, but there’s plenty of shades of dull grey humanoids waiting in the wings to replace them. Besides, though Nigel Farage has often been dead on in describing, in the European Parliament, the inherent failures of Brussels, at home he’s never been more than a sad lost clown. I had to think hard about LibDem Clegg’s first name, even needed to look it up -it’s Nick- , and that sort of says it all: he would do well to change his name to Bland.

And perhaps Ed Milibland should do the same. Can anyone ever really have believed that this lady’s underwear salesman could have won this election? Or did they all just fudge the numbers so they had material to print? Ed Milibland never stood a chance. And Russell Bland can now go lick his wounds from supporting the guy, and no, Russell, saying now that you’re just a comedian won’t do the trick. You’ve been tainted. If it’s any consolation, you screwed up the same way Springsteen did when he played Obama’s support act. No surrender, no excuses.

Milibland, by the way, had one last no-no to offer in stepping down. He tweeted: “I am grateful to the people who worked on our campaign and for the campaign they ran. The responsibility for the result is mine alone.” Sorry, boyo, but that just ain’t so. The responsibility lies at least as much with the people who put you in the leader’s chair that doesn’t fit you, and with those who kept you in that chair throughout the campaign.

All Brits should feel blessed that they’re not in America, where these campaigns, which are equally hollow and devoid of democratic principles, last ten times as long. If your blessings are few, do count them.

But then, we all get what we deserve.

If the Brits want to be governed and gutted by the same people who raised the number of foodbanks the way they have, by a factor of seven in five years, and who fabricated the pretense of a functioning economy by blowing the biggest bubble in British history in selling off London town to monopoly money printing Chinese, Russian expat oligarchs and other such impeccable and blameless world citizens, if that’s what the Brits want, then let them have it.

One things’s for sure: Cameron and his ilk, now that they have a majority, will let them have it. And then some. In reality, though, even if they deserve what they get, there’s no vox populi here: the people have not spoken, the people have done what the press told them to do. Like in so many countries, there effectively is no press anymore in Britain, at least not in the sense that we used to knowl; the press no longer asks questions. Which begs yet another question: what is first to go, the media or the democratic values?

Peter Yukes wrote this for Politico just before the election:

The British Press Has Lost It

For months polls have put Conservatives and Labour close with about third of the vote each, and smaller parties destined to hold some balance of power. But there has been no balance in the papers. Tracked by Election Unspun, the coverage has been unremittingly hostile to Ed Miliband, the Labour challenger, with national newspapers backing the Conservative incumbent, David Cameron over Labour by a ratio of five to one.

 

Veteran US campaign manager David Axelrod finds this politicization of the print media one of the most salient differences with the US. “I’ve worked in aggressive media environments before,” he told POLITICO, “but not this partisan.” Axelrod may have ax to grind as he advises the Labour Party, but even a conservative commentator and long-serving lieutenant of Rupert Murdoch has been shocked. “Tomorrow’s front pages show British press at partisan worst,” Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times rued. “All pretense of separation between news and opinion gone, even in ‘qualities.’”

Excuse me, but how is ‘this politicization of the print media one of the most salient differences with the US’? Which US paper has not long been grossly politicized? It’s a shame Yukes devalues his article with such statements.

And that’s the difference. The whole newspaper industry seems to be affected by the tabloid tendentiousness trade-marked by Murdoch’s best-selling the Sun when it roared, in 1992, “It’s the Sun Wot Won It.” The Daily Mail specializes in political character assassination and the ‘Red Ed’ tag was predictable. But when the paper went on from attacking Miliband’s dead father to a hit-job on his wife’s appearance, the politics of personal destruction sank from gutter to sewer.

 

In this precipitous race to the bottom, perhaps the Daily Telegraph had the steepest fall. Known as a bastion of the Tory thinking, it had long been respected for separating fact from comment. During this election cycle is was caught sourcing its front pages direct from Conservative Campaign HQ, seeming to confirm the parting words of its senior political commentator, Peter Oborne, that it was intent on committing “a fraud on its readership.”

Well, at least it’s no surprise that the Telegraph does what it’s always done. Nobody expects them to be impartial.

The paper of record, The Times, fared a little better, in that there has been two vaguely positive front pages about Miliband — compared to 18 for Cameron.Meanwhile, the publication that arose in rebellion to Murdoch’s acquisition of the Times in the 80s, The Independent, shocked most its staff and readership by backing a continued Lib Dem/Tory Coalition. Reports said the endorsement was a ‘diktat’ from the wealthy Russian-born owner, Evgeny Lebedev, causing many to mock its original ad slogan “The Independent: It’s Not. Are You?” or renaming it ‘The Dependent’.

 

Even the sober, tight-lipped Financial Times, which once supported Blair and endorsed Obama, lost credibility. The paper said it backed another Conservative-led coalition because Ed Miliband was too “preoccupied with inequality.” But that magisterial tone was undermined when it emerged the leader writer, Jonathan Ford, was pictured in the notorious 1987 photo of Oxford’s elite hard drinking Bullingdon Club next to the Tory mayor Boris Johnson and just below David Cameron.

A bigger problem would seem to be that Milibland can’t have been far from that club; he attended much of the same educational institutions the other ‘leader elites’ did. Yukes is on to something, but he’s missing the point.

Therein lies the problem, and an indication the newspaper world is a microcosm of a wider malaise. The Conservative politician John Biffen once said “whenever you find a senior politician and a powerful media owner in private conclave, you can be certain that the aims of healthy, plural democracy are not being well-served.” This election that conclave looks like an exclusive club.

 

Rarely have the economic interests of the handful of wealthy men who own most the press (nine men own 90% of all national and regional titles) appeared so brutally transparent. Most of the conservatives among them don’t like Cameron’s modernizing project, or the fact he looks set to fail to get a majority for a second time. But they fear Miliband with a passion because he threatens their power in several ways.

They fear(ed) Milibland? I don’t believe that for a second. I think it’s much more likely that they’ve all intentionally exaggerated Milibland’s poll numbers to make it look like there was an actual race going on. That they were only too happy to have a guy run against theirs that everybody could see from miles away would never be a contender (maybe if his first name would have been Marlon? or Stanley?)

Plus they have the outdated and somewhat inane electoral system, in which for instance the Green Party got – roughly – one million votes and 1 seat, while the Conservatives accumulated 10 million votes and 331 seats. If you can work that system in your favor, you’re half way home. Moreover, if and when you hire the cream of the crop American spin doctors, as the Cons have certainly done, who love purchasing media, you’re way past halfway.

The system can certainly be given some sort of name, but a functioning democracy it’s not. If anything, a democracy is “A system of government in which power is vested in the people”. Makes us wonder how many clients of the 421 foodbanks and counting have voted Conservative and figured they were proudly doing their democratic duty.

Today’s News May 9, 2015

  • Britain: A Functioning Democracy It's Not

    We discussed the farce that was/is the UK election last night… consider…

     

    Or more clear…

    • SNP + LibDems 4.3 million votes = 64 Seats
    • UKIP 3.8 million votes = 1 Seat

     

     

    *  *  *

    And now The Automatic Earth's Raul Ilargi Meijer dives deeper into the fact "the people have not spoken…"

    We at the Automatic Earth always try to steer clear of elections as much as possible, because there are no functioning democracies left in the west -no more than there are functioning markets-, and no journalists reporting on them either. Interesting question, by the way: how can a journalist report on a democracy that isn’t there? And where in that setting does news turn to mere opinion, and where does opinion then become news ?

    Still, of course we caught some bits of the UK elections along the way regardless. The decisive moment for us must have been when Jeremy Paxman interviewed David Cameron at the BBC, and asked him if he knew how many foodbanks had been added in Britain since he took office 5 years ago.

    Cameron, well duh obviously, had no idea, and instead of answering the question he started a flowery discourse praising the many volunteers who work in the foodbanks he didn’t know existed. Paxman cut him short and said there were 66 when Cameron came to power, and 421 now. Apparently in Britain, volunteers are needed to take care of the needy, they’re not going to pay people to do that. You would think that takes care of Cameron’s candidacy, but you couldn’t be more wrong.

    At least Paxman seemed to try, but interviews like his should take place on the eve of an election, not 6 weeks before them like this one. That leaves far too much time for spin doctors to repair damage done by their candidate’s ignorance and gullibility. It’s crazy enough that party leaders can refuse to discuss each other, let alone the public, in public. Then again, that too would only be significant if there would be an actual democracy in Britain.

    As things are, they might as well have put the royal baby in charge as soon as she was born, or for that matter the newborn macaque in Japan that ‘stole’ her name (at least there was an honest public ballot for that). Or perhaps the adorable little monkey can take over polling in the UK, since we can’t imagine any British pollsters still being employed tomorrow morning, not with the degrees to which they missed any and all election outcomes today.

    A whole bunch of ‘leaders’ will leave too, but there’s plenty of shades of dull grey humanoids waiting in the wings to replace them. Besides, though Nigel Farage has often been dead on in describing, in the European Parliament, the inherent failures of Brussels, at home he’s never been more than a sad lost clown. I had to think hard about LibDem Clegg’s first name, even needed to look it up -it’s Nick- , and that sort of says it all: he would do well to change his name to Bland.

    And perhaps Ed Milibland should do the same. Can anyone ever really have believed that this lady’s underwear salesman could have won this election? Or did they all just fudge the numbers so they had material to print? Ed Milibland never stood a chance. And Russell Bland can now go lick his wounds from supporting the guy, and no, Russell, saying now that you’re just a comedian won’t do the trick. You’ve been tainted. If it’s any consolation, you screwed up the same way Springsteen did when he played Obama’s support act. No surrender, no excuses.

    Milibland, by the way, had one last no-no to offer in stepping down. He tweeted: “I am grateful to the people who worked on our campaign and for the campaign they ran. The responsibility for the result is mine alone.” Sorry, boyo, but that just ain’t so. The responsibility lies at least as much with the people who put you in the leader’s chair that doesn’t fit you, and with those who kept you in that chair throughout the campaign.

    All Brits should feel blessed that they’re not in America, where these campaigns, which are equally hollow and devoid of democratic principles, last ten times as long. If your blessings are few, do count them.

    But then, we all get what we deserve.

    If the Brits want to be governed and gutted by the same people who raised the number of foodbanks the way they have, by a factor of seven in five years, and who fabricated the pretense of a functioning economy by blowing the biggest bubble in British history in selling off London town to monopoly money printing Chinese, Russian expat oligarchs and other such impeccable and blameless world citizens, if that’s what the Brits want, then let them have it.

    One things’s for sure: Cameron and his ilk, now that they have a majority, will let them have it. And then some. In reality, though, even if they deserve what they get, there’s no vox populi here: the people have not spoken, the people have done what the press told them to do. Like in so many countries, there effectively is no press anymore in Britain, at least not in the sense that we used to knowl; the press no longer asks questions. Which begs yet another question: what is first to go, the media or the democratic values?

    Peter Yukes wrote this for Politico just before the election:

    The British Press Has Lost It

    For months polls have put Conservatives and Labour close with about third of the vote each, and smaller parties destined to hold some balance of power. But there has been no balance in the papers. Tracked by Election Unspun, the coverage has been unremittingly hostile to Ed Miliband, the Labour challenger, with national newspapers backing the Conservative incumbent, David Cameron over Labour by a ratio of five to one.

     

    Veteran US campaign manager David Axelrod finds this politicization of the print media one of the most salient differences with the US. “I’ve worked in aggressive media environments before,” he told POLITICO, “but not this partisan.” Axelrod may have ax to grind as he advises the Labour Party, but even a conservative commentator and long-serving lieutenant of Rupert Murdoch has been shocked. “Tomorrow’s front pages show British press at partisan worst,” Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times rued. “All pretense of separation between news and opinion gone, even in ‘qualities.’”

    Excuse me, but how is ‘this politicization of the print media one of the most salient differences with the US’? Which US paper has not long been grossly politicized? It’s a shame Yukes devalues his article with such statements.

    And that’s the difference. The whole newspaper industry seems to be affected by the tabloid tendentiousness trade-marked by Murdoch’s best-selling the Sun when it roared, in 1992, “It’s the Sun Wot Won It.” The Daily Mail specializes in political character assassination and the ‘Red Ed’ tag was predictable. But when the paper went on from attacking Miliband’s dead father to a hit-job on his wife’s appearance, the politics of personal destruction sank from gutter to sewer.

     

    In this precipitous race to the bottom, perhaps the Daily Telegraph had the steepest fall. Known as a bastion of the Tory thinking, it had long been respected for separating fact from comment. During this election cycle is was caught sourcing its front pages direct from Conservative Campaign HQ, seeming to confirm the parting words of its senior political commentator, Peter Oborne, that it was intent on committing “a fraud on its readership.”

    Well, at least it’s no surprise that the Telegraph does what it’s always done. Nobody expects them to be impartial.

    The paper of record, The Times, fared a little better, in that there has been two vaguely positive front pages about Miliband — compared to 18 for Cameron.Meanwhile, the publication that arose in rebellion to Murdoch’s acquisition of the Times in the 80s, The Independent, shocked most its staff and readership by backing a continued Lib Dem/Tory Coalition. Reports said the endorsement was a ‘diktat’ from the wealthy Russian-born owner, Evgeny Lebedev, causing many to mock its original ad slogan “The Independent: It’s Not. Are You?” or renaming it ‘The Dependent’.

     

    Even the sober, tight-lipped Financial Times, which once supported Blair and endorsed Obama, lost credibility. The paper said it backed another Conservative-led coalition because Ed Miliband was too “preoccupied with inequality.” But that magisterial tone was undermined when it emerged the leader writer, Jonathan Ford, was pictured in the notorious 1987 photo of Oxford’s elite hard drinking Bullingdon Club next to the Tory mayor Boris Johnson and just below David Cameron.

    A bigger problem would seem to be that Milibland can’t have been far from that club; he attended much of the same educational institutions the other ‘leader elites’ did. Yukes is on to something, but he’s missing the point.

    Therein lies the problem, and an indication the newspaper world is a microcosm of a wider malaise. The Conservative politician John Biffen once said “whenever you find a senior politician and a powerful media owner in private conclave, you can be certain that the aims of healthy, plural democracy are not being well-served.” This election that conclave looks like an exclusive club.

     

    Rarely have the economic interests of the handful of wealthy men who own most the press (nine men own 90% of all national and regional titles) appeared so brutally transparent. Most of the conservatives among them don’t like Cameron’s modernizing project, or the fact he looks set to fail to get a majority for a second time. But they fear Miliband with a passion because he threatens their power in several ways.

    They fear(ed) Milibland? I don’t believe that for a second. I think it’s much more likely that they’ve all intentionally exaggerated Milibland’s poll numbers to make it look like there was an actual race going on. That they were only too happy to have a guy run against theirs that everybody could see from miles away would never be a contender (maybe if his first name would have been Marlon? or Stanley?)

    Plus they have the outdated and somewhat inane electoral system, in which for instance the Green Party got – roughly – one million votes and 1 seat, while the Conservatives accumulated 10 million votes and 331 seats. If you can work that system in your favor, you’re half way home. Moreover, if and when you hire the cream of the crop American spin doctors, as the Cons have certainly done, who love purchasing media, you’re way past halfway.

    The system can certainly be given some sort of name, but a functioning democracy it’s not. If anything, a democracy is “A system of government in which power is vested in the people”. Makes us wonder how many clients of the 421 foodbanks and counting have voted Conservative and figured they were proudly doing their democratic duty.



  • Caught On Tape: Stunned Reporter Grills State Department Why Hillary's Breaches Won't Be Investigated

    In the past several weeks, not a day has passed without a new scandal surfacing revealing Clinton’s lack of judgment whether it involves her abuse of email protocol, or some previously undisclosed financial relation between either Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation and an outside donor. The most egregious revelation took place a few days ago when it emerged that the Democratic presidential candidate had breached her agreement with the White House to name all foundation donors during her tenure as secretary of state.

    Specifically, as Reuters reported, Clinton had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation’s top diplomat. “She also promised that the charities would let the State Department’s ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.”

    In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton’s four years at the State Department.

    The implication is that foreigners banned from donating to U.S. political campaigns could and likely did curry favor with her by giving to the charity that bears her name. The charities accepted new donations from at least six foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state: Switzerland, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Rwanda, Sweden and Algeria. And, of course, Ukraine.

    The charities never told the State Department about the new and increased donations. In two instances, the charities said this was the result of “oversights”; for the other six, they said those donations were exceptions to the agreement for various reasons.

     

    The charities also stopped publishing full donor lists from 2010 onwards; the annually updated list omitted donors to the foundation’s flagship health initiative.

    But the most shocking development took place yesterday when the US State Department, via spokesman Jeff Rathke, told reporters that while it “regrets” that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, it does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

    The State Department has not and does not intend to initiate a formal review or to make a retroactive judgment about items that were not submitted during Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” Rathke told reporters.

    And while the objective, unbiased media would have been up in arms had this gross abuse of government privileges and clear pandering to foreign interests occurred under a Republican candidate, there has been barely a peep from said media as far as Hillary’s involvement is concerned.

    One person, however, did speak up: that was AP’s Matt Lee who asked why the State Department wouldn’t investigate further to determine if the tens of millions of dollars in donations had influenced her, and thus the US State Department’s, decisions in the 2011-2013 period.

    Rathke’s response: there is no evidence that these donations to the Clinton charities had any effect on Clinton’s decisions. “We’re not going to make a retroactive review on these cases and we will not make a retroactive judgment,” he said.

    Of course, the circular logic involved is so twisted even hardened, conflicted government apparatchiks would not fail to recognize that there is no way to make a determination if said previously undisclosed donations had influenced her decisions without a further inquiry, an inquiry the State Department refuses to make because it assumes that it would find nothing.

    Lee quickly noted this told Rathke that “the reason you are not aware of anything is because the building is refusing to go back and look at it to see if there is anything that might raise a flag.”

    What followed was 6 minutes of squirming that would make even the most hard-core Clinton supporter blush red with embarrassment at the farce and the corruption evident at every single level of government, especially when certain pre-approved (by Wall Street) candidates are involved.

    The full exchange below.



  • Abenomics Is 2 Years Old – Households Even Deeper In The Hole

    Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

    For Japan, the comparisons for March 2015 estimates are going to be tough as the yearly look-back aligns to March 2014 and the great surge prior to the tax increase. The distortive base effects make it more difficult to figure out just how little was gained (or lost) in spending and income. So the large granular declines are not suggestive of a massive downward turn, but they aren’t necessarily showing any recovery either. That is especially true in real terms where a reduction in official “inflation” rates has bolstered that side of the ledger.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Spending YY

    I think we can get a sense of how things are still declining, though, from some of the subcomponents less aroused by the tax increase. For instance, household spending on food continues to be highly negative with a much smaller tax footprint for the yearly comparison.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Spending Food YY

    In terms of spending on utilities, there was no tax change applicable so the general direction in spending is not distorted by the fiscal shift. Instead, the direction is all economics, specifically monetary economics.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Spending Util YY

    The reason for that is income, or the very distinct lack of it. The reason why the tax increase was such a major alteration in the flow of spending was that incomes have been sinking steadily, including periods of nominal declines, since QQE began. In other words, QQE has accomplished the exact opposite of its stated purpose by bringing about inflation that did nothing toward furthering economic gains in labor and wages, instead blatantly robbing Japanese consumers of purchasing power – and thus proclivity to spend any actual nominal gains when they happen to appear.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan DPI

    This seems to be the common thread in every region suffering the blight of QE in all its forms, as there is an intentional narrowness in the standards by which its practitioners wish (demand) to be judged. In the US, as noted earlier today, that has meant a singular focus on the unemployment rate or the Establishment Survey but only from 2010 forward as if the relative change full cycle was not relevant. In Japan, economists only see the second derivative changes from April 2014 forward, measuring only that spending or income isn’t nearly as bad as that transition point.

    The reason for that is obvious, because on a longer-term basis QE and QQE are utter failures. Japan has been at it far longer than the US, dating all the way back to March 19, 2001. While the Bank of Japan has not been in constant disruptive mode, it has been far more than it hasn’t.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Real Spending SA Recovery

    Economists only talk about the far right hand side of the chart immediately above, and see “recovery” out of the fact that spending isn’t declining as fast because “inflation” has backed off contrary to what the BoJ actually wishes to see. So in response, the BoJ threatens and whispers about doing more of the thing that pushed spending so low to begin with.

    But what is also plain is that from almost the very start of the very first QE there is almost a straight line of descent in household “demand” despite the clear monetary intent to conjure it. Again, for all the effort and yen created and expended in the pursuit of “aggregate demand” there is a shocking lack of it. The final line into QQE has only heightened that very obvious negative deflection.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Real Spending SA Depression

    You could even make the case that spending had begun to self-correct out of the earthquake/tsunami ravages in 2011, punctuated and deterred once more by the BoJ that just won’t sit still long enough for anything to actually bloom (economically speaking). It has become, nowadays, habitual as monetarists are taking the wrong lessons from all this.

    I think that point is emphasized further and quite well by the longer-term trend in Japanese income. After the initial drop past QE1, incomes in Japan (real terms) were almost stable, interrupted only by global recession. That is, of course, deficient on its own, but at least there wasn’t a tendency toward making it obviously worse through monetary means; that all changed with QQE.

    ABOOK May 2015 Japan Real Income SA QQE

    Notice the trends in both income and spending moved downward not at the inception of the tax increase but at the very start of QQE itself. Science is the study of observation whereas monetary economics has become the science of avoiding them. If economists want to see recovery in that they should be honest about so redefining the term. BoJ is two years into QQE and the hole that has been dug for the Japanese people is enormous, so it will be extremely difficult at this point just to get back to even without ever accounting for lost opportunity for compounding and time. Maybe that doesn’t count as the typical, natural recession but it is nothing short of a man-made disaster.



  • American National Pride Plunges To 30th In The World

    Only 56% of Americans said they were “very proud” of their nation, according to World Values Survey data, down from over 62% in 2009 (71.1% in 2004, and 77% in 1999). Behind nations such as Libya, Nigeria, Egypt, and Poland, ‘exceptional’ America now ranks only 30th in the world for national pride

     

    Source: @MaxCRoser via @ValuesStudies



  • Nomi Prins: The Clintons & Their Banker Friends

    In the coming months, however many hours Clinton spends introducing herself to voters in small-town America, she will spend hundreds more raising money in four-star hotels and multimillion-dollar homes around the nation. The question is: "Can Clinton claim to stand for 'everyday Americans,' while hauling in huge sums of cash from the very wealthiest of us?" This much cannot be disputed: Clinton's connections to the financiers and bankers of this country – and this country's campaigns – run deep. As Nomi Prins questions, who counts more to such a candidate, the person you met over that chicken burrito bowl or the Citigroup partner you met over crudités and caviar?

     

    Via TomDispatch.com,

    The Clintons and Their Banker Friends
    The Wall Street Connection (1992 to 2016)
    [This piece has been adapted and updated by Nomi Prins from chapters 18 and 19 of her book All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Powerjust out in paperback (Nation Books).]

    The past, especially the political past, doesn’t just provide clues to the present. In the realm of the presidency and Wall Street, it provides an ongoing pathway for political-financial relationships and policies that remain a threat to the American economy going forward.

    When Hillary Clinton video-announced her bid for the Oval Office, she claimed she wanted to be a “champion” for the American people. Since then, she has attempted to recast herself as a populist and distance herself from some of the policies of her husband. But Bill Clinton did not become president without sharing the friendships, associations, and ideologies of the elite banking sect, nor will Hillary Clinton.  Such relationships run too deep and are too longstanding.

    To grasp the dangers that the Big Six banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) presently pose to the financial stability of our nation and the world, you need to understand their history in Washington, starting with the Clinton years of the 1990s. Alliances established then (not exclusively with Democrats, since bankers are bipartisan by nature) enabled these firms to become as politically powerful as they are today and to exert that power over an unprecedented amount of capital. Rest assured of one thing: their past and present CEOs will prove as critical in backing a Hillary Clinton presidency as they were in enabling her husband’s years in office. 

    In return, today’s titans of finance and their hordes of lobbyists, more than half of whom held prior positions in the government, exact certain requirements from Washington. They need to know that a safety net or bailout will always be available in times of emergency and that the regulatory road will be open to whatever practices they deem most profitable. 

    Whatever her populist pitch may be in the 2016 campaign — and she will have one — note that, in all these years, Hillary Clinton has not publicly condemned Wall Street or any individual Wall Street leader.  Though she may, in the heat of that campaign, raise the bad-apples or bad-situation explanation for Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis of 2007-2008, rest assured that she will not point fingers at her friends. She will not chastise the people that pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to speak or the ones that have long shared the social circles in which she and her husband move. She is an undeniable component of the Clinton political-financial legacy that came to national fruition more than 23 years ago, which is why looking back at the history of the first Clinton presidency is likely to tell you so much about the shape and character of the possible second one.

    The 1992 Election and the Rise of Bill Clinton

    Challenging President George H.W. Bush, who was seeking a second term, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton announced he would seek the 1992 Democratic nomination for the presidency on October 2, 1991. The upcoming presidential election would not, however, turn out to alter the path of mergers or White House support for deregulation that was already in play one iota.

    First, though, Clinton needed money. A consummate fundraiser in his home state, he cleverly amassed backing and established early alliances with Wall Street. One of his key supporters would later change American banking forever. As Clinton put it, he received “invaluable early support” from Ken Brody, a Goldman Sachs executive seeking to delve into Democratic politics. Brody took Clinton “to a dinner with high-powered New York businesspeople, including Bob Rubin, whose tightly reasoned arguments for a new economic policy,” Clinton later wrote, “made a lasting impression on me.”

    The battle for the White House kicked into high gear the following fall. William Schreyer, chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch, showed his support for Bush by giving the maximum personal contribution to his campaign committee permitted by law: $1,000. But he wanted to do more. So when one of Bush’s fundraisers solicited him to contribute to the Republican National Committee’s nonfederal, or “soft money,” account, Schreyer made a $100,000 donation.

    The bankers’ alliances remained divided among the candidates at first, as they considered which man would be best for their own power trajectories, but their donations were plentiful: mortgage and broker company contributions were $1.2 million; 46% to the GOP and 54% to the Democrats. Commercial banks poured in $14.8 million to the 1992 campaigns at a near 50-50 split.

    Clinton, like every good Democrat, campaigned publicly against the bankers: “It’s time to end the greed that consumed Wall Street and ruined our S&Ls [Savings and Loans] in the last decade,” he said. But equally, he had no qualms about taking money from the financial sector. In the early months of his campaign, BusinessWeek estimated that he received $2 million of his initial $8.5 million in contributions from New York, under the care of Ken Brody.

    “If I had a Ken Brody working for me in every state, I’d be like the Maytag man with nothing to do,” said Rahm Emanuel, who ran Clinton’s nationwide fundraising committee and later became Barack Obama’s chief of staff. Wealthy donors and prospective fundraisers were invited to a select series of intimate meetings with Clinton at the plush Manhattan office of the prestigious private equity firm Blackstone.

    Robert Rubin Comes to Washington

    Clinton knew that embracing the bankers would help him get things done in Washington, and what he wanted to get done dovetailed nicely with their desires anyway. To facilitate his policies and maintain ties to Wall Street, he selected a man who had been instrumental to his campaign, Robert Rubin, as his economic adviser.

    In 1980, Rubin had landed on Goldman Sachs' management committee alongside fellow Democrat Jon Corzine. A decade later, Rubin and Stephen Friedman were appointed cochairmen of Goldman Sachs. Rubin’s political aspirations met an appropriate opportunity when Clinton captured the White House.

    On January 25, 1993, Clinton appointed him as assistant to the president for economic policy. Shortly thereafter, the president created a unique role for his comrade, head of the newly created National Economic Council. “I asked Bob Rubin to take on a new job,” Clinton later wrote, “coordinating economic policy in the White House as Chairman of the National Economic Council, which would operate in much the same way the National Security Council did, bringing all the relevant agencies together to formulate and implement policy… [I]f he could balance all of [Goldman Sachs’] egos and interests, he had a good chance to succeed with the job.” (Ten years later, President George W. Bush gave the same position to Rubin’s old partner, Friedman.)

    Back at Goldman, Jon Corzine, co-head of fixed income, and Henry Paulson, co-head of investment banking, were ascending through the ranks. They became co-CEOs when Friedman retired at the end of 1994.

    Those two men were the perfect bipartisan duo. Corzine was a staunch Democrat serving on the International Capital Markets Advisory Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (from 1989 to 1999). He would co-chair a presidential commission for Clinton on capital budgeting between 1997 and 1999, while serving in a key role on the Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Treasury Department. Paulson was a well connected Republican and Harvard graduate who had served on the White House Domestic Council as staff assistant to the president in the Nixon administration.

    Bankers Forge Ahead

    By May 1995, Rubin was impatiently warning Congress that the Glass-Steagall Act could “conceivably impede safety and soundness by limiting revenue diversification.” Banking deregulation was then inching through Congress. As they had during the previous Bush administration, both the House and Senate Banking Committees had approved separate versions of legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall, the 1933 Act passed by the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that had separated deposit-taking and lending or “commercial” bank activities from speculative or “investment bank” activities, such as securities creation and trading. Conference negotiations had fallen apart, though, and the effort was stalled.

    By 1996, however, other industries, representing core clients of the banking sector, were already being deregulated. On February 8, 1996, Clinton signed the Telecom Act, which killed many independent and smaller broadcasting companies by opening a national market for “cross-ownership.” The result was mass mergers in that sector advised by banks.

    Deregulation of companies that could transport energy across state lines came next. Before such deregulation, state commissions had regulated companies that owned power plants and transmission lines, which worked together to distribute power. Afterward, these could be divided and effectively traded without uniform regulation or responsibility to regional customers. This would lead to blackouts in California and a slew of energy derivatives, as well as trades at firms such as Enron that used the energy business as a front for fraudulent deals.

    The number of mergers and stock and debt issuances ballooned on the back of all the deregulation that eliminated barriers that had kept companies separated. As industries consolidated, they also ramped up their complex transactions and special purpose vehicles (off-balance-sheet, offshore constructions tailored by the banking community to hide the true nature of their debts and shield their profits from taxes). Bankers kicked into overdrive to generate fees and create related deals. Many of these blew up in the early 2000s in a spate of scandals and bankruptcies, causing an earlier millennium recession.

    Meanwhile, though, bankers plowed ahead with their advisory services, speculative enterprises, and deregulation pursuits. President Clinton and his team would soon provide them an epic gift, all in the name of U.S. global power and competitiveness. Robert Rubin would steer the White House ship to that goal.

    On February 12, 1999, Rubin found a fresh angle to argue on behalf of banking deregulation. He addressed the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, claiming that, “the problem U.S. financial services firms face abroad is more one of access than lack of competitiveness.”

    He was referring to the European banks’ increasing control of distribution channels into the European institutional and retail client base. Unlike U.S. commercial banks, European banks had no restrictions keeping them from buying and teaming up with U.S. or other securities firms and investment banks to create or distribute their products. He did not appear concerned about the destruction caused by sizeable financial bets throughout Europe. The international competitiveness argument allowed him to focus the committee on what needed to be done domestically in the banking sector to remain competitive.

    Rubin stressed the necessity of HR 665, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that was officially introduced on February 10, 1999. He said it took “fundamental actions to modernize our financial system by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act prohibitions on banks affiliating with securities firms and repealing the Bank Holding Company Act prohibitions on insurance underwriting.”

    The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Marches Forward

    On February 24, 1999, in more testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Rubin pushed for fewer prohibitions on bank affiliates that wanted to perform the same functions as their larger bank holding company, once the different types of financial firms could legally merge. That minor distinction would enable subsidiaries to place all sorts of bets and house all sorts of junk under the false premise that they had the same capital beneath them as their parent. The idea that a subsidiary’s problems can’t taint or destroy the host, or bank holding company, or create “catastrophic” risk, is a myth perpetuated by bankers and political enablers that continues to this day.

    Rubin had no qualms with mega-consolidations across multiple service lines. His real problems were those of his banker friends, which lay with the financial modernization bill’s “prohibition on the use of subsidiaries by larger banks.”  The bankers wanted the right to establish off-book subsidiaries where they could hide risks, and profits, as needed.

    Again, Rubin decided to use the notion of remaining competitive with foreign banks to make his point. This technicality was “unacceptable to the administration,” he said, not least because “foreign banks underwrite and deal in securities through subsidiaries in the United States, and U.S. banks [already] conduct securities and merchant banking activities abroad through so-called Edge subsidiaries.” Rubin got his way. These off-book, risky, and barely regulated subsidiaries would be at the forefront of the 2008 financial crisis.

    On March 1, 1999, Senator Phil Gramm released a final draft of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and scheduled committee consideration for March 4th. A bevy of excited financial titans who were close to Clinton, including Travelers CEO Sandy Weill, Bank of America CEO, Hugh McColl, and American Express CEO Harvey Golub, called for “swift congressional action.”

    The Quintessential Revolving-Door Man

    The stock market continued its meteoric rise in anticipation of a banker-friendly conclusion to the legislation that would deregulate their industry. Rising consumer confidence reflected the nation’s fondness for the markets and lack of empathy with the rest of the world’s economic plight. On March 29, 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 10,000 for the first time. Six weeks later, on May 6th,  the Financial Services Modernization Act passed the Senate. It legalized, after the fact, the merger that created the nation’s biggest bank.  Citigroup, the marriage of Citibank and Travelers, had been finalized the previous October.

    It was not until that point that one of Glass-Steagall’s main assassins decided to leave Washington. Six days after the bill passed the Senate, on May 12, 1999, Robert Rubin abruptly announced his resignation. As Clinton wrote, “I believed he had been the best and most important treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton… He had played a decisive role in our efforts to restore economic growth and spread its benefits to more Americans.”

    Clinton named Larry Summers to succeed Rubin. Two weeks later, BusinessWeek reported signs of trouble in merger paradise — in the form of a growing rift between John Reed, the former Chairman of Citibank, and Sandy Weill at the new Citigroup. As Reed said, “Co-CEOs are hard.” Perhaps to patch their rift, or simply to take advantage of a political opportunity, the two men enlisted a third person to join their relationship — none other than Robert Rubin.

    Rubin’s resignation from Treasury became effective on July 2nd. At that time, he announced, “This almost six and a half years has been all-consuming, and I think it is time for me to go home to New York and to do whatever I’m going to do next.” Rubin became chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee and a member of the newly created “office of the chairman.” His initial annual compensation package was worth around $40 million.  It was more than worth the “hit” he took when he left Goldman for the Treasury post.

    Three days after the conference committee endorsed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, Rubin assumed his Citigroup position, joining the institution destined to dominate the financial industry. That very same day, Reed and Weill issued a joint statement praising Washington for “liberating our financial companies from an antiquated regulatory structure,” stating that “this legislation will unleash the creativity of our industry and ensure our global competitiveness.”

    On November 4th, the Senate approved the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by a vote of 90 to 8.  (The House voted 362–57 in favor.) Critics famously referred to it as the Citigroup Authorization Act.

    Mirth abounded in Clinton’s White House. “Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the twenty-first century,” Summers said. “This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy.”

    But the happiness was misguided. Deregulating the banking industry might have helped the titans of Wall Street but not people on Main Street. The Clinton era epitomized the vast difference between appearance and reality, spin and actuality. As the decade drew to a close, Clinton basked in the glow of a lofty stock market, a budget surplus, and the passage of this key banking “modernization.” It would be revealed in the 2000s that many corporate profits of the 1990s were based on inflated evaluations, manipulation, and fraud. When Clinton left office, the gap between rich and poor was greater than it had been in 1992, and yet the Democrats heralded him as some sort of prosperity hero.

    When he resigned in 1997, Robert Reich, Clinton’s labor secretary, said, “America is prospering, but the prosperity is not being widely shared, certainly not as widely shared as it once was… We have made progress in growing the economy. But growing together again must be our central goal in the future.”  Instead, the growth of wealth inequality in the United States accelerated, as the men yielding the most financial power wielded it with increasingly less culpability or restriction. By 2015, that wealth or prosperity gap would stand near historic highs.

    The power of the bankers increased dramatically in the wake of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The Clinton administration had rendered twenty-first-century banking practices similar to those of the pre-1929 crash. But worse. “Modernizing” meant utilizing government-backed depositors’ funds as collateral for the creation and distribution of all types of complex securities and derivatives whose proliferation would be increasingly quick and dangerous.

    Eviscerating Glass-Steagall allowed big banks to compete against Europe and also enabled them to go on a rampage: more acquisitions, greater speculation, and more risky products. The big banks used their bloated balance sheets to engage in more complex activity, while counting on customer deposits and loans as capital chips on the global betting table. Bankers used hefty trading profits and wealth to increase lobbying funds and campaign donations, creating an endless circle of influence and mutual reinforcement of boundary-less speculation, endorsed by the White House.

    Deposits could be used to garner larger windfalls, just as cheap labor and commodities in developing countries were used to formulate more expensive goods for profit in the upper echelons of the global financial hierarchy. Energy and telecoms proved especially fertile ground for the investment banking fee business (and later for fraud, extensive lawsuits, and bankruptcies). Deregulation greased the wheels of complex financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations, junk bonds, toxic assets, and unregulated derivatives.

    The Glass-Steagall repeal led to unfettered derivatives growth and unstable balance sheets at commercial banks that merged with investment banks and at investment banks that preferred to remain solo but engaged in dodgier practices to remain “competitive.” In conjunction with the tight political-financial alignment and associated collaboration that began with Bush and increased under Clinton, bankers channeled the 1920s, only with more power over an immense and growing pile of global financial assets and increasingly "open” markets. In the process, accountability would evaporate.

    Every bank accelerated its hunt for acquisitions and deposits to amass global influence while creating, trading, and distributing increasingly convoluted securities and derivatives. These practices would foster the kind of shaky, interconnected, and opaque financial environment that provided the backdrop and conditions leading up to the financial meltdown of 2008.

    The Realities of 2016

    Hillary Clinton is, of course, not her husband. But her access to his past banker alliances, amplified by the ones that she has formed herself, makes her more of a friend than an adversary to the banking industry.  In her brief 2008 candidacy, all four of the New York-based Big Six banks ranked among her top 10 corporate donors. They have also contributed to the Clinton Foundation. She needs them to win, just as both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did. 

    No matter what spin is used for campaigning purposes, the idea that a critical distance can be maintained between the White House and Wall Street is naïve given the multiple channels of money and favors that flow between the two.  It is even more improbable, given the history of connections that Hillary Clinton has established through her associations with key bank leaders in the early 1990s, during her time as a senator from New York, and given their contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was secretary of state. At some level, the situation couldn’t be less complicated: her path aligns with that of the country’s most powerful bankers. If she becomes president, that will remain the case.



  • The Hard Landing Continues: China Trade Date Disappoints Amid Weak Demand

    On Thursday, Goldman suggested that the combination of soft commodity markets and the Chinese transition from investment to consumption will weigh on dry bulk trade — and by extension, on shipping rates — until at least 2020. This assessment served to validate a theme we’ve been pushing for quite some time. Namely, that although a global supply glut caused by overly optimistic assumptions about both China’s economy and about central banks’ collective ability to engineer a robust post-crisis recovery has without question weighed on shipping rates, the more fundamental problem lies on the demand side and you can’t mention sluggish demand without discussing China. Here is how we summarized the situation:

    Meanwhile, we’ve exhaustively documented the laundry list of signs that point to dramtically decelerating economic growth in China, including falling metals demand, collapsing rail freight volume, slumping exports, a war on pollution that may cost the country 40% in industrial production terms, and, most recently, a demographic shift that’s set to trigger a wholesale reversal of the factors which contributed to the country’s meteoric rise. All of this means that the world’s once-reliable engine of demand is set to stall in the years ahead. 

    Overnight, we got still more evidence of China’s hard landing when trade data for April missed estimates across the board as exports slumped more than 6% on the heels of March’s abysmal 15% decline and imports fell 16%. The data seems to point to lackluster demand both domestically and abroad, and as BNP notes, it’s not the yuan’s dollar link that’s weighing on trade — it’s demand.

    Via BNP:

    The April external trade data disappointed market again. Exports growth remains in negative territory, despite the decline has to some extent narrowed. The market consensus had expected a moderate recovery of export in April, mainly due to the favourable base effect. The decline in imports growth has further deteriorated in April, which has mirrored the lacklustre domestic aggregate demand.

    The export weakness was still broad based for almost all trading partners. Export to US increased by 3.1% y/y, compared to 8% decline in March. It might reflect the demand from US has slightly recovered after a soft growth Q1 momentum. The decline in export to EU narrowed to -10.4% y/y from -19% y/y in March; Exports to Japan and ASEAN countries decreased by -13.3% y/y and -6.6% y/y, respectively, from -24.8% and -9.3% in last months.

    The decline in imports growth expanded to 16.1% y/y, from 12.3% drop in March. The soft international commodity prices continue to drag the import growth. In the first four months, crude oil import plunged by 43.1% y/y at value, despite the imported volume has increased by 7.8% y/y. Imports in iron ore and coal also plunged by 44.8% and 49.7%, respectively.

    In first four months, the total external trade declined by -7.3% y/y, which has been significantly lower than the official external trade target for 2015 at 6%.

    Net exports rose to USD 34.1bn, from an average of USD 21.1bn in the three months before.

    It is clear that the correction in external trade cannot be easily explained by the CNY distortion factor. The exports would be more struggling from the soft demands from the major trade partners and deteriorating international competitiveness in the low end manufacturing sector.

     

    And as we discussed in detail in “How Beijing Is Responding To A Soaring Dollar, And Why QE In China Is Now Inevitable”, it’s not as simple as devaluing the yuan to boost exports when you’ve witnessed $300 billion in capital outflows over the past four quarters alone and so we’ll leave you with the following which can be summed up as simply as “between a rock and a hard place.”

    The government should already clearly realize the further downward pressure of the foreign trade. But we still maintain the view that the governments would be reluctant to allow an aggressive RMB depreciation to stimulate the export.



  • MoTHeR ZiRPS ENDGaMe…

    .

     

     

     

    .



  • Guest Post: Resentful Rage – Stage-4 Of Cancerous Inequality

    Authored by Ben Tanosborn,

    White America’s ugliest, uncompassionate, punitive face came to life in 1994 politics as Bill Clinton signed the incommensurable largest crime bill Congress had ever legislated: the Violent Crime Control Act; now, in retrospect, perhaps the most anti human rights legislation in modern times, not just in the US but throughout the civilized world.

    Clinton reasoned signing this bill as remedy to his view that gangs and drugs had taken over the streets of America and undermined its schools.  But more than Clinton’s flawed reasoning; it has been rationalized politics which has cost the nation, and continues to cost, hundreds of billions of dollars by incarcerating a third of the male black population in their prime, productive years; that, while giving police a stronger arm, inviting all too often an aggressive conduct from people in uniform already predisposed to exceed of their own accord the force required in exercising their honorable mission to protect and serve us all.

    America’s uniquely irrational behavior among civilized nations, whether or not a product of our diverse multi-racial society, has not served the country well during the past two decades adding the social problems created by racial inequality to an ever-widening economic inequality among Americans that Ronald Reagan legated to us.

    And as social inequality merges with economic inequality, a synergy of resentful rage is being created in cities and communities largely populated by people of color.  Enter the city of Baltimore with a two-thirds black population, America’s problem-du-jour.

    Unlike many other major cities in America, Baltimore does not have a song-anthem by which it can be identified.  As the largest city in Maryland, and keeper of proud historic tradition, it does, however, deserve a special place, as heir to two nicknames describing the state as “Little America” and “America in Miniature.” Shouldn’t Baltimore give us a model for many, if not all, major urban centers in America?

    That introduction quickly brings us to a key question: is Urban America becoming a “Land of Thugs”?  The president of the United States and the mayor of Baltimore, as well as many others in government and mainstream media, seem to readily make use of that term when describing rioters and lawbreakers even when confined to property crimes.  Is that what we are dealing with in Baltimore now; or in Ferguson five months ago; or in the many black communities daily throughout urban America?

    Whether by art or by design, much of white America simply just doesn’t get it; and neither does our representative government, or the media. Or one would expect better choice of words than “Thugs” to describe people who at their worst, as rioters and lawbreakers, are unveiling resentful rage and not solely criminality; yet, words from a black president, Barack Obama, and by the black mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake bring an unintended image to the reality we are living.

    The attitude in much of white America appears to be in lockstep with that expressed by Texas Senator, and declared Republican candidate to the presidency, Ted Cruz, who when confronted with the riots in Baltimore said that government has the responsibility to perform its central functions – to “preserve the peace, protect the people, and serve justice.”  But as complete and responsible as that statement might seem, it may prove to be at odds with the accepted democratic theme of “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” And that government, first and foremost, should be one to serve justice… preservation of peace and protection of people are societal byproducts of a proven free and just society… not one auto-designated as free and just.

    One cannot ask black Americans to abide by an evolutionary process which is unlikely to bring them the equality they deserve, socially and economically, in our plural society.  If evolution is not bringing about fair and equitable results, it’s inevitable for revolution to replace evolution in the hope to bring about equality.  And the leading indicator for such an upcoming change can be found in the level of resentful rage building up in black communities traumatized by punitive crime legislation and the lack of a social-economic master plan, one as comprehensive as the post-WWII Marshall Plan, that could establish a firm foundation for transforming us into a more humane and egalitarian America.

    Cries are beginning to be heard, even from unlikely Republican politicians, calling for an overhaul of the criminal justice system in America.  Candidate to the presidency, Hillary Clinton, seen as a smiling wife during her husband’s signing of the horrendous 1994 crime bill at the White House, seems prepared, if elected, to undo or amend one of the most shameful pieces of legislation ever enacted by a bipartisan Congress, and signed into law by her visionless husband.

    A fair and humane overhaul of the criminal justice system would certainly be a good first step in our needed walk towards a more equitable society.



  • Class Of 2015 Sets Student Debt Record

    Having been one of the very first sources for in-depth analysis about what has become a $1.3 trillion problem, we’ve happily watched as the mainstream financial news media has gone on what seems like a student loan debt story binge over the past several months. Indeed not a day goes by without a someone else commenting on either the inexorable rise in student debt, soaring tuition rates, or the rather dismal job prospects for recent graduates. 

    Here’s a remarkably concise recap of everything that’s happened in the past three months. With student debt soaring out of control (and government projections suggesting the burden may grow to $3.3 trillion by 2025), the White House is assessing ways to tackle the problem even as it closes down for-profit schools costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. Low oil prices are forcing Louisiana to consider deep cuts to education funding, which, if realized would send LSU to the edge of bankruptcy. We’ve been pounding the table on delinquency rates, arguing  that if deferments, forbearance, and IBR are taken into account, actual delinquencies are probably above 40%, a sentiment echoed by Moody’s who warned that $3 billion in student loan-backed paper is at risk for default. Finally, a Georgetown study shows that if you want to survive in the post-crisis world, you’ll major in petroleum engineering and if you want to go broke once the student loan checks stop coming in, you’ll major in childhood education. 

    With that, we bring you the latest bit of news from the world of trillion-dollar education bubbles and it comes from WSJ who notes that the class of 2015 has something to be proud of: it’s the most indebted class of all time.

    Via WSJ:

    The class of 2015 is reaching new heights, though perhaps not the way it had hoped.

     

    College graduates this year are leaving school as the most indebted class ever, a title they’ll hold exclusively for all of about 12 months if current trends hold.

     

    The average class of 2015 graduate with student-loan debt will have to pay back a little more than $35,000, according to an analysis of government data by Mark Kantrowitz, publisher at Edvisors, a group of websites about planning and paying for college. Even adjusted for inflation, that’s still more than twice the amount borrowers had to pay back two decades earlier.

     


    All together, total education debt–including federal and private education loans–will tally nearly $68 billion this year for graduates with a bachelor’s degree and their parents, Mr. Kantrowitz estimates, a more than 10-fold increase since 1994…

     

     *  *  *

    Dear Class of 2015, 

    Because we recognize your plight, allow us to provide you with a bit of friendly advice as it realtes to your student loans. Once you are uncerimoniously thrown from your dorm into the less-than robust US jobs market, you will likely discover that contrary to what you were told in your economics courses, the US economy is but a shadow of its former self. Because you probably didn’t study to become a petroleum engineer, you will likely find your student debt burden to be quite onerous. The key to having it discharged is to make just enough money to stay clear of bankruptcy, but not enough to really survive above the poverty line. This is because it’s hard to have student debt discharged in the event you go completely broke. However, if your discretionary income is so small as to render you incapable of making payments, the government will start you on a program whereby a monthly payment of zero dollars counts towards the 300 “payments” you need to make to have your debt forgiven. Toe this line carefully (i.e. don’t slip up and start making too much discretionary income) and the entirety of your student debt will be forgiven in 25 short years without your ever having to pay a dime.

    You’re welcome,

    Zero Hedge



  • Smile, Nod, Lie, & Prepare For The Reset

    Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,

    Seems as though we have perpetual state of hedge fund conference with all those biggest and brightest men (wish I could say and women) in the world of finance.  The conferences are set to provide a forum of discourse and a sharing of ideas.  Surely has nothing to do with egos.  Actually I’m sure it does but that’s no different from Hollywood and all of the self celebratory events they now have.  This is our world, love it or leave it.

    Listening to these guys today and over the past few conferences we definitely hear less euphoria but we still hear very little honesty from this crowd.  Almost no one is willing to admit that the US markets have gone complete retard and are not just overbought but grossly overvalued to levels never before seen.  I can’t tell you how many guys suggest and/or agree that the markets are about average relative to historic valuations.

    Such a view of course is based on PE’s that have been totally synthesized by way of share buybacks and diverting capex to income.  That’s it.  And if these guys honestly believe that corporate performance has been strong enough to support what can only be described as the absolute best market performance ever well then I’d like to sell them my magic porcelain genie pot just full of treasure I know they appreciate.

    This is going to be a short and to the point post because there isn’t much we have to do to get at the truth this time.  The view that markets are anything but euphoric is simply ingenuous or ignorant.  Over the past year I’ve talked quite a bit about how sales seem to have disappeared from valuation models altogether.  This is factual.  I’ve had a look at BMO’s economic/market outlook (2yrs) and not once did they mention sales, not one time.  So the reality is that when something is very ugly we just don’t bring it up.  That pretty much sums up today’s market commentary.  Another example of if it’s ugly leave it out is the U6 unemployment figure.  We used to get it along with the U3 and that too has disappeared.  Ugly is just so unloved.

    But so let’s have a look at two periods of time.  First is the 7 years following the peak year of the internet boom in 2000, so ’01 through ’07.  And let’s compare that period to the 7 years following the peak year of the credit boom in 2007, so ’08 through ’14.  Specifically I want to look at growth in S&P sales vs. S&P price level.  The only single thing that all businesses in all the world MUST have is sales.  Without sales there is no business, period.  One would therefore expect sales to be a topic of much discussion when it comes to market valuations.  But it isn’t and this is why.

    Screen Shot 2015-05-07 at 11.10.07 PM

    What we find is that during the internet bust recovery, real sales growth led the market higher.  That is perfectly reasonable.  One would expect that as real sales grow the business expands and thus future expected cash flows too would grow pushing market valuations higher.  So that period is a text book model of market growth.  Then we move over to the credit crisis recovery.  What we find here is that real sales have yet to make it back to pre crash levels.  Given that sales growth has been sluggish one would expect market valuations also leave something to be desired.  Remember real sales growth led market valuations higher during the previous recovery.

    However, investors this time around have decided that those average PE’s coming by way of reducing the amount of shares outstanding (by about 5%) and by diverting capex to income justify just about a 40% increase in market valuation.  That’s right, while CEO’s have been maintaining average PE ratios by shrinking the business, investors have been rewarding them with record high valuations.  Investors have been getting rich, C-suite managers have been getting rich and employees have been getting laid off.  Sounds like a can’t lose growth strategy eh??

    Now this is the point where the market cheerleaders come to the rescue shouting that U3 is back to a 5 handle!  Profits have never been higher!  And those things support expected future cash flow valuations to increase by 40%!  The problem is that growth of earnings through contraction of the business can only last a few years before the business is gone.  This means no future business and no future cash flows.  So I’m not sure how one increases future cash flow expectations by 40% when the strategy is actually contracting the capacity for the business to grow.  And all companies are doing it.

    Bottom line is very simple.  Unless you are growing sales i.e. expanding the business, any growth in cash flow is temporary.  And that is really the point of all this isn’t it?  Today the market place has nothing to do with expected future cash flows because nobody is in a trade long enough to be around for future cash flows.  So why pay any attention to them??  Well we don’t.

    So go ahead boys tell me how the market is fairly valued.  Tell me that PE’s prove it.  Tell me how earnings are great and that unemployment is bang on in line with a full steam ahead economy.  Tell me the lackluster economic growth year on year since the big bang is just transitory pains with a bit winter thrown in.  I, like you, will smile and nod, both knowing it’s a lie and both of us preparing for the reset.  But let’s see how many more retirees we can keep in this thing before the bottom falls out eh?  Their loss is our gain and well that’s what it’s all about ain’t it boys?



  • California's "Unprecedented" Drought In Pictures

    California’s drought has reached epic proportions, prompting Governor Jerry Brown and state water regulators to adopt “unprecedented” (and some say draconian) measures to counter what is perhaps the only example of a liquidity crisis more acute than that which investors face in secondary bond markets.

     

    Cities will be forced to cut consumption by as much as 36%, a mandate that is expected to cost utilities upwards of $1 billion, lost revenue which, as we noted earlier this week, will promptly be recouped in the form of higher prices for any consumer who isn’t a MotherFracker. 

    So with the state preparing to crack down on “wasters” in the form of $10,000 fines, and with more than 12 million dead trees greatly increasing the chances that wildfires could spread out of control, we bring you the drought in pictures:

     

    We’ll leave you with the following rather somber assessment from a professor of public policy at USC (via Politico):

    “Politicians are paying attention, because some people — mainly the media and interest groups — are paying attention,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a professor of public policy at the University of Southern California. “But I’m not at all sure it’s really hitting home yet with the average voter. When they start to see rate increases, and fines for overuse, and brown lawns, then they will be paying a lot of attention. I think the politicians are smart to be trying to get ahead of it, because this is the new normal. We are a desert, and we should have remained a desert.”



  • Dismal Data Delivers Stock-Buying Frenzy

    UPDATE: After the cash close, futures have tumbled – removing all post-US-Open gains…

    *  *  *

    With a 'record number of Americans not in the labor force' and Wholesale Inventory data that strongly indicates a recession was enough to drive stocks up near all-time highs, there appears only one clip that is appropriate…

     

    Jobs data was all that mattered and it appears it was just crap enough to warrant moar easy money… but it is clear FX and gold/silver traders appeared to get the news early…

     

    Volume disappeared completely again…

     

    But Stocks were what mattered…Today was The Dow & The S&P's best in over 3 months!! on shitty data!

     

    And here are the cash indices from yesterday's lows…

     

    As the greatest buying panic in 3 years hit at the open…the opening TICK count was extreme to say the least…

     

    which lifted everything green for the week (even Nasdaq briefly) – and despite the best ramping efforts Nasdaq closed the week red

     

    Thanks to the biggest short squeeze in over 3 months…

     

    And even with Visa's jump helping stall the leak, from the first few minutes stocks faded all day long…

     

    NOTE: Everything is awesome because Dow>18,000; S&P >2,100; Nasdaq>5,000

    *  *  *

    Treasuries rallied notably on the jobs data but leaked back off in the afternoon to close modestly lower in yields on the day. Yields dropped for bonds out to 7Y on the week…

     

    The Dollar was somewhat volatile around the payrolls print but was remarkably dead today, ending the week -0.5%. The dollar is down for 4 weeks in a row for the first time since June 2013… and the worst 4 weeks since Oct 2011

     

    Copper was the only commodity to close lower on the week with Silver up 2%. Crude scrambled back into the green after a post-Payrolls plunge…

     

    Stocks beat Silver post-payrolls…

     

    Crude had another crazy week… but the head-and-shoilders is clear…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg



  • Americans Not In The Labor Force Rise To Record 93,194,000

    In what was an “unambiguously” unpleasant April jobs payrolls report, with a March revision dragging that month’s job gain to the lowest level since June of 2012, the fact that the number of Americans not in the labor force rose once again, this time to 93,194K from 93,175K, with the result being a participation rate of 69.45 or just above the lowest percentage since 1977, will merely catalyze even more upside to the so called “market” which continues to reflect nothing but central bank liquidity, and thus – the accelerating deterioration of the broader economy.

     

    End result: with the civilian employment to population ratio unchanged from last month at 59.3%, one can easily on the chart below why there will be no broad wage growth any time soon, which will merely allow the Fed to engage in its failed policies for a long, long time.



  • Artist's Impression Of Obamatopia

    “Tah-dah” indeed…

     

     

    Source: Inverstors.com



  • 5 Things To Ponder: Margin Of Safety

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

    In yesterday’s missive, I very briefly discussed “recency bias” as it related to sentiment based economic surveys. I spent much of last evening pondering the issue of “recently bias” as it relates to the overall macro market environment. Carl Richards, back in 2012, commented:

    “We rely on habit to help us make things easier because few people want to reinvent their lives every day. But this habit of forming habits also does something else. In academic circles, it’s called the recency bias, and it can trick us into making decisions we might not make otherwise.

    bucks-carl-sketch-blog480

    “The recency bias is pretty simple. Because it’s easier, we’re inclined to use our recent experience as the baseline for what will happen in the future. In many situations, this bias works just fine, but when it comes to investing and money it can cause problems.

     

    When we’re watching a bull market run along, it’s understandable that people forget about the cycles where it didn’t. As far as recent memory tells us, the market should keep going up, so we keep buying, and then it doesn’t. And unless we’ve prepared for that moment, we’re shocked and wondered how we missed the bubble.

     

    When the market is down, we become convinced that it will never climb out so we cash out our portfolios and stick the money in a mattress. We know the market isn’t going back up because the recency bias tells us so. But then one day it does, and we’re left sitting on a really expensive mattress that’s earning nothing.”

    The point Carl makes is important. The longer a bull-market runs, the more inclined we become to believe “it will never end.” 

    It is during these long, and seemingly unending runs, that we begin to dismiss the most simplistic rules of investing and opt for “buy and hold” strategies that are historically responsible for cataclysmic losses of investment capital.

    What is most interesting about “buy and hold” investing is that the group that generally promotes it receive a direct benefit (i.e. fees) for keeping investors invested in the market. Secondly, why is it that every great investor in history from Benjamin Graham to Paul Tudor Jones to Bob Farrell all adhered to basic investment disciplines of buying low and selling high?

    (For more on investing rules see this, this and this)

    This week’s reading list is a view on investing, the markets and potential outcomes to try and limit the potential for “recency bias” by focusing on the potential for outcomes. In other words, what is the “margin of safety” for investors now?


    1) When In Doubt, Stay Out by Ivanhoff via Ivanhoff Capital

    “When an event repeats frequently, it becomes a pattern. A pattern, in which a lot of people wholeheartedly believe in and act upon. Buying oversold dips in the major indexes has been very lucrative in the past few quarters. Even more so, in the past few months, which have been a poster child of range-bound markets. Will the current dip be any different? No one really knows. There are some good reasons to believe so:

    • seasonality;
    • poor reaction to decent earnings reports;
    • lack of great long setups;

    I truly believe that knowing when to be out of the market is the single most valuable trading skill anyone could develop. Why do I think so? Because, when markets are trending most setups work, most breakouts work and have a decent follow-through, it is a lot easier to make money. When markets are choppy, everything turns upside down and it is becomes difficult not to lose money. Be aggressive when it pays to be aggressive. Make sure you don’t give back most of your gains when the market environment worsens for your approach. For better of for worse, financial markets are one of those business fields, where working smart always trumps working hard.”

    Ivanhoff-SwingTrade-050715

    Read Also: 13 Investing Rules From Paul Tudor Jones by Ivanhoff via Ivanhoff Capital

     

    2) Yellen Says Stocks Might Be Overvalued by Matt O’Brien via The Washington Post

    “Now, stocks have cooled off since the start of the year, but not that much. So does that mean stock prices are “quite high”? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Take Robert Shiller’s cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio, or CAPE, which looks at the past ten years of earnings to figure out how pricey stocks are today. The idea here is that it smooths out any big ups or downs, and shows us how fairly valued—or not—stocks are. And by this measure, as you can see below, stocks really are getting expensive.”

    Stock-PE-050715

    Read Also: Yellen, A “Bear” Late & A “Dollar” Short by Jeffrey Snider via ZeroHedge

    Read Also: Charts That Should Give Traders Pause by Michael Kahn via Barron’s

     

    3) Stocks Are The Most Expensive, Well Ever by Meb Faber via Meb Faber Research

    “I jabber a lot about valuation metrics here, and I mentioned this one on Twitter the other day. Its doesn’t need much explanation – the median stock in the S&P 500 is the most expensive it has even been (for as long as we have data). That’s never a good sign!

     

    If your favorite valuation indicator is not at “the highest ever” , many valuation indicators and now at “the highest ever except 2000?. That’s not good company unless you are a short seller.””

    NedDavis-SP500-Valuation-050715

    Read Also: US Equity Valuations: To Be Dismissed by BCA Research

     

    4) What 118 Fed Rate Increases Since 1948 Show by Simon Kennedy via Bloomberg Business

    “Since 1948, the Fed has increased its benchmark on 118 occasions against a quarterly backdrop in which the average growth in nominal GDP was an average 8.6 percent, Deutsche Bank’s strategists wrote in a report published Wednesday.

     

    Only in the third quarters of 1958 and 1982 did the Fed shift when nominal growth was undershooting 4.5 percent and the latter action was even reversed a month later.

     

    So for virtually every rate increase since Harry S. Truman was in the White House, nominal GDP was growing 4.5 percent or faster, with 112 occurring when it was above 5.5 percent.”

    Read Also: The Mistake Everyone Is Making About Fed Rate Hikes by Lance Roberts

     

    5) Little Margin Of Safety Left For Investors by Doug Kass via Doug Kass’ Tumblr

    “Despite protestations from certain market prognosticators and fast talkers, no one knows this answer for sure (I certainly don’t). Neither economic forecasts nor risk ranges, quantitative models nor any other economic or technical signpost guarantees investment success in the hunt for intrinsic value. As I have written, there is no secret market sauce.

     

    We can just try be logical, rely somewhat on history, depend on the statistical flow of economic statistics and, from there, make an educated guess, as there are few certain truths in the investing and trading games.

     

    “After all, according to The Oracle, ‘price is what you pay, value is what you get.’

    Read Also: The Trouble With Factors by Cam Hui via Humble Student Of The Markets


    BONUS READS

    Should Investors Unload Their Mortgage REITS? Probably! by Keith Jurow via Advisor Perspectives

    “For the past several years, I have written extensively about the Fed’s dangerous efforts to drive interest rates low enough to stimulate a stronger recovery. As a consequence, large and small investors have been compelled to go out on the risk curve in a desperate search for higher yield.

     

    Lured by almost irresistible double-digit yields in 2012 and early 2013, investors dived into mortgage REITs with abandon. Having discussed the serious risks of equity REITs in my previous article , now is a good time to examine whether mortgage REITs pose similar risks for the unwary.”

    Why Record Margin-High Debt Should Make You Cautious by Jesse Felder via The Felder Report

    “It’s recently become popular to dismiss the record level of margin debt in the market as meaningless. Notable bloggers like Josh Brown, Barry Ritholtz and Chris Kimble have all written some sort of ‘it just doesn’t matter’ commentary recently. Barry went so far as to call it, “statistically bogus.” To me, this sounds like just another version of, ‘it’s different this time.’

     

    Here are the real statistics: Over the past 20 years, the level of margin debt relative to the economy has had nearly an 80% negative correlation to future 3-year returns in the stock market. What this means is, the higher the level of margin debt relative to GDP, the lower the returns for the stock market over the coming 3 years and vice versa. ‘Statistically bogus?’ I think not.”

    Why I Agree With Jesse Felder by Lance Roberts


    Wall Street is the only place that people ride to in a Rolls Royce to get advice from those who take the subway.” – Warren Buffett

    Have a great weekend.



  • What QE Hath Wrought (In 8 Stunning Charts)

    First – always remember, what The Fed does is for Main Street, Not Wall Street (since 1987):

     

    And with that in mind, here is what QE hath wrought…

    S&P 500

    • SPX QE Returns: +176.23%
    • SPX Non-QE Returns: -32.73%

     

    Europe STOXX 600

    • Europe STOXX 600 QE Return: +106.16%
    • Europe STOXX 600 Non-QE Return: -9.37%

     

    Japan's Nikkei 225

    • NKY QE Returns: +154.39%
    • NKY Non-QE Returns: -7.49%

     

    WTI Crude

    • WTI QE Returns: +119.48%
    • WTI Non-QE Returns: -105.14%

     

    Spot Gold

    • Gold QE Returns: +3.31%
    • Gold Non-QE Returns: +41.59%

     

    5Y5Y Inflation Breakevens

    • QE: -97bps
    • Non-QE: +204bps

     

    US 10Yr Breakeven Rate

    • QE: -104bps
    • Non-QE: +275bps

     

    US 10Yr Treasury Yield

    • QE: -293bps
    • Non-QE: +184bps

     

    So – feel better now? Seems like QE really did the trick.

    *  *  *

    And now The Fed's balance-sheet is in decline…

    On a rolling three-month basis, the Fed's balance sheet has been declining for the last two months.

    And the three-month difference in total Fed assets has produced some interesting relationships since QE started. Below are some economic indicators that caught our eye…

     

    As we noted previously, it appears Yellen is going to need to find an excuse to crank the flow once again…

     

    Source: Jim Bianco of Bianco Research



  • Pentagon Staff Given "Stern Warning" After Using Government Credit Cards For Hookers & Gambling

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Last month, we learned that DEA agents were caught attending sex parties with prostitutes paid for by drug cartels. No one was fired. We also learned that the DEA agents who left a California student in a cell without food or water for five days until he was forced to drink his own urine in order to survive, were given a slap on the wrist. Finally, we heard about how TSA screeners in Denver were intentionally manipulating the naked body scanners in order to allow a particular agent to sexually molest male passengers. While the offenders were fired, no criminal charges were filed, and the TSA refuses to release their names. All of this was revealed in the last month alone.

    Well, we can now add another to the list. In the latest example of abuse by the unaccountable feds, we learn that Pentagon employees have been caught using their government credit cards on gambling and escorts, amongst other things. Their punishment? A “stern warning.” 

    Politico reports that:

    A Defense Department audit has found that a number of Pentagon employees used their government credit cards to gamble and pay for “adult entertainment” — findings that are expected to lead department officials to issue stern new warnings.

     

    The audit of “Government Travel Charge Transactions” by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, which is to be made public in coming weeks, found that both civilian and military employees used the credit cards at casinos and for escort services and other adult activities — in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

     

    A Pentagon official briefed on some of the findings stressed that the federal government did not necessarily pay the charges; holders of the cards pay their own bills and then submit receipts to be reimbursed for expenses related to their government business.

    Wait a minute, “the federal government did not necessarily pay the charges?” How about you go ahead and find out for sure. It’d be nice to know if taxpayer money is paying to pad Sheldon Adelson and the Moonlight Bunny Ranch’s profit margins.

    Because the review was an audit of the credit card system and not an investigation of particular individuals, the official said the likely result will be that the agencies and military branches most affected will be compelled to remind employees that the practice violates policy — and possibly the law.

    Quite the deterrent. As punishment, they will be asked to please stop. Banker justice applies to Federal employees as well it seems, and they don’t even need to pay a fine!

    Some estimates suggest that such prohibited purchases cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

    It cited instances “where cardholders used purchase cards to subscribe to Internet dating services, buy video iPods for personal use and pay for lavish dinners that included top-shelf liquor.”

     

    Late last year, federal auditors reported to Congress that the problem persists despite efforts to rein it in.

    Well, when your effort to “rein it in” consists of asking the offenders to stop it “pretty please,” this is what you get.

    In case you’re wondering why the Department of Justice is such an unmitigated joke, recall the following:



  • Home Flipping Profits Hit Record As Wall Street Drives Speculation (Again)

    Back in March, we were thrilled to discover that becoming a real estate speculator is easier than we thought. Although bank financing may have dried up post-crisis, it turns out BlackStone and a whole host of other PE firms will gladly loan credit-worthy borrowers money to accumulate distressed single-family properties. These newly-minted “investor-landlords” will likely have no trouble locating renters thanks to the fact that many former homeowners lost their residences in foreclosure during the crisis, and have found little economic respite in the anemic US ‘recovery.’ The PE firms who make this all possible are themselves driven by a desire to securitize the loans they make, meaning that in relatively short order, we should begin to see landlord loan-backed paper in the ABS market. 

    Today, we get what is essentially the same story, involving the exact same PE firms (BlackStone, Colony, and Cerberus) but with the wrinkle that instead of lending money to prospective landlords, the borrowers are house flippers. Here’s Bloomberg:

    Real estate buyers seeking money to renovate and flip U.S. houses are getting help from some of the world’s biggest investment firms.

     

    Colony Capital Inc., Blackstone Group LP and Cerberus Capital Management are among the companies that have started making bridge loans to investors who buy homes to sell them quickly for a profit. Borrowing costs — traditionally the highest in residential lending — are tumbling as the firms compete for customers.

     

    The foray represents a deepening bet on the housing market by Wall Street-backed companies, many of which have built rental-home empires during the past three years and started specialty-lending businesses to finance smaller investors…

    Of course PE firms, who have access to cheap capital, are passing the savings along to speculators (or, put simply, Fed policy is enabling this process)…

    Since big investment firms have entered the industry, rates have already come down significantly and fees charged to borrowers, known as points, have decreased as well, according to Fred Lewis, founder of Dominion Group, a Baltimore-based real estate firm that has been lending to house flippers for about 14 years.

     

    “Rates historically were much higher, typically 15 percent with three to five points,” Lewis said. “In the last few months we’ve seen deals being done at 10 percent and two points.”

    …and of course this time is different…

    The new lenders are focused on more experienced investors, many of whom have have established companies, rather than the amateurs that proliferated during the housing boom a decade ago. Today’s flippers are more sophisticated after the crash weeded out most of the weaker investors, Lewis said.

    …except that it’s not…

    The hard-money market is getting crowded, which may lead companies to loosen their standards, said Mark Filler, CEO of Jordan Capital Finance, a lender acquired by credit investor Garrison Investment Group about six months ago. His business has more than 300 approved borrowers with credit lines.

     

    “Everybody just jumped in,” said Filler. “The risk is people start to relax underwriting guidelines to chase loans. As this becomes more competitive, there will be more pressure to do that.”

    So assuming one wanted to take advantage of the cheap hard money financing, one of the first things to figure out is where the largest profit opportunities lie. That is: where are the profits highest on flips? 

    Thankfully — as we first pointed out more than two years ago and continued to parody over an amusing series of satirical articles (here, here, and here) — definitive statistics on profitable home flipping are available from RealtyTrac. The latest figures (out this week), show that the average gross profit on completed flips hit its highest level on record in Q1, suggesting that the Housing Bubble, at least in one incarnation, has returned. Meanwhile, if you really want to maximize the return on your PE-funded speculative investment, there’s no better place to look than — wait for it — Baltimore. You can’t make this stuff up. 

    Via RealtyTrac:

    The average gross profit — the difference between the purchase price and the flipped price — for completed flips in the first quarter was $72,450, up from $65,290 in the previous quarter and up from $61,684 in the first quarter of 2014 to the highest level going back to the first quarter of 2011, the earliest where data is available…

     


    The challenge for flippers in 2015 will be finding inventory to flip…

     

    Markets with the combination of distressed inventory, affordability and demand that are yielding the best flipping returns include places such as Baltimore, several metros in Central Florida, Detroit, Tucson, Pittsburgh, Memphis and Chicago.

    Of course it’s all about making money the socially responsible way…

    “Responsible flippers in these markets can do well by doing good — providing a superior product for buyers and renters — although in some cases this may mean betting on neighborhoods that are somewhere between down-and-out and up-and-coming (ZH: and presumably not on fire)

    On average, you will double your money flipping homes in Baltimore…

    Among markets with at least 50 completed single family home flips in the first quarter, those with the highest average gross ROI were Baltimore (94.1 percent), Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, Florida (74.7 percent), Ocala, Florida (73.9 percent), Lakeland, Florida (62.5 percent), and Detroit (58.3 percent)…

     


     

    And of course the markets where flipping accounts for the highest percentage of total single family sales are none other than California, Florida, and Nevada, some of the very same markets which were at the epicenter of the housing bubble…

    These homes are being flipped not to proud new homeowners at affordable prices (which would indicate that indeed, easy money policies are finally trickling down to places like Baltimore), but rather to other “investors”, as the percentage of completed flips going to non-owner-occupants hit its highest level in 4 years during Q1…

    This leads us to one very sad (albeit comically absurd) conclusion. Let’s recap. PE firms are using their access to cheap cash to lend to both landlord-investors and to home flippers. The percentage of completed flips sold to “non-owner-occupants” is hitting multi-year highs with each passing quarter. “Non-owner occupants” are defined as “real estate investors and second home buyers.” The punchline to the whole thing then, is that there appears to be a very real possibility that Wall Street is effectively flipping homes to itself and securitizing the loans along the way.

    So thank you Wall Street, for proving yet again that absolutely nothing has changed.



  • What Is The Difference Between An ISIS Terrorist And A Freedom Fighter: "Appropriate Vetting"

    As we reported yesterday, in addition to Turkey and Saudi forming an alliance to topple Syria’s despised anti-Qatar nat gas pipeline leader, Bashar Assad, the US has now begun training and arming Syrian rebels. But how will the US know it is arming Syrian rebels, aka opposition “freedom fighters” and al-Nusra or Islamic State jihadists who will promptly turn around and use the same weapons and training against the US?

    The answer: “appropriate vetting.” No, really.

    Behold:



Digest powered by RSS Digest

When the Elites Wage War on America, This Is How They Will Do It

Martial-Law

The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change. However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late. Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out: “What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has no clue what real war looks like.

The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least, we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what “HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats), rather than foreign operations.

Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations forces ALWAYS train like they fight and train in environments similar to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.

I would further note that Jade Helm exercises are also joint exercises with domestic agencies like the FBI and the DEA.  Again, why include domestic law enforcement agencies in a military exercise merely meant to prepare troops for foreign operations?  I often hear the argument that the military would never go along with such a program, but people who take this rather presumptive position do not understand crisis psychology.  In the event of a national catastrophe many military personnel and government employees may determine that they will do what is “best for them and their families”.  And if following orders guarantees the security of their families (food security, shelter, etc), then they may very well follow any order, no matter how dubious.  Also, a large scale crisis could be used as a rationale for martial law; otherwise well meaning military men and women could be convinced that the loss of constitutional freedoms might be for the “greater good of the greater number”.  I believe some military will indeed resist such efforts, but of course, Jade Helm may also be a method for vetting such uncooperative people before any live operation occurs.

So if Jade is actually a crisis-planning system for the military and the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror attacks, cyberattacks, pandemic, a stiff wind, you name it. The point is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.

Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event, opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.

I would first point out that Boot claims his work is merely a historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”

Any defense the American people might muster against elitist dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to “insurgency”. So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage open war on those within the American population who have the will to fight back.

Control Public Opinion

Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a supposed prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers, claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.

Now, it is important to recognize that elitists have a recurring tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was NEVER in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the revolutionaries’ side.

The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions, even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of their life spans.  The majority of people do not participate in history.  Rather, they have a tendency to float helplessly in the tides, waiting to latch onto whatever minority movement seems to be winning at the time.

Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of the elitist.

For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in particular, create a wash of other potential threats, including high crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally questionable actions without fear of future blowback.

Control The Public

Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but dominating through tactical and psychological means.

He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while “morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong, however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the eventual loss of Algeria by the French.

What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.

Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win against the rebellion to three factors:

1)  The British separated large portions of the population, entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas where they could be more easily engaged.

2)  The British used special operations forces to target specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver through vast areas in a pointless Vietnam-style surge.

3)  The British made promises that appealed to the general public, including the promise of independence. This made the public more pliable and more willing to cooperate.

Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps more enticing: safety.

I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against planned shifts away from constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a national emergency.

Isolate Population Centers

There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food, shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to concentrate into controlled regions.

I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave their homes. This is the closest example I have personally experienced to a martial law cityscape.

Decapitate Leadership

The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less effective. I do not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers, not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave all their teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The movement would not necessarily be lost without us.

That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.

According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a response.

Fourth-Generation Warfare

The final method for war against the American people is one Boot does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to control is turned against another section of the population you wish to control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather, the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and the militarization of police.

The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other while the elites sit back and watch the show.

4th Gen warfare also relies on fooling the target population into supporting measures that are secretly destructive to the people.  For example, liberty movement support for controlled opposition such as Russia or China, or liberty support for a military coup in which the top brass are elite puppets just like the Obama Administration. Think this sounds far fetched?  It has already happened in our recent history!  Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was hired by corporate moguls to lead a paid army in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (also an elitist puppet) in 1933.  Butler luckily exposed the conspiracy before it ever got off the ground.  Both sides were controlled, but the coup if successful could have resulted in popular support for the expedient erosion of the Constitution, rather than a slow erosion which is what took place.  This is the epitome of 4th Gen tactics – make the people think they are winning, when they are actually helping you to defeat them.

Know Thy Enemy

I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think they will prevail, but because it is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with in order to better defend ourselves. Such methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of central leadership, the application of random actions rather than predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that they may use that weapon in the near term. The defense that defeats crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as quickly as possible.

Today’s News May 8, 2015

  • Russia Offers Help To Greece In German War Reparations Investigation

    Just a day after German President Joachim Gauck shocked his government by remarking in an interview that Germany should at least “consider” demands by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras that the nation pay billions of euros in reparations for the Nazi occupation of Greece, ekathimerini reports that none other than ‘helpful’ Russians are willing to provide assistance in the World War II claims investigation.

     

     

    Following recent comments by German President Joachim Gauck that,

    “We are not only people who are living in this day and age but we’re also the descendants of those who left behind a trail of destruction in Europe during World War Two — in Greece, among other places, where we shamefully knew little about it for so long,” Gauck said in an interview with German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

     

    It’s the right thing to do for a history-conscious country like ours to consider what possibilities there might be for reparations.

     

    While he only went as far as to suggest “consideration” of the demand, this is further than the direct rejections other high-ranking German officials have issued. As Reuters recalls, the last time a German official mentioned the reparations demand, it was economic minister Sigmar Gabriel, who proclaimed them “stupid.”

    And now, as ekathimerini reports, it appears the Greeks are getting some assistance…

    Moscow is helping Greece in its investigation into possible Second World War reparations from Germany by providing access to previously unused archives.

     

    Following a request by Alternate Defense Minister Costas Isichos, the Russian Embassy in Athens has provided Greek authorities with a list of the relevant archives, including documents, photographs and documentary footage.

     

    Moscow’s move comes as the National Council for WWII Reparations from Germany has stepped up efforts to inform Greeks about its work. The group has put on display videos and posters explaining its work at 100 locations in Athens metro stations.

    *  *  *
    Perhaps  Putin is working on commission? 20% finders fee of the €278.7 billion that Greece believes it is owed for helping to gather the money from the Germans?



  • In A Cop Culture, The Bill Of Rights Doesn't Amount To Much

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    Police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.—Law professor Joanna C. Schwartz (paraphrased)

    “In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.”

    Unfortunately, if you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is never held accountable for violating your rights and his oath of office to serve and protect, never forced to make amends, never told that what he did was wrong, and never made to change his modus operandi, then you don’t live in a constitutional republic.

    You live in a police state.

    It doesn’t even matter that “crime is at historic lows and most cities are safer than they have been in generations, for residents and officers alike,” as the New York Times reports.

    What matters is whether you’re going to make it through a police confrontation alive and with your health and freedoms intact. For a growing number of Americans, those confrontations do not end well.

    As David O. Brown, the Dallas chief of police, noted: “Sometimes it seems like our young officers want to get into an athletic event with people they want to arrest. They have a ‘don’t retreat’ mentality. They feel like they’re warriors and they can’t back down when someone is running from them, no matter how minor the underlying crime is.”

    Making matters worse, in the cop culture that is America today, the Bill of Rights doesn’t amount to much. Unless, that is, it’s the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which protects police officers from being subjected to the kinds of debilitating indignities heaped upon the average citizen.

    Most Americans, oblivious about their own rights, aren’t even aware that police officers have their own Bill of Rights. Yet at the same time that our own protections against government abuses have been reduced to little more than historic window dressing, 14 states have already adopted LEOBoRs—written by police unions and being considered by many more states and Congress—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

    In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations: questioned unmercifully for hours on end, harassed, harangued, browbeaten, denied food, water and bathroom breaks, subjected to hostile interrogations, and left in the dark about our accusers and any charges and evidence against us.

    Not only are officers given a 10-day “cooling-off period during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the incident, but when they are questioned, it must be “for a reasonable length of time, at a reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with plenty of breaks for food and water.”

    According to investigative journalist Eli Hager, the most common rights afforded police officers accused of wrongdoing are as follows:

    • If a department decides to pursue a complaint against an officer, the department must notify the officer and his union.
    • The officer must be informed of the complainants, and their testimony against him, before he is questioned.
    • During questioning, investigators may not harass, threaten, or promise rewards to the officer, as interrogators not infrequently do to civilian suspects.
    • Bathroom breaks are assured during questioning.
    • In Maryland, the officer may appeal his case to a “hearing board,” whose decision is binding, before a final decision has been made by his superiors about his discipline. The hearing board consists of three of the suspected offender’s fellow officers.
    • In some jurisdictions, the officer may not be disciplined if more than a certain number of days (often 100) have passed since his alleged misconduct, which limits the time for investigation.
    • Even if the officer is suspended, the department must continue to pay salary and benefits, as well as the cost of the officer’s attorney.

    It’s a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity from wrongdoing, paid leave while you’re under investigation, and the assurance that you won’t have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense. And yet these LEOBoR epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.

    Once in a while, the system appears to work on the side of justice, and police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens.

    Yet even in these instances, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

    For example, Baltimore taxpayers have paid roughly $5.7 million since 2011 over lawsuits stemming from police abuses, with an additional $5.8 million going towards legal fees. If the six Baltimore police officers charged with the death of Freddie Gray are convicted, you can rest assured it will be the Baltimore taxpayers who feel the pinch.

    New York taxpayers have shelled out almost $1,130 per year per police officer (there are 34,500 officers in the NYPD) to address charges of misconduct. That translates to $38 million every year just to clean up after these so-called public servants.

    Over a 10-year-period, Oakland, Calif., taxpayers were made to cough up more than $57 million (curiously enough, the same amount as the city’s deficit back in 2011) in order to settle accounts with alleged victims of police abuse.

    Chicago taxpayers were asked to pay out nearly $33 million on one day alone to victims of police misconduct, with one person slated to receive $22.5 million, potentially the largest single amount settled on any one victim. The City has paid more than half a billion dollars to victims over the course of a decade. The Chicago City Council actually had to borrow $100 million just to pay off lawsuits arising over police misconduct in 2013. The city’s payout for 2014 was estimated to be in the same ballpark, especially with cases pending such as the one involving the man who was reportedly sodomized by a police officer’s gun in order to force him to “cooperate.”

    Over 78% of the funds paid out by Denver taxpayers over the course of a decade arose as a result of alleged abuse or excessive use of force by the Denver police and sheriff departments. Meanwhile, taxpayers in Ferguson, Missouri, are being asked to pay $40 million in compensation—more than the city’s entire budget—for police officers treating them “‘as if they were war combatants,’ using tactics like beating, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and stun grenades, while the plaintiffs were peacefully protesting, sitting in a McDonalds, and in one case walking down the street to visit relatives.”

    That’s just a small sampling of the most egregious payouts, but just about every community—large and small—feels the pinch when it comes to compensating victims who have been subjected to deadly or excessive force by police.

    The ones who rarely ever feel the pinch are the officers accused or convicted of wrongdoing, “even if they are disciplined or terminated by their department, criminally prosecuted, or even imprisoned.” Indeed, a study published in the NYU Law Review reveals that 99.8% of the monies paid in settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases never come out of the officers’ own pockets, even when state laws require them to be held liable. Moreover, these officers rarely ever have to pay for their own legal defense.

    For instance, law professor Joanna C. Schwartz references a case in which three Denver police officers chased and then beat a 16-year-old boy, stomping “on the boy’s back while using a fence for leverage, breaking his ribs and causing him to suffer kidney damage and a lacerated liver.” The cost to Denver taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $885,000. The amount the officers contributed: 0.

    Kathryn Johnston, 92 years old, was shot and killed during a SWAT team raid that went awry. Attempting to cover their backs, the officers falsely claimed Johnston’s home was the site of a cocaine sale and went so far as to plant marijuana in the house to support their claim. The cost to Atlanta taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $4.9 million. The amount the officers contributed: 0.

    Meanwhile, in Albuquerque, a police officer was convicted of raping a woman in his police car, in addition to sexually assaulting four other women and girls, physically abusing two additional women, and kidnapping or falsely imprisoning five men and boys. The cost to the Albuquerque taxpayers to settle the lawsuit: $1,000,000. The amount the officer contributed: 0.

    Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.”

    Still, the number of times a police officer is actually held accountable for wrongdoing while on the job is miniscule compared to the number of times cops are allowed to walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist.

    A large part of the problem can be chalked up to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, not to mention these Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights laws, which allow officers to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing.

    Another part of the problem is rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats: those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.

    Most of all, what we’re dealing with is systemic corruption that protects wrongdoing and recasts it in a noble light. However, there is nothing noble about government agents who kick, punch, shoot and kill defenseless individuals. There is nothing just about police officers rendered largely immune from prosecution for wrongdoing. There is nothing democratic about the word of a government agent being given greater weight in court than that of the average citizen. And no good can come about when the average citizen has no real means of defense against a system that is weighted in favor of government bureaucrats.

    So if you want a recipe for disaster, this is it: Take police cadets, train them in the ways of war, dress and equip them for battle, teach them to see the people they serve not as human beings but as suspects and enemies, and then indoctrinate them into believing that their main priority is to make it home alive at any cost. While you’re at it, spend more time drilling them on how to use a gun (58 hours) and employ defensive tactics (49 hours) than on how to calm a situation before resorting to force (8 hours).

    Then, once they’re hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge and their gun, throw in a few court rulings suggesting that security takes precedence over individual rights, set it against a backdrop of endless wars and militarized law enforcement, and then add to the mix a populace distracted by entertainment, out of touch with the workings of their government, and more inclined to let a few sorry souls suffer injustice than challenge the status quo or appear unpatriotic.

    That’s not to discount the many honorable police officers working thankless jobs across the country in order to serve and protect their fellow citizens, but there can be no denying that, as journalist Michael Daly acknowledges, there is a troublesome “cop culture that tends to dehumanize or at least objectify suspected lawbreakers of whatever race. The instant you are deemed a candidate for arrest, you become not so much a person as a ‘perp.’”

    Older cops are equally troubled by this shift in how police are being trained to view Americans—as things, not people. Daly had a veteran police officer join him to review the video footage of 43-year-old Eric Garner crying out and struggling to breathe as cops held him in a chokehold. (In yet another example of how the legal system and the police protect their own, no police officers were charged for Garner’s death.) Daly describes the veteran officer’s reaction to the footage, which as Daly points out, “constitutes a moral indictment not so much of what the police did but of what the police did not do”:

    “I don’t see anyone in that video saying, ‘Look, we got to ease up,’” says the veteran officer. “Where’s the human side of you in that you’ve got a guy saying, ‘I can’t breathe?’” The veteran officer goes on, “Somebody needs to say, ‘Stop it!’ That’s what’s missing here was a voice of reason. The only voice we’re hearing is of Eric Garner.” The veteran officer believes Garner might have survived had anybody heeded his pleas. “He could have had a chance,” says the officer, who is black. “But you got to believe he’s a human being first. A human being saying, ‘I can’t breathe.’”

    As I point out in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplewhen all is said and done, the various problems we’re facing today—militarized police, police shootings of unarmed people, the electronic concentration camp being erected around us, SWAT team raids, etc.—can be attributed to the fact that our government and its agents have ceased to see us as humans first.

    Then again, perhaps we are just as much to blame for this sorry state of affairs. After all, if we want to be treated like human beings—with dignity and worth—then we need to start treating those around us in the same manner. As Martin Luther King Jr. warned in a speech given exactly one year to the day before he was killed: “We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’ society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”



  • On This Day In 1945: Reporter Fired For Biggest Scoop In History

    In World War II's final moments in Europe, Associated Press correspondent Edward Kennedy gave his news agency perhaps the biggest scoop in its history.

    He reported, a full day ahead of the competition, that the Germans had surrendered unconditionally at a former schoolhouse in Reims, France.

     

    For this, he was publicly rebuked by the AP, and then quietly fired.

    As AP reports,

    The reason: The veteran reporter was accused of breaking a pledge that he and 16 other correspondents had made to keep the surrender secret for a time, as a condition of being allowed to witness it. This was done so Russian dictator Josef Stalin could formally announce the defeat in Berlin.

     

    Kennedy viewed the embargo as a political security issue, rather than a military one, and felt compelled to report the surrender, especially after learning that German radio had already broadcast the news.

     

    In 2012, almost 50 years after Kennedy's death, then-AP President and CEO Tom Curley apologized for the way the company had treated the journalist.

    Ed Kennedy, pictured below,  was one of 17 reporters taken to witness the ceremony.

    He and the others were hastily assembled by military commanders, then pledged to secrecy by a U.S. general while the group flew over France. As a condition of being allowed to see the surrender in person, the correspondents were barred from reporting what they had witnessed until authorized by Allied headquarters.

    Initially, the journalists were told the news would be held up for only a few hours. But after the surrender was complete, the embargo was extended for 36 hours—until 3 p.m. the following day.

     

    Kennedy was astounded.

     

    "The absurdity of attempting to bottle up news of such magnitude was too apparent," he would later write.

     

    Nevertheless, he initially stayed quiet. Then, at 2:03 p.m., the surrender was announced by German officials, via a radio broadcast from Flensburg, a city already in Allied hands. That meant, Kennedy knew, that the transmission had been authorized by the same military censors gagging the press.

     

    Furious, Kennedy went to see the chief American censor and told him there was no way he could continue to hold the story. Word was out. The military had broken its side of the pact by allowing the Germans to announce the surrender. And there were no military secrets at stake.

     

    The censor waved him off. Kennedy thought about it for 15 minutes, and then acted.

    Seventy years after the scoop, the AP is making Kennedy's original story and photographs available…

    Germany surrendered unconditionally to the Western allies and the Soviet Union at 2:41 a.m. French time today. (This was at 8:41 p.m. Eastern war time Sunday, May 6, 1945.)

     

    The surrender took place at a little red school house that is the headquarters of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

     

     

     

    The surrender was signed for the Supreme Allied Command by Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, chief of staff for Gen. Eisenhower.

     

    It was also signed by Gen. Ivan Susloparov of the Soviet Union and by Gen. Francois Sevez for France.

     

     

    Gen. Eisenhower was not present at the signing, but immediately afterward Gen. Alfred Jodl and his fellow delegate, Gen. Admiral Hans Georg von Friedeburg, were received by the supreme commander.

     

     

    They were asked sternly if they understood the surrender terms imposed upon Germany and if they would be carried out by Germany.

     

    They answered yes.

     

    Germany, which began the war with a ruthless attack upon Poland, followed by successive aggressions and brutality in concentration camps, surrendered with an appeal to the victors for mercy toward the German people and armed forces.

     

    After signing the full surrender, Gen. Jodl said he wanted to speak and received leave to do so.

     

    "With this signature," he said in soft-spoken German, "the German people and armed forces are for better or worse delivered into the victor's hands.

     

    "In this war, which has lasted more than five years, both have achieved and suffered more than perhaps any other people in the world."

    *  *  *

    After being fired by the AP, Kennedy took a job as managing editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press in California, and then went on to become publisher of the Monterey Peninsula Herald. He died at age 58 after being struck by an automobile.

    Kennedy's family had held on to the manuscript for decades before his daughter, Cochran, began looking for a publisher.

    She said that even though she was only 16 when her father died, she got the impression he still took great joy in his career, despite the episode.

    Curley said Kennedy's daughter approached him around the same time he had become interested in the matter while helping with work on the book "Breaking News: How The Associated Press Has Covered War, Peace, and Everything Else." The publication of Kennedy's memoir prompted the AP's apology, Curley said.

    He called Kennedy's dismissal "a great, great tragedy" and hailed him and the desk editors who put the surrender story on the wire for upholding the highest principles of journalism.



  • In Most Countries, 40 Hours + Minimum Wage = Poverty

    Last week, we noted that Democratic lawmakers in the US are pushing for what they call “$12 by ’20” which, as the name implies, is an effort to raise the minimum wage to $12/hour over the course of the next five years. Republicans argue that if Democrats got their wish and the pay floor were increased by nearly 70%, it would do more harm than good for low-income Americans as the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of employers cutting back in the face of dramatically higher labor costs would offset the benefit that accrues to the workers who are lucky enough to keep their jobs. 

    Regardless of who is right or wrong when it comes to projecting what would happen to low-wage jobs in the face of a steep hike in the minimum wage, one thing is certain: many working families depend on government assistance to make ends meet, suggesting it’s tough to persist on minimum wage in today’s economy and indeed, a new study by the OECD shows that in 21 out of the 26 member countries that have a minimum wage, working 40 hours per week at the pay floor would not be sufficient to keep one’s family out of poverty.

    Here’s more from Bloomberg:

    A global ranking out Wednesday by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development painted a grim picture of the situation in member countries straddling continents. The 34-member organization found that a legal minimum wage existed in 26 countries and crunched the numbers to see how they compared.

     

    Forget taking a siesta in Spain. There, you’d have to work more than 72 hours a week to escape the trappings of poverty. Turns out that is the norm, not the exception. In the 21 countries highlighted with blue bars in the chart below, a full 40-hour work week still won’t lift families out of relative poverty. This list includes France, home to the 35-hour work week, which almost met the threshold. Minimum wage workers there who are supporting a spouse and two children need to work 40.2 hours to get their families out of poverty.  (The poverty line is defined as 50 percent of the median wage in any nation.)



  • US Approves Saudi Use Of Banned Cluster Bombs (But Only If They're Extra Careful)

    Following a report on Sunday, where Human Rights Watch said video and photographic evidence showed that Saudi Arabia used cluster bombs near villages in Yemen’s Saada Province at least two separate times, the US State Department said it is "looking into" the allegations but, as Foreign Policy reports, said the notoriously imprecise weapon — banned by much of the world — could still have an appropriate role to play in Riyadh’s U.S.-backed offensive (as long as it was used carefully).

    Human Rights Watch details credible evidence indicates that the Saudi-led coalition used banned cluster munitions supplied by the United States in airstrikes against Houthi forces in Yemen, Human Rights Watch said today.

    Cluster munitions pose long-term dangers to civilians and are prohibited by a 2008 treaty adopted by 116 countries, though not Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or the United States.

     

     

    Photographs, video, and other evidence have emerged since mid-April 2015 indicating that cluster munitions have been used during recent weeks in coalition airstrikes in Yemen’s northern Saada governorate, the traditional Houthi stronghold bordering Saudi Arabia.

     

     

    “Saudi-led cluster munition airstrikes have been hitting areas near villages, putting local people in danger,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. “These weapons should never be used under any circumstances. Saudi Arabia and other coalition members – and the supplier, the US – are flouting the global standard that rejects cluster munitions because of their long-term threat to civilians.”

    However, as Foreign Policy reports, the State Department said it is "looking into" the allegations…

    “We’re looking into those details carefully. I don’t have an outcome of that to report,”  State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke said in answer to questions about the HRW report. “We take all accounts of civilian deaths in the ongoing hostilities in Yemen very seriously.”

     

     

    On Monday, Rathke noted that U.S. law and policy dictates that the United States may only export cluster munitions to foreign buyers if the weapon’s unexploded ordnance rate does not exceed one percent. The U.S. also requires that the governments buying U.S. cluster bombs “must commit that cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians,” said Rathke.

     

    When Foreign Policy asked if cluster bombs were “appropriate” to use in the U.S.-backed air campaign in Yemen, Rathke said they were so long as they’re used “against clearly defined military targets.”

     

    “That’s our policy on those,” he said.

     

     

    On the humanitarian front, U.S. officials have privately noted concerns about civilian casualties and fears that Riyadh is failing to properly vet the local fighters it’s arming in Yemen. But publicly, the White House fully backs the operation.

     

    Rathke said “we share the concerns regarding unintended harm to civilians caused by the use of cluster munitions.”

     

    “The United States remains the single largest financial supporter of addressing the explosive remnants of war,” he added.

    *  *  *
    And single largest supplier of explosives and creator of the need for them…



  • Guest Post: The Big Business Of Cancer – 100 Billion Dollars Was Spent On Cancer Drugs Last Year Alone

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

    If you are an American, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you will get cancer during your lifetime.  If you are a man, the odds are closer to 1 in 2.  And almost everyone in America either knows someone who currently has cancer or who has already died from cancer.  But it wasn’t always this way.  Back in the 1940s, only one out of every sixteen Americans would develop cancer.  Something has happened that has caused the cancer rate in this nation to absolutely explode, and it is being projected that cancer will soon surpass heart disease and become the leading cause of death in the United States.  Overall, the World Health Organization says that approximately 14 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed around the globe each year, and the number of new cases is expected to increase by about 70 percent over the next 2 decades.

    There are very few words in the English language that cause more fear than the word “cancer”, but despite billions spent on research and all of the technological progress we have made over the years this plague just continues to spiral wildly out of control.  Why is that?

    In America today, more money is spent to treat cancer than to treat any other disease by far.  In fact, according to NBC News, 100 BILLION dollars was spent on cancer drugs just last year alone…

    As drug prices continue to fall under ever-increasing scrutiny, spending on cancer medicines has hit a new milestone: $100 billion in 2014.

     

    That’s up more than 10 percent from 2013, and up from $75 billion five years earlier, according to a report published Tuesday from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics.

    100 million dollars would be an astounding amount of money to spend on these drugs.  But 100 billion dollars is 1,000 times as much money as 100 million dollars.  And the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics is projecting that the amount of money spent on cancer drugs will continue to grow at a rate of 6 to 8 percent a year.

    Needless to say, there are a lot of people out there that are becoming exceedingly wealthy treating this disease.

    And the cost of some these drugs is absolutely absurd.  According to NBC News, two of the latest cancer drugs to be developed “are priced at $12,500 a month“…

    Forty-five new drugs for cancer hit the market between 2010 and 2014, including 10 last year alone, IMS said. Two of those are so-called immunotherapies, a hot new class that harnesses the immune system to fight cancer. They are Opdivo from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Keytruda from Merck. Both are priced at $12,500 a month.

    Yes, I understand that drug companies are in business to make a profit.

    But how can anyone possibly justify charging cancer patients that much for their medicine?

    If you are diagnosed with cancer in America today and you choose to trust the medical system with your treatment, you can say goodbye to your financial future.  Even if you have health insurance, you will probably end up flat broke one way or the other.  Either you will survive and be flat broke, or you will die flat broke.

    And despite all of our ultra-expensive treatments, the survival rate for cancer is still not very good.  At this point, the five year survival rate for those diagnosed with cancer is just 65 percent.  That means that 35 percent of those diagnosed with cancer are going to end up dead within five years, and for certain forms of cancer that percentage is much, much higher.

    Sadly, as I mentioned at the top of this article, the percentage of the population getting cancer just continues to go up

    We have lost the war on cancer. At the beginning of the last century, one person in twenty would get cancer. In the 1940s it was one out of every sixteen people. In the 1970s it was one person out of ten. Today one person out of three gets cancer in the course of their life.

    We live in a society that is highly toxic, and it is getting worse with each passing day.

    And once you do develop cancer, doctors are not allowed to prescribe any “alternative treatments” for you.  They are only permitted to offer you the treatments that the system tells them that they must offer.

    One of these is chemotherapy.  It is an absolutely nightmarish treatment that often kills the patient before it kills the cancer.  The following is how one woman described her experience with chemo

    This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn’t help asking myself “If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, what is it doing to me on the inside?” From 7 pm that evening, I vomited solidly for two and a half days. During my treatment, I lost my hair by the handful, I lost my appetite, my skin colour, my zest for life. I was death on legs.

    Many patients go through round after hellish round, hoping that it will do something about their cancer.  Have you ever known someone who has gone through this ordeal?  It can be absolutely heartbreaking.

    But in the end, there is a tremendous amount of doubt regarding whether chemo does much good at all.  Just consider the words of Dr. Ralph Moss, the author of a book entitled “The Cancer Industry“…

    In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy actually extends life in the vast majority of cases, and this is the great lie about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of a patient.

    So why do oncologists push chemo so hard?

    Well, it is because they make a tremendous amount of money doing it

    According to the research of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics fame, “Oncologists are some of the highest paid doctors, their average income is increasing faster than any other specialist  in the medical field, and more than half their income comes from selling and administering chemotherapy.”

     

    Yes you read that right.  Oncologists make a huge profit, as much as two-thirds of their income in some cases, from chemotherapy drugs.

     

    Their business model is very different from other doctors because you can’t buy chemotherapy drugs at your local pharmacy.

     

    Oncologists buy these drugs direct at wholesale prices, then they mark them up and bill the insurance companies. This legal profiting on drugs by doctors is unique to the cancer treatment world. They’re making money off the drugs that they insist you take to save your life. That’s a HUGE conflict of interest. They’re selling you the drugs, and charging you for the privilege of putting them in your body. No other doctor can do that.

    Our system is deeply corrupt and deeply broken.

    But nothing is going to change any time soon because hundreds of billions of dollars are being made.



  • America’s Main Problem: Corruption

    Preface: Sadly, in the month since we last posted on this topic, many new examples of corruption have arisen.

    The Cop Is On the Take

    Government corruption has become rampant:

    • Senior SEC employees spent up to 8 hours a day surfing porn sites instead of cracking down on financial crimes
    • NSA spies pass around homemade sexual videos and pictures they've collected from spying on the American people
    • Investigators from the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General found that some of the regulator’s employees surfed erotic websites, hired prostitutes and accepted gifts from bank executives … instead of actually working to help the economy
    • The Minerals Management Service – the regulator charged with overseeing BP and other oil companies to ensure that oil spills don’t occur – was riddled with “a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity”, which included “sex with industry contacts
    • Agents for the Drug Enforcement Agency had dozens of sex parties with prostitutes hired by the drug cartels they were supposed to stop (they also received money, gifts and weapons from drug cartel members)
    • The former chief accountant for the SEC says that Bernanke and Paulson broke the law and should be prosecuted
    • The government knew about mortgage fraud a long time ago. For example, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud in 2004. However, the FBI, DOJ and other government agencies then stood down and did nothing. See this and this. For example, the Federal Reserve turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud, and the SEC has repeatedly ignored accounting fraud. Indeed, Alan Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen
    • Paulson and Bernanke falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy, when they were not. The Treasury Secretary also falsely told Congress that the bailouts would be used to dispose of toxic assets … but then used the money for something else entirely
    • Warmongerers in the U.S. government knowingly and intentionally lied us into a war of aggression in Iraq. The former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the highest ranking military officer in the United States – said that the Iraq war was “based on a series of lies”. The same is true in Libya and other wars
    • The Bush White House worked hard to smear CIA officers, bloggers and anyone else who criticized the Iraq war
    • The FBI smeared top scientists who pointed out the numerous holes in its anthrax case. Indeed, the head of the FBI's investigation agrees that corruption was rampant

    The biggest companies own the D.C. politicians. Indeed, the head of the economics department at George Mason University has pointed out that it is unfair to call politicians “prostitutes”. They are in fact pimps … selling out the American people for a price.

    Government regulators have become so corrupted and “captured” by those they regulate that Americans know that the cop is on the take. Institutional corruption is killing people’s trust in our government and our institutions.

    Indeed, America is no longer a democracy or republic … it's officially an oligarchy.

    The allowance of unlimited campaign spending allows the oligarchs to purchase politicians more directly than ever. Moreover, there are two systems of justice in Americaone for the big banks and other fatcats, and one for everyone else.

    Big Corporations Are Also Thoroughly Corrupt

    But the private sector is no better … for example, the big banks have literally turned into criminal syndicates.

    Wall Street and giant corporations are literally manipulating every single market.

    And the big corporations are cutting corners to make an extra penny … wrecking havoc with their carelessness. For example:

    • U.S. military contractors have pocketed huge sums of money earmarked for humanitarian and reconstruction aid

    (Further examples here, here, here, here and here.)

    We've Forgotten the Lessons of History

    The real problem is that we need to learn a little history:

    • We’ve known for thousands of years that – when criminals are not punished – crime spreads
    • We’ve known for centuries that powerful people – unless held to account – will get together and steal from everyone else

    Beyond Partisan Politics

    Liberals and conservatives tend to blame our country's problems on different factors … but they are all connected.

    The real problem is the malignant, symbiotic relationship between big corporations and big government.



  • Introducing Hotel ISIS: Have Fun, But Don't 'Lose Your Head'

    Over the past year, the world has learned quite a bit about ISIS, the once obscure band of CIA-trained, Qatar-funded, marauding Muslim militants whose Cinderella story saw the group transform themselves from Syrian proxy war puppets to barbarous pseudo-state conquerors in the space of nine short months. We’ve learned, for instance, that the group are avid Twitter users, which is why they felt especially betrayed when the social network began suspending members’ accounts, prompting the group to warn co-founder Jack Dorsey that ISIS “lions” would be arriving in short order to “take his breath.” We’ve also learned that despite proving themselves extraordinarily capable when it comes to producing near Hollywood-quality videos, the group struggles when it comes to creating a social network from scratch. Finally, we’ve come to understand that despite the group’s tough guy posturing, most members have a soft spot for kittens and enjoy a spoonful of Nutella now and again. 

    And so, as the CIA prepares to train the next group of “moderate” Syrian rebels who may or may not become the successor to ISIS much as ISIS did to al-Qaeda, and as Texans ponder “lone wolves” and false flags, we present ISIS first-ever venture into the hospitality industry. Behold! Hotel ISIS…

    This was once the 262-room, five-star Ninawa International Hotel in Mosul, Iraq:

    It is now being reopened under new ownership… 

    …who are working diligently to give the hotel a fresh new look…

    …while tending to the grounds…

    …trimming the hedges…

    …and waxing the floors…

    As you can see, the group expended quite a bit of effort to get the building ready for opening night which was reportedly on May 1. All Muslims were told they could attend the event free of charge and as The Independent reports, ISIS even put on a fireworks show at the end of the night:

    Pictures circulated by Isis-affiliated social media accounts show members tending to a well-maintained garden, polishing floors and cleaning windows, expansive swimming pools and two black Isis flags flying at the front of the multi-storey building.

     

    The hotel is believed to be the Ninawa International Hotel, which received a number of positive reviews on TripAdvisor before being overtaken by militants and stripped of its branding. It has 262 rooms, two restaurants, two ballrooms and a gymnasium, among other facilities.

     

    Images from the event show dozens gathered around pools during the day, followed by a firework display in the evening.

    So while there’s plenty of fun to be had at this former five-star establishment, you’d be wise not to go overboard or otherwise ‘lose your head’ because well… you might lose your head. Here’s SputnikNews:

    Alas, the jihadists have prohibited their guests from dancing, smoking, gambling and other “sins”; women, visiting the hotel, should be dressed in accordance with strict Sharia laws – head-to-toe in black.

     

    Those who violate the Islamic rules are at risk of being decapitated, while ISIL’s infamous female police al-Khansaa will keep an eye on guests to ensure observance of Islamic values and practices.

    For those interested in making the trip to Mosul, we have not yet been apprised of the best way to make reservations, but we’ll be sure to keep an eye on Expedia for the best deals.



  • Why We Have An Oversupply Of Almost Everything

    Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

    The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article called, Glut of Capital and Labor Challenge Policy Makers: Global oversupply extends beyond commodities, elevating deflation risk. To me, this is a very serious issue, quite likely signaling that we are reaching what has been called Limits to Growth, a situation modeled in 1972 in a book by that name.

    What happens is that economic growth eventually runs into limits. Many people have assumed that these limits would be marked by high prices and excessive demand for goods. In my view, the issue is precisely the opposite one: Limits to growth are instead marked by low prices and inadequate demand. Common workers can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that the economy produces, because of inadequate wage growth. The price of all commodities drops, because of lower demand by workers. Furthermore, investors can no longer find investments that provide an adequate return on capital, because prices for finished goods are pulled down by the low demand of workers with inadequate wages.

    Evidence Regarding the Connection Between Energy Consumption and GDP Growth

    We can see the close connection between world energy consumption and world GDP using historical data.

    Figure 1. World GDP in 2010$ compared (from USDA) compared to World Consumption of Energy (from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014).

    Figure 1. World GDP in 2010$ compared (from USDA) compared to World Consumption of Energy (from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014).

    This chart gives a clue regarding what is wrong with the economy. The slope of the line implies that adding one percentage point of growth in energy usage tends to add less and less GDP growth over time, as I have shown in Figure 2. This means that if we want to have, for example, a constant 4% growth in world GDP for the period 1969 to 2013, we would need to gradually increase the rate of growth in energy consumption from about 1.8% = (4.0% – 2.2%) growth in energy consumption in 1969 to 2.8% = (4.0% – 1.2%) growth in energy consumption in 2013. This need for more and more growth in energy use to produce the same amount of economic growth is taking place despite all of our efforts toward efficiency, and despite all of our efforts toward becoming more of a “service” economy, using less energy products!

    Figure 2. Expected change in GDP growth corresponding to 1% growth in total energy, based on Figure 1 fitted line.

    Figure 2. Expected change in GDP growth corresponding to 1% growth in total energy, based on Figure 1 fitted line.

    To make matters worse, growth in world energy supply is generally trending downward as well. (This is not just oil supply whose growth is trending downward; this is oil plus everything else, including “renewables”.)

    Figure 3. Three year average percent change in world energy consumption, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 data.

    Figure 3. Three-year average percent change in world energy consumption, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 data.

    There would be no problem, if economic growth were something that we could simply walk away from with no harmful consequences. Unfortunately, we live in a world where there are only two options–win or lose. We can win in our contest against other species (especially microbes), or we can lose. Winning looks like economic growth; losing looks like financial collapse with huge loss of human population, perhaps to epidemics, because we cannot maintain our current economic system.

    The symptoms of losing the game are the symptoms we are seeing today–low commodity prices (temporarily higher, but nowhere nearly high enough to maintain production), not enough good paying jobs for common workers, and lack of investment opportunities, because workers cannot afford the high prices of goods that would be required to provide adequate return on investment.

     

    How We Have Won in Our Contest with Other Species–Early Efforts 

    The “secret formula” humans have had for winning in our competition against other species has been the use of supplemental energy, adding to the energy we get from food. There is a physics reason why this approach works: total population by all species is limited by available energy supply. Providing our own external energy supply was (and still is) a great work-around for this limitation. Even in the days of hunter-gatherers, humans used three times as much energy as could be obtained through food alone (Figure 1).

    Figure 1

    Figure 4

    Earliest supplementation of food energy came by burning sticks and other biomass, starting one million years ago. Using this approach, humans were able to gain an advantage over other species in several ways:

    1. We were able to cook some of our food. This made a wider range of plants and animals suitable for food and made the nutrients from these foods more easily available to our bodies.
    2. Because less energy was needed for chewing and digesting, our bodies could put energy into growing a larger brain, thus giving us an advantage over other animals.
    3. The use of cooked food freed up time for such activities as hunting and making clothes, because less time was needed for chewing.
    4. Heat from burning plant material could be used to keep warm in cold areas, thereby extending our range and increasing total human population that could be supported.
    5. Fire could be used to chase off predatory animals and hunt prey animals.

    Our bodies are now adapted to the need for supplemental energy. Our teeth our smaller, and our jaws and digestive apparatus have shrunk in size, as our brain has grown. The large population of humans that are alive today could not survive without supplemental energy for many purposes, such as cooking food, heating homes, and fighting illnesses that spread when humans are in as close proximity as they are today.

    Our Modern Formula For Winning the Battle Against Other Species

    In my view, the formula that has allowed humans to keep winning the battle against other species is the following:

    1. Use increasing amounts of inexpensive supplemental energy to leverage human energy so that finished goods and services produced per worker rises each year.
    2. Pay for this system with debt, because (if supplemental energy costs are cheap enough), it is possible to repay the debt, plus the interest on the debt, with the additional goods and services made possible by the cheap additional energy.
    3. This system gradually becomes more complex to deal with problems that come with rising population and growing use of resources. However, if the output of goods per worker is growing rapidly enough, it should be possible to pay for the costs associated with this increased complexity, in addition to interest costs.
    4. The whole system “works” as long as the total quantity of finished goods and services rises rapidly enough that it can fund all of the following: (a) a rising standard of living for common workers so that they can afford increasing amounts of debt to buy more goods, (b) debt repayment, and interest on the debt of the system, and (c) and an increasing amount of “overhead” in the form of government services, medical care, educational services, and salaries of high paid officials (in business as well as government). This overhead is needed to deal with the increasing complexity that comes with growth.

    The formula for a growing economy is now failing. The rate of economic growth is falling, partly because energy supply is slowing (Figure 3), and partly because we need more and more growth of energy supply to produce a given amount of economic growth (Figure 2). With this lowered world economic growth, the amount of goods and services being produced is not rising fast enough to support all of the functions that it needs to cover: interest payments, growing wages of common workers, and growing “overhead” of a more complex society.

    *  *  *

    Some Reasons the Economic Growth Cycle is Now Failing

    Let’s look at a few areas where we are reaching obstacles to this continued growth in final goods and services. An overarching problem is diminishing returns, which is reflected in increasingly higher prices of production.

    1. Energy supplies are becoming more expensive to extract.

    We extract the easiest to extract energy supplies first, and as these deplete, need to use the more expensive to extract energy supplies. We hear much about “growing efficiency” but, in fact, we are becoming less efficient in the production of energy supplies.

    In the US, EIA data shows that we are becoming less efficient at coal production, in terms of coal production per worker hour (Figure 5).

    Figure 5. US coal production per worker, on a Btu basis based on EIA data.

    Figure 5. US coal production per worker, on a Btu basis based on EIA data.

    With oil, growing inefficiency is shown by the steeply rising cost of oil exploration and production since 1999 (Figure 6).

    Figure 6. Figure by Steve Kopits of Westwood Douglas showing trends in world oil exploration and production costs per barrel.

    Figure 6. Figure by Steve Kopits of Douglas-Westwood showing trends in world oil exploration and production costs per barrel.

    Thus, it is for a fairly recent period, namely the period since about 2000, that we have been encountering rising costs both for US coal and for worldwide oil extraction.

    The extra workers and extra costs required for producing the same amount of energy  counteract the tendency toward growth in the rest of the economy. This occurs because the rest of the economy must produce finished products with fewer workers and less resources as a result of the extra demands on these resources by the energy sector.

    2. Other materials, besides energy products, are experiencing diminishing returns. 

    Other resources, such as metals and other minerals and fresh water, are also becoming increasingly expensive to extract. The issue with mineral ores is similar to that with fossil fuels. We start with a fixed amount of ores in good locations and with high mineral percentages. As we move to less desirable ores, both human labor and more energy products are required, making the extraction process less efficient.

    With fresh water, the issue is likely to be a need for desalination or long distance transport, to satisfy the needs of a growing population. Workarounds again involve more human labor and more resource use, making the production of fresh water less efficient.

    In both of these cases, growing inefficiency leaves the rest of the economy with less human energy and less energy products to produce the finished goods and services that the economy needs.

    3. Growing pollution is taking its toll.

    Instead of just producing end products, we are increasingly finding ourselves fighting pollution. While this is a benefit to society, it really is only offsetting what would otherwise be a negative. Thus, it acts like overhead, rather than producing economic growth.

    From the point of view of workers having to pay for higher cost energy in order to fight pollution (say, substitution of a higher cost energy source, or paying for more pollution controls), the additional cost acts like a tax. Workers need to cut back on other expenditures to afford the pollution control workarounds. The effect is thus recessionary.

    4. The amount of “overhead” to the world economy has been growing rapidly in recent years, for a number of reasons: 

    • The amount of overhead is growing because we are reaching natural barriers. For example, population per acre of arable land is growing, so we need more intensity of development to produce food for a rising population.
    • With greater population density and increased bacterial antibiotic resistance, disease transmission becomes a more of a problem.
    • Increasing education is being encouraged, whether or not there are jobs available that will make use of that education. Education that cannot be used in a productive way to produce more goods and services can be considered overhead for the economy. Educational expenses are frequently financed by debt. Repayment of this debt leads to a decrease in demand for other goods, such as new homes and vehicles.
    • We have more elderly to whom we have promised benefits, because with the benefit of better nutrition and medical care, more people are living longer.

    5. We are reaching debt limits.

    As economic growth has slowed, we have been adding more and more debt, to try to mitigate the problem. This additional debt becomes a problem in many ways: (a) without cheap energy to leverage human labor, there are not many productive investments that can be made; (b) the addition of more debt leads to a need for more interest payments; and (c) at some point debt ratios become overwhelmingly high.

    At least part of the slowdown in economic growth that we are seeing today is coming from a slowdown in the growth of debt. Without debt growth, it is hard to keep commodity prices high enough. Investment in new manufacturing plants is also affected by low growth in debt.

    *   *   *

    Reasons for Confusion in Understanding Our Current Predicament

    1. Not understanding that all of the symptoms we are seeing today are manifestations of the same underlying “illness”. 

    Most analysts think that the economy has stubbed its toe and has a headache, rather than recognizing that it has a serious underlying illness.

    2. Academia is focused way too narrowly, and tied too closely to what has been written before. 

    Academics, because of their need to write papers, focus on what previous papers have said. Unfortunately, previous papers have not understood the nature of our problem. Academics have developed models based on our situation when we were away from limits. The issues we are facing cover such diverse subjects as physics, geology, and finance. It is hard for academics to become knowledgeable in many areas at once.

    3. Models that seemed to work before are no longer appropriate.

    We take models like the familiar supply and demand model of economists and assume that they represent everlasting truths.

    Figure 7. (Source Wikipedia). The price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D). The diagram shows a positive shift in demand from D1 to D2, resulting in an increase in price (P) and quantity sold (Q) of the product.

    Figure 7. (Source Wikipedia). The price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D). The diagram shows a positive shift in demand from D1 to D2, resulting in an increase in price (P) and quantity sold (Q) of the product.

    Unfortunately, as we get close to limits, things change. Both wage levels and debt levels have an impact on demand; the quantity goods available is also affected by diminishing returns. The model that worked in the past may be totally inappropriate now.

    Even a complex model like the climate change model being used by the IPCC is likely to be affected by financial limits. If near-term financial limits are to be expected, IPCC’s estimate of future carbon from fuels is likely to be too high. At a minimum, the findings of the IPCC need to be framed differently: climate change may be one of a number of problems facing those people who manage to survive a financial crash.

    4. Too much wishful thinking.

    Everyone would like to present a positive result, especially when grants are being given for academic research will support some favorable finding.

    A favorite form of wishful thinking is believing that higher costs of energy products will not be a problem. Higher cost energy products, whether they are renewable or not, are a problem for many reasons:

    • They represent growing inefficiency in the economy. With growing inefficiency, we produce fewer finished goods and services per worker, not more.
    • Countries using more of the higher cost types of energy become less competitive in the world market, and because of this, may develop financial problems. The countries most affected by the Great Recession were countries using a high percentage of oil in their energy mix.
    • The amount workers have available to spend is limited. If a worker has $100 to spend on energy supply, he can buy 100 times as much in energy supplies priced at $1 as he can energy supplies priced at $100. This same principle works even if the cost difference is much lower–say $3.50 gallon vs. $3.00 gallon.

    5. Too much faith in, “We pay each other’s wages.”

    There is a common belief that growing inefficiency is OK; the wages we pay for unneeded education will work its way through the system as more wages for other workers.

    Unfortunately, the real secret to economic growth is not paying each other’s wages; it is growing output of finished products per worker through increased use of cheap energy (and perhaps technology, to make this cheap energy useful).

    Increased overhead for the system is not helpful.

    6.  An “upside down” peak oil story.

    Most people in the peak oil community believe what economists say about supply and demand–namely, that oil prices will rise if there is a supply problem. They have not realized that in a networked economy, wages and prices are tightly linked. The way limits apply is not necessarily the way we expect. Limits may come through a lack of good paying jobs, and because of this lack of jobs, inability to purchase products containing oil.

    The connection between energy and jobs is clear. Good jobs require the use of energy, such as electricity and oil; lack of good-paying jobs is likely to be a manifestation of an inadequate supply of cheap energy. Also, high paying jobs are what allow rising buying power, and thus keep demand high. Thus, oil limits may appear as a demand problem, with low oil prices, rather than as a high oil price problem.

    In my opinion, what we are seeing now is a manifestation of peak oil. It is just happening in an upside down way relative to what most were expecting.

    *  *  *

    Conclusion

    One way of viewing our problem today is as a crisis of affordability. Young people cannot afford to start families or buy new homes because of a combination of the high cost of higher education (leading to debt), the high cost of fuel-efficient new cars (again leading to debt), the high cost of resale homes, and the relatively low wages paid to young workers. Even older workers often have an affordability problem. Many have found their wages stagnating or falling at the same time that the cost of healthcare, cars, electricity, and (until recently) oil rises. A recent Gallop Survey showed an increasing share of workers categorize themselves as “working class” rather than “middle class.”

    It is this affordability crisis that is bringing the system down. Without adequate wages, the amount of debt that can be added to the system lags as well. It becomes impossible to keep prices of commodities up at a high enough level to encourage production of these commodities. Return on investment tends to be low for the same reason. Most researchers have not recognized these problems, because they are narrowly focused and assume that models that worked in the past will continue to work today.



  • Slavery In America

    Presented with no comment…

     

     

    Source: Investors.com



  • What The US Government Spends Its Money On, Besides Hookers And Gambling

    While there are those who, oblivious of the fastest collapse in US economic data on record, have pointed out that government tax receipts are rising with the implication being that the US consumer is doing quite fine thank you (and they are absolutely correct if by “consumer” they mean about 1% of the US population), what is rarely if ever discussed is that government expenditures are rising just as fast.

    In fact as the following chart from the latest Treasury refunding presentation shows, the cumulative deficit through December in 2015 is just a fraction greater than last year, when government tax revenues were substantially lower.

    So to understand where Uncle Sam spent all that extra cash it collected through various rising tax increases on the rich here is the full breakdown of the largest outlay categories for the US government in the first fiscal quarter of 2015 and 2014.

     

    It will hardly come as a surprise that after being neck and neck a year ago with Social Security outlays, the spending on Medicare and Medicaid (HHS) has jumped substantially, and at over $250 billion in the quarter, is now the most cash demanding category courtesy of a demographically deteriorating America that is just a little bit older and whole lot fatter.

    The bulk of the other spending categories were largely in line with the prior year, and the one outlier was interest on the debt (Treasury), which jumped to just around $125 billion for the quarter an increase of about 25% from a year ago, which is somewhat unexpected considering the average cost of debt continues to decline even if the total notional amount of US Federal Debt is now in the mid-$18 trillion range.

    The one most interesting category was defense spending: a category despised by progressives even though at this rate spending on interest for the progressives’ beloved government debt will soon eclipse defense. It is here that outlays actually dropped from a year ago, declining to just over $150 billion for the quarter. Which is surprising, because as Politico wrote overnight, among the items funded by general taxpayer revenue were such discretionary expenses as hookers and blackjack, after a defense department audit founds that Pentagon employees used their government credit cards to gamble and pay for “adult entertainment.”

    From Politico:

    The audit of “Government Travel Charge Transactions” by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, which is to be made public in coming weeks, found that both civilian and military employees used the credit cards at casinos and for escort services and other adult activities — in Las Vegas and Atlantic City.

    The audit forgot to add that the employees were either ridiculously brave or dumb as a bag of hammers to assume that charging a hooker on your taxpayer credit card would pass unnoticed.

    Actually make that dumb as a bag of hammers, because the expenditures did not just involve swiping you card (in the prostitute’s magnetic card reader), but actually submitting the expense for reimbursement. And for the supervisors to figure out that the funds were spent on hookers, it means that the Pentagon lackeys wrote down just that.

    A Pentagon official briefed on some of the findings stressed that the federal government did not necessarily pay the charges; holders of the cards pay their own bills and then submit receipts to be reimbursed for expenses related to their government business.

    Actually make that really, really dumb, because “the official said that the employees may have used the government cards for gambling and escort services in order to shield the charges from spouses.” In other words, if you got caught not only would you get fired, but you would lose half your assets following a very messy divorce.

    Those taxpaying Americans wondering if this was a one-off event, will be delighted to know that their taxes are abused pretty much on a constant basis by the government’s employees: “the Department of Labor’s Inspector General recently found that Job Corps employees charged nearly $100,000 to the government for hair cuts, clothing, and personal cell phone service. The Department of Homeland Security found that Coast Guard employees charged more than $12,000 at a one California coffee shop alone. Three employees were fired and two resigned last year at the Bureau of Land Management after they charged $800,000 worth of gift cards on their government credit cards.”

    On the other hand, the Keynesians among us will protest that this is perfectly normal and even legitimate theft: after all, how is the economy expected to grow if corrupt criminals don’t spend, spend, spend. Especially if the money isn’t theirs to begin with. Those same Keynesians will demand that instead of collecting taxes, the government should merely issue a quadrillion dollars in debt which will be promptly monetized by the Fed, with the proceeds used by every government criminal to hire hookers, do blow, gamble 24/7 and otherwise “boost” the economy.

    In fact, that may well describe the Keynesian nirvana: surely it would explain why the real US economy is fast approaching a state of terminal collapse. Which is why expect the trend in declining defense spending not to persist.

    As for that last question, whether anyone will be fired, here is the simple answer: of course not,

    Because the review was an audit of the credit card system and not an investigation of particular individuals, the official said the likely result will be that the agencies and military branches most affected will be compelled to remind employees that the practice violates policy — and possibly the law. [T]he findings are expected to lead department officials to issue stern new warnings.

    Because if criminal banks get away with a wrist slap and a harsh warning by their “regulators”, why not criminal government workers?



  • New Russian High-Tech Tank Suffers BSOD Moment During Army Parade

    Russia unveiled its new main battle tank as part of practices for Saturday’s Victory Day parade (commemorating the end of WWII). According to RT, the Armata “is a cutting-edge vehicle with an unmanned turret armed with a brand new 125 mm smoothbore cannon, which is the most powerful gun of its kind to date in terms of muzzle energy.” You decide…

    Of course, the painful 40 seconds could be seen as an anology for The Fed’s effort to revive The US Economy.




  • Global Trade To Remain Subdued Until At Least 2020, Goldman Says

    In early March, Maersk chief executive Søren Skou delivered a stinging blow to those who claim the epic decline in the Baltic Dry Index is representative not of sagging worldwide demand, but rather of severe oversupply, and is thus no longer a reliable indicator when it comes to assessing the state of the global economy. Skou told FT he sees container demand “towards the low end” of the 3-5% growth range the company forecasts for 2015. If Skou is correct, it would mark a Y/Y decline in growth for the company, which handles around 15% of all seaborne freight. Skou also flagged the generally sluggish pace of global economic growth, noting that “the economies in Europe are still very sluggish. Brazil, Russia and China: those three economies used to drive a lot of growth, and right now we are not really seeing that to the same extent. The only real bright spot is the US, and even the US is good but not great.” This led us to remark that “yes supply isn’t helping, but it is the lack of global demand that is pushing equilibrium levels lower, aka global deflation.” Later in the month, we flagged further declines in shipping rates as evidence that global trade was grinding to a crawl. 

    Meanwhile, we’ve exhaustively documented the laundry list of signs that point to dramtically decelerating economic growth in China, including falling metals demand, collapsing rail freight volume, slumping exports, a war on pollution that may cost the country 40% in industrial production terms, and, most recently, a demographic shift that’s set to trigger a wholesale reversal of the factors which contributed to the country’s meteoric rise. All of this means that the world’s once-reliable engine of demand is set to stall in the years ahead. 

    Finally, we’ve been keen to note that CB policy has had the effect of allowing otherwise insolvent companies to stay solvent by tapping investors at record low borrowing costs contributing to a supply glut and, ultimately, to deflation.

    Consider the above and then consider the following, from Goldman, who now predicts the intersection between soft commodity markets and the Chinese transition from investment to consumption will weigh on dry bulk trade — and by extension, on shipping rates — until at least 2020. 

    Via Goldman:

    The transition from investment to consumption in the Chinese economy, together with a shift towards cleaner energy sources, has caused a sharp deceleration in dry bulk trade. After expanding at an average annual rate of 7% over the period 2005-14, seaborne demand in iron ore, thermal and metallurgical coal is set to increase by only 2% in 2015 to 2.5 billion tonnes as these trends persist. In the steel sector, domestic consumption growth ground to a halt in 2014 and the prospect of peak iron ore demand is nigh. In the power sector, demand for coal-fired generation is suffering from a combination of weaker economic growth, rising energy efficiency and a diversification in the fuel mix towards renewable energy, natural gas and nuclear. There are no other markets large and/or dynamic enough to offset a slowdown in China in the foreseeable future, and we forecast trade volumes to stabilize in the period to 2018.


    Meanwhile, shipyards churning out large dry bulk carriers in expectation of a sustained period of strong demand for commodities now find themselves adding unwanted capacity into an oversupplied freight market. The two largest dry bulk vessel types, panamax (c.75,000 DWT2) and capesize (c.180,000 DWT), benefited the most from the bull market in iron ore and coal. The size of the fleet doubled between 2008 and 2015, and current order books will ensure that shipping capacity continues to grow until 2017, when vessel retirements will finally outweigh new deliveries.


     

    The divergence between demand for freight and the capacity of the vessel fleet reflects the time lag between the mining and shipping sectors. In both industries, supply responds to price: rising commodity prices in a tight market leads to investment in new mining capacity in the same way that rising freight rates encourages greater activity in shipyards. On that basis, the mining sector moves first by ramping up export volumes and the shipping sector moves next, responding to rising trade volumes by investing in new vessels. Conversely, mining companies will be the first to respond in a bear market by curtailing investment, while the delayed response from ship builders will result in overinvestment and excess capacity. 

    The daily charter rate for a capesize vessel has declined from a peak in excess of US$100,000 in 2008 down to its current level below US$10,000. Faced with the risk of leaving vessels idle over long periods, we believe that ship owners will charge charter rates that are range bound between the cash cost of operating the vessel and the accounting break-even rate. This compounds the impact of lower fuel prices, resulting in a period of cheap freight that should last until older vessels have been scrapped in sufficient numbers to balance the market, most likely beyond 2020.

     

    In other words: not bullish for global trade/demand. So as we anxiously wait to hear from those who claim it’s all about oversupply and nothing to do with the fact that between a decelerating China and the utter failure of central bank policies to stimulate demand to soak up a global supply glut which QE has to a large extent facilitated, we’ll leave you with a fresh look at the Baltic Dry Index which, all things equal, signifies a global depression of epic proportions.



  • Presenting The Best (And Worst) College Majors

    A long time ago someone started a rumor that says college graduates will make around $1,000,000 more over their lifetime than those who only earn a high school degree.

    Ok, maybe it’s not entirely fair to call it a “rumor” because we’re sure there are some statistics behind it, but as Jamie Dimon recently reminded us, statistics can’t be trusted, and even if in this case they could, the fact that the average college graduate enters the job market saddled with nearly $30,000 in student loan debt and the fact that — as Moody’s recently noted on the way to putting some $3 billion in student loan-backed ABS on review for downgrade — unemployment rates are high among recent graduates, have led some observers to question whether a college degree is still as valuable as it once was. Throw in relentlessly rising tuitions rates (meaning degrees will become ever more expensive over time), and you have the beginnings of what may be a compelling case against the utility of higher education in America.

    Fortunately, there are still some majors out there which promise to reward students with high paying, full-time work upon graduation. Here, courtesy of a study from Georgetown, are the best and worst areas to major in if you hope to survive once the student loan checks stop showing up in the mail.

    (Note: the dots in the middle of the bars represent the median salaries for a given major)

    If it’s money you’re after, you don’t want to be a social worker and probably not a psychologist either…

    … and you definitely do not want to major in any of the liberal arts…

    …or any other kind of arts for that matter…

    …but you might want to consider being a doctor…

    …or a finance executive…

    …but if you really want to make some serious cash right out of college, you’ll help find oil

    …and if you really want to struggle, you’ll teach children

    Here’s a bit of color from the report:

    STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), health, and business majors are the highest paying, leading to average annual wages of $37,000 or more at the entry level and an average of $65,000 or more annually over the course of a recipient’s career.

     

    The 10 majors with the lowest median earnings are: early childhood education ($39,000); human services and community organization ($41,000); studio arts, social work, teacher education, and visual and performing arts ($42,000); theology and religious vocations, and elementary education ($43,000); drama and theater arts and family and community service ($45,000).

    And a bit more from Bloomberg:

    Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce analyzed Census Bureau data to determine the average wages for 137 college majors and found that students who focused on architecture and engineering come out on top, with a $50,000 starting salary.

     

    Within that group, those who studied the skills needed for oil jobs got paid best. People who majored in petroleum engineering made an average of $135,754 a year by their mid to late 20s—more than any other major. 

     

    Then there are the jobs people do more for love than cash: Early childhood education majors pulled in the least, making an average of $39,097 a year. While that’s still a significant bump over high school graduates, who typically pull in $22,000 a year, it’s a drastic cut of what STEM and business majors reported making a couple years out of college.

     

    “A college major isn’t destiny,” said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Center and the report’s lead author. But it does appear to be a more significant factor than some college counselors and brochures might suggest. “For today’s high school graduates, and an increasing share of middle-aged adults who are pursuing a bachelor’s degree, the decision about what to major in will have critical economic consequences for the rest of their lives,” Carnevale said.

    To summarize: drilling for oil is important, educating America’s youth … not so much.

    WIW2-FullReport



  • The Nazi Economic Mirage

    Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclar & Co.,

    Many believe that Adolf Hitler’s centrally-planned economic policies produced an economic miracle in the 1930s, with Germany finally regaining its tempo and getting out of a terrible depression.

    Conventional economic indicators confirm this view. However, they can also be misleading as to the true condition of the German economy and the sustainability of its finances. Moreover, the heavy burden placed on society, where millions of people suffered tragic losses and virtually everyone lost their freedoms, cannot be just regarded as a footnote. And these policies, or more precisely their failure, put Germany on a collision course with the rest of the world.

    In 1930 Germany had a functioning democracy, world class scientists and engineers and impressive industrial capabilities. Still, prosperity levels were well below those of its US and UK counterparts, as the country never fully recovered from the socioeconomic turmoil that resulted from its defeat in World War I.

    The global depression that soon followed only worsened the economic conditions of Germans, with unemployment reaching a staggering 30% of the population by 1933. In their desperation, they turned to a man with a grand vision and a plan, promising he would fulfill the great Germanic promise and usher in a new era of prosperity: Adolf Hitler. His siren song and radical policies set in motion a chain of events which eventually lead to a diametrically opposed outcome for his country.

    From Failure to Savior

    Hitler had been pretty much a failure most of his early life. While he valiantly served as a Private during World War I, often volunteering for the most dangerous jobs and even receiving two Iron Crosses as a result, he was never promoted because he could not interact well with his comrades, nor – if you can believe it – did he have the charisma to lead them into action.

    In 1918 he was blinded by a gas attack and put of commission for weeks. When he recovered his entire world had changed: his country lost the war and everything he had fought for collapsed.

    Hitler was quick to blame his misfortunes on others, particularly wild conspiracy theories about the undue influence of the Jews in world events, as he would later articulate in his book “Mein Kampf”. Disillusioned with the outcome of the war and prospects for the future, he settled in Munich and joined a radical workers party, along with other former soldiers. In charge of propaganda, he became a prolific public speaker, so much so that people began to think that the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – abbreviated to Nazi – was in fact his own party.

    After being imposed hefty war reparations by the Allies, Germany’s woes got progressively worse, leading to a humiliating foreign occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, along with a devastating bout of hyperinflation. This was too much to bear and the Nazis decided to take violent political action, seeking to expand their influence in society.

    After this strategy failed to deliver any tangible results, and most importantly put him in jail for a while, Hitler realized that he would have to resort to legal means to achieve power. He then split the party and headed the new faction, with the financial backing of several Bavarian industrialists and landlords.

    Although progress was very slow at first, the Nazi party grew steadily. In May 1928 they had won less than 3% of the vote in the elections to the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament. They fared even worse in the presidential elections almost a year later, with their candidate getting barely 1% of the vote. But as Germany’s socioeconomic crisis deepened, all of the sudden their influence exploded. In the parliamentary election of July 1930, the Nazis scored 18% of the vote, doubling it within two years and becoming the largest party in the Reichstag. Hitler became Germany’s chancellor in January 1933 – at 39 years old, and absolute dictator by August 1934, marking the end of the Weimar Republic.

    The Nazis had finally reached their goal—the establishment of the Third Reich, an authoritarian state in Germany under the control of the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler.

    An Economic Revival – Of Sorts

    Having tightened their grip on politics, the Nazis promptly implemented their plan to reshape society and the economy with the following goals:

    • Solve the unemployment problem – a key promise of Hitler
    • Drag the German economy out of the recession and make the country self-sufficient (“autarky”)
    • Promote the population growth of “true” Germans
    • Get rid of Jewish socioeconomic influence
    • Realign the economy with the Nazi’s expansionist objectives

    Hitler launched several government programs and policies to reduce unemployment, with much fanfare to boot.

    Massive public work schemes were announced. Over 2,500 miles of autobahn (highways) were built, linking major cities. Hospitals, houses, canals and so forth were also built across the country. All this work was done manually, shovel in hand, so that more workers were needed.

    Trade unions were banned and all workers were forced to join the Nazi Labor Front. Working hours were thus increased and wages frozen. Workers were strongly encouraged to go along with this, as any dissenters were immediately accused of economic sabotage and sent to forced labor camps.

    To counter any resentment for the loss of worker rights, the “Strength through Joy Movement” (KdF) was established specifically to make workers “happy”, providing them with a range of leisure opportunities. This of course included a healthy dosage of Nazi ideological indoctrination and thanking the Fuhrer for their good fortune. The KdF also introduced a plan that enabled workers to buy a car. The Volkswagen (the People's Car) was conceptualized so that most people could afford it. The Beetle, designed by Ferdinand Porsche, cost the equivalent of 35 weeks wages for the average worker, and he could pay for it on a weekly basis.

    Women’s rights – which had flourished under the Weimar Republic, were significantly curtailed. Since they were no longer allowed to work, men took over their jobs and were the only ones allowed to make decisions in society. The Nazis had another role in mind for women, since they had always been particularly concerned with the decline in “true” German population numbers. Accordingly, there was a great deal of propaganda celebrating the image of the mother and the family unit. Prizes were given to women who would bear a large number of children.

    Industry was also reorganized – around a very pressing Nazi concern: rearmament. Hitler had devolved great many powers to large private industrial interests, which were now headed by Nazi sympathizers and who stood to gain a great deal from weapons production. Entire factories were uprooted to parts of the country less exposed to French aggression. New railways were built in record time (but with dubious efficiency). The whole productive scheme was now rethought and planned in the context of war.

    Of course the Treaty of Versailles had prohibited all of this, but Hitler went ahead regardless. From 1935 onwards, every man aged between 18 and 25 had to spend two years in the armed forces. While in 1933 there were 100,000 members in the armed forces, by 1939 this number would balloon to 1.4 million.

    Rearmament created jobs of course, but also a lot of disturbances in established industrial practices and logistics. All the while, the Nazis attempted to reconcile these efforts with making Germany more self-reliant – which was clearly contradictory given the massive increase in demand for raw materials to support the construction new ships, tanks and airplanes. At first they searched for artificial ingredients to replace oil, rubber, textiles and coffee, to no avail. Then they struck a deal with the Soviets, exchanging raw materials for arms in the lead up to the war. By 1939 Germany was still importing 33% of its raw materials. Autarky turned out to be another grandiose Nazi policy ill-adjusted to the needs of the economy.

    Unfortunately, not only factories were uprooted. The Jewish community, which had played a prominent role in German society for centuries, was promptly segregated and then progressively eliminated. Other minorities followed, with all their jobs and possessions reallocated.

    Hitler’s vision for the German nation was finally becoming a reality. But he was far from done.

    The Crucial Role of the Farming Sector

    Many of the traditional Germanic themes were associated with the land. As such, this became a centerpiece of the Nazis’ ideology, further accentuated by the historical support of many landlords to their cause.

    Some 9 million people worked in German farms by the time Hitler came to power. In comparison, the US had 10 million people employed in the sector (curiously many from German descent, particularly in the Midwest) with seven times as much arable land. This was emblematic of Germany’s meager productivity and incomes in the farming sector.

    In 1933, Hitler implemented the State Hereditary Farm Law, where selected lands were declared hereditary, as an Erbhof, to pass from father to son, and could not be mortgaged or alienated. Any farm of 7 to 125 hectares, the size deemed to be adequate to maintain a family and act as a productive unit, could be declared Erbhof. All farms of over family size were also made secure in possession of their owner's family, with no possibility of alienation.

    While farmers benefited from the elimination of debt and some aid from the government – such as fixating prices and production to promote that elusive autarky, their ability to finance crop expansions and purchases of new equipment was also reduced. The sector saw a continuous outflow of workers, who were now being employed in all the other government sponsored projects and the military.

    As a result, agricultural productivity suffered and shortages of food developed across the country. In response, the Nazis implemented food rationing – which would remain in place until the end of the war. In 1937, annual consumption of wheat bread, meat, bacon, milk, eggs, fish, vegetables, sugar, fruit and beer had fallen to levels comparable to a decade earlier (only rye bread, cheese and potatoes had increased). Malnourishment was starting to become a real problem amongst German workers, in farms and factories across the country.

    In typical fashion, rather than blaming his own policies, Hitler believed that this situation resulted from a lack of “space to live” for his people. All major European powers had access to vast territories in Africa and elsewhere. The US had a huge continent at its disposal. But not Germany, who had lost out in WWI and was now confined to its diminished borders.

    If other countries could obtain large amounts of land by force, why couldn't Germany? After all, security was not the only reason to build a powerful army.

    The Miracle Begins to Unravel

    By the time the Olympic Games took place in Berlin in 1936, cracks were starting to appear in German society. This was not immediately obvious to large parts of the population (nor to foreign economists and commentators, for that matter), who for the most part were still seduced by the Fuhrer’s promises of a glorious pan-Germanic future.

    Any dissent was violently crushed through party terrorism (via the infamous SS and Gestapo). The persecution of Jews was intensified. The regular police were circumvented by the party’s police; the regular avenues of justice were bypassed by the party’s courts; the regular prisons were eclipsed by the party's concentration camps. In short, a rational bureaucracy was replaced by a virulent irrational one.

    Government controls and management of certain parts of the economy were creating huge distortions which in turn prompted even more intervention, invariably at the expense of some other society group. While the big industrial concerns were benefiting from these arrangements, small businesses and the middle classes were squeezed out of the market; as were most of the staples that ordinary people needed.

    With taxation revenues curtailed by design, Hitler’s expansionary policies had to be financed with debt. But these funds were neither unlimited nor free, and Nazi leaders were starting to become very aware of this. There was some debate as to which economic policies should be adopted as a result, with some prominent figures recommending a more liberalized approach to the economy.

    However, like any good central planner, Hitler decided to press ahead with his original policies with even more gusto. During a cabinet meeting in 1936, he and Hermann Göring, his aviation minister and trusted adviser, announced that the German rearmament program must be sped up. There was no turning back.

    As a result, Göring was put in charge of the four year economic plan, creating a new organization to administer it. He subordinated the ministries of labor and agriculture and bypassed the economics ministry in his policy-making decisions, which meant that he had de facto control of the economy. Expenditures on rearmament were increased, in spite of growing budget deficits. In 1937, the Reichswerke Hermann Göring was established under state ownership with the aim of boosting steel production beyond the level which private enterprise could economically provide. This was command-and-control policies on steroids.

    German Unemployed (in millions): Jan 33 – Jan 39

    Source: historylearningsite.co.uk

    As shown in the graph above, the reduction of unemployment was an unequivocal bright spot, but largely at the expense of women, Jews and other minorities, as well as over a million people serving in the military. The same formula was applied to other territories that were subsequently annexed, yielding similar results. For instance, unemployment also dropped in Austria after the Anschluss in 1938.

    But the Nazis had a strategy to fund their grand vision and release the German people from the shackles of want: territorial expansion and plain robbery. And so the hostilities began with the invasion of Poland in 1939.

    The War Years

    The early months of the war went fairly smoothly for the German army, which overran large territories as the Allies were still gearing up for battle. However, as the war intensified, so did the chronic shortages back home. Farms lacked equipment and people, which were now being absorbed in ever expanding numbers by factories supplying the military, or by the military itself.

    By early 1941, when the German army arguably had its strongest foothold across Europe, civilian consumption was already down 18% from 1938 levels. And it would continuing going down from there.

    The labor force kept on shrinking, although now irreversibly. Impressive military victories soon turned into stalemates and finally into catastrophic losses across all three war fronts: East, West and South. The Nazis were left with little choices on how to replenish those losses and continue fighting. Accordingly, farmers were next to be enlisted, which was then extended to everyone once Germany was on the brink of defeat. To get a sense of the catastrophe resulting from Hitler’s stubbornness, a third of all boys born between 1915 and 1924 was either dead or missing by the end of the war.

    But in addition to soldiers Germany needed to eat. As its farming population shrank, the Nazis came up with a devious plan to make up for it: enslave their neighbors and prisoners of war.

    Every season there used to be a flow of workers coming across from Poland to work in German farms, given that higher wages were on offer. But after the German invasion in 1939, the Nazis brought back hundreds of thousands of Polish workers and POWs against their will. Then came the invasion of France, which provided a labor pool of over a million POWs. But even that paled in comparison to the number of workers brought in after the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, almost three million in total. When the Italians changed sides in 1943, the German army captured as many of them as they could to work in the fields. None of this was enough to sustain production as all these people died quickly due to appalling working conditions.

    Such was the insanity of the Nazi war machine. By the end of the war nearly one in every four workers in Germany was a foreigner, in most cases unwillingly.

    The Nazi Economic Mirage

    Hitler’s policies are still viewed to this day as a great example of how unprecedented government intervention fixed a dire economic problem. In short, Hitler laid a golden egg and produced an economic miracle.

    As early as 1933, even before any miracle could be seen, the New York Times had nothing but praise for his ambitions, according to the following front page headline:

    “There is at least one official voice in Europe that expresses understanding of the methods and motives of President Roosevelt—the voice of Germany, as represented by Chancellor Adolf Hitler.”

    For sure, some of Hitler’s policies made a lot of sense. Building up the country’s infrastructure, which was so vital to a modern industrial economy, proved to be a winning bet. German workers could now afford cars to drive in the new roads, as well as other modern conveniences. Economic activity and incomes responded accordingly. That Weimar Republic feeling of uncertainty and malaise finally subsided. And the dramatic increase in fertility rates during the Nazi years also provided a boost (after all, babies can promote consumption). So in a sense there was no mirage here, the growth was real.

    Perhaps if the real economy had been allowed to flourish at that stage, Germany could have indeed produced a real economic miracle. If anything the most prosperous nations of the 20th century proved that the economic reigns and decision-making must eventually be decentralized in order for any gains to be sustained and expanded. Women also needed to play a role in the economy, much beyond just having babies.

    Unfortunately for the people living under the Third Reich, this was never allowed to happen. All of these efforts became increasingly subordinated to the logic of war. As a result, the economy was stifled by top-down industrial policies and readjustments, price controls, misallocation of resources and so forth. Personal and commercial freedoms had to be restricted so that the prevailing Nazi ideology could never be challenged.

    Rearmament thus became the most significant government expenditure. The resulting increase in GDP was significant. In fact Germany boasted the highest growth rates in Europe in the prewar years. But this can be misleading as any comparison could not be done on an apples-to-apples basis, since other major economies spent considerably more on consumption and productive activities. Just because Germans were producing more guns does not mean that they were better off.

    The government went ever deeper into debt as a result of this policy. Of course any leader, no matter how incompetent, can create growth if enough money is thrown at the economy; the problem is that those debts will need to be repaid at some point.

    During the war, Albert Speer, the minister of armaments and war production and a close friend to Hitler, also directed a miracle of his own: doubling Hitler’s production orders as Germany was under heavy Allied bombardments. No doubt his administrative genius played a role, but so did exploiting millions of slave laborers who were starved and worked to death in his factories. It was the same ideology at work all over again. And the war effort was significantly prolonged as a result.

    Speer was arrested in 1945 and interrogated by a committee of US representatives, who wanted to learn more about the inner workings of the Third Reich. John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous Harvard economist and adviser to several US presidents later in his career, was also in attendance.

    Here’s a transcript of the committee’s report after that meeting:

    “The German people, [Speer] said, had worked hard and faithfully and had suffered greatly. They had won victory after two years and had been denied the fruits of the victory they deserved by the inadequacy of their leaders. That inadequacy he felt obliged to expose.

     

    “The fall of the Third Reich Speer attributed to the moral decay of its rulers. This decay was well advanced before the outbreak of the war. Its most spectacular manifestation was soft, expensive living. In some instances it took the form of extreme corruption. Speer cites Göring as the most corrupt of his colleagues. Göring's acquisitive looting and hoarding was unmatched by the other party leaders. But nearly all of the party leaders, Berlin ministers and Gauleiters alike, showed a penchant for a rich, easy, well-nourished existence and variety in wine and women.”

    Göring of course was the prime architect of Germany’s war economy after 1936. All of the sudden the Nazi elite was not looking so brilliant after all. Here’s what Galbraith would later say about the whole bunch in his book “The Age of Uncertainty”:

    “Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Albert Speer, Walther Frank, Julius Streicher and Robert Ley did pass under my inspection and interrogation in 1945 but they only proved that National Socialism was a gangster interlude at a rather low order of mental capacity and with a surprisingly high incidence of alcoholism.”

    Rather than being some central planning geniuses, Galbraith’s quote is a rather more accurate description of the Nazis. After over a decade under their leadership, Germany reversed its gains and prosperity all the way back to the late 19th century, with a large part of its population annihilated in the process. The country was then sectioned off to different Allied factions.

    The mirage was finally over.



  • "Mystery" Buyer Of Stocks In The First Quarter Has Been Identified

    Three days ago, when looking at the unprecedented, record outflows from US equities (coupled with continued inflow into bond funds into what BofA’s Hans Mikkelsen would likely dub the Great Antirotation) we asked a simple question: “who is buyingno really.


    Then yesterday, the spoofing algos were briefly spooked when Yellen, for the second time in under one year, issued a warning about valuations, only this time instead of bashing the biotech and social media sector, the non-Series 7, 63 certified financial advisor brought attention to the entire market saying “equity market valuations generally are quite high.”

    She was referring to a level in the S&P around 2100 (aka 21x forward GAAP P/E multiple) which is where the S&P has been trading for the past several months, a level which was as high as 2120 in the first quarter, on February 20, 2015.

    Yet, one entity that clearly disagrees with her assessment is none other than her peer institution in Switzerland, the Swiss Central Bank, which as we noted earlier, owned a record $1.1 billion in AAPL stock as of March 31.

    The Swiss National Bank is also the answer to the question we posed, rhetorically, a few days ago:

    “Who is buying”?

     We now know, because while everyone else, hedge funds included, were dumping stocks in droves, here is what the Swiss National Bank was doing:

     

    Together with companies engaging in record amounts of stock buybacks, the SNB was buying billions and billions worth of shares. So much so, in fact, that its US-listed equity portfolio rose by a record 40% to a record $37 billion.

     

    And now we know, even if we don’t know how many other central banks were active alongside the Swiss during its record stock-buying spree. And perhaps even more apropos: which central bank was selling to the SNB?

    Finally, those wondering if the Fed gave the SNB the money with which to buy stocks on its behalf, the answer based on the most recent NY Fed FX swap data, is no. At least not in the most recent week.

    Source: SEC



  • "Market 1 – 0 Yellen/Gartman" Bonds & Stocks Bid As Crude Crumbles

    Only one clip seemed appropriate given the last two days…

    This seemed to sum things up nicely…

     But this morning's epic short squeeze provided the momentum for the rest of the move… 

     

     Gartman and Yellen were celebrating briefly (very briefly) this morning… then not so much

    As we said this morning, "Will Yellen Capital Management LP be right, or will Gartman's uncanny ability to be always wrong at just the right time, provide the bounce the market so desperately needs?" It appears so – for now.

     

    Cash indices managed briefly to get green *(Russell and Trannies only) for the week, but leaked lower into the close…

     

    It appears there was some protection-buying ahead of tomorrow's "digital" payrolls number (VIX notably underperformed)

     

    As did HY Credit…

     

    Then there's YELP…

     

    SHAK shook…

     

    Bonds were the big movers today with Bunds & Treasuries massively roundtripping… (Bunds -18bps from overnight highs… and USTs -15bps!!)

    This is the best day for 30Y TSYs since Jan 28th

    On the week, Treasuries remain higher in yields but major bull flattening today (as perhaps AAPL rate locks were lifted)…

     

    The Dollar rose notably, driven by buying during the US Session…

     

    Commodities all weakened as the dollar strengthened…

     

    As Crude crashed back to one-week lows…(despite tension rising in ME)

     

    And Shale Stocks were slammed…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: Bears still absent…



  • Cable Surges After UK Exit Poll Shows Big Lead For Conservatives

    In what Goldman suggested was "the most market-friendly" outcome, UKPolls reports that the Conservative Party leads the UK election (based on exit polls) with LibDems taking enough seats to enable a majority coalition. UKIP managed a disappointing 2 seats. Cable is rallying on the back of this (though we note this is exit polls only).

     

    With 326 seats required for a majority:

    • *U.K. VOTES: TORIES SET TO WIN 316 SEATS: EXIT POLL
    • *U.K. VOTES: LABOUR SET TO WIN 239 SEATS: EXIT POLL
    • *U.K. VOTES: SNP SET TO WIN 58 SEATS IN SCOTLAND: EXIT POLL
    • *U.K. VOTES: LIBDEMS SET TO  WIN 10 SEATS: EXIT POLL
    • *UKIP 2 SEATS, "GREENS" 2 SEATS, OTHER 19

    Here are the possible outcomes (along with SocGen's probabilities)… It appears Box (6) is the most likely now…

     

    and here is Goldman, simplifying the decision process to three potential outcomes. While there is a whole range of potential outcomes to the May 7 election, each of the most likely governmental combinations falls into one of three broad groupings:

    1. A Conservative-led government (either on its own or in coalition with the LibDems). This is likely to be perceived as the most ‘market-friendly’ outcome, partly because it would come closest to maintaining the status quo and also because the Conservatives’ stated aim is to reduce the budget deficit through cutting current expenditure rather than by raising taxes. Set against this, the Conservatives’ commitment to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017 and the increased risk of exit would likely be negative for investment spending and UK assets.

     

    2. A Labour-led government (either on its own, with the implicit support of the SNP, or in a formal coalition with the LibDems) would shift the balance of further fiscal adjustment away from spending cuts to tax increases. Labour’s proposals include: raising the top rate of income tax from 45% to 50%; raising the headline corporation tax rate from 20% to 21% (offset by measures designed to help small businesses); increasing the ‘Bank Levy’ on banks’ balance sheets, applying a second ‘one-off’ tax on bank bonuses, removing the non-domicile tax status and introducing a ‘Mansion Tax’ on residential properties worth more than £2 million. At the same time, a government of this complexion would be less likely to contemplate a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

     

    Of the potential Labour-led government combinations, financial markets would likely respond more favourably to a Labour/LibDem coalition than to a minority Labour government supported by the SNP on a confidence and supply basis. (The Labour party has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP.) In this scenario, concerns are likely to emerge that reliance on the SNP would pull the Labour government away from the centre to the left of the political spectrum, as well as raising the spectre of distributional policies favouring Scotland at the expense of the UK as a whole.

     

    3. It is also possible that there will be no clear outcome to the election. If no party (or coalition of parties) is able to form a stable government, a second election could be called shortly after the first or a minority government might attempt to struggle on. Again, the lack of clarity surrounding such an impasse would likely be damaging for UK growth and assets.

    *  *  *
    The Bottom Line is that at the macro level the implications of the election may be less pronounced than many anticipate. Monetary policy has been de-politicised through the Bank of England’s independence. Moreover, the formation of a coalition government is likely to involve convergence towards centrist positions, while a minority administration that pursues policies outside the mainstream would be unlikely to survive given its fragile parliamentary basis. In either case, the political system is unlikely to deliver radically different macroeconomic outcomes.

    *  *  *

    As Bloomberg reports,

    David Cameron is on course to remain prime minister at the head of a minority government after the U.K. general election, an exit poll showed. The pound jumped.

     

    The prime minister’s Conservatives were forecast to win 316 of Parliament’s 650 seats, with Ed Miliband’s Labour Party trailing on 239 seats, according to the survey of voters published shortly after polling stations closed Thursday.

     

    The forecast, based on interviews at voting centers in 140 districts across Britain, put the Scottish National Party in third place with 58 seats and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats fourth with 10, almost wiping out the 57 seats they won in 2010.

     

    “We haven’t had an incumbent government increase its majority since 1983,” Conservative Chief Whip Michael Gove told the BBC. “If it is right, it means the Conservatives have clearly won this election and Labour has lost it.”

    It appears Scenario #1 is most likely now and cable is loving it



  • The Great Disconnect – Central-Bank-Driven "Markets" Have Nothing To Do With Economics

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    The German bund yield soared like a rocket earlier today. After touching on the truly lunatic rate of 5 bps only a few weeks back, it has just crossed the 60 bps marker. Needless to say, when a blue chip 10-year bond widely held on @95% repo leverage moves that far that fast – there is some heavy duty furniture breakage happening in fast money land.

    But don’t cry for the bond market gamblers. They already made a killing front-running the ECB.  During the 16 months between January 2014 and the April peak, speculators in German 10-year bunds would have made a 350% profit using essentially zero cost repo funding. So in the last few days they have given a tad of that back while making a bee line for the exit.
    BUNL Chart

    BUNL data by YCharts

    Yet during the uninterrupted march of the bund into the monetary Valhalla depicted above, how many times did you hear that the market was merely “pricing in” a flight to quality among investors and the dreaded specter of “deflation”. That is, what amounted to sheer lunacy—– valuing any 10-year government bond at a deeply negative after-tax and after-inflation yield—-was attributed to rational economic factors. 

    No it wasn’t. The manic drive to 5 bps was pure speculative caprice, triggered by the ECB’s public pledge to corner the market in German government debt. What gambler in his right mind would not buy hand-over-fist any attempt to corner the market by a central bank with a printing press——especially one managed by a dim bulb apparatchik like Mario Draghi!

    Never has an agency of a state anywhere on the planet pleasured speculators with such stupendous windfalls. Yet any day now we will hear from the talking heads on CNBC that, no, massive bond buying by central banks does not repress or distort interest rates because once Europe’s QE started, rates actually backed up. And, furthermore, this is entirely logical because QE will enable the economy to escape its deflationary trap, meaning that investors are discounting an imminent resurgence of growth!

    Oh, com’on.  When investors—-if there are any such naïve waifs left—–start down the rabbit hole believing that markets and economics are still connected in a historically orthodox manner, they will eventually run smack into something a lot more ferocious than a rabbit.  Namely, the next bear market crash——the inexorable end game of a financial system in which price discovery has been totally extinguished.

    Thus, in today’s central bank dominated casinos, bad news is not priced in slowly as its scope and timing become more defined; it’s priced-in suddenly and violently when even the fast money gamblers conclude that the pricing has reached irrationally exuberant extremes that even the central banks cannot sustain.

    That’s what now happening to the bund, the Italian bond, the US treasury note and most all else in the $100 billion global bond market. The front-runners are cashing-out. The vast falsification of pricing fostered by the central banks is unraveling upon its own perilous extreme.

    Like in the case of the Fed’s QE phases, it was mostly all over except the shouting when the ECB’s bond-buying campaign actually commenced in early March. By then the front-runners had done their work of accumulating vast inventories of bonds to sell back to the respective national central banks at far higher prices than they had paid.

    So what’s left now is for the euro-market gamblers to unload their stashes to the sucker with the dumbest bid in the casino. Namely, the geniuses in Frankfurt who apparently believe that if you tax an economy to 50% of income and then bury its consumers, producers and taxpayers alike under endless heapings of debt, that you can make growth accelerate by injecting $1.3 trillion of fraudulent credit conjured from thin air into the casino.

    In fact, today’s bund and treasury dumpers are piling into other short-run speculations like oil futures and busted shale names. And soon the rabbit hole dwellers will pronounce that the oil bottom is in and all is awesome in the forward outlook for growth and profits.

    But here’s the problem—–that is, the very same and universal problem as that which afflicts the fixed income markets. To wit, any and all of the “incoming data” on the economy is badly distorted and deformed owing to the global falsification of financial prices by the central banks.

    For example, this week they stuck the proverbial fork in the GDP “escape velocity” myth not only owing to the 0.2% posting for Q1 GDP, but more especially due to the thundering March collapse in the non-oil trade deficit. The latter “unexpected” data shock will clearly drive Q1 into negative GDP growth, even as Q2 struggles with the massive overhang of excess inventories that have been building for more than a year.

    Yet the Wall Street economists and strategists did not see it coming because they view today’s tortured data through the false lens of 50 years worth of business cycle data patterns. In that vein, one prong of the recovery has been the strong growth of US exports during recent years. It now turns out, however, that the rising numbers were largely an artifact of the false global boom in industrial activity spurred by the central bank printing presses.

    Now that boom is cooling rapidly, as every new release from China and other EM economies like Brazil make clear. Consequently, it seems that the US economy had not regained its mojo as an industrial materials supplier, after all. There was just a temporary shortage of petrochemical feedstock and scrap metal, for example, that has now disappeared.

    As shown below, just in the last two quarters, US exports of industrial supplies and materials have dropped by nearly $100 billion or 20% at annualized rates.
    US Exports of Industrial Supplies and Materials Chart

    US Exports of Industrial Supplies and Materials data by YCharts

    And there is a lot more where that came from. The collapse of oil drilling rigs from 1600 as recently as October to hardly 700 in April is only a leading indicator of the impending collapse in CapEx, where the modest recovery since 2009 has been heavily dependent upon the energy sector.

    In short, the bond market is now cracking as the mother of all bubbles reaches its apex. Likewise, the risk asset markets generally are likely not far behind.

    None of this is “expected” by the Wall Street talking heads, of course. They are still in the rabbit hole combing through economic data archives that are utterly disconnected from the “markets” they claim to explain.

    What matters now is what the central banks do next. Yet having painted themselves into an impossible corner of junk Keynesian economics, they are now clueless about how to get out.

    So its time to recognize that there has been a monetary regime change. The Fed might well have been your friend since March 2009 or even for the last several decades. But stranded on the zero bound and smothered by a $22 trillion collective balance sheet, the central banks of the world are now fast becoming your fiend.



Digest powered by RSS Digest

TPP Treaty May Not Have the Votes to Pass

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty that is being pushed by President Obama, is alarming to say the least. The free trade agreement, which would include at least a dozen nations, has been drafted in secret and largely written for the benefit of global corporations. The fact that our government could establish any treaty in secret is bad enough, but given its sponsors and what can be gleaned from leaked documents, TPP looks like it will be a disaster for individual liberty, economic progress, and the sovereignty of our nation.

Despite the fact that the establishment has been able to keep this treacherous agreement secret for several years, the public is now becoming fully aware of it. You can almost feel their anxiety as support for it slowly evaporates. They’re clearly worried about the success of their treaty, and it shows. The US Senate is currently slated to vote on a bill that would allow Obama to “fast-track” the treaty, thus preventing Congress from amending the agreement at a later date. These corporations want this treaty set in stone now, before it loses even more support.

However, it may be too late for them. While there is a lot of support for TPP in the halls of government, it may not be enough, and there appears to be growing fear and resentment over the treaty that crosses party lines.

Orrin Hatch, the Republican from Utah and the Senate’s generalissimo on the TPP question, gave a revealing interview to the Financial Times over the weekend. If Obama doesn’t get more Democrats behind fast-track very, very quickly, Part 1 of this undertaking is instantly in doubt.

As Hatch explained, at the moment there are too many Tea Party defectors on the right side of the aisle and too few Democrats willing to vote the bill forward. He seemed to suggest that it would be easier for Obama to cajole Democrats to get behind fast track than it would be to budge the Tea Party resisters.

That’s interesting by itself. Democrats are in for a rolling barrage of anti-TPP protest from constituencies—labor, the greens, civil society groups, the progressive wing—that matter at election time. If Democratic lawmakers are the best bet to push through fast track, the only word we’ve got for this is, Whoa!

And that’s only one roadblock this treaty needs to overcome. The TPP is international in scope, which means it needs the support of all nations involved if it wants to have any teeth. But it looks like the TPP is facing even more resistance in Japan than it is in the United States.

The Japanese leader couldn’t even deliver on imports of autos and farm products during his talks with Obama last week. These were stale, intractable trade issues when I arrived in Tokyo as a correspondent in 1987. We haven’t yet got even this stuff off the table?

The TPP’s outlook in Japan is upside down from ours. U.S. corporations are thoroughly behind the pact—having helped write many parts of it, after all. But big Japanese blue chips—makers of cars, consumer electronics, and machinery—are the core of the export sector and see nothing in the TPP other than unwelcome competition.

Flip this over and you have the weak side of Japan: rice and produce farmers and underdeveloped industrial sectors such as drugs and financial services. Long the beneficiaries of protectionist regulation (and generous supporters of the governing Liberal Democrats), these constituencies are also against the TPP—the farmers very vigorously.

Now you can hear Abe’s message to Obama for what it was: He’s very unlikely to deliver on the TPP—and whether he can’t or doesn’t want to is among the interesting questions he left behind last week. We’ll have to see which it is.

The US appears to have plenty of corporate support while lacking the enthusiasm of the legislative branch, while Japan has these roles reversed. If the two largest economies in this treaty are struggling to convince their politicians and corporations to go along with it, then it may be dead in the water. Good riddance.

Today’s News May 7, 2015

  • When The Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change. However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late. Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out: “What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has no clue what real war looks like.

    The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least, we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

    As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what “HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats), rather than foreign operations.

    Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations forces ALWAYS train like they fight and train in environments similar to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.

    I would further note that Jade Helm exercises are also joint exercises with domestic agencies like the FBI and the DEA.  Again, why include domestic law enforcement agencies in a military exercise merely meant to prepare troops for foreign operations?  I often hear the argument that the military would never go along with such a program, but people who take this rather presumptive position do not understand crisis psychology.  In the event of a national catastrophe many military personnel and government employees may determine that they will do what is "best for them and their families".  And if following orders guarantees the security of their families (food security, shelter, etc), then they may very well follow any order, no matter how dubious.  Also, a large scale crisis could be used as a rationale for martial law; otherwise well meaning military men and women could be convinced that the loss of constitutional freedoms might be for the "greater good of the greater number".  I believe some military will indeed resist such efforts, but of course, Jade Helm may also be a method for vetting such uncooperative people before any live operation occurs.

    So if Jade is actually a crisis-planning system for the military and the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror attacks, cyberattacks, pandemic, a stiff wind, you name it. The point is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.

    Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event, opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.

    I would first point out that Boot claims his work is merely a historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”

    Any defense the American people might muster against elitist dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to "insurgency". So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage open war on those within the American population who have the will to fight back.

    Control Public Opinion

    Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a supposed prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers, claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.

    Now, it is important to recognize that elitists have a recurring tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was NEVER in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the revolutionaries’ side.

    The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions, even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of their life spans.  The majority of people do not participate in history.  Rather, they have a tendency to float helplessly in the tides, waiting to latch onto whatever minority movement seems to be winning at the time.

    Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of the elitist.

    For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in particular, create a wash of other potential threats, including high crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally questionable actions without fear of future blowback.

    Control The Public

    Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but dominating through tactical and psychological means.

    He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while “morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong, however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the eventual loss of Algeria by the French.

    What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.

    Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win against the rebellion to three factors:

    1)  The British separated large portions of the population, entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas where they could be more easily engaged.

    2)  The British used special operations forces to target specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver through vast areas in a pointless Vietnam-style surge.

    3)  The British made promises that appealed to the general public, including the promise of independence. This made the public more pliable and more willing to cooperate.

    Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps more enticing: safety.

    I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against planned shifts away from constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a national emergency.

    Isolate Population Centers

    There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food, shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to concentrate into controlled regions.

    I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave their homes. This is the closest example I have personally experienced to a martial law cityscape.

    Decapitate Leadership

    The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less effective. I do not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers, not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave all their teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The movement would not necessarily be lost without us.

    That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.

    According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a response.

    Fourth-Generation Warfare

    The final method for war against the American people is one Boot does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to control is turned against another section of the population you wish to control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather, the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and the militarization of police.

    The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other while the elites sit back and watch the show.

    4th Gen warfare also relies on fooling the target population into supporting measures that are secretly destructive to the people.  For example, liberty movement support for controlled opposition such as Russia or China, or liberty support for a military coup in which the top brass are elite puppets just like the Obama Administration. Think this sounds far fetched?  It has already happened in our recent history!  Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was hired by corporate moguls to lead a paid army in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (also an elitist puppet) in 1933.  Butler luckily exposed the conspiracy before it ever got off the ground.  Both sides were controlled, but the coup if successful could have resulted in popular support for the expedient erosion of the Constitution, rather than a slow erosion which is what took place.  This is the epitome of 4th Gen tactics – make the people think they are winning, when they are actually helping you to defeat them.

    Know Thy Enemy

    I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think they will prevail, but because it is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with in order to better defend ourselves. Such methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of central leadership, the application of random actions rather than predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that they may use that weapon in the near term. The defense that defeats crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as quickly as possible.



  • China To Establish Yuan-Denominated Gold Fix In Bid To Upend London Benchmark

    A long time ago, in a financial galaxy far, far away, a “fringe” blog raised the topic of gold market manipulation during the London AM fix. Several years later (which, incidentally, is about average in terms of the lag time between when something is actually going on and when the mainstream financial media finally figures it out and reports on it), it was revealed that in fact, shenanigans were likely afoot and indeed, regulators are still trying to sort out what happened. 

    Via WSJ earlier this year:

    The precious-metals probes are the latest example of regulatory scrutiny into how the world’s biggest financial institutions influence widely used benchmarks. Until last year, prices for gold, silver, platinum and palladium were set using a decades-old practice of once- or twice-a-day conference calls between a small group of banks. The process for setting each of the price “fixes” has since been overhauled…

     

    Last year, the FCA fined Barclays £26 million ($40.2 million) for lax controls after one of its traders allegedly manipulated the gold fix at the expense of a client…

     

    Swiss regulator Finma settled last year allegations of foreign-currency manipulation with UBS. The regulator said it found “serious misconduct” among precious-metals traders at UBS, including “front running,” or trading ahead of, the silver-fix orders of one client…

     

    More than 25 lawsuits have been filed against Barclays, Deutsche, HSBC, Bank of Nova Scotia and Société Générale over their alleged role in setting the gold fix

    The ‘fix’ for the ‘fixed’ gold fix (only in the world of corrupt high finance is such a hilariously absurd passage possible) is supposedly a new system whereby the fixings are derived electronically, but as Reuters notes, there’s a new kid on the block when it comes to benchmarking the price of gold. Here’s more:

    China conducted trial runs for the planned launch of a yuan-denominated gold fix last month, three sources familiar with the matter said, in a sign the world’s second-biggest bullion consumer was moving closer to creating a benchmark price.

     

    The state-run Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE), on whose international platform the fix will be launched, conducted the trial with major Chinese banks and a few foreign banks, the sources said this week…

     

    China plans to launch a yuan gold fix this year through trading of a 1 kg contract on the SGE, Reuters reported in February.

     

    “The launch of the fix is towards the end of the year … Banks were invited in April to test the fixing process,” said one of the sources directly involved in the process.

     

    The SGE will act as the central counterparty, unlike the London fix where the bullion banks settle trades amongst themselves, the source said.

     

    If the Chinese fix becomes a success, it could add to the pressure on the London benchmark, which is used worldwide by producers, refiners and central banks to price holdings and contracts, although the two could exist side-by-side.

    The ironic conclusion: the currency ‘manipulating’, GDP fabricating, soon-to-be global superpower is now set to challenge the century-old gold price fixing regime which is under fire for being just as corrupt as every other ‘benchmark’ has proven to be since we first suggested that LIBOR was rigged some six years ago. But don’t worry: China promises that yuan hegemony is not something Beijing is interested in establishing.



  • The Complete UK Election Preview

    The UK General Election will be held tomorrow. The polls close at 10 pm. We should have a pretty clear picture of the overall seat count by 5 to 6 am on Friday morning. The result, as SocGen notes, is almost certain to be a hung parliament.

    Then the fun will really start.

    The leader of the incumbent Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition (David Cameron) stays in power until or unless it becomes clear that he does not have the ability to form a new government. Most polls are showing that the Conservatives will win the most seats but fall far short of an absolute majority. That will then lead to a contest between them and the Labour party to negotiate with the other parties to form some type of formal or informal coalition. The first test of the new government will be the vote on its legislative programme which is then presented in the Queen’s speech (tentatively scheduled for 27 May). That vote should be in the early part of June.

     

    The main concern for the markets should be whether or not a Conservative-led coalition is formed that is sufficiently supportive of the Conservative’s plans to allow them to hold the promised Brexit referendum by the end of 2017.

    Here are the possible outcomes (along with SocGen's probabilities)…

     

    As a reference, here are 2010's results:

     

    And here are the key features of tomorrow's election relative to that result…

    1) A reduction in Conservative seats and an increase in Labour seats;

     

    2) A major fall in support for the Liberal Democrats who could easily see the number of seats won fall to less than 30;

     

    3) A surge in the SNP seats from 6 to maybe even more than 50;

     

    4) The poor performance of the UKIP (UK Independence Party), despite its heavy influence on Conservative party policy in recent years. As the chart above shows, they won NO seats in 2010. They currently have two seats as a result of defections from the Conservative party but they will be lucky to win even one more seat than that. So, in the absence of the most unlikely outcome of the Conservatives being only one or two seats short of a stable government, UKIP would have no role in the formation of the next government.

    The opinion polls show Conservative and Labour to be neck and neck

     

    SocGen concludes, there is a real choice between the broad fiscal plans of the Conservative and Labour parties.

    Labour would cut the deficit more slowly to allow a higher level of net investment than the Conservatives plan. That is a defensible position, worthy of debate at a time when financing costs are at record lows.

     

    However, the key point for the markets is that both major parties have plans to continue austerity at a pace that would satisfy the markets. Certainly, the Labour party has been accused of being anti-big business but that is something that, if true, would only have a gradual impact on the economic future of the UK.

     

     

    More immediately worrying for the financial markets would be if the Conservatives were able to construct a form of coalition that allowed them to deliver the promised Brexit referendum by the end of 2017. That would create lasting uncertainty that could damage business and investor confidence.

    Deutsche Bank believes UK politics alone are unlikely to derail the recovery or meaningfully change foreign appetite for UK assets, in the short term at least and lays out 7 predictions for post-election UK…

    Rather than try to guess the outcome, however, in this note we make a few broad brush predictions about what the post-election UK will look like for investors. Our conclusion is that while the politics is extremely uncertain, the policy mix may undergo less rather than more change. Politics alone are unlikely to derail the recovery or meaningfully change foreign appetite for UK assets, in the short term at least.

     

     

    For GBP, once the initial uncertainty over government formation has passed, the focus should quickly turn back to the monetary policy outlook. On that front, we still see the risks lying in earlier rate cuts from the Bank of England than the market expects. For this reason we see value in using election uncertainty as an opportunity to position into EUR/GBP shorts.

     

    Prediction #1: Fiscal policy will be easier, but the deficit will fall
    At the Budget in March, forecast tightening over the next five years fell from 5.5% GDP to 4.4% as the coalition abandoned its goal of a GBP 23bn surplus by 2019-20, but the next two years were still projected to be roughly as austere as at the start of the coalition.1 After the election, there is reason to think this may change.

     

    In the first place, Labour policy is less tight than implied by current forecasts. As the IFS notes, the party’s plans mean only moderate reductions in departmental spending may be required. Under the increasingly likely probability the SNP holds influence over the next parliament, policy could be easier still. The party currently advocates rises of 0.5% public spending in real terms. Note that even under SNP plans, Treasury analysis suggests that the deficit would continue to fall.3 If the Conservatives were to remain in office, current forecasts may not materialize. The party eased off austerity in the middle of the last parliament as growth suffered, and there are question marks over where additional cuts implied by their deficit plans will come from. The party may also be helped by the improving growth outlook. Receipts have started to improve in recent months, and the OBR’s current growth projections are on the pessimistic side of official forecasters. In sum, and as our economist has noted, it may be helpful to look through the very noisy political debate on the deficit, and focus instead on the underlying improvement in the public finances. This has important implications for sterling, because the Bank of England’s inflation and growth projections as of the February Inflation Report are currently predicated on the very austere fiscal path outlined in the December Autumn Statement. Easier fiscal policy should provide the bank with more scope for monetary tightening.

     

    Prediction #2: There will be no fiscal crisis, whatever the outcome
    Even if fiscal policy were loosened, there seems little chance of a fiscal crisis. In the first place, the structural deficit has halved over the last five years. Perhaps more importantly, the markets’ understanding of fiscal risks has moved on since 2010, when a genuine loss of investor confidence in the UK finances was arguably on the cards. As the Eurozone crisis has shown, debt and deficits are much more relevant when countries lack an independent monetary policy. A lack of market concern is reflected in credit spreads, which remain at pre-crisis lows. Third, the external environment is very favorable for UK assets. The ECB’s QE program had driven yields of core fixed income negative across the curve. One of the obvious beneficiaries should be the UK. The spread between 10-year UK and German yields is currently the widest on record. Today’s Bank of England data showed massive (GBP 26bn) foreign buying of gilts in March, more than reversing outflows in the first two months of the year.

     

    Prediction #3: The UK will remain one of the most attractive destinations for foreign investment
    The last few years have been very positive for foreign investment. FDI inflows to the UK have totaled over 8% of GDP since the fourth quarter of 2012, financing around half of the current account deficit. The policy mix has played an important role. The corporation tax rate has fallen from 28% to 21% over the last five years, seeing the UK leapfrog above every OECD country save Switzerland in terms of corporate tax competitiveness. On the margin, a Labour-led administration would imply a moderately less positive investment climate than a Conservative one, but the policy mix is not set for wholesale change. The party favors keeping the corporation tax rate at its current low level (against another 1% cut proposed by the Conservatives). We doubt that other Labour party policies such as a mansion tax, changes to the non-domicile status of taxpayers and rises in the top rate of income tax, will result in a foreign exodus. Significant changes to the tax treatment of non-doms and foreign purchases of UK property were made by the current coalition government over the last five years with no apparent effect on foreign investors’ appetite for UK assets.

     

    Prediction #4: A new Scottish referendum won’t happen anytime soon
    Last year’s Scottish independence referendum generated panic among investors as it became apparent that a ‘yes’ vote was a real possibility, with potentially destabilizing consequences for the UK banking system and economy. But even if the SNP were to hold the balance of power after the next election, it seems unlikely that a new referendum would materialize soon. The party made no mention of another referendum in its manifesto released earlier this month. This should not be surprising – recent polling suggests that the issue ranks extremely low on Scottish voters’ priorities. Even if the SNP wished to reintroduce the question over the next five years, the party’s leverage over a future Labour government may be overestimated (see Prediction #6). A more likely date for the issue to be reintroduced is after the Scottish parliamentary elections in May next year, assuming the SNP holds on to its majority in the Scottish parliament. But it is also worth pointing out that a future referendum would likely be less destabilizing than last year’s events. Precisely because of uncertainty in September, authorities and businesses are now much better informed about the risks of a Scottish exit, particularly with respect to risks concerning the banking sector.

     

    Prediction #5: An EU referendum may be good for the UK economy
    Under the Conservatives, a referendum on the UK’s membership in the European Union would likely be held before 2017 following a renegotiation of the UK’s terms of membership. A ‘Brexit’ could have severe consequences for UK growth performance and foreign investment, and the potential impact on business confidence leading into a referendum has been widely noted.6 Less commented on, however, are the potential benefits that a renegotiation could bring to the British economy. As our economists have argued, the UK is uniquely placed to benefit from reforms to the EU Single Market and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills has estimated that the potential gains for British exports could add up to 7% GDP.7 A referendum may be an ideal bargaining chip for the UK to remodel aspects of the EU in its favor. Of course, this would depend on an ‘in’ vote, but polls currently suggest a majority in favor of staying in, particularly after a successful renegotiation.

     

    Prediction #6: A Labour minority government would be more stable than you might think
    If no party wins a majority next Thursday, the UK faces the prospect of a coalition or minority government. In the event that SNP support is required to pass legislation in the House of Commons, an increasingly probable outcome given the latest opinion polls in Scotland, the latter seems the more likely option. Labour has ruled out a formal deal with the nationalists. Some have argued that if the SNP held the balance of power, the result could be destabilizing, but the party’s leverage may be less than thought. Even if the SNP found Labour uncooperative on key policy issues, it would not be rational for them to bring down the government with a vote of no-confidence.

     

     

    This would cause a new election, a possible future Conservative government, and damaging Labour accusations that the SNP had voted down a ‘progressive’ administration (we outline the SNP’s options on a decision tree on the previous page). The party also looks set to perform exceptionally well next week, with some polls suggesting a near clean sweep of Labour’s seats. It is unclear why the party would want to risk these with a new election.

     

    Prediction #7: There may be less change rather than more
    Precisely because no party is likely to have enough seats for a majority, it is difficult to envisage sweeping changes to the policy mix. The last five years have seen the deficit cut in half, the employment rate reach a record high and UK growth accelerate above any other advanced economy. Major challenges remain, however. The current account deficit has reached a record, meaning much-vaunted ‘rebalancing’ has failed to occur. Productivity has also been the weakest among any G10 country. This has important implications for wage growth, which has been very slow relative to previous recoveries. Indeed, the current fracturing of the UK’s political environment can indirectly be attributed to imbalances in the labour market. Pollsters find that a key explanatory variable behind support for the UK Independence Party (UKIP), for example, is lack of a university degree. 8 It is unclear whether any major party has the solutions for these issues, but also doubtful that it will have the electoral resources. On the other hand, the doom-laden predictions of certain commentators are unlikely to materialize.

    *  *  *

    Finally, Goldman simplifies the decision process to three potential outcomes. While there is a whole range of potential outcomes to the May 7 election, each of the most likely governmental combinations falls into one of three broad groupings:

    1. A Conservative-led government (either on its own or in coalition with the LibDems). This is likely to be perceived as the most ‘market-friendly’ outcome, partly because it would come closest to maintaining the status quo and also because the Conservatives’ stated aim is to reduce the budget deficit through cutting current expenditure rather than by raising taxes. Set against this, the Conservatives’ commitment to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017 and the increased risk of exit would likely be negative for investment spending and UK assets.

     

    2. A Labour-led government (either on its own, with the implicit support of the SNP, or in a formal coalition with the LibDems) would shift the balance of further fiscal adjustment away from spending cuts to tax increases. Labour’s proposals include: raising the top rate of income tax from 45% to 50%; raising the headline corporation tax rate from 20% to 21% (offset by measures designed to help small businesses); increasing the ‘Bank Levy’ on banks’ balance sheets, applying a second ‘one-off’ tax on bank bonuses, removing the non-domicile tax status and introducing a ‘Mansion Tax’ on residential properties worth more than £2 million. At the same time, a government of this complexion would be less likely to contemplate a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.

     

    Of the potential Labour-led government combinations, financial markets would likely respond more favourably to a Labour/LibDem coalition than to a minority Labour government supported by the SNP on a confidence and supply basis. (The Labour party has ruled out a formal coalition with the SNP.) In this scenario, concerns are likely to emerge that reliance on the SNP would pull the Labour government away from the centre to the left of the political spectrum, as well as raising the spectre of distributional policies favouring Scotland at the expense of the UK as a whole.

     

    3. It is also possible that there will be no clear outcome to the election. If no party (or coalition of parties) is able to form a stable government, a second election could be called shortly after the first or a minority government might attempt to struggle on. Again, the lack of clarity surrounding such an impasse would likely be damaging for UK growth and assets.

    *  *  *
    The Bottom Line is that at the macro level the implications of the election may be less pronounced than many anticipate. Monetary policy has been de-politicised through the Bank of England’s independence. Moreover, the formation of a coalition government is likely to involve convergence towards centrist positions, while a minority administration that pursues policies outside the mainstream would be unlikely to survive given its fragile parliamentary basis. In either case, the political system is unlikely to deliver radically different macroeconomic outcomes.

    Sources: Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, and Deutsche Bank



  • Weak Dong Forces Vietnam Central Bank To Devalue Currency (Again)

    Having put off the decision to devalue the Vietnamese currency in March, the Dong has pressured the weaker limit (1% trading band) of the reference rate ever since. This has led to Vietnam’s central bank devaluing the dong reference rate to 21,673 (from 21,458) for the 2nd time this year. This is the softest the dong has ever been relative to king dollar, pushing them deeper into the currency wars.

    • *VIETNAM CENTRAL BANK DEVALUES DONG
    • *VIETNAM DEVALUES DONG REFERENCE RATE TO 21,673 PER DOLLAR

     

     

    As Bloomberg notes,

    The State Bank of Vietnam devalued the dong for the second time this year in a bid to spur exports and accelerate economic growth.

     

    The central bank weakened its reference rate by 1 percent to 21,673 dong per dollar. The Vietnamese currency is allowed to trade as much as 1 percent either side of the daily fixing, which was also cut by 1 percent on Jan. 7.

    Chart: Bloomberg



  • Peter Schiff: The Embarrasment Of Fed Transparency

    Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro Pacific Capital,

    Over the past decade or so, "transparency" has become one of the buzzwords that has guided the Federal Reserve's culture. The word was meant to convey the belief that central banking was best done for all to see in the full light of day, not in the murky back rooms of Washington and New York. The Fed seems to be on a mission to prove that its operations are benevolent, fair, predictable, and equitable. Part of that transparency movement took shape in 2007 when the Fed began publicizing its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) forecasts, which previously (to the frustration of investors) had been kept under wraps. Most of the Fed's policy moves are tied to how strong, or how weak, it believes the economy will be in the coming year. As a result, its GDP forecast is perhaps the single most important estimate it makes.

    So the good news for investors is that the Fed now tells us where it thinks the economy is headed. The bad news is it has been consistently, and sometimes spectacularly, wrong. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    In the eight years that the Fed has issued GDP forecasts in the prior Fall, only once, in 2010, did the actual economic performance come in the range of its expectations (referred to as its "central tendency.") And even in that year, Fed forecasters did not manage to put the ball through the goal posts. Instead it just hit the upright (the low end of its range: 2.5% in actual growth vs. a central tendency of 2.5% to 3.5%). In all other years the Fed missed the mark completely on the downside. The tale of the tape tells the story:

    The biggest misses clearly came during the recession years of 2008 and 2009. The Fed clearly had no idea that trouble was brewing, or that the trouble would last once it started. In 2008 the actual growth came in 2.1% below the low end of its forecast range and 2.5% below the midpoint of its estimates. In 2009 it was 2.6% below the low end and 3.2% below the midpoint. 2011 wasn't much better, with the Fed missing by 1.4% and 1.7% for the same criteria. The rest of the years had more pedestrian misses of less than a percentage point. But it never really hit the mark, and it consistently overbid by a significant margin.

    And while we are only a few months into 2015, it doesn't look like they will be on target this year either.

    With first quarter growth at just a scant .2% annualized, the remaining three quarters of the year would have to average 3.4% annualized just to get to 2.6% for the full year (the low end of the Fed's range). Furthermore, the latest data, such as the spectacular increase of the trade deficit in March (to $51.4 billion, the largest month over month growth on record and the biggest monthly gap since the crisis month of October 2008), and today’s report showing the largest consecutive quarterly decline in productivity in more than 20 years, will likely force a downward revision to Q1 GDP. With April data looking even weaker than what was seen in February and March, a strong second quarter rebound, like the one seen in 2014, seems increasingly unlikely. In other words, good luck getting to 2.6%. But even if we do get there, it is no cause for celebration. 2.6% growth would be indicative of a struggling economy (recall that for the 20th Century, annual growth averaged well north of 3%).

    In the seven full years since the Fed brought rates to zero, and at times showered the markets with trillions of dollars of QE cash, GDP growth has averaged just 1.1%. Even stripping out the recession years of 2008 and 2009, to focus only on the five "recovery" years of 2010-2014, gives us an average GDP of 2.2%, a rate that has been below the central tendency every year. 

    So what do we make of this? Are Fed economists just horrible forecasters? And if so, why not hire others who more competent? Or is something more troubling going on? The most benign explanation is that they simply failed to anticipate a string of unfortunate events that have supposedly prevented a real recovery from taking hold. First it was the European debt crisis, then it was the high energy prices, then it was Syria, then Ukraine, then the Polar Vortex, then it was the low energy prices, then it was the European recession, the strong dollar, and then another bad winter. Apparently, unbeknown to Fed forecasters, the world is a tricky place fraught with economic, political and meteorological crises. But hasn't that always been the case?

    A more troubling possibility is that the Fed simply doesn't understand how its policy tools really impact the economy. It expects that zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing will stimulate aggregate demand, encourage consumers to spend and businesses to hire, thereby initiating a virtuous cycle that will propel the economy back to healthy growth. Since it believes its medicine will cure the patient, it builds a favorable outcome into its forecasts, which biases those forecasts in an upward direction. Based on that assumption, it's a bit of a headscratcher to the Fed as to why the economy has failed to deliver as expected. So cue the long litany of excuses.

    But what if that's not the way it works?  What if, as I have argued many times, that stimulus in the form of zero percent interest rates and QE bond purchases, act more like economic sedatives than stimulants? What if, as I have argued, that these crutches prevent an economy from finding the solid footing needed to build a real recovery? This would explain why we have failed to recover after seven years of policies expressly designed to spur recovery.

    A more sinister possibility is that the Fed is not really forecasting at all but cheerleading. The fact that all its forecasts have missed on the high side reveals that its misses may not be random. If the Fed were just wrong, one would expect some of its forecasts to be too low. An obvious explanation is that the Fed may be using its "forecast" to talk up the economy. By forecasting strong growth, the Fed may be hoping to engender optimism, with more spending and hiring hopefully to follow. Kind of like a field of dreams recovery — if the Fed forecasts it; it will come. Plus the Fed may be hesitant to issue a somber assessment of future growth even if it expects it, fearful that its forecasts become self-fulfilling as businesses and consumers cut back to reflect that forecast. If so, its economics "forecasts" would be in actuality just another policy arrow in its quiver, and should never be taken seriously.

    Another inconvenient fact that needs to be ignored in the string of GDP reports is the consistently low inflation numbers that the Fed uses. Remember, to get a sense of real growth, the bean counters need to subtract inflation from the nominal figures. Now I have always argued that the CPI itself has consistently underreported inflation, but I have also explained how the Fed's preferred gauge of inflation used in the GDP report, called the GDP deflator, is consistently lower than the CPI (a trend that goes back to 1977). But the GDP report for First Quarter 2015 really kicks that trend into another dimension.

    To arrive at the .2% annualized GDP estimate, the Fed assumed inflation was running at minus .1% annually (Bureau of Economic Analysis). With the exception of two quarters during the depths of the Great Recession (2nd and 3rd Quarters of 2009), we have to go all the way back to the First Quarter of 1952 to find a negative deflator (BEA). If positive inflation data had been used, growth in Q1 would have come in negative.

    Based on what we have seen thus far in the year, fantasies about a 2015 recovery should be evaporating. But, as of March 18, the Fed continues to hold to 2.5%-3.0% GDP forecasts and tangential assumptions that rate hikes will begin the second half of this year and will continue throughout next year. (A February 12th survey of economists by the Wall Street Journal shows a consensus 2.2% Fed Funds rate by year end 2016). With these assumptions baked into portfolio dispositions investors risk being caught wrong footed when the ugly truth is finally accepted.



  • Two-Thirds Of Workers Plan To Fund Retirement With Inheritance, HSBC Finds

    With more than 80% of America’s non-farm workers laboring under non-existent wage growth, and with central bank policies serving not only to exacerbate the gap between the wealthy and everyone else while wiping out what’s left of the Middle Class in the process, but also creating conditions whereby pension funds are unable to meet their obligations without assuming inordinate amounts of risk, the idea of a comfortable retirement could become more elusive than ever in the new paranormal. Exacerbating the problem are rock bottom yields on traditional savings vehicles and risk-free assets, and the simple fact that generally speaking, people just aren’t saving enough in a world driven by rampant consumerism. Here’s NY Times on the latter issue:

    On average, a typical working family in the anteroom of retirement — headed by somebody 55 to 64 years old — has only about $104,000 in retirement savings, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances.

     

    That’s not nearly enough. And the situation will only grow worse.

     

    The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that more than half of all American households will not have enough retirement income to maintain the living standards they were accustomed to before retirement, even if the members of the household work until 65, two years longer than the average retirement age today.

     

    Using a different, more complex model, the Employee Benefit Research Institute calculates that 83 percent of baby boomers and Generation Xers in the bottom fourth of the income distribution will eventually run short of money. Higher up on the income scale, people also face challenges: More than a quarter of those with incomes between the middle of the income distribution and the 75th percentile will probably run short.

    Fortunately, some forward-thinking members of the world’s workforce have devised a clever workaround (no pun intended): they’ll just rely on funds they imagine they’ll receive when family members die. According to a new study commissioned by HSBC (which has in the past developed its own innovative take on the ‘tax advantaged’ retirement savings plan), one in three working age people are banking on an inheritance to partially or fully fund their retirement. Here’s more:

    Many working age people are banking on receiving an inheritance. Almost two thirds (66%) of those who have received or expect to receive an inheritance believe that it will help to fund their retirement, while more than a quarter (27%) expect it will completely or largely fund it.  

    Unfortunately, these expectations don’t match up particularly well with reality:

    Less than a third (32%) of working age people have received an inheritance. While this is more understandable among younger working age people, the proportion of older people who have received an inheritance is also lower – just over a third (36%) of working age people aged 45-64 have received an inheritance, while for those aged 65+, the proportion is still less than half (48%). 

    And the gap between perception and reality may be growing because ironically, nearly a quarter of those surveyed — and this is the same pool of respondents wherein 66% are betting on an inheritance to retire — indicated that they believe “it is better to spend all your money and let the next generation create their own wealth.” In other words: “I expect the previous generation to fund my retirement, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for my kids to quit working.”

     

    HSBC draws the following conclusion regarding working age people’s assumptions about inheritances:

    To avoid disappointment in later life, working age people need to consider what happens if an inheritance is lower than expected – or doesn’t come at all. 

    And if the survey results presented above are any indication, that conclusion goes double for the children of those who participated in the study. 

    *  *  *



  • There Will Be No 25-Year Depression

    Submitted by Bill Bonner via Acting-Man.com,

    Good and Bad News

    Today, we have bad news and good news. The good news is that there will be no 25-year recession. Nor will there be a depression that will last the rest of our lifetimes.

    The bad news: It will be much worse than that. On Monday, the Dow rose another 43 points. Gold seems to be working its way back to the $1,200 level, where it feels most comfortable.

    “A long depression” has been much discussed in the financial press. Several economists are predicting many years of sluggish or negative growth. It is the obvious consequence of several overlapping trends and existing conditions.

     

    Brooklyn Daily Eagle Front Page

    Newspaper from October 24 1929, a.k.a. “Black Thursday” – at this point, the panic had just begun with the market losing 11% in one day. On the next two trading days (Friday and Saturday – at the time, the market was open on Saturdays) the market rebounded slightly, then came “Black Monday” and “Black Tuesday”, which erased all doubt about the seriousness of the situation

     

     

    Old People Are Dead Wood

    First, people are getting older. Especially in Europe and Japan, but also in China, Russia and the US. As we’ve described many times, as people get older, they change. They stop producing and begin consuming.

    They are no longer the dynamic innovators and eager early adopters of their youth; they become the old dogs who won’t learn new tricks.

    Nor are they the green and growing timber of a healthy economy; instead, they become dead wood. There’s nothing wrong with growing old.

    There’s nothing wrong with dying either, at least from a philosophical point of view. But it’s not going to increase auto sales or boost incomes – except for the undertakers.

     

    undertakers-horse

    Mr. Hislop is looking forward to booming business

    Photo credit: State Library of Queensland

     

    The Cure for Debt? More Debt!

    Second, most large economies are deeply in debt. The increase in debt levels began after World War II and sped up after the money system changed in 1968-71.

    By 2007, US consumers reached what was probably “peak debt.” That is, they couldn’t continue to borrow and spend as they had for the previous half a century. Most of their debt was mortgage debt, and the price of housing was falling.

    The feds reacted, as they always do… inappropriately. They tried to cure a debt problem with more debt. But consumers were both unwilling and unable to borrow. Their incomes and their collateral were going down. This left corporations and government to aim only for their own toes.

    Central banks created more money and credit – trillions of dollars of it. But since the household sector wasn’t borrowing, the money went into financial assets and zombie government spending.

    Neither provided any significant support for wages or output. So, the real economy went soft, even as the cost of credit fell to its lowest levels in history.

     

    Fed assets

    In order to revive the credit creation machinery, the Fed has monetized incredible amounts of debt, via Saint Louis Federal Reserve Research. With the end of QE 3, its balance sheet has begun to subtly decline … click to enlarge.

     

    The Cronies Are in Control

    Third, the developed economies have been zombified. The US, for example, is way down at No. 46 on the World Bank’s list of places where it is easiest to start a new business. And only one G8 country – Canada – even makes the top 10.

     

    cronies

    How to get ahead in the world of today….

    Cartoon by Stahler

     

    Paperwork. Expenses. Regulation. High taxes. High labor rates. Entrenched competition with aging, loyal customers. All are endemic from Boston to Berlin to Beijing.

    Leading industries – heavily controlled and regulated, including defense, education, health and finance – are practically arms of the government. All are protected with high barriers to entry and low expectations. Competition is barely tolerated. Innovation is discouraged. Mistakes are forgiven and reimbursed.

    Meanwhile, the masses are encouraged to become zombies too, with generous rewards for those who 1) do nothing, 2) pretend to work or 3) prevent other people from doing anything. After all the zombies, cronies and connivers get their money, there is little left for the productive economy.

     

    Crony-Capitalism-Pyramid

    How it all works in crony heaven – until it doesn’t anymore – via bastiatinstitute.org

     

    The Solution Begins When Markets Crack

    Typically, these problems – too much debt, too many zombies, and too many old people – lead to financial crises. Then, they are “solved” by either inflation or depression. And the solution begins when markets crack.

    Markets never go up forever. Instead, they go up, down and even sideways. They breathe in and out. And after sucking in air for the last 30 years, US financial assets are ready to exhale. Legendary asset manager Bill Gross comments:

    “When does our credit-based financial system sputter/break down? When investable assets pose too much risk for too little return. Not immediately, but at the margin, credit and stocks begin to be exchanged for figurative and sometimes literal money in a mattress.”

    When that happens, problems begin to take care of themselves, in one of two ways…

    A quick, sharp depression wipes out the value of credit claims. Borrowers go broke. Bonds expire worthless. Companies declare bankruptcy. The whole capital structure tends to get marked down as debts are written off and financial assets of all kinds lose their value.

    Or, under pressure, the feds print money. Debts are diminished as the currency loses its value. The zombies still get money, but it is worth less. Inflation adjustments cannot keep up with high rates of inflation. Pensions, prices and promises fade. Either way, the slate is wiped clean and a new cycle can begin. But what rag will clean the slate now? Stay tuned…

     

    zombies-cementerio

    You knew there would eventually be a picture of the living dead.



  • Japanese Bond Yields Spike Most In 2 Years On Return From Golden Week Holiday

    As Japanese markets re-open after Golden Week, the bond market is extremely active (which in itself is unusual given its total lack of liquidity). Playing catch up to the rest of the world’s igniting bond markets, 10Y JGB yields are up over 6bps (and even the 20Y is trading). The last few days have seen yields spike from 28bps to 43bps – a colossal move only seen before in May 2013 (after the initial euphoria of QQE).

    Biggest absolute yield swing in bonds since May 2013…

     

    Which drags yields to 2-month highs…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg



  • Ultra-Secrecy Surrounds Barack Obama's New Global Economic Treaty

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Barack Obama is secretly negotiating a global economic treaty which would destroy thousands of American businesses and millions of good paying American jobs.  In other words, it would be the final nail in the coffin for America’s economic infrastructure.  Obama knows that if the American people actually knew what was in this treaty that they would be screaming mad, so the negotiations are being done in secret.  The only people that are allowed to look at the treaty are members of Congress, and even they are being banned from saying anything to the public.  American workers are about to be brutally stabbed in the back, and thanks to all of this secrecy and paranoia they won’t even see it coming.

    The name of this new treaty is “the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, and it is being touted as perhaps the most important trade agreement in history.  But very few people in this country are talking about it, because none of us are allowed to see it.  An article that was just released by Politico detailed the extreme secrecy that is surrounding this trade agreement…

    If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

     

    If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

     

    And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

    This treaty is going to affect the lives of every man, woman and child living in this nation, and yet it is deemed so “important” that none of us can know what is in it?

    Are you sure that we still live in a Republic?

    This treaty will cover 40 percent of the global economy, and U.S. officials hope that the EU, China and India will become members eventually as well

    Right now, there are 12 countries that are part of the negotiations: the United States, Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.  These nations have a combined population of 792 million people and account for an astounding 40 percent of the global economy

     

    And it is hoped that the EU, China and India will eventually join as well.  This is potentially the most dangerous economic treaty of our lifetimes, and yet there is very little political debate about it in this country.

    If the EU, China and India did eventually join the treaty, that would essentially make it a trade agreement for the entire planet.

    This is a really big deal, and it should be openly debated by the American people.  But instead, Barack Obama has chosen to shroud the entire process with as much secrecy as possible.  Not only that, he also wants Congress to give him fast track negotiating authority.  If Congress does that, they would essentially be saying that they blindly trust Obama to negotiate a good treaty for us.  At the end of the process, Congress would be able to vote the treaty up or down, but would not be able to amend it.

    That sounds insane, right?  Well, if you can believe it, Republicans in the Senate are quite eager to give Barack Obama this authority.

    And this is not just an economic treaty.  The following is an excerpt from one of my previous articles

    It is basically a gigantic end run around Congress.  Thanks to leaks, we have learned that so many of the things that Obama has deeply wanted for years are in this treaty.  If adopted, this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, healthcare, copyright and patent protection, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties and so much more.  This treaty includes many of the rules that alarmed Internet activists so much when SOPA was being debated, it would essentially ban all “Buy American” laws, it would give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and it would force even more domestic manufacturing offshore.

    We can’t consume our way to prosperity, and we can’t borrow and spend our way to prosperity.  In order to be prosperous as a nation, we have got to create at least as much wealth as we consume.  But instead, we are doing just the opposite.  We are consuming wealth like mad even while our economic infrastructure is being absolutely gutted.  We have lost thousands of businesses and millions of jobs already, and this new treaty will make things much worse.

    And of course eventually even the ultra-cheap labor on the other side of the planet will be replaced.  This is something that is already happening in China.  Just today there was a news story about a new manufacturing facility in China that will use only robots

    Construction work has begun on the first factory in China’s manufacturing hub of Dongguan to use only robots for production, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

     

    A total of 1,000 robots would be introduced at the factory initially, run by Shenzhen Evenwin Precision Technology Co, with the aim of reducing the current workforce of 1,800 by 90 percent to only about 200, Chen Xingqi, the chairman of the company’s board, was quoted as saying in the report.

     

    The company did not give a figure for the investment in the factory, but said its production capacity could reach a value of 2 billion yuan (US$322 million) annually.

    All of this is very bad news for American workers.  Whether it is ultra-cheap labor on the other side of the globe or new technology, big corporations are constantly looking for ways to produce things less expensively.

    But in order to have a middle class, we have got to have middle class jobs.  The middle class in the United States is steadily disappearing, and neither political party seems very concerned about this at all.

    Even without this new trade treaty, our trade deficit with the rest of the planet continues to grow even larger.  We just learned that the monthly U.S. trade deficit for March rose to $51.4 billion.  That was the largest monthly trade deficit since October 2008.  If you will remember, in October 2008 we were experiencing the worst financial crisis since the days of the Great Depression.

    And if you take oil out of the number, our trade deficit for the month of March would be the worst ever recorded.

    Thank you Barack Obama.  Your trade policies are really “working”.

    Because the trade deficit was much worse than expected, that is going to push the GDP number for the first quarter into negative territory

    Greg Daco of Oxford Economics says he expects the wider than expected trade deficit to prompt the government to revise its estimate of 0.2% growth in U.S. gross domestic product for the first quarter to a 0.5% contraction.

    That means that if we have another contraction in the second quarter, we will officially be in a recession.

    In fact, we could be in a recession right now (according to the official government definition) and not even know it yet.

    One of the biggest reasons why the U.S. economy has been struggling so much in recent years is due to our trade policies.  If we had balanced trade with other nations, our cumulative economic growth since mid-2009 would have been nearly 20 percent higher

    Since rising trade balances subtract from economic growth, the increase in this real non-oil goods deficit has now cut cumulative U.S. economic growth after inflation by a stunning 19.49 percent since the recovery technically began in mid-2009.

    Are you starting to see why I get so fired up about trade?

    But instead of encouraging big corporations to do what is right for the American people, our system greatly rewards companies like Apple that proudly send jobs offshore.  The following is an excerpt from an outstanding article by Andrew Zatlin

    Nine years, a trillion dollars in sales, and almost no taxes paid. That’s just the starting point for wondering about Apple’s actual contribution to the US economy.

     

    Apple’s success drags down the US GDP.  The behemoth that is Apple sold almost 200M phones last year, none of which were made in the US or used components made here. Instead of exporting $100B in iPhones, the US imported $50B. That $150B swing matters in terms of balance of trade, GDP and jobs. If you wanted to improve the US economy, there’s no better place to start than with Apple and smartphones.

     

    Apple undermines the US manufacturing base. Assembly matters and manufacturing matters more. There was a time when Apple could have assembled phones and tablets in the US, but that would mean spending an extra $5 per phone since that’s approximately the extra labor cost to build that $700 phone here instead of in Vietnam or China. Assembly may not be a competitive, value-add step but it does employ a lot of people.

     

    Unfortunately, it would also cut Apple’s profits by $1B, shrinking the company’s annual net income from $45B to $44B. Apple wouldn’t notice a drop in profits of $1B because it’s not putting its cash to use: Apple has $200B in cash conveniently parked outside of the US, not doing anything. On the other hand, assembling in the US would employ tens of thousands of people.

    You can read the rest of that great article right here.

    Our trade policies matter.  Decades of incredibly foolish decisions have ripped our economic infrastructure to shreds, and we are slowly but steadily committing national economic suicide.

    Now, Barack Obama is absolutely determined to deliver the finishing blow, and it is all being done in secret.

    When are you going to wake up and start getting angry America?



  • The End Of The "Reflation" Trade? China To Focus On Fiscal Stimulus, Avoid Monetary Policy

    One of the biggest, if not the driving, factor behind the latest bout of the “reflation trade” which has sent bond yields surging (not to mention sending the Chinese stock market into outer space) in a deja vu rerun of the “Great Rotation” of 2013 and 2014, was constant chatter of imminent monetary easing by the People’s Bank of China, and perhaps with good reason: with the Chinese economy hard-landing and growing according to some estimates as low as 1.6%, the Chinese housing market tumbling faster than that of the US in the great financial crisis, the media has been flooded with recurring reports of Chinese QE any minute.

    To be sure, the PBOC has given plenty of ammunition for such speculation, having cut both its interest and Reserve Ratio rates twice in 2015.

    As a result of constant jawboning that the PBOC may not only cut rates even more but proceed to launch QE (which it will ultimately, just not for a while), both the Shanghai Composite has been trading at multi-year highs and oil has found a bid strong enough that in the past two months it has surged by some 50% on hopes that Chinese demand will finally come back once the local economy is so weak it leaves the PBOC no other choice.

    However, two things suggest that the great “reflation” trade is ending.

    Overnight, Xinhua reported that after months of plunging housing sales, the all important Chinese housing market, where the bulk of Chinese net worth is located, is rebounding sharply: sales volume of new homes in China’s major cities posted a solid gain in April with the support of the recent policy easing, the latest industry report showed.

    New home sales in China’s 30 major cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen surged 15.1 percent in April from the previous month to 16.57 million square meters, also representing an increase of 30.8 percent from the previous year, according to the report released by E-house China R&D Institute, a leading property consultancy.

    Of the tier-one cities, Beijing witnessed the strongest new home sales growth at 70.7 percent in April compared with a year earlier, noted the report released Wednesday.

    Xinhua recounts that China’s property market took a downturn in 2014 due to weak demand and an excess of unsold homes. In late March, China’s central bank cut the minimum down payment requirement for second home buyers to 40 percent.

    Business tax will be exempt for sales of homes purchased more than two years ago, instead of the previous requirement of five years, the Ministry of Finance announced. These easing measures have bolstered the recent rebound of the real estate market, analysts said.

     

    Policy easing should further lift home transactions in the months ahead, with a strong rebound expected in the second quarter, predicted Yan Yuejin, a researcher with the institute.

    In other words, what the PBOC has already done may be quite sufficient to claim victory for the near to mid-term future, to where no additional easing, much of which has been factored into global asset prices, is forthcoming.

    But where things get dangerous for the liquidity-addicted, risk-on crowd, is a report just released by Reuters, according to which, China is “likely to resort to fiscal stimulus to revive growth after a run of monetary policy easings proved less effective, policy insiders said.

    “They are very worried. If they don’t take bolder measures, it will be very hard to achieve the full-year growth target, and there is risk the slowdown may get out of control,” an economist at a well-connected think-tank said of top policymakers.

     

    Fiscal policy will become more forceful, and infrastructure investment will accelerate, while monetary policy will be more flexible,” said the economist.

    Confused by the 5% drop in the Shanghai Composite in the past two days and the worst 6-day run since June 2013?

    This may explain it:

    The emerging view is that the direct impact of government spending would work where monetary policy, including two cuts in interest rates and two cuts in bank reserve requirements since November, has not.

     

    The government is eyeing “a package of measures to stabilize growth and control risks”, said a senior economist at the cabinet’s Development Research Centre think-tank.

     

    “There is no big problem in employment. They (top leaders) are more worried about financial risks and debt risks.”

    If true, expect the dramatic doubling in Chinese stocks to promptly deflate because while fiscal stimulus is indeed great for the economy it does absolutely nothing for a market that desperately needs constant liquidity injections merely to stay at the same level, nevermind keep rising.

    The level of fiscal stimulus detail provided by Reuters suggests that indeed hopes for more PBOC interventions have been officially snuffed. To wit:

    The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country’s top planning agency, is already speeding up investment projects in several key sectors, including water conservation, environmental protection, power grids and health care.

     

    And President Xi Jinping is spearheading the integration of Beijing with Tianjin and Hebei province, aiming to create a growth driver similar to the Yangtze River Delta around Shanghai and Pearl River Delta in Guangdong, the sources said. The government has said the new metropolis would require investment of 42 trillion yuan ($6.8 trillion).

     

    It’s hard to boost consumption while external demand is weak, so the only thing they can do is boost investment,” said Lu Zhengwei, chief economist at Industrial Bank.

     

    The NDRC has been struggling to lure private investment into such projects, adding more pressure on the government to spend.

    Needless to say, China already has a massive overcapacity problem as a remnant of its late 2000s policy of a massive, debt-fueled spending binge that has now left the country with trillions of (mostly undisclosed) bad debt, and a mountain of shadow liabilities the Politburo is desperate to eliminate. Reuters confirms as much: “Stimulus plans will, nevertheless, be restrained by the fact that China is still struggling with a mountain of local government debt from the 4 trillion yuan ($645 billion) stimulus rolled out in 2008/09 to cushion the impact of the global crisis.”

    Which means that while monetary stimulus is now firmly on the backburner, not even fiscal policy will match the massive stimulus dumps seen in previous years, which in turn suggests that anyone hoarding oil over hopes that China will reemerge as a massive source of demand will be disappointed.

    As for the sudden bout of the great reflation trade… well, just keep an eye on Chinese stocks – leaking inside information in the Middle Kingdom is usually encouraged, and if someone is aware of the PBOC’s plans, or lack thereof, it will sweep like wildfire through the market, and lead to an avalanche of selling as the liquidity tsunami is drained.



  • Repatriation Of Gold From Fed Suggests Historic Vote Of No Confidence

    Submitted by Seth Mason via Solidus.Center blog,

    Since 2012, there’s been an unprecedented call from foreign nations to repatriate their gold from Federal Reserve vaults in the U.S. This is an incredible development given many countries’ 71-year reliance on the Fed as a custodian for their bullion. Over the last few years, countries including, but not limited to, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Austria, Poland, Ecuador, Finland, Switzerland, Venezuela, and Romania have either formally requested repatriation of their gold or are in discussions with the Fed about it. Some of these nations, mind you, have held more than 50% of their entire reserves of bullion in the U.S. since 1944, when the Dollar became the world’s reserve currency.

    Something huge must of happened in the last few years to prompt such action. That something may be a break in foreign gold holders’ trust in the Fed as a custodian of their precious metals.

    There’s evidence that, in recent years, the Fed has been leveraging some of its foreign gold holdings to lower skyrocketing gold prices as part of its grand scheme to “engineer” an economic recovery from the 2008 Financial Crisis. This is to be expected. After all, the Fed has spent the past 7 years throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the chronically-ill American economy and its epidemic of long-term unemployment and underemployment: It’s bailed out the Too Big to Fail banks to the tune of $14 trillion. It’s printed more than $4.2 trillion. It’s crushed down interest rates to zero and has kept them there. Naturally, the good people at the Eccles Building would include leveraging their foreign gold holdings in their campaign to prop up the economy. After all, high gold prices are a proxy for fears about the future of the economy, and prices reached generational highs in late summer 2011–3.5 years into the Fed’s post-crisis “recovery”.

    (Interestingly, gold prices began their long journey downward from their summer 2011 peak just after the Economic Cycle Research Institute called a double dip recession and the Bureau of Economic Analysis–if you believe government data–reported that we narrowly missed a second recession due to GDP growth hovering just above zero.) Gold prices are supposed to rise when economic data are bad!

    So, if the Fed has been leveraging its foreign gold holdings in order to lower the price of bullion, it’s quite possible that it simply doesn’t have in its possession the amount of foreign gold it should. Again, this isn’t a stretch. In fact, it’s Occam’s Razor: Hypothecation is a common practice in the precious metals world, and, recently, the Fed has been flat-out refusing foreign nations from auditing their gold and will only return large holdings on installment plans.

    Pretty suspicious behavior, particularly given the long history of foreign nations continuing to store their gold in Fed vaults during times in which repatriation would have made more sense.

    Consider the following:

    The Fed became a popular custodian of foreign gold during World War II, when threats of appropriation of valuable assets by invading empires were an unfortunate reality in much of the Allied world. In 1944, through the Bretton Woods Agreement, much of the globe came to the consensus that the U.S. Dollar would become the world’s de facto reserve currency and that the Dollar would be backed by foreign and domestic gold physically held by the Fed.

    Then, in 1971, Bretton Woods was repealed, and the Dollar was decoupled from gold. One would think that the foreign nations that held gold at the Fed would have recalled much of their bullion at this time. Not only was the gold not needed to back the world’s reserve currency any more, but the threat of appropriation by foreign empires had diminished significantly. Three decades had passed since WWII, the Khrushchev Era of the Cold War had ended years earlier, and the West had begun to develop diplomatic and trade relations with the Soviet Union and China. But, despite these favorable conditions for repatriation, few nations called for it. It wasn’t worth the cost or effort: The price of gold at the time was at an inflation-adjusted 20th Century low of $210. (2015 dollars – See chart at end of article. Prices likely higher due to use of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, whose methodology has been altered several times to discount inflation.)

    But the financial incentives for repatriation significantly improved by the end of the 1970s, to say the least. By January 1980, with the Fed’s home country mired in stagflation and shocked by an oil crisis, the price of gold skyrocketed to an all-time record inflation-adjusted high of $2100 (a record that remains today, even after the Financial Crisis). Decades removed from the threats of appropriation of WWII and early Cold War-era empires, the late ’70s and early ’80s would have been a great time to repatriate bullion from the Fed. But there were simply few calls.

    More astonishingly, there were few calls for repatriation in the early 2000s, when Alan Greenspan’s post-tech bubble recession and Al-Qaeda’s devastating attacks on the world’s then-largest financial complex–LOCATED JUST BLOCKS FROM WHERE THE FED WAS HOLDING THE GOLD–sent bullion prices skyrocketing. If there were an ideal time for mass calls of repatriation, it was then. But the calls just didn’t come.

    Nor did they during the 2008 Financial Crisis, an event which plunged the U.S. into its worst recession since the Great Depression and sent gold prices skyrocketing again…after a 10 year run-up since Greenspan’s tech bubble. Nor did they come when it appeared that Greece’s collapse was imminent and was going to jeopardize the future of the EU. Nor did they come when it appeared that the U.S. was going to go over the Fiscal Cliff.

    No, they’ve only come recently, during a period of time in which the possibility that the Fed has been depressing gold prices has come to light and in which the Fed has been suspiciously prohibiting foreign nations from auditing their gold.

    Historical Gold Prices In 2015 Dollars

    (Click to enlarge chart.)

    Given all of this history, the recent massive calls for repatriation suggest that foreign gold holders have lost trust in the Fed as a custodian of their precious metals.



  • Meet The FBI's Secret 'Eye In The Sky' Overseeing The Baltimore Riots

    As the controversy surrounding the upcoming Jade Helm military exercises has made abundantly clear, Americans are growing more distrustful of a federal government they perceive as being increasingly willing to infringe upon the civil liberties of US citizens. Fears that Washington is conducting clandestine activities aimed at gathering intelligence about the US populace and the notion that we are witnessing a creeping militarization of US cities has many Americans on edge and as the following story from the Washington Post makes clear, it’s not paranoia if they’re really watching you. 

    Via WaPo:

    As Benjamin Shayne settled into his back yard to listen to the Orioles game on the radio Saturday night, he noticed a small plane looping low and tight over West Baltimore — almost exactly above where rioting had eruptedseveral days earlier, in the aftermath of the death of a black man, Freddie Gray, in police custody.

     

    The plane appeared to be a small Cessna, but little else was clear. The sun had already set, making traditional visual surveillance difficult. So, perplexed, Shayne tweeted: “Anyone know who has been flying the light plane in circles above the city for the last few nights?”

     

    That was 9:14 p.m. Seven minutes later came a startling reply. One of Shayne’s nearly 600 followers tweeted back a screen shot of the Cessna 182T’s exact flight path and also the registered owner of the plane: NG Research, based in Bristow, Va.

    As it turns out, Shayne had unwittingly uncovered a secret FBI overhead surveillance campaign carried out over Baltimore during the riots that set the city ablaze late last month. The operation involved two planes circling the city, and as WaPo notes, if equipped with the latest technology, the aircraft would have been capable of monitoring “dozens of city blocks” at a time. The revelations have prompted the ACLU to demand answers as to the legality of what an unnamed official calls FBI “aerial support”:

    Civil libertarians have particular concern about surveillance technology that can quietly gather images across dozens of city blocks — in some cases even square miles at a time — inevitably capturing the movements of people under no suspicion of criminal activity into a government dragnet. The ACLU plans to file information requests with federal agencies on Wednesday, officials said.

     

    “A lot of these technologies sweep very, very broadly, and, at a minimum, the public should have a right to know what’s going on,” said Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU specializing in privacy and technology issues.

     

    A government official familiar with the operations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters not approved for public release, said the flights were aerial support that Baltimore police officials requested from the FBI.

     

    Flight records maintained by the Web site Flightradar24 show two Cessnas — one a propeller plane, the other a small jet — flying precise formations over the part of West Baltimore where the rioting had occurred. The smaller Cessna conducted flights in the area on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, always after dark. The planes used infrared technology to monitor movements of people in the vicinity, the official said.

     


     

     

    Last year, the Post outlined how Cessnas can be outfitted with technology “that can track every vehicle and person across an area the size of a small city, for several hours at a time.” The camera setups the Post profiled are developed by Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS). Here’s a schematic:

    The company’s Chief Technical Officer Ross McNutt told the Chicago Tribune that PSS was not involved in the Baltimore operation, noting that “the kinds of sensors used in most government surveillance flights can see at least a five-block-by-five-block area. What they need is a system that follows people back to the house they came out of.

    Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that these systems have been deployed over Baltimore before. Here’s WaPo from last February:

    Already, the cameras have been flown above major public events such as the Ohio political rally where Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) named Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, McNutt said. They’ve been flown above Baltimore; Philadelphia; Compton, Calif.; and Dayton in demonstrations for police. 

    If that’s a little too ambiguous for you, have a look at the following slide from a company presentation delivered in January 2014 by the very same Ross McNutt:

     

    Just what is this PSS ‘eye’ that the company swears was not ‘in the sky’ over Baltimore, you ask? A good place to start in terms of answering that question might be a product called the “NightHawk” which employs infrared technology that provides “wide area surveillance capability with persistent coverage of areas as large as 4 square kilometers.” 

    The NightHawk “integrates seamlessly” with the company’s HawkEye II wide area surveillance sensor which PSS markets to law enforcement with this rather compelling sales pitch:

    Have a Crime Spike?  Criminals on the run?  Gang or Drug Networks you need to shut down? [ZH: Rioters burning down your city?]  Do you have limited manpower and/or limited intelligence assets?

    PSS can help – and fast.

     

    Whether your objective is to monitor a single intersection, several city blocks, or a whole city, PSS’s HawkEye II gives the capability and the flexibility to meet your mission requirements.

     

    To get an idea of what the Hawkeye II is capable of in terms of both scope and detail, have a look at the following images from the portion of the company’s webpage dedicated to its law enforcement customers:

    *  *  *

    Besides the Baltimore Police Department, PSS has conducted operations in conjunction with police in Dayton, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, and while we can’t say for sure whether Baltimore was indeed under the watchful eye of the PSS “NightHawk” last month, we think it’s safe to say that if you want to watch those who may be watching you, PSS is a good company to keep an eye on. 



  • 7 Person CFTC Team Charges Gold Manipulators Identified First On Zero Hedge With Gold And Silver Spoofing

    Last Tuesday, as part of our ongoing effort to help the clueless commodity regulator, the CFTC, do its jobs of identifying, preventing and punishing manipulators, we wrote “Dear CFTC: Here Is Today’s Illegal “Spoofing” In Gold Futures” in which we presented “3 examples of spoofing in gold futures which, you’ll note, aren’t difficult to spot if one is willing to expend the tiniest effort.”

    The gold spoofing was obvious, and as as the following Nanex charts showed, a cursory glance revealed how large buy and sell orders push prices up and down without every transacting.

    2. Another set of instances appear about 50 minutes after the first set (shown in chart 1).

    3. Another set of spoofing instances appear about an hour after the second set (shown in chart 2).

     

    We go the spoofing right, but we got our audience wrong because the very next day it was not the CFTC, but the exchange on which said manipulation was taking place, the CME, that issued an order denying access to the alleged spoofers we had identified just hours before, Heet Khara and Nasim Salim, and which would be barred from trading on the CME for a period of 60 days.

    Fast forward to today when, humiliated at having its job done not only by a for-profit exchange but a tinfoil fring blog first, the CFTC finally did its job and charged United Arab Emirates residents Heet Khara and Nasim Salim with “Spoofing in the Gold and Silver Futures Markets.” Note: “and silver” – this is important.

    Here is the full CFTC order:

    Court Issues an Ex Parte Restraining Order Freezing Defendants’ Assets and Preserving Records

     

    Washington, DC – The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today announced the filing of a civil enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Heet Khara and Nasim Salim, residents of the United Arab Emirates.  According to the CFTC’s Complaint, Defendants engaged in unlawful disruptive trading practices known as “spoofing” in the gold and silver futures markets by placing bids and offers with the intent to cancel them before execution.

     

    Based on Defendants’ pattern of unlawful spoofing conduct and the potential for dissipation of Defendants’ assets, on May 5, 2015, U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts issued an Order freezing and preserving assets under Defendants’ control and prohibiting them from destroying documents or denying CFTC staff access to their books and records. The court scheduled a hearing on the CFTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction for May 19, 2015.

     

    The Complaint alleges that between at least February 2015 and at least April 28, 2015, Defendants Khara and Salim, both individually and in a coordinated fashion, regularly placed larger aggregate orders for gold and silver futures contracts on the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) opposite smaller orders and cancelled the larger orders after the smaller orders were executed.

     

    CME Group Inc.’s (CME Group) Market Regulation Department identified the disruptive trading practices and initiated an investigation.  On or about April 30, 2015, CME Group issued notices summarily denying Defendants Khara and Salim’s access to all CME Group markets and any trading platforms owned or controlled by CME Group.  CME Group Inc. operates four self-regulatory organizations and designated contract markets, which are the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., and COMEX.

     

    CFTC Director of Enforcement Aitan Goelman commented: “Protecting the integrity and stability of the U.S. futures markets is critical to ensuring a properly functioning financial system.  Aggressive prosecution of spoofing is an important part of that mission.  Today’s actions make clear that the CFTC will partner with self-regulatory organizations to find and swiftly prosecute those who engage in such disruptive trading practices, wherever they may be.”

     

    In its ongoing litigation, the CFTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, civil monetary penalties, and equitable relief including trading and registration bans and disgorgement. 

    Curious where your taxpayer dollars go? It took the CFTC seven (7) well-paid manipulation sleuths to figure out what was revealed on the pages of Zero Hedge on the day of the manipulation, without us ever having accepted a single taxpayer dollar.

    CFTC Division of Enforcement staff members responsible for this matter are Patryk J. Chudy, David Oakland, Neel Chopra, Katie Rasor, Trevor Kokal, Lenel Hickson, and Manal Sultan.

    Finally:

    The CFTC thanks and acknowledges the assistance of the CME Group in this matter.

    You are welcome.

    And perhaps in retrospect it is time for the CFTC to revise its announcement from September 25, 2013

    … in which it said:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or Commission) Division of Enforcement has closed the investigation that was publicly confirmed in September 2008 concerning silver markets. The Division of Enforcement is not recommending charges to the Commission in that investigation. For law enforcement and confidentiality reasons, the CFTC only rarely comments publicly on whether it has opened or closed any particular investigation. Nonetheless, given that this particular investigation was confirmed in September 2008, the CFTC deemed it appropriate to inform the public that the investigation is no longer ongoing. Based upon the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there is not a viable basis to bring an enforcement action with respect to any firm or its employees related to our investigation of silver markets.”

    Because, you see, had the “woefully underbudgeted” CFTC, which needed at least 7 employees to discover what took Nanex and Zero Hedge about 10 minutes of work, not closed its particular investigation, it would have caught not only this but countless other instances of gold and silver manipulation…

    The good news, of course, is that with a UK spoofer, working out of his parents’ basement, having been charged with causing the Flash Crash, and now two Arabs found guilty of manipulating gold and silver, both the S&P and the gold markets are once again completely unrigged, the CFTC is on top of everything, and investors should, please, come right back in.



  • It Begins: US Government Issues $700,000 Fine Against A Digital Currency

    Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,

    Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

    Our beloved amigos at the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), have just issued the first-ever ‘civil enforcement action’ against a virtual currency.

    The offending criminal mastermind in this case? Ripple Labs.

    If you’re not familiar, Ripple is a virtual currency platform that was once the darling of Silicon Valley, attracting top VC firms like Google Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz.

    Ripple’s technology allows users to conduct financial transactions with one another — sending and receiving payments in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, as well as fiat currency.

    Imagine Bitcoin meets Paypal… and you have the basic idea.

    As part of its technology, the parent company Ripple Labs also created a native virtual currency called ‘XRP’, which is the second largest in the world after Bitcoin when measured by market capitalization.

    Because of all of these features, Ripple Labs qualifies as a ‘money service business (MSB)’ according to FinCEN… which makes them subject to all sorts of regulations.

    At the top of the list is the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which, contrary to its name, requires banks and MSBs to betray their customers’ financial secrets to the US government.

    Specifically, the BSA mandates that all banks and MSBs file ‘suspicious activity reports’ if they “know, suspect, or have reason to suspect” that a transaction of $2,000 or more is ‘suspicious’.

    And in the age of the USA PATRIOT Act, suspicious transactions are BIG BUSINESS for Uncle Sam.

    Last year a record 2.4 MILLION suspicious activity reports were filed. That’s a 40% increase from 2013’s record year of 1.7 million.

    As you can imagine, Ripple Labs failed to register with FinCEN as an MSB, nor did it submit suspicious activity reports.

    In its complaint, FinCEN describes several of the oooooh-so-nefarious violations.

    According to FinCEN, “In January 2014, a Malaysian-based customer sought to purchase XRP from [Ripple Labs], indicating that he wanted to use a personal bank account for a business purpose.”

    HOLY JIHAD BATMAN!!!! Someone wanted to use a personal bank account for business purposes?!?! NUKE THE SON OF A BITCH!

    I mean, seriously. This is the complete nonsense that keeps financial bureaucrats up at night: some guy in Malaysia wants to buy digital currency with his personal funds.

    Whoop-dee-doo.

    But what’s really wild is that Ripple actually DENIED the transaction. They just didn’t file the SAR.

    So… even though Ripple didn’t actually ENGAGE in said ‘suspicious activity’, failing to file the SAR (with the appropriate TPS report cover sheet) was enough to land them in hot water.

    End result — Ripple was dinged with a $700,000 fine.

    Now, $700k is a pittance compared to the $9 BILLION that BNP Paribas was slammed with last year for doing business with countries that were former enemies-turned-BFFs of the US government — namely Cuba and Iran.

    But it’s still a ridiculous penalty for having done nothing wrong.

    Of course, it’s never about right or wrong. It’s about sending a message. And that’s exactly what FinCEN is doing.

    By going after Ripple (a major player in the industry), FinCEN is trying to scare all the smaller players into ratting out their customers.

    This, after all, is what desperate, bankrupt governments have done for millennia —

    Step 1: Track down where everyone’s money is.

    Step 2: Take it.

    You don’t see rich, stable countries doing this sort of thing. In fact, the exact opposite.

    An official from Hong Kong’s Treasury recently stated that: “the Government does not consider it necessary to introduce at the moment new legislation to regulate trading in such virtual commodities or prohibit people from participating in such activities.”

    Night and day difference.

    We’ll continue to see these steps in the US and in Europe. Tracking down virtual currency transactions. Banning cash. Anything they can do to keep your money trapped in the system where they can keep their eyes on it.

    It’s all the more reason to move a portion of your savings out of that system and into somewhere safe.



  • Mapping Income Mobility: The Best (And Worst) Places To Grow Up

    A new study from Harvard economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren seeks to quantify the financial impact of where America’s children are brought up. More specifically, Chetty and Hendren measure “the percentage earnings gain from growing up in each county [in America] relative to an average place for children in low-income families.” 

    The goal of the study (and its predecessors) is to determine the most effective way to imporove economic outcomes for low-income children. Here, the researchers “focus on families who moved across areas to study how neighborhoods affect upward mobility.” Unsurprisingly, Chetty and Hendren “find that every year of exposure to a better environment improves a child’s chances of success.” Interestingly, the economists have actually quantified the improvement in order to “estimates of the causal effect of each county in America on upward mobility.”

    The map below, from NY Times, shows “how much extra money a county causes children in poor families to make” compared to national averages for low-income households:

    Click here for interactive map

    More from NY Times:

    Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren [have had] huge consequences on how we think about poverty and mobility in the United States. The pair, economists at Harvard, have long been known for their work on income mobility, but the latest findings go further. Now, the researchers are no longer confined to talking about which counties merely correlate well with income mobility; new data suggests some places actually cause it.

     

    Across the country, the researchers found five factors associated with strong upward mobility: less segregation by income and race, lower levels of income inequality, better schools, lower rates of violent crime, and a larger share of two-parent households. In general, the effects of place are sharper for boys than for girls, and for lower-income children than for rich.

     

    “The broader lesson of our analysis,” Mr. Chetty and Mr. Hendren write, “is that social mobility should be tackled at a local level.”

    We’ll leave you with the following screenshots from the interactive map (presented with no comment):



  • Why The Fed Will Do QE4 (In 4 Ugly Charts)

    While The Fed and its apologists (except for Jim Bullard) remain firmly attached to the idea that it is the 'stock' (or absolute level) of Fed Assets that represents the amount of policy-easement and not the 'flow' (rate of change), we have explained numerous times that this is complete rubbish. With the Federal Reserve balance sheet hitting 6-month lows this week, we thought the following 4 pictures would paint more than a thousand words on why The Fed will need to restart the flow soon… or the game is up.

     

    The quiet, subtle decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet continued in April. As of May 1st, Gavekal notes the Fed's balance was at $4.47 trillion. While undoubtedly still incredibly large, the Fed's balance sheet is about $45 billion less than its peak level on January 16, 2015.  Total assets at the Fed are back to levels last seen on October 17th. Total assets at the Fed have declined by nearly $29 billion over the past three months. On a rolling three-month basis, the Fed's balance sheet has been declining for the last two months.

    And the three-month difference in total Fed assets has produced some interesting relationships since QE started. Below are some economic indicators that caught our eye…

    All suggesting it is indeed the flow.. and not stock that has pumped everything… and now that it is officially in decline, Yellen is going to need to find an excuse to crank the flow once again…

    Source: Gavekal



  • Does The Stock Market Matter?

    Submitted by Omid Malekan,

    Today marks the five year anniversary of the Flash Crash, the day in 2010 when the US stock market fell drastically in a matter of minutes then recovered most of the losses.

    flashcrash

    Unlike sharp declines in the past, the Flash Crash happened for apparently no reason. Since then the government has launched multiple inquiries into what happened and recently charged a trader for alleged market manipulation. Figuring all of this out is considered a priority because the stock market is an important part of the economy and has an important place in economic policy.

    But does the stock market really matter? And if it does, should it?

    Stock market relevance to policy dates back to the crash of 1987, when Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan decided the Fed should respond boldly to market machinations. That emphasis on the importance of stocks was at the core of the Greenspan Fed and was continued by his successors Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen.

     

    Along the way economists increasingly factored stocks into their theories and the Wealth Effect – the idea that when people feel rich from their investments they spend more – gained prominence.

    The 2008 financial crisis cemented the importance of stocks in economic management. Policy makers monitored falling stocks as if they were a good barometer for economic activity and reacted accordingly. In 2010, in an editorial defending the Fed’s then controversial Quantitative Easing program, Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed to rallying stocks as evidence the policy was working. In 2012 Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the man who presided over the Justice Department’s Criminal division in the aftermath of the financial crisis, said when considering prosecution of a bank executive they took into account the impact on the bank’s shares and financial markets. More recently Fed President Bill Dudley has stated that how the market reacts will play a role in how quickly the Fed raises interest rates back to normal.

    The first thing we should recognize about the stock market is that it’s a pretty bad indicator for the economy. Today stocks trade at all time highs, but that’s not the case for any meaningful metric of the economy, like employment, GDP growth or wages. Real median household income, perhaps the purest measure of the vitality of the middle class, has steadily declined…

    householdincome

     

    …while the stock market has rallied during the recovery.

    s&p500

     

    The second thing we should realize is that stocks only matter to a small and peculiar subset of the population: large corporations and the wealthy. The employees of the S&P 500, the index consisting of the 500 largest public companies in America make up only 15% of all employed persons. Most jobs in this country are created by companies that can’t participate in the stock market. As for the minority that do, there is no evidence that higher stock prices lead to hiring. If companies added and subtracted employees based on volatile individual stock prices they would constantly be firing and hiring people in almost random fits that might have little to do with their actual business.

    Shareholders also consist of a minority of the population, in this case the highly affluent. Most shares are not owned by average Americans, but rather executives and founders. Think of people like Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet. Some academics estimate the top 10% in terms of wealth own over two-thirds of all stocks. Scan down a list of the world’s richest people and you will see why. Meanwhile, the most recent Gallup survey shows almost half of all Americans don’t own any stocks.

    Given this reality, it should come as no surprise that the post-crisis era has seen a surge in the economic disparity between the haves and the have-nots. As policy makers have focused increasingly on stocks, they have committed resources to elevating the market thus improving the lot of the rich and powerful. Most of the Fed’s post-crisis programs for example would have been considered a failure if they weren’t constantly validated by a surging Dow Jones Industrials Index. There is a moral imperative to help the majority that has been left behind by this recovery, and it starts with paying closer attention to economic factors that measure their well being.

    There is also a practical benefit to shifting our attention away from the stock market. Any market that can yo-yo 10% within a day for no apparent reason, or undergo multiple booms and busts in a 20 year period should not be given too much credibility. The wealth-effect on the way up always turns into the wealth-destruction effect on the way down.

    If we can look away from the daily machinations of the unpredictable market we are more likely to work on the sort of structural reform that pays off in the long run, even if it doesn’t make the market go up today.

     



  • Late-Day Buying Scramble Saves Dow's Year After Yellen Yanks Punchbowl

    Translating what Janet Yellen (and Lockhart) said today to stock investors….

     

    Before we start – Trannies are trading 2% below the levels pre-EndQE3 and The Dow was rescued late on into the green YTD for 2015…

     

    UNRIGGED!!!! Every time the Dow lost YTD green, VIX was smashed… and look at the close!!!

     

    Stocks have now given up all the exuberant gains post March payrolls

     

    Volume is back…

     

    The epic late-day ramp was a desparate effort to get The Dow into the green YTD… managed to get Small Caps comfortably green (because you Fight The Fed)

     

    Futures show the swings today more clearly…

     

    On the week, Nasdaq remains the laggard, Small caps outperforming

     

    The initial driver was the weak ADP print which sparked selling in the USD, then Yellen's comments really pulled the rug…

     

    Shale stocks continue to slide post-Einhorn (even despite this morning's meltup in crude after DOE inventory draw). Worst still for the frackers, Gartman said "The frackers are going to ramp back up, there is no question at all"

     

    Treasury yields are up 8 days in a row – the longest stretch of increases since 9 days in a row in March 2012. (note the big AAPL issue today whioch may be the driver of the recent weakness in US sessions as ratelocks hit an illiquid market)

     

    10Y yield closes above its 200DMA…

     

    The dollar slipped once again…

     

    Commodities (except for Crude) saw muted activity today…

     

    But crude pumped and dumped after the EOD draw…

     

    Just as an aside, this is what happened in European bond risk today…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg

    Bonus Chart: What's worse than worst?

     



  • Top NSA Official Who Created the Global Surveillance System: Fire the U.S. Intelligence Agencies … Hire Anonymous, Instead

    William Binney is the high-level NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information. A 32-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency, Binney was the senior technical director within the agency and supervised thousands of NSA employees.

    Binney sent Washington’s Blog an article from Monday showing that a member of the cyber collective Anonymous tipped off Texas police to the imminent shootings by Muslim extremists.

    Binney comments:

    This is the objective of intelligence agencies that I worked in – predict intentions and capabilities in advance. I agree with my VIPS [i.e. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity] associates, hire Anonymous and fire the bums we got including the intelligence committees and the FISC [U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court].

     

    After all, when was the last time our “intelligence community” predicted anything like this in advance????

    Binney and other top NSA whistleblowers have previously explained that the intelligence agencies should have stopped 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Paris shootings and other terrorist attacks.  But corruption prevented them from  stopping the attacks.

    Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity – a group composed of former high-level military and intelligence officials – recently called for independent intelligence analysis to keep our country safe.



Digest powered by RSS Digest

Our Financial Future: Infinite Greed Meets a Funny Thing Called Karma

banksters

All those angered by the mere question of the viability of this predatory pillaging in the name of capitalism are incapable of even admitting this cultural crisis exists.

Somewhere along the line, we lost the ability to distinguish between earning a profit and maximizing private gain by any means, i.e. Infinite Greed. If you insist on making this distinction now, you anger a lot of people, as it blows the capitalist cover of Infinite Greed.

The distinction between earning a profit and maximizing private gain by any means angers not just the few benefiting from the useful delusion that Infinite Greed is simply profit on overdrive; it seems to anger everyone who believes the Status Quo of burning mountains of coal to power towel warmers, sitting in traffic burning petrol two hours a day and central banks enriching the already wealthy is not just sustainable but gol-darned good.

If you make the distinction between earning a profit and maximizing private gain by any means, then you realize the status quo is neither sustainable nor good: it is unsustainable and evil. This angers everyone who has rationalized their investment in (and defense of) an evil system, because, well, it’s hard to feel all warm and fuzzy about your choices if the phony facade falls and the evil of the system you’ve defended is starkly revealed.

Every enterprise must earn a profit to survive. A worker-owned collective must earn a profit, as it needs money to reinvest in the business and reward those who have invested their capital (human, social, financial, intellectual, etc.) in the enterprise.

If the collective can’t reinvest in new plant and new workers as the old equipment fails and old workers retire, it will weaken and collapse. This is equally true of any business owned by the state (i.e. a socialist enterprise): if the state-owned enterprise doesn’t earn a profit that can be reinvested in the business, it can only survive if it is subsidized by some other enterprise that is earning a profit.

But the system we inhabit now is not based on earning a profit; that’s merely the public-relations propaganda used to cloak its real heart: Infinite Greed. Maximizing private gain by any means isn’t about earning a profit; it’s about strip-mining the planet and the labor and profit of others.

If I buy a political favor that essentially eliminates competition in my private fiefdom, that doesn’t generate more goods and services; it’s simply maximizing my private gain at the expense of everyone else in the system.

Goosing the stock market ever higher only solves one problem: the terrible prospect that the assets of the incredibly wealthy might reset lower. It doesn’t make the system sustainable or less evil; indeed, it is the manifestation of the evil at the heart of the entire system. It’s not about shiny capitalism for the masses, or earning a profit by producing more and better goods and services: it’s about doing whatever it takes to maximize private gain.

The success of this vast defense of those maximizing their private gain at the expense of everyone else appears invulnerable to many. In a system where central banks can print infinite money to further expand the value of the Financial Aristocracy’s assets, it certainly seems that there is no force in the Universe that could possibly reduce this mighty Empire that worships only one god, that of maximizing private gain by any means.

Let’s say this system is sustainable: the system that enriches the few at the expense of the many, the system that strip-mines the planet to enable private jets and trillions of dollars of wealth to rest comfortably in tax havens, a system that pays Nobel-prize-winning shills to spew nonsensical defense of the patently indefensible: if this is sustainable, we must ask: at what cost?

Is feeding this machine cost-free? Are there no consequences? Can the Federal Reserve not just create money to further enrich the few, but eliminate all cost and consequence as well?

To everyone resigned to the permanence and invulnerability of this evil, and everyone angered by the idea that it might implode and deprive them of their share of the swag, I suggest we consider a funny thing called Karma, which is the simple idea that actions have consequences which cannot be shoved onto others forever.

A similar idea is reversal is the way of the Tao. What appears mighty and invulnerable melts into air, as extremes naturally cycle to the opposite state.

Our loss of the ability to distinguish between earning a profit and maximizing private gain by any means has triggered a cultural crisis, one that few are willing to recognize, much less discuss. All those angered by the mere question of the viability of this predatory pillaging in the name of capitalism are incapable of even admitting this cultural crisis exists. Their response to the question is to accuse anyone who dares question the morality and sustainability of the current system of desiring a financial Apocalypse.

The easily angered are again confusing two distinct concepts: wanting an Apocalypse is entirely different fromseeing an Apocalypse on the horizon. A financial Apocalypse wouldn’t even touch the assets of the many, because their financial wealth is near-zero. If the $20 trillion (or whatever the number is, nobody really knows) sitting in tax havens melted into air, who would even notice except the pillagers and those paid to defend them?

The cultural crisis angers people because it threatens to loosen their grasp on the few threads of security they believe are real. Those thin threads are illusory, and a crisis will eventually be resolved in one fashion or another–not necessarily in an Apocalypse, but in a fast-spreading recognition of the wrongness and unfairly distributed costs of supporting a system that is intrinsically evil and unsustainable.

Today’s News May 6, 2015

  • Everything That Is Wrong With Banking Today

    Here is the latest SmartKnowledgeU Podcast #5: “Everything Wrong With Banking Today”.

     

    Everything Wrong With Banking Today

    To listen to this podcast on YouTube, please click the above image and then click the link “Watch this video on YouTube.”

     

    For those of you that would like a downloadable mp3 file of any of our podcasts to listen to at your leisure on your smartphone or iPod, please visit https://www.apple.com/itunes, log in to iTunes and then search the iTunes store for the “smartknowledgeu podcast” which will contain
    all of our downloadable podcasts for free. To be informed of when we release future podcasts, merely subscribe to our YouTube channel here or subscribe to our podcast channel on iTunes.

     

    The topic of our upcoming Podcast #6 next week will be “Deciphering the Language of Lies”, in which we address why the use of the world “failure” and “mistake” in association with our global financial and political leaders most definitely muddies and obscures the truth about them, and why it is of utmost importance to stop using these two words in conjunction with them if we want the truth about their deliberately engineered path of economic destruction and collapse to take root and eventually go viral among the masses.



  • Florida Man Faces 15 Year Sentence For Sex On A Beach (But Still No Bankers In Jail)

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Screen Shot 2015-05-05 at 12.12.23 PM

     

    A jury Monday found a couple guilty of having sex on Bradenton Beach after only 15 minutes of deliberation.

     

    The convictions carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

     

    Both Caballero and Alvarez will now have to register as sex offenders.

     

    Ronald Kurpiers, defense attorney for the couple, said his clients were “devastated,” by the verdict.

     

    Though Dafonseca hinted that they’d be speaking with the judge about whether or not 15 years was appropriate for Caballero, Kurpiers said the judge would have no discretion.

    “That’s what he’ll get,” Kurpiers said.

     

    – From the Miami Herald article: Couple Found Guilty of Having Sex on Florida Beach

    This is what “justice” looks like in the Oligarch States of America. If you’re a pleb who gets caught having consensual sex on the beach, you’re immediately convicted and face up to 15 years in the gulag. Meanwhile, if you’re a banking executive responsible for crashing the global economy, you’re rewarded with trillions in taxpayer bailouts and backstops and given free reign to continue your crime spree. Criminal charges are never considered, despite the extreme negative impact your actions have on society at large, and you’re always given a slap on the wrist via deferred prosecution agreements, or DPAs. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at an excerpt from last year’s post titled, The U.S. Department of Justice Handles Banker Criminals Like Juvenile Offenders…Literally:

     

    These agreements were created 100 years ago to give juvenile defendants and first-time offenders a chance to for rehabilitate themselves. Only in the last 20 years have DPAs migrated to the field of corporate criminals, treating them like kids who’ve just gone down a bad path in life.

     

    The Justice Department is leaning on these toothless agreements more and more. Of the DoJ’s 283 deferred prosecution agreements since 2000, half have come since 2010, Reilly found in a working paper for BYU Law Review.

     

    Why has the DoJ been so keen on deferred prosecution since 2010? It coincides exactly with investigations into the 2008 financial crisis.

    With that in mind, let’s take a look at what 40-year old Jose Caballero faces in Florida for “sex on the beach.” From the Miami Herald:

    A jury Monday found a couple guilty of having sex on Bradenton Beach after only 15 minutes of deliberation.

    The convictions carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

     

    Jose Caballero, 40, and Elissa Alvarez, 20, were charged with two counts each of lewd and lascivious behavior for having sex on a public beach on July 20, 2014.

     

    Video played in the courtroom during the 1- 1/2-day-long trial showed Alvarez moving on top of Caballero in a sexual manner in broad daylight. Witnesses testified that a 3-year-old girl saw them.

     

    Both Caballero and Alvarez will now have to register as sex offenders.

     

    The state will ask for jail time for Alvarez and prison time for Caballero. Dafonseca said due to Caballero being out of prison less than three years before committing another felony, he’s looking at serving the maximum time of 15 years.

     

    Ronald Kurpiers, defense attorney for the couple, said his clients were “devastated,” by the verdict. Though Dafonseca hinted that they’d be speaking with the judge about whether or not 15 years was appropriate for Caballero, Kurpiers said the judge would have no discretion.

     

    “That’s what he’ll get,” Kurpiers said.

     

    Ed Brodsky, elected state attorney for the 16th judicial district, joined Defonseca in prosecuting the case. When asked why the case was an important one to the state attorney, Dafonseca said it was important that the community knew what wouldn’t be tolerated on public beaches.

     

    “We’re dealing with basically tourists, that came from Brandon and Riverview and West Virginia, and they’re here on the beaches of Manatee County, our public beaches,” Dafonseca said, referring to the witnesses. “So you want to make sure that this isn’t something that just goes by the wayside. And that it is well known to the community, what will be tolerated and what won’t be.”

    So this is where Florida draws the line, how brave! In reality, Florida is known for tolerating and encouraging some of the most statist behavior in America, which is why the state is so often highlighted on this site. Recall:

    Girl Gang Raped during Spring Break in Florida as Crowds Stand Around and Do Nothing to Stop It

    Video of the Day – Watch as Florida Parents are Treated Like Children for Questioning School Curriculum

    Protecting and Serving – Florida Police Raid 90-Year-Old Woman’s Home; Find No Drugs but Wreck Home

    90-Year-Old WW2 Veteran and Two Clergymen Face 60 Days in Jail for Feeding the Homeless in Florida

    Florida Cop Rapes 20-Year Old Woman at Gunpoint While on Duty

    I could go on, but let’s go back to the Miami Herald.

    Family members of the couple defended the two outside the courthouse, saying the crime did not deserve this kind of attention.

     

    “He’s a great person,” said Caballero’s mother of her son, declining to give her name. “There are other things out there we need to worry about, and they’re still loose, people who have done worse stuff.”

    Indeed.

    This story demonstrates how completely and totally broken the U.S. justice system is. Should this couple have been having sex in public and in broad daylight? Absolutely not. Should there be some sort of punishment? Absolutely.

    That said, the punishment should fit the crime in a just civilization, and 15 years behind bars for public sex is more akin to what you’d expect in Saudi Arabia. It’s particularly appalling when compared with the license to commit fraud and steal, which politically connected oligarchs have been granted. After all, who was really harmed by this couple’s act? Sure, some tourists may have had their day temporarily ruined or inconvenienced. A three-year-old girl may have seen something, but would probably have no way of understanding what it was. On the other hand, criminal bankers have demonstrably ruined the lives of hundreds or millions, if not billions, of people across the globe. Yet not a single TBTF executive has been prosecuted. They were bailed out instead.

    Meanwhile, what about the pastor who faces only four months for molesting a little girl. Yes, you read that right. Our society is so completely fucked up, that two people irresponsibly making love in public will have their lives ruined, while a religious authority caught molesting a little girl receives a slap on the wrist. From RawStory:

    A northern California pastor will serve no more than four months in jail for molesting a 9-year-old girl multiple times.

     

    Venije Singkoh, a pastor at churches in San Francisco and Concord who also held services at his Daly City home, pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor count of child sexual annoyance.

     

    He had initially been charged with three felony counts of child molestation after investigators said he held the girl on his lap and kissing her inappropriately.

     

    The girl told her mother and father that the 70-year-old Singkoh used his tongue while kissing her, and the family called a church meeting to confront the pastor.

    Examples of the criminal application of “justice” is an everyday occurrence in America today. I’ve outlined too many examples to list them all, but here are a few:

    The U.S. Department of Justice Handles Banker Criminals Like Juvenile Offenders…Literally

    American Justice – FBI Lab Overstated Forensic Hair Matches in 95% of Cases, Including 32 Death Sentences

    New Report – The United States’ Sharp Drop in Economic Freedom Since 2000 Driven by “Decline in Rule of Law”

    DEA Agents Caught Having Drug Cartel Funded Prostitute Sex Parties Received Slap on the Wrist; None Fired

    TSA Agents Caught Gaming System so Male Screener Could Grope Attractive Passengers; No Criminal Charges Filed



  • Wynn Calls "Big" Recovery "Complete Dream" As Gaming Revenues Collapse

    Last month, courtesy of Andrew Zatlin’s Vice Index, we flagged the disturbing Q1 rise in traveling hookers. We call the trend disturbing not because we have a prima facie inclination to look with disdain upon all things escort-related but because, as Zatlin notes, when escorts are forced to take their show on the road it means the phones have stopped ringing locally, and if you’re inclined to believe that trends in all-cash businesses are a good leading indicator for trends in consumer spending in general, depressed spending on gambling, alcohol, and other “fun” things does not bode well for economic growth going forward. As you can see from the graph below, The Vice Index hit its lowest level in more than a year in March:

    Given this — and given the fact that whatever discretionary income Americans do have is apparently being chanelled into TD Ameritrade accounts — it should perhaps come as no surprise that gaming revenue on the Las Vegas strip fell nearly 10% in March after sliding 4.4% in February. 

    Meanwhile, the situation in Macau continues to deteriorate at a rather remarkable pace, as gaming revenue fell 39% last month, the eleventh consecutive monthly decline which looks good only in comparison to March’s 39.4% decline and February’s 49% drop. Of course in the deluded minds of China’s millions of newly-minted day traders, a 39% decline represents “stabilization” and so, as Bloomberg reports, casino shares rose in Hong Kong on the news:

    Wynn Macau Ltd. rose 4.8 percent to HK$16.54 by the close of trading, the biggest gain since April 9. Sands China Ltd. gained 3.3 percent and Galaxy Entertainment Group Ltd. advanced 3.1 percent, while the Hang Seng Index was little changed.

     

    Gross gaming revenue in the world’s largest gambling hub fell 39 percent to 19.2 billion patacas ($2.4 billion) last month, meeting a median estimate of a 39 percent decline from eight analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The drop has slowed for a second consecutive month.

     

    “Investors are really just focused on trying to find stabilization or a bottoming,” said Vitaly Umansky, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein. “As long as things aren’t deteriorating, things seemed to be fairly consistent, that’s probably a decent sign from an investor’s perspective.”

    Right. As long as things “aren’t deteriorating” and revenues are only falling by 40% that’s a “decent sign.” Unfortunately, some industry heavyweights don’t seem to share the view that the market is set to turn the corner any time soon. Take Steve Wynn for instance who, on the way to slashing WYNN’s dividend by nearly 70%, had the following to say about the company’s outlook for Vegas and Macau and about the so-called “recovery” in the US economy:

    Well, the numbers in the first quarter are out. I think the trends in Macau were beginning to be very visible in the fourth quarter, but our hopes for an improvement in the Chinese New Year turned out to be incorrect. And the repositioning of the market and the degradation of the volumes in VIP, have continued even into April. Most of my remarks now are going to include what we’ve seen in the first four months, not just the first three months, because the trends that were clear in January, February and March have continued into April and as we look at the whole year in Las Vegas and Macau, certain simple truths emerge.

     

    It is no secret that there’s been a change in mainland China in attitudes towards a number of things that have impacted Macau. That has not – nothing has changed since this all began last October. And the depression of the VIP market continues…

    So as we look backwards for the fourth quarter and especially during the last four months, and understand what’s happening, both in Las Vegas because of the Asian impact on Baccarat, and we look back and then we extrapolate and try predict the future, or at least understand what most likely will be the future, it is foolhardily and immature and unsophisticated to issue dividends on borrowed money. We only distribute money that’s free cash flow based upon our earnings that trail…

     

    If you were to ask me, since we’re making forward-looking statements, what will the second quarter look like in Las Vegas? Weak. Do you hear me? Weak. So I’m trying to lower expectations here. This notion of a big recovery is a complete dream. I don’t think Las Vegas is experiencing a great recovery. I think it’s still very patchy and I think that that’s probably our non-casino revenue in the first quarter was flat. I’d be thrilled if it was flat in the second quarter.

    Besides being a stinging indictment of the pitiable state of the US economy, that’s a fairly unambiguous message from someone who knows a thing or two about this industry and even as the likes of Deutsche Bank called the Las Vegas commentary “overdone”, the bank had the following to say about the outlook for the gaming industry:

    [With] market trends showing very limited signs of improving, and more headwinds than tail winds on the horizon (potential visitor traffic curbs, a full smoking ban, and uncertainty around table allocations), visibility is worse than ever in our view. 

    Despite the malaise and despite the fact that, as we noted earlier this year, Beijing’s corruption crackdown has likely motivated China’s habitual (and filthy rich) gamblers to move permanently away from the dark-lit Macau gambling parlors to multiple-monitor lit trading desks, there will always, always be BTFDers  — especially when you’re talking about Hong Kong-listed shares. With that in mind, we’ll close with this quote provided to Reuters by Matthew Ossolinski, chairman of Ossolinski Holdings:

    “What is the worst that could happen? [Gaming] stocks go down before they go up. But they will go up. We are preparing for a 100 percent increase in shares within the next three years.”



  • Hong Kong 'Loophole' May Have Flooded China With Radioactive Japanese Foods

    And the ‘incidents’ just keep coming for Japan. Lax safety checks at Kwai Chung container terminal – the only sea entry point for food from overseas – have allowed banned imports from Japan to enter Hong Kong, according to Democratic Party lawmaker Helena Wong Pik-wan. As The South China Morning Post reports, radioactive contaminated food may have been entering the city unnoticed for years because of deficiencies in safety controls on fresh produce since the ban following the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident in 2011.

     

     

    Democratic Party lawmaker Helena Wong Pik-wan said, as The Soth China Morning Post reports, food safety surveillance was too relaxed at the Kwai Chung container terminal – the only sea entry point for food from overseas – as it relied heavily on the importer taking the initiative.

    Radioactive contaminated food may have been entering the city unnoticed for years because of deficiencies in safety controls on fresh produce brought in by sea.

     

    Food imported by sea does not go through routine checks at the dock as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has no food inspection checkpoint at the terminal. Food imported by air, however, is tested for radiation at the airport.

     

    Food imported by sea is inspected by health officers only when it is moved to storage areas by importers, according to the department. This would allow some food importers to avoid inspection, Wong said.

     

    She cited a case in January, when 10 boxes of Japanese carrots from Chiba, one of five prefectures from which imports of vegetables and fruits have been banned since the Fukushima nuclear power plant incident in 2011, entered the city by sea.

     

    One box was sold and two other boxes were found for sale in the Yau Ma Tei wholesale fruit market when food safety officers acted on a complaint.

     

    “It has exposed… loopholes in our food safety system,” Wong said. “We do not know if there is more banned food being sold in the city that has not been discovered by the government.”

    The loophole is significant…

    Since importers are only required to complete the import declarations within 14 days after the importation under the Import and Export Ordinance, “some small importers” would not bother to alert food inspectors and simply sell their perishable produce before health officers obtained the details of the declaration, a source said.

     

    “If the health officers want to conduct checks after getting the details of the import declaration, but the imported food is already distributed in the market for sale, how can the health officers trace the food and conduct checks?” the source said.

    Hong Kong imported 15,093 tonnes of vegetables and fruit from Japan by sea last year, about 0.8 per cent of total vegetables and fruit imports by sea.

    Since March 2011, the department had stepped up surveillance of fresh produce imported from Japan such as milk, vegetables and fruits, to examine radiation levels, a spokesman said.

     

    Kowloon Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Association vice-chairman Cheung Chi-cheung said importers had to notify the department for inspection whenever they picked up the goods. He also did not comment on whether there might be a loophole in the inspection system.

    *  *  *

    Once again it seems Japanese falsehoods are at the center of another potential international issue… no we are not devaluing our currency… no Fukushima is safe… no radiation leaks are under control… no the economy is proceeding on a moderate pace of recovery… no the US alliance is not antagonistic, we are pacifists… and now no the food we sent you is not radioactive…



  • The Mistake Everyone Is Making About Fed Rate Hikes

    Submitted by Lance Roberts via STA Wealth Management,

     



  • China Faces End Of "Migrant Miracle" As Demographic Ceiling Imperils Economy

    Exactly four years ago we began to discuss the idea that China is fast approaching its so-called “Lewis Turning Point,” which is defined simply as the moment in time when surplus rural labor is fully absorbed into the urbanizing economy leading to rising wages and falling productivity. At the time, SocGen suggested that “China [was] still some time away from reaching the type of urbanisation rates that characterised Lewis turning points in Japan and South Korea during their most rapid periods of industrialisation and wage growth.” 

    We revisited the issue in 2013, and began to discuss the idea that although urbanization had indeed contributed to productivity gains, the country faced offsetting demographic headwinds in the form of a shrinking working-age population. Additionally, we pointed to research from SocGen which suggested that from 2015 forward, the labor force in China is expected to contract. 

    Here we are in 2015 and sure enough, demographics in China are once again set to become a talking point, as the two trends mentioned above (urbanization and a decline in the working age population) play out against — and feed into — slumping economic growth. Here’s FT with more:

    China’s labour force is shrinking and the “migrant miracle” that powered its industrial rise is mostly exhausted, removing the factors that propelled the country’s meteoric development, according to leading economists.

     

    The transformation will lead to slower growth, reduced investment and a loss of export competitiveness, they warn, increasing the urgency of implementing ambitious economic reforms aimed at finding new sources of expansion.

     

    “Now we are at the so-called Lewis inflection point. I made this forecast in 2006, and today there is no need to change it,” said Ha Jiming, chief investment strategist for private wealth management at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong…

     

    “The working-age share of China’s population peaks this year at 72 per cent, then it will start to fall rapidly, even more rapidly than what we saw in Japan in the 1990s,” he added.

     

    Cai Fang, vice-president of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a think-tank that advises the government, estimates that China’s potential gross domestic product growth decreased from 9.8 per cent in 1995-2009 to 7.2 per cent in 2011-15 and 6.1 per cent from 2016-20.

     

    A shrinking labour force is one of the main drivers. Since Deng Xiaoping launched market reforms in 1978, 278m migrant workers from rural villages have moved to work in the cities.

     

    But reallocating labour from farm to factory — resulting in higher overall growth as workers’ productivity soars — is now mostly complete.

     

    “From 2005 to 2010, the growth rate of migrant workers was 4 per cent. Last year it was only 1.3 per cent. Maybe this year it will contract,” said Mr Cai.

    For China’s economy — which, you’re reminded, may be growing far less rapidly than the official numbers suggest even as the official figures represent the slowest growth rate in six years — the above has serious ramifications. First it stands to reason that as the supply of new low wage workers shrinks, wages will rise, an eventuality which forces producers to pass higher costs on to customers thus undercutting export competitiveness at a time when exports are already under pressure from slumping global demand and the yuan’s link to the dollar. 

    This dynamic is exacerbated by a projected decline in the overall number of working-age citizens. Here’s FT again:

    The dwindling flow of migrants is one aspect of China’s shrinking labour force. But the slowdown in urbanisation is coinciding with a rapid ageing of the population, another key shift underlying the Lewis Turning Point.

     

    China’s one-child policy created a “demographic dividend” for the economy between roughly 1980 and 2014. Now that dividend is turning into a deficit. The population of Chinese aged between 15 and 64 peaked in 2013, Mr Cai notes. The ratio of children and elderly to working-age Chinese — the dependency ratio — began rising in 2011. 

     

    The one-child policy was introduced in 1979, but the birth rate kept rising into the 1980s. Annual births in China hit 25m in 1987 and have steadily dropped ever since, hitting about 20m a year by 1997 and falling to 16m last year.

     

    “Starting in two or three years, you’re going to see another substantial, precipitous drop in young labour entering the labour market,” says Wang Feng, an expert on Chinese demographics at the University of California Irvine and Fudan University in Shanghai.

    Putting all of this together, China is faced with a new reality wherein the very conditions that have supported the country’s rapid economic growth may now be set for a wholesale reversal, as rising wages and a shrinking labor pool transform the industry-based economy (previously characterized by large trade surpluses and widespread inequality) into a service and consumption-based economy characterized by declining export competitiveness and falling rates of savings and investment. FT notes that the acceleration of economic reforms can help to ameliorate what is likely to be a painful transition and as you’ll see in the video below, the suggested solutions echo those we highlighted two years ago — namely, the creation of a sustainable social safety net, and the facilitation of labor mobility. 

     



  • What Happens If You Defy Curfew: A Shocking 90-Second Clip From The Streets Of Baltimore

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    On Saturday night, a man whose name still seems to be unknown, but who was wearing a “F##k the Police” t-shirt, came out in front of police past the official curfew. This is what happened next:

     

    As Mike noted previously, the situation in Baltimore is very serious and all Americans should be paying very close attention; but Baltimore is just a Microcosm of America.

    Baltimore, Maryland is in many ways the perfect microcosm for these United States of America. If you still don’t get that, you’ll be in for a rude awakening in the years ahead.

    A gradual erosion of the Constitution and the civil rights of the citizenry, the abuse of power by people in authority, perverse financial incentives that lead to horrible outcomes, zero accountability, and a ubiquitous surveillance state apparatus; Baltimore has it all. Yet all of these troubling traits have also come to characterize early 21st century America.

    As tends to be the case, the populations that have been victimized the longest and most systemically — in Baltimore and across the U.S. — are the poor, weak and disenfranchised.  Like a cancer, corruption, theft, and blatant abuse of the citizenry by the powerful will spread and spread until it consumes everything unless the tumor is removed. It has now spread so deeply and so dangerously throughout American life, the general public will soon have no choice but to confront it and do something about it, or face a total extinction of opportunity and suffer the same desperate fate as the people out in the streets of Baltimore.

    David Simon, creator of the excellent hit HBO series “The Wire,” recently sat down for an interview with former New York Times reporter Bill Keller to explain the situation in Baltimore as he sees it; its origins and what is needed to fix it. As you read, think about the many parallels to the U.S. economy in general; the endless criminal maneuverings within the centers of power in Washington D.C. and Wall Street, the forever spinning revolving door of corruption, the marauding gangs of cronies making impossibly large piles of money based on connections, fraud and rigged markets as opposed to adding value, the idiocy of the war on drugs, the fraudulent accounting, and the overbearing surveillance state. Increasingly, when America looks in the mirror Baltimore and Ferguson are staring right back. We just haven’t admitted it yet.

    Now, from the Marshall Project:

    Bill Keller: What do people outside the city need to understand about what’s going on there — the death of Freddie Gray and the response to it?

     

    David Simon: I guess there’s an awful lot to understand and I’m not sure I understand all of it. The part that seems systemic and connected is that the drug war — which Baltimore waged as aggressively as any American city — was transforming in terms of police/community relations, in terms of trust, particularly between the black community and the police department. Probable cause was destroyed by the drug war.

     

    Probable cause from a Baltimore police officer has always been a tenuous thing. It’s a tenuous thing anywhere, but in Baltimore, in these high crime, heavily policed areas, it was even worse. When I came on, there were jokes about, “You know what probable cause is on Edmondson Avenue? You roll by in your radio car and the guy looks at you for two seconds too long.” Probable cause was whatever you thought you could safely lie about when you got into district court.

     

    Then at some point when cocaine hit and the city lost control of a lot of corners and the violence was ratcheted up, there was a real panic on the part of the government. And they basically decided that even that loose idea of what the Fourth Amendment was supposed to mean on a street level, even that was too much. Now all bets were off. Now you didn’t even need probable cause. The city council actually passed an ordinance that declared a certain amount of real estate to be drug-free zones. They literally declared maybe a quarter to a third of inner city Baltimore off-limits to its residents, and said that if you were loitering in those areas you were subject to arrest and search. Think about that for a moment: It was a permission for the police to become truly random and arbitrary and to clear streets any way they damn well wanted.

     

    How does race figure into this? It’s a city with a black majority and now a black mayor and black police chief, a substantially black police force.

     

    What did Tom Wolfe write about cops? They all become Irish? That’s a line in “Bonfire of the Vanities.” When Ed and I reported “The Corner,” it became clear that the most brutal cops in our sector of the Western District were black. The guys who would really kick your ass without thinking twice were black officers. If I had to guess and put a name on it, I’d say that at some point, the drug war was as much a function of class and social control as it was of racism. I think the two agendas are inextricably linked, and where one picks up and the other ends is hard to say. But when you have African-American officers beating the dog-piss out of people they’re supposed to be policing, and there isn’t a white guy in the equation on a street level, it’s pretty remarkable. But in some ways they were empowered.

     

    Back then, even before the advent of cell phones and digital cameras — which have been transforming in terms of documenting police violence — back then, you were much more vulnerable if you were white and you wanted to wail on somebody. You take out your nightstick and you’re white and you start hitting somebody, it has a completely different dynamic than if you were a black officer. It was simply safer to be brutal if you were black, and I didn’t know quite what to do with that fact other than report it. It was as disturbing a dynamic as I could imagine. Something had been removed from the equation that gave white officers — however brutal they wanted to be, or however brutal they thought the moment required — it gave them pause before pulling out a nightstick and going at it. Some African American officers seemed to feel no such pause.

    This is another fascinating microcosm considering how Barack Obama has done absolutely nothing to help the black community or poor in this country. It took a black President to so shamelessly hand everything to a handful of oligarchs and further oppress black communities.

    What the drug war did, though, was make this all a function of social control. This was simply about keeping the poor down, and that war footing has been an excuse for everybody to operate outside the realm of procedure and law.

     

    “The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O’Malley.”

    In case you aren’t aware, Martin O’Malley was the ambitious Mayor of Baltimore who had his eyes dead set on the Governor’s seat. So much so that he cooked the crime books of Baltimore to create a crime “miracle,” and destroyed city police work in the process. Mr. O’Malley has recently discussed possibly running against Hillary in the 2016 Democrat primary.

    But that wasn’t enough. O’Malley needed to show crime reduction stats that were not only improbable, but unsustainable without manipulation. And so there were people from City Hall who walked over Norris and made it clear to the district commanders that crime was going to fall by some astonishing rates. Eventually, Norris got fed up with the interference from City Hall and walked, and then more malleable police commissioners followed, until indeed, the crime rate fell dramatically. On paper.

     

    How? There were two initiatives. First, the department began sweeping the streets of the inner city, taking bodies on ridiculous humbles, mass arrests, sending thousands of people to city jail, hundreds every night, thousands in a month. They actually had police supervisors stationed with printed forms at the city jail – forms that said, essentially, you can go home now if you sign away any liability the city has for false arrest, or you can not sign the form and spend the weekend in jail until you see a court commissioner. And tens of thousands of people signed that form. 

    Unsurprisingly, the rule of law often dies at the hands of an ambitious politician.

    The situation you described has been around for a while. Do you have a sense of why the Freddie Gray death has been such a catalyst for the response we’ve seen in the last 48 hours?

     

    Because the documented litany of police violence is now out in the open. There’s an actual theme here that’s being made evident by the digital revolution. It used to be our word against yours. It used to be said — correctly — that the patrolman on the beat on any American police force was the last perfect tyranny. Absent a herd of reliable witnesses, there were things he could do to deny you your freedom or kick your ass that were between him, you, and the street. The smartphone with its small, digital camera, is a revolution in civil liberties.

     

    In these drug-saturated neighborhoods, they weren’t policing their post anymore, they weren’t policing real estate that they were protecting from crime. They weren’t nurturing informants, or learning how to properly investigate anything. There’s a real skill set to good police work. But no, they were just dragging the sidewalks, hunting stats, and these inner-city neighborhoods — which were indeed drug-saturated because that’s the only industry left — become just hunting grounds. They weren’t protecting anything. They weren’t serving anyone. They were collecting bodies, treating corner folk and citizens alike as an Israeli patrol would treat Gaza, or as the Afrikaners would have treated Soweto back in the day. They’re an army of occupation. And once it’s that, then everybody’s the enemy. The police aren’t looking to make friends, or informants, or learning how to write clean warrants or how to testify in court without perjuring themselves unnecessarily. There’s no incentive to get better as investigators, as cops. There’s no reason to solve crime. In the years they were behaving this way, locking up the entire world, the clearance rate for murder dove by 30 percent. The clearance rate for aggravated assault — every felony arrest rate – took a significant hit. Think about that. If crime is going down, and crime is going down, and if we have less murders than ever before and we have more homicide detectives assigned, and better evidentiary technologies to employ how is the clearance rate for homicide now 48 percent when it used to be 70 percent, or 75 percent?

     

    Because the drug war made cops lazy and less competent?

     

    How do you reward cops? Two ways: promotion and cash. That’s what rewards a cop. If you want to pay overtime pay for having police fill the jails with loitering arrests or simple drug possession or failure to yield, if you want to spend your municipal treasure rewarding that, well the cop who’s going to court 7 or 8 days a month — and court is always overtime pay — you’re going to damn near double your salary every month. On the other hand, the guy who actually goes to his post and investigates who’s burglarizing the homes, at the end of the month maybe he’s made one arrest. It may be the right arrest and one that makes his post safer, but he’s going to court one day and he’s out in two hours. So you fail to reward the cop who actually does police work. But worse, it’s time to make new sergeants or lieutenants, and so you look at the computer and say: Who’s doing the most work? And they say, man, this guy had 80 arrests last month, and this other guy’s only got one. Who do you think gets made sergeant? And then who trains the next generation of cops in how not to do police work? I’ve just described for you the culture of the Baltimore police department amid the deluge of the drug war, where actual investigation goes unrewarded and where rounding up bodies for street dealing, drug possession, loitering such – the easiest and most self-evident arrests a cop can make – is nonetheless the path to enlightenment and promotion and some additional pay. That’s what the drug war built, and that’s what Martin O’Malley affirmed when he sent so much of inner city Baltimore into the police wagons on a regular basis.

    So much of what was said there characterizes the perverted culture in Washington D.C. and on Wall Street. People are financially incentivized to commit fraud, crime and deceive customers. Those people are then promoted and train the next class. And the beat goes on…

    The second thing Marty did, in order to be governor, involves the stats themselves. In the beginning, under Norris, he did get a better brand of police work and we can credit a legitimate 12 to 15 percent decline in homicides. Again, that was a restoration of an investigative deterrent in the early years of that administration. But it wasn’t enough to declare a Baltimore Miracle, by any means.

     

    What can you do? You can’t artificially lower the murder rate – how do you hide the bodies when it’s the state health department that controls the medical examiner’s office? But the other felony categories? Robbery, aggravated assault, rape? Christ, what they did with that stuff was jaw-dropping.

    Now for the accounting fraud. Looks like Baltimore authorities learned well from Wall Street.

    So they cooked the books.

     

    Oh yeah. If you hit somebody with a bullet, that had to count. If they went to the hospital with a bullet in them, it probably had to count as an aggravated assault. But if someone just took a gun out and emptied the clip and didn’t hit anything or they didn’t know if you hit anything, suddenly that was a common assault or even an unfounded report. Armed robberies became larcenies if you only had a victim’s description of a gun, but not a recovered weapon. And it only gets worse as some district commanders began to curry favor with the mayoral aides who were sitting on the Comstat data. In the Southwest District, a victim would try to make an armed robbery complaint, saying , ‘I just got robbed, somebody pointed a gun at me,’ and what they would do is tell him, well, okay, we can take the report but the first thing we have to do is run you through the computer to see if there’s any paper on you. Wait, you’re doing a warrant check on me before I can report a robbery? Oh yeah, we gotta know who you are before we take a complaint. You and everyone you’re living with? What’s your address again? You still want to report that robbery?

     

    They cooked their own books in remarkable ways. Guns disappeared from reports and armed robberies became larcenies. Deadly weapons were omitted from reports and aggravated assaults became common assaults. The Baltimore Sun did a fine job looking into the dramatic drop in rapes in the city. Turned out that regardless of how insistent the victims were that they had been raped, the incidents were being quietly unfounded. That tip of the iceberg was reported, but the rest of it, no. And yet there were many veteran commanders and supervisors who were disgusted, who would privately complain about what was happening. If you weren’t a journalist obliged to quote sources and instead, say, someone writing a fictional television drama, they’d share a beer and let you fill cocktail napkins with all the ways in which felonies disappeared in those years.

     

    I mean, think about it. How does the homicide rate decline by 15 percent, while the agg assault rate falls by more than double that rate. Are all of Baltimore’s felons going to gun ranges in the county? Are they becoming better shots? Have the mortality rates for serious assault victims in Baltimore, Maryland suddenly doubled? Did they suddenly close the Hopkins and University emergency rooms and return trauma care to the dark ages? It makes no sense statistically until you realize that you can’t hide a murder, but you can make an attempted murder disappear in a heartbeat, no problem.

     

    But these guys weren’t satisfied with just juking their own stats. No, the O’Malley administration also went back to the last year of the previous mayoralty and performed its own retroactive assessment of those felony totals, and guess what? It was determined from this special review that the preceding administration had underreported its own crime rate, which O’Malley rectified by upgrading a good chunk of misdemeanors into felonies to fatten up the Baltimore crime rate that he was inheriting. Get it? How better than to later claim a 30 or 40 percent reduction in crime than by first juking up your inherited rate as high as she’ll go. It really was that cynical an exercise.

     

    So Martin O’Malley proclaims a Baltimore Miracle and moves to Annapolis. And tellingly, when his successor as mayor allows a new police commissioner to finally de-emphasize street sweeps and mass arrests and instead focus on gun crime, that’s when the murder rate really dives. That’s when violence really goes down. When a drug arrest or a street sweep is suddenly not the standard for police work, when violence itself is directly addressed, that’s when Baltimore makes some progress.

    But nothing corrects the legacy of a police department in which the entire rank-and-file has been rewarded and affirmed for collecting bodies, for ignoring probable cause, for grabbing anyone they see for whatever reason. And so, fast forward to Sandtown and the Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray gives some Baltimore police the legal equivalent of looking at them a second or two too long. He runs, and so when he’s caught he takes an ass-kicking and then goes into the back of a wagon without so much as a nod to the Fourth Amendment.

     

    So do you see how this ends or how it begins to turn around?

     

    We end the drug war. I know I sound like a broken record, but we end the fucking drug war. The drug war gives everybody permission to do anything. It gives cops permission to stop anybody, to go in anyone’s pockets, to manufacture any lie when they get to district court. You sit in the district court in Baltimore and you hear, ‘Your Honor, he was walking out of the alley and I saw him lift up the glassine bag and tap it lightly.’ No fucking dope fiend in Baltimore has ever walked out of an alley displaying a glassine bag for all the world to see. But it keeps happening over and over in the Western District court. The drug war gives everybody permission. And if it were draconian and we were fixing anything that would be one thing, but it’s draconian and it’s a disaster.

    This is true about the drug war, but even more true about the “war on terror.” Also endless, also used to justify anything.

    Medicalize the problem, decriminalize — I don’t need drugs to be declared legal, but if a Baltimore State’s Attorney told all his assistant state’s attorneys today, from this moment on, we are not signing overtime slips for court pay for possession, for simple loitering in a drug-free zone, for loitering, for failure to obey, we’re not signing slips for that: Nobody gets paid for that bullshit, go out and do real police work. If that were to happen, then all at once, the standards for what constitutes a worthy arrest in Baltimore would significantly improve. Take away the actual incentive to do bad or useless police work, which is what the drug war has become.

    So much of what’s been happening in Baltimore for decades is now also business as usual within the highest corridors of American power. As I’ve said time and time again, incentives are the key variable here. If you’re rewarded for fraud and white collar crime, you will get more of it. If you jail the perpetrators of it, you’ll get less of it. TBTF Wall Street execs and private equity guys don’t want to sit in a jail cell for a decade, believe me. They’d sell 50 Picassos and 30 sharks soaked in formaldehyde before that ever happened.

    The sad part is we aren’t even trying to change the incentive structure of status quo criminality. This is because the current generation of power players were trained and molded by the same types before them. This is all they know. Money and power are their gods. Crime is their religion. We have no choice but to stop them.



  • Rant Time

    May 5 – Gold $1193.80 up $6.20 – Silver $16.56 up 14 cents

    Rant Time

    “When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.” … Billy Graham

    GO GATA!

    As is almost always the case, the price of gold was leaned on at the standard PLAN A time in London when The Gold Cartel traders reported for work, but their nudge was thwarted pretty quickly. Gold took off again going into the Comex trading hours and managed to reach $1200 where it was stopped dead in its tracks. James Mc early this morning…

    Rules are rules

    Bill,
    Yesterday’s circled number was $1186.30, and while gold slightly exceeded it, and the 1% rule at the end of the day there was a clear gravitational pull bringing it back. After the 6:00 PM access trade opened it was clearly being held in check for the next 7 hours right around $1186. Cartel rule #1 is also apparent today; with the high tick so far exactly today’s circled number of $1198.70. As of 10:10 AM gold is getting the kitchen sink thrown at it at +1%. As always any big nearby number such as $1200 is irrelevant. It’s all about control, and the fact that $1200 is nearby is just coincidence. The cartel has proven over and over they will stop gold rallies at ANY number, as long as it is the prescribed percentage.

    As tiresome as it is to talk about there are 2 big looming potholes for gold. The first arrives this week in the form of NFP Friday which is usually a cartel biggie. The next one arrives 3 weeks from today on May 26th, which is June option expiration. If history is a guide I am issuing a full Washington General warning for both days. Fleecing idiots trading paper gold and executing MOPE to perfection has been the winning formula for the crooks. Never mind an exploding trade deficit (with the implications of negative GDP leading to QE-MOAR) or any other bullish news for gold. For the cartel rules are rules.

    The outrageous manipulation on a daily basis has rendered all analysis akin to being on a ride through a carnival funhouse. The cartel’s use of distorted mirrors, strobe lights and smoke make any critical examination virtually useless. Is COT data accurate? Is Comex warehouse inventory data accurate? What % of Comex trading is merely HFT algos disrupting flow? What % of the commercials are cartel banks, and what portion are true hedgers and/or mines? Who is behind the gigantic O.I. in silver? Who is behind the enforcement of the cartel rules? Just what the hell is going on at Ft. Knox, or anywhere gold is allegedly stored? As CP pointed out years ago gold secrets are a higher priority than even nuclear secrets.
    James Mc

    The silver action is intriguing, when not annoying. Much focus here of late on that price action and what it all might mean. The biggie today is that it was stopped again, like yesterday, right at its massive downtrend line…

    After making a $16.68 high, JPM and allies put the damper on the price for the rest of the Comex session, like they did yesterday. CLEARLY, it must blow through $16.70 to BEGIN to do what so many of us are waiting for. To get back into the big leagues silver must then take out $18.50, with the next stop at $22. Once those objectives have been cleared, silver will have completed one of the largest bases imaginable, which should support a MOON SHOT.

    The next three hours of trading on the Comex will be a predictable yawn … you can take that one to the bank. The good news is that this week has been a winner so far and each time the bums slam the gold/silver prices, they refuse to stay down.

    The AM Fix: $1187.40. The PM Fix: $1197.

    The gold open interest fell 9002 contracts to 401,699. The silver open interest was down 2436 contracts to 175,374.

    With hours to kill as gold and silver have no chance of getting anywhere further, it is rant time.

    Another six degrees of separation story that might hit home with some Café members. First off…

    Six degrees of separation is the theory that everyone and everything is six or fewer steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person in the world, so that a chain of “a friend of a friend” statements can be made to connect any two people in a maximum of six steps. It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929 and popularized by a 1990 play written by John Guare.

    ***

    Perhaps this ramble may be of assistance and value to Café members. There is no doubt that Six Degrees theory is valid in so many different ways.

    Friday night I began to have a pain in my abdomen and it was hard to sleep. On Saturday morning the pain was intense on the lower right side of the abdomen and appeared to be spreading. As a former pro football athlete, you are trained to overcome pain and move on. Figuring it would go away, I lifted weights for an hour and then walked a few miles to pick up a pair of new sneakers (sorely needed).

    After having some trouble sleeping Saturday night, the pain was worse when I got up early on Sunday. I wished I could call my superb doctor of many years (still a competitive rower and only a few years younger than me). That is what I would have done if he was open, but not the case on Sunday.

    I hate going to hospitals and seeing doctors … did not even have health insurance until a few years ago. But, had nothing else to do on Sunday morning, so I thought I should go to Baylor Hospital’s Emergency room after all the whackos had cleared out from too much nonsense on Sat night.

    Never have been to an emergency room in my life. Was clueless what to expect. Figured to be hanging around for hours waiting to be seen … was prepared for anything. Never was so surprised … the efficacy of their operation at Baylor was THE BEST. Was seen after 15 minutes. No filling out a zillion pieces of paper, just the basics of who I was and on to what my so-called emergency was.

    They got me a room quickly, which had to be rearranged because the last patient was a psycho and they had taken most everything out of the room that the nutcase could use to hurt the staff. It was amusing watching the orderly move so much back in to make it feel more than a detention cell.

    When taking my shirt off to put on my nightgown, the attending nurse (who had been asking me numerous health questions) noticed a rash on my lower back on the right side. “What rash?” I queried. She showed me. Immediately, she said, “SHINGLES,” which made no sense to me. The pain was in my abdomen, but it WAS only on my right side.

    This cool young doctor came in and told me what the drill would be … an MRI and all blood tests imaginable, and that it would take hours. So, I ended up watching Law and Order on the tube and enjoyed the morning after being wheeled around to get MRI’d in this big tube thing.

    Thought I was handling it all quite well … possibly in wait for the doctor to come back and tell me I have an inoperable cancer of the stomach, or that I would need to be admitted immediately for some other urgent surgery. Handling it well, right?…

    *My blood pressure was sky high on the first go around and the doctor was concerned (it went back down to a normal area, which it has been for some time).

    *Then could not get into the men’s room near me because of a lady in distress, so I went to the next one. Got lost coming out and ended up at the other side of the ER layout. When asking where to go, I kept getting sent to another room, where this lady was dealing with her own issue. What the heck? Turns out she was a Murphy too. What are the odds of that?

    After a few laughs, I was led back to my room and waited for the doctor. The first few words out of his mouth could change my life forever and there was nothing to do but wait to hear what the pain was all about.

    Before I could think “the dread” further, he opened the door and quickly said, “All your tests are NORMAL.” They were the sweetest words I ever heard. BUT, he said he thought the nurse was right that it was SHINGLES, so he gave me some medicine to be taken immediately.

    No matter, I was not going on Death Row and didn’t have to quickly go home and get my laptop to do my daily commentary when I woke up from a surgery. (I actually almost brought it to the ER when I first went in anticipation of the worst.)

    Now, I know how painful shingles is supposed to be. Everyone, for the right reasons, shudders on hearing of it because it is so painful … BUT compared to hearing my pancreas, appendix, liver, or kidney was blowing up, this news was a delight to hear.

    Trying to keep this as short as possible, the doctor gave me two meds (pills) for shingles, which I began to take immediately. One was a steroid of sorts. What an eye opener. Feeling very good yesterday, I went to my gym. My weightlifting was the strongest in memory. My bike ride was the fastest in a long time. No wonder some of these famous athletes hit so many home runs. No wonder Lance Armstrong did what he did. What I took were three rinky-dink pills and I could feel the new strength in 24 hours. What a stunner!

    On my way out of the gym, I ran into this sharp lawyer whom I have gotten to know and we did the usual cordial hellos and “How are you doing?” This time when he did his friendly query, I responded by saying I spent four hours in the ER at Baylor on Sunday. Naturally, he scrambled over to find out what was going on.

    So glad I brought it up. He then told me that his wife, whom I have met briefly, had the same thing … shingles, and that the pain was nowhere near where her rash was, just like me if that is what I have. He went on to say how painful it was, but she beat it. And, if that is what I have, so will I … no matter what lifestyle changes that requires.

    While in purgatory here, waiting to find out really what I have, my hope it is that it is SHINGLES, because that is something I can deal with and it is up to me to beat any immune issues that caused the problem.

    What I have learned in this process and perhaps might be of help down the road to some Cafe member…

    *Go to Google about any ailing symptoms you might have. When it came to what to do about stomach pain, they said follow your gut about whether to go to an emergency room. What a true hoot that was. The Google drill can give you some greater clarification of what you are dealing with and how to respond without wasting time.

    *When you have terrible, unexplained pain, deal with it and don’t wish it away. The faster we confront our health demons, which we all have, the better chance of a satisfactory outcome.

    *Don’t be afraid of the ER at a major hospital, silly as that may sound to most of you. I was shocked at how good the experience was. Baylor got right to my ER issue.

    *Thank goodness for quality health insurance. How lucky I was all those years with my own self insurance program. That could have been a distant memory, very quickly. My entire ER experience cost $69.

    That’s it. If all I have is SHINGLES, I am a lucky guy. It can be beat. Perhaps that old football slogan of “no pain, no gain,” learned all too well making it to a starting wide receiver with the Patriots so long ago, will take on a new meaning after all these years.

    As for Six Degrees of Separation … when I can be directed into another patient’s room by mistake twice, another Murphy, how can this not relate so quickly to all of us and confirm that fabulous notion. Most important to me is that it appears that I will be around to do all I can on behalf of GATA to defeat The Gold Cartel and their heinous price suppression, market manipulation maneuvers.

    On that note, it is ironic that the more GATA is proved correct, the more we are shunned. It appears that Jack Nicholson’s famous quote, “You can’t handle the truth!!” in the movie A Few Good Men, is so apropos for the mainstream media gold world, leading gold/silver company executives, and most of the entire gold/silver industry.

    And that is the way it appears it will be until this market manipulation nonsense blows up and the decimated U.S. public is clamoring for answers. An essence of what GATA has had to say all along is that interference in the free market process, by manipulating the prices of gold and silver, was going to end badly because it has ruined free market price discovery. It has been deliberate and nefarious.

    GATA was initiated back early in 1999 to expose the price manipulation scheme, to inform the public in a myriad of ways … one of those being going to Congress numerous times. Can you say House Speaker Hastert, or James Saxton of the Joint Economic Committee, or Ron Paul? We have been there and done that …including a visit with James Silvia of the Senate Banking Committee.

    The meeting with Hastert was on May 10, 2000, nearly 15 years ago…

    GATA Delegation Makes Significant Progress in Washington

    On Wednesday at 11:30, the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee consisting of Chris Powell, Reginald Howe, Frank Veneroso, a State Senator and myself met with one of the most powerful politicians in Washington. It was only going to be a 15 minute meeting. It lasted 45 minutes.

    At the end of the meeting, we were excused from the room for several minutes. When the people we met with returned, we were told that they were going to try and set up a meeting with another influential politician at 2 o’clock, but that we would have to call at 1:30 to confirm.

    We were stunned to learn at 1:30 that this politician had said, “I am aware of the issue,” and that he wanted to meet with the GATA delegation. The meeting took place and six members of his staff also attended. What was most remarkable is that this politician left the floor of Congress to attend our hastily arranged, unscheduled meeting.

    This politician asked many questions and was very focused on what we had to say. So much so, that he was annoyed when a staff member left to deal with some other pending issue, saying that this was more important. He told us he had read our biographies before coming to the meeting and was a bit taken aback when he was handed the “Gold Derivative Banking Crisis” document to him with his name and state on it.

    This knowledgeable politician said that he and his staff would look into our contentions and suggested that we might meet again. After this very intense one hour meeting, he returned to Congress which was in session.

    From there, we went on to meet with Dr. John Silvia, the Chief Economist of the Senate Banking Committee. I could tell he had spent some time on our presentation because he had highlighted material that I had sent to him. Frank, Reg and Chris did a terrific job (as they did in all the meetings) explaining what we have learned through our extensive research. That meeting also lasted an hour and Dr. Silvia took copious notes.

    Yesterday, I passed out 88 of the documents to the staff of all the Senators and Representatives on the banking committees. They were told to look for an open letter to all of them in Monday’s Roll Call.

    That was some schlep. For the Senate I went to the Dirksen, Russell and Hart buildings. For the House I went to the Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon buildings. It took me the entire day, but was well worth it. Congressman Lee Terry of Nebraska could not have been nicer and said he would read the document on his way back to his native state this weekend.

    I was struck by how different all the buildings were. AND HOW BIG. Most were about 100 yards long and were circular for traffic flow. I made the mistake of buying new shoes for the trip. Now, my feet are all blistered. Big booboo.

    My last stop was the Rayburn Building and I smiled as I went by The Gold Room.

    It was the opinion of the entire Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee delegation that the trip was far more fruitful than any one of us dreamed possible. However, as we all know, that was just our first salvo. There is much to be done to win the day and we are already planning our next course of action.

    When our adversaries realize how far we have come, we know that they will go all out to discredit us. If yesterday’s meetings were any indication of making a serious impact on those who count in Washington, the other side has their work cut out for them!

    Bill Murphy

    ***

    Our afternoon meeting was with Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy at the time.

    So where are we now, almost 15-years later? That will depend on who you talk to.

    Taking on the richest and most powerful people in the world is not an easy task. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe GATA could have come up with so much documentation about how valid our claims are and have it so ignored. No one in the world could have done a better job at documenting the evidence of the gold price suppression scheme than Chris Powell. No finer guy than him, or more dedicated and diligent in getting the facts out there.

    Think about it. GATA has held four incredibly successful conferences; in Durban, South Africa; in Dawson City in The Yukon; right outside of Washington, D.C.; and in London at the Savoy Hotel, which 400 people attended from 38 countries. To a person they said it was the finest conference they ever attended.

    Little did all of us know at the time what The Gold Cartel had in mind, as that was in August of 2011. One month later, gold soared more than $260 to over $1900 and has been going down ever since.

    At the same time, other asset prices have soared due to money creation. What no one EVER asks in the mainstream Muppet world is why would gold and silver get bombed at the same time other assets as stocks, diamonds, real estate, and art took off? The incongruity of it all makes no sense, unless you know what GATA knows and the enormous effort that The Gold Cartel is doing to affect their own reality. That (their) reality will go on until the blowup, which is only a matter of time.

    So, GATA carries on to win the day on all this nonsense, which is going to hurt so many innocent people who have no idea what the rich and powerful have done to enrich their own fortunes. Few seem to care at the moment what GATA has to say, BUT THEY WILL when all heck breaks loose.

    GATA will win the day in the end and we need your support to carry on. What we are dealing with is historic… and will DWARF the Madoff and Enron scandals, etc. in terms of the enormity of it all.

    At some point GATA’s efforts are going to prove out by revealing how thwarting the free market process was disastrous. You never know exactly when our efforts will pay off for all of us who believe in exposing the truth about the financial world’s machinations. With all so copacetic for the moment, few care. As said, that is all going to change.

    GATA needs your help to spread awareness about what is really going on behind the scenes. Most everyone is clueless. Despite what we are encountering, GATA intends to carry on … and, as we do, it will expose the biggest financial scandal in American history.

    The facts could not be clearer right now of what GATA explained when we went to Washington in 2000. Back then this topic was not even on the radar screen. To win the day we need your support to keep on keepin’ on. Having stayed on this obvious mission for so long, it is only a matter of time now before the importance of what GATA has claimed for so long makes it to center stage. The rich and powerful will not change their stance, but as things get ugly for the regular people like you and me, they are going to demand answers to the dramatic chaos.

    We need some firepower to deliver that message to the world as it manifests itself. The world will want to know what happened and why, hopefully so it does not happen again. From what I know, all of us support various causes because we believe it will make a difference. While so few care now, thanks to the decimation of the gold/silver industry, courtesy of the antics of The Gold Cartel, GATA is still standing tall and telling it like it is.

    If you agree and want to support GATA’s efforts, go here:

    http://www.gata.org/node/16Going to send this to zerohedge because it is a prominent truth teller and a brilliant resource. May this be another feather in their cap. If anyone in zerohedge land would like to chat further on this monumental issue, you can reach me at midasnh@aol.com.

    ***

    As expected many hours ago, it was a vintage Gold Cartel day … total lockdown … and that was despite a weak dollar, oil rising above $60 per barrel, and a stock market that was crushed. As usual, nothing matters except what The Gold Cartel can get away with. James Mc had it pegged at 9:30 this morning.

    The shares didn’t like the action either. The XAU lost .53 to 72.93. The HUI lost 1.30 to 178.71.

    Guess it was a good day for a rant.

    MIDAS

    Bill Murphy
    www.Lemetropolecafe.com



  • CFR Says China Must Be Defeated And TPP Is Essential To That

    Submitted by Eric Zuesse

    CFR Says China Must Be Defeated And TPP Is Essential To That

    Wall Street’s Council on Foreign Relations has issued a major report, alleging that China must be defeated because it threatens to become a bigger power in the world than the U.S.

    This report, which is titled “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is introduced by Richard Haass, the CFR’s President, who affirms the report’s view that, “no relationship will matter more when it comes to defining the twenty-first century than the one between the United States and China.”

    Haass gives this report his personal imprimatur by saying that it “deserves to become an important part of the debate about U.S. foreign policy and the pivotal U.S.-China relationship.” He acknowledges that some people won’t agree with the views it expresses.

    The report itself then opens by saying: “Since its founding, the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals, first on the North American continent, then in the Western hemisphere, and finally globally.” It praises “the American victory in the Cold War.” It then lavishes praise on America’s imperialistic dominance: “The Department of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration presciently contended that its ‘strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor’—thereby consciously pursuing the strategy of primacy that the United States successfully employed to outlast the Soviet Union.”

    The rest of the report is likewise concerned with the international dominance of America’s aristocracy or the people who control this country’s international corporations, rather than with the welfare of the public or as the U.S. Constitution described the objective of the American Government: “the general welfare.”

    The Preamble, or sovereignty clause, in the Constitution, presented that goal in this broader context: “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

    The Council on Foreign Relations, as a representative of Wall Street, is concerned only with the dominance of America’s aristocracy. Their new report, about “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” is like a declaration of war by America’s aristocracy, against China’s aristocracy. This report has no relationship to the U.S. Constitution, though it advises that the U.S. Government pursue this “Grand Strategy Toward China” irrespective of whether doing that would even be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble.

    The report repeats in many different contexts the basic theme, that China threatens “hegemonic” dominance in Asia. For example:

    “China’s sustained economic success over the past thirty-odd years has enabled it to aggregate formidable power, making it the nation most capable of dominating the Asian continent and thus undermining the traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.”

    The report never allows the matter of America’s “hegemonic control” to be even raised. Thus, “hegemony” is presumed to be evil and to be something that the U.S. must block other nations from having, because there is a “traditional U.S. geopolitical objective of ensuring that this arena remains free of hegemonic control.” In other words: the U.S. isn’t being “hegemonic” by defeating aspiring hegemons. The report offers no term to refer to “hegemony” that’s being practiced by the U.S.

    The report presents China as being supremacist, such as what (to quote again from the report) “historian Wang Gungwu has described as a ‘principle of superiority’ underwriting Beijing’s ‘long-hallowed tradition of treating foreign countries as all alike but unequal and inferior to China.’ Consistent with this principle, Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” America’s own ‘Manifest Destiny’ or right to regional (if not global) supremacy is not discussed, because supremacism is attributed only to the aristocracies in other countries, not to the aristocracy in this country.

    Rather than the “general welfare,” this document emphasizes “U.S. Vital National Interests,” which are the interests of America’s aristocrats, the owners of America’s large international corporations.

    This report urges:

    “The United States should invest in defense capabilities and capacity specifically to defeat China’s emerging anti-access capabilities and permit successful U.S. power projection even against concerted opposition from Beijing. … Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.”

    In other words: the Government should spiral upward the U.S. debt even more vertically (which is good for Wall Street), and, in order to enable the increased ‘defense’ expenditures, only ‘defense’ expenditures should be freed from spending-caps. Forget the public, serve the owners of ‘defense’ firms and of the large international corporations who rely on the U.S. military to protect their property abroad.

    The report says that China would have no reason to object to such policies: “There is no reason why a China that did not seek to overturn the balance of power in Asia should object to the policy prescriptions contained in this report.” Only a “hegemonic” China (such as the report incessantly alleges to exist, while the U.S. itself is not ‘hegemonic’) would object; and, therefore, the U.S. should ignore China’s objections, because they would be, by definition ‘hegemonic.’ Or, in other words: God is on our side, not on theirs.

    “Washington simply cannot have it both ways—to accommodate Chinese concerns regarding U.S. power projection into Asia through ‘strategic reassurance’ and at the same time to promote and defend U.S. vital national interests in this vast region.”

    The authors make clear that U.S. President Obama is not sufficiently hostile toward China: “All signs suggest that President Obama and his senior colleagues have a profoundly different and much more benign diagnosis of China’s strategic objectives in Asia than do we.”

    Furthermore, the report ends by portraying Obama as weak on the anti-China front: “Many of these omissions in U.S. policy would seem to stem from an administration worried that such actions would offend Beijing and therefore damage the possibility of enduring strategic cooperation between the two nations, thus the dominating emphasis on cooperation. That self-defeating preoccupation by the United States based on a long-term goal of U.S.-China strategic partnership that cannot be accomplished in the foreseeable future should end.”

    The report’s “Recommendations for U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China” urges Congress to “Deliver on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, … as a geoeconomic answer to growing Chinese economic power and geopolitical coercion in Asia,” but it fails to mention that the Obama Administration has already embodied the authors’ viewpoint and objectives in the TPP, which Obama created, and which cuts China out; it could hardly be a better exemplar of their agenda. The authors, in fact, state the exact opposite: that Obama’s objective in his TPP has instead been merely “as a shot in the arm of a dying Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO).” They even ignore that Obama had cut China out of his proposed TPP.

    Furthermore, here is what President Obama himself told graduating West Point cadets on 28 May 2014:

    “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.” He was saying that these future military leaders will be using guns and bombs to enforce America’s economic dominance. This is the same thing that the CFR report is saying.

    His speech also asserted: “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being. … The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.” (That even resembles: “Henry Kissinger, describing the traditional sinocentric system, has correctly noted that China ‘considered itself, in a sense, the sole sovereign government of the world.’” Obama is, in a sense, saying that America is the “sole sovereign government in the world.”)

    He made clear that China is “dispensable,” and that the U.S. must stay on top.

    However, there is a difference between Obama and the CFR on one important thing: Obama sees Russia as the chief country over which the U.S. must dominate militarily, and China as the chief country to dominate economically. But in that regard, he is actually old-line Republican, just like his 2012 opponent Mitt Romney is. The only difference from Romney on that is: Obama wasn’t so foolish as to acknowledge publicly a belief that he shared with Romney but already knew was an unpopular position to take in the general election.

    Furthermore, whereas the CFR report ignores the public’s welfare, Obama does give lip-service to that as being a matter of concern (just as he gave lip-service to opposing Romney’s assertion that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe”). After all, he is a ‘Democrat,’ and the authors of the CFR report write instead as if they were presenting a Republican Party campaign document. No ‘Democrat’ can be far-enough to the political right to satisfy Republican operatives. The pretense that they care about the public is therefore far less, because the Republican Party is far more open about its support of, by, and for, the super-rich. Mitt Romney wasn’t the only Republican who had contempt for the lower 47%. But even he tried to deny that he had meant it. In that sense, the CFR’s report is a Republican document, one which, quite simply, doesn’t offer the public the lip-service that Obama does (and which he politically must, in order to retain support even within his own party).

    Perhaps on account of the CFR report’s condemning Obama for not being sufficiently right-wing — even though he is actually a conservative Republican on all but social issues (where China policy isn’t particularly relevant) — the report has received no mention in the mainstream press, ever since it was originally issued, back in March of this year. For whatever reason, America’s ‘news’ media ignored the report, notwithstanding its importance as an expression of old-style imperialistic thinking that comes from what many consider to be the prime foreign-affairs mouthpiece of America’s aristocracy — the CFR. The report’s first coverage was on 2 May 2015 at the World Socialist Web Site, which briefly paraphrased it but didn’t even link to it. Then, two days later, Stephen Lendman wrote about the CFR report. He briefly paraphrased it and passionately condemned it. He did link to the report. But he didn’t note the WSWS article, which had first informed the public of the CFR report’s existence — an existence which, until the WSWS article, all of America’s ‘press’ had simply ignored.

    The present article is the first one to quote the CFR report, instead of merely to paraphrase and attack it. The quotations that were selected are ones presenting the report’s main points, so that readers here can see these points stated as they were written, rather than merely as I have interpreted them. My interpretation is in addition to, rather than a substitute for, what the report itself says.

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.



  • Is the Next Round of the Crisis at Our Doorstep?

    Stocks have officially entered their worst period of the year.

     

    The old adage “sell in May and go away” does have some merit. According to the Ned Davis (NDR) database, had you invested $10,000 in the S&P 500 every May 1st starting in 1950 and sold October 31 of the same year, your initial position would only be worth $10,026 as of 2008. Put another way, by investing only from May through October, a $10,000 stake invested in 1950 would have only made $26 in 57 years.

     

    In contrast, $10,000 invested in the S&P 500 on November 1st and sold April 30th over the same time period would have grown to $372,890. Out of 58 years, you would have had 45 positive and only 13 negative.

     

    Put simply: the period from May to November has historically been a very weak one for stocks. All traders and trading models know this. It is not surprising that after failing to force stocks to breakout to the upside before May, we’re now seeing a sharp sell-off.

     

    The S&P 500 is now at the lower trendline for the bearish rising wedge pattern that it has been carving out since November. This is critical support and we need to hold here otherwise 2050 comes into play very quickly.

     

     

    The Fed’s FOMC meeting has come and gone, and the Fed has pretty much broadcast that any rate hikes that might be coming will do so later this year, i.e. not in June. This leaves verbal intervention to hold stocks up. Look for some Fed official to come forward with a blatantly dovish comment in the next few days.

     

    The bigger issue concerns the fact that bond yields are rising across the board. The UK’s Gilts, US Treasuries, and German Bunds have all dropped sharply in the last month, pushing their yields higher.

     

     

    Remember, the biggest issue for global Central Banks is containing the $100 trillion bond bubble. Most developed nations need rates to remain next to zero for their debt loads to be serviceable.

     

    So if bond yields begin to rise, it can very quickly become a real mess. Indeed, we fully believe that when this happens we will have officially entered the second round of the Great Crisis that began in 2008.

     

    Watch this situation closely!

     

    If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

     

    You can pick up a FREE copy at:

     

    http://www.phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/roundtwo.html

     

     

    Best Regards

     

    Phoenix Capital Research

     

     



  • US Economic Confidence Crashes Most Since July To Lowest Since December

    Despite record-er stock prices, weather excuses for current economic weakness, and The Fed promising that growth is here and everything will be awesome, it appears the message has not reached the US Consumer. Gallup's U.S. Economic Confidence Index plunged 9 points last week (the largest week-to-week drop since last July) to its lowest weekly score since December. The main driver was a collapse of hope as 'outlook' fell to November lows.

     

     

    Americans' Ratings of Current Conditions, Economic Outlook Both Down

    Gallup's Economic Confidence Index is the average of two components: Americans' ratings of current economic conditions and their views of whether the economy is improving or getting worse. The theoretical maximum of the index is +100, if all Americans say the economy is "excellent" or "good" and "getting better." The theoretical minimum is -100, if all Americans say the economy is "poor" and "getting worse."

     

     

    For the week ending May 3, 24% of Americans said the economy is excellent or good while 29% said it is poor, resulting in a current conditions score of -5 — down four points from the previous week and the lowest current conditions score since December. The economic outlook score saw a sharper drop of eight points, to -12 — its lowest reading since November. The latest outlook score is the result of 42% of Americans saying the economy is getting better, and 54% saying it is getting worse.

    The recent dip in Americans' economic confidence — which is being dragged down largely by the lower economic outlook component — is likely the culmination of a variety of economic factors.

    Though stocks rebounded by last Friday, the previous week had been fraught with market losses in the Dow Jones industrial average and Standard & Poor's 500 market indexes. Meanwhile, the prices Americans were paying for gas increased in the latter half of April, with the U.S. Energy Information Administration reporting an increase of 17 cents per gallon over two weeks. Gallup has found that Americans' confidence in the economy is related to how much they pay at the pump. Additionally, the recent report that the nation's GDP grew a lackluster 0.2% in the first quarter — a disappointing figure compared with previous quarterly growth — may have dampened consumers' economic hopes.

    Source: Gallup



  • OFFiCiaL BLoGGeR BeN SeaL AND FiLe PHoTo..

    .

     

     

    .
    .



  • SEC Commissioner Furious At Deutsche Bank's "Decade Of Lying, Cheating, And Stealing"

    Last week we commented on the latest travesty in the legal system when Deutsche Bank paid $2.5 billion to settle charges that it had manipulated LIBOR, EURIBOR and various other -BORs. As usual in situations such as this one, not a single banker went to prison, but there was some hope that Deutsche Bank’s gross criminal conduct would at least land it on the SEC’s “bad actors” list, which is like the Dodd-Frank equivalent of ‘time out’ and restricts the offender from participating in exempt securities offerings.

    Not to worry: as we reported as part of its settlement, Deutsche Bank, as well as every other criminal financial institution, had – deep in the fine print – inserted language that exempted the offender from such stigma. As the WSJ noted, “the language allows the banks to avoid asking the SEC for a waiver—a process that has become fraught with uncertainty amid commissioner disagreements over whether to allow financial firms to avoid a “bad actor” ban…”

    We concluded that “It’s good to be TBTF” because clearly no matter how many laws are violated and how much money is stolen (LIBOR was the reference security for nearly $1 quadrillion in global rate-sensitive derivatives), i) nobody ever goes to prison, ii) there are absolutely no negative consequences, and iii) the cost of running a criminal organization is tiny – the settlement usually amounts to far less than 1% of the gains reaped from years of illegal activities.

    Frankly, at this point one should just sit back and watch in amusement, because until the revolution and/or war predicted by Paul Tudor Jones arrives and the guillotines start working overtime, nobody in a position of wealth or power will be held accountable.

    That same message was, in rough terms, what prompted SEC commissioner Kara Stein, a Democrat, to write her “dissenting statement” regarding granting Deutsche Bank the waiver for ineligible issuer status.

    Here are the choice excerpts:

    I respectfully dissent from the Commission’s Order (“Order”), approved on May 1, 2015, by a majority of the Commission. The Order grants Deutsche Bank AG a waiver from ineligible issuer status triggered by a criminal conviction of its subsidiary, DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively with Deutsche Bank AG, “Deutsche Bank”), for manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), a global financial benchmark. This waiver will allow Deutsche Bank to maintain its well-known seasoned issuer (“WKSI”) status, which would have been automatically revoked as a result of its criminal misconduct absent a Commission waiver.

     

    With these WKSI advantages comes a modicum of responsibility. WKSIs must meet the very low hurdle of not being ineligible. This means that, among other things, they have not been convicted of certain felonies or misdemeanors within the past three years. In granting this waiver, the Commission continues to erode even this lowest of hurdles for large companies, while small and mid-sized businesses appear to face different treatment.

     

    This criminal scheme involving LIBOR manipulation was designed to inflate profits, and it was effective. It created the impression that Deutsche Bank was more creditworthy and profitable than it actually was. Accordingly, the conduct affected its financial results and disclosures. Because LIBOR plays such an important role in the worldwide economy, manipulation of it goes to the heart of many aspects of Deutsche Bank’s disclosures. Interest rates represented to clients and the public also were clearly false. Based on this conduct, I do not find any basis to support the assertion that Deutsche Bank’s culture of compliance is dependable, or that its future disclosures will be accurate and reliable.

    Even the SEC is shocked that the CFTC is an organization that caters exclusively to keeping criminal bankers out of prison, rather than getting them in it:

    In addition, the Commission adopted rules disqualifying felons and other “Bad Actors” from Rule 506 offerings on July 10, 2013. Based on the criminal conduct in this case, I expected to receive a request from Deutsche Bank AG for a waiver from the automatic disqualification contained in Rule 506. After all, the final CFTC order was “based on a violation of any law that prohibits fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct.” It should therefore trigger an automatic disqualification absent a waiver.

     

    However, based on a loophole contained in Rule 506(d)(2)(iii), the CFTC has intervened and prevented the bad actor disqualification question from even coming before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The CFTC saw fit to opine on the SEC’s Rule 506 jurisprudence about whether Deutsche Bank AG should receive a waiver from automatic disqualification under SEC rules. It is unclear to me what, if any, analysis went into this decision and what prompted the CFTC to insert language into its final order stating that a bad actor disqualification “should not arise as a consequence of this Order.”The implications of the CFTC’s actions here — and in other actions — are deeply troubling. The Commission should closely review this provision and how it is being used.

    Don’t worry: former CFTC chief Gary Gensler will soon be US Treasury Secretary – then it will be his job to make sure no criminal with a net worth over a few million dollars ever has to face the US “judicial” system.

    In the meantime, the CFTC will never do its actual jobs and root out maniupulation and rigging in precious metal markets…

    … instead leaving it to fringe blogs):

    As for the piece de resistance:

    Deutsche Bank’s illegal conduct involved nearly a decade of lying, cheating, and stealing. This criminal conduct was pervasive and widespread, involving dozens of employees from Deutsche Bank offices including New York, Frankfurt, Tokyo, and London. Deutsche Bank’s traders engaged in a brazen scheme to defraud Deutsche Bank’s counterparties and the worldwide financial marketplace by secretly manipulating LIBOR. The conduct is appalling. It was a complete criminal fraud upon the worldwide marketplace.

    Dear Kara, are you really confused why “complete criminal fraud” by a bank goes unpunished? Here is a hint: go to OpenSecrets, type in Deutsche Bank, and you will find just who the German bank paid off to avoid any true penalty. To your great surprise you may even find that the biggest beneficiary of DB’s generosity in 2014 is, drumroll, the Democratic National Convention…

     

    … not to mention over $3 million donated in the last two decades to America’s “two” parties (of which 61% went to democrats).



  • 96% Of Americans Expect More Civil Unrest In U.S. Cities This Summer

    Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

    Are you ready for rioting, looting and mindless violence in major U.S. cities all summer long?  According to a brand new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 96 percent of all Americans believe that there will be more civil unrest in America this summer.  That leaves only 4 percent of people that believe that everything will be just fine.  In this day and age, it is virtually impossible to get 96 percent of Americans to agree on anything.  So the fact that just about everyone agrees that we are going to see more civil unrest should really tell you something. 

    The anger that has been building under the surface for so many years in this country has finally started to erupt.  If you have been following us for a while, you know that this is something that I have been warning about for a very long time.  Many people may have thought that I was exaggerating when I talked about the civil unrest that was coming to American cities.  But I was not exaggerating at all.  In fact, if anything I was downplaying it.  In the years to come, we are going to see things happen in our cities that are going to absolutely shock the world.

    Ever since the violence first erupted in Baltimore, what has surprised me more than anything has been the level of hate that I am seeing all over the Internet.  I am seeing white people openly proclaim how much they hate black people.  I am seeing black people openly proclaim how much they hate white people.  I am seeing things said about the police that are absolutely horrifying.  Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of police brutality in this nation.  In fact, I have been one of the leaders in writing about it.  But most police officers are just trying to serve their communities the very best that they can.  So why is there so much hate for anyone that is a police officer these days?

    If all of this hate continues to grow, it is going to eat our nation alive.  Why can’t we just learn to forgive one another, love one another and work together to rebuild our once great nation?

    I know that what I just said is going to mostly fall on deaf ears.  But it needs to be said.

    I wish that we could change course as a nation and avoid all of the rioting, looting and senseless violence that is coming.  Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, and neither does the rest of the country

    Americans are bracing for a summer of racial disturbances around the country, such as those that have wracked Baltimore, with African Americans and whites deeply divided about why the urban violence has occurred, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found.

     

    A resounding 96% of adults surveyed said it was likely there would be additional racial disturbances this summer, a signal that Americans believe Baltimore’s recent problems aren’t a local phenomenon but instead are symptomatic of broader national problems.

    What happened in Ferguson set the precedent, and now what has happened in Baltimore has provided the spark for a national movement.  Similar “demonstrations” are popping up all over the nation, and a number of them have already turned violent.

    For example, check out what happened in Seattle on Friday night…

    Demonstrations turned violent in Seattle after night fell, with police reporting that protesters hurled rocks and wrenches at officers and damaged 25 vehicles. Police reported that an “explosive device” was thrown at officers, and a trash bin was pushed down a hill toward police.

     

    Three officers were injured, two seriously enough that they were taken to a hospital, Seattle police said on Twitter. At least 16 people were arrested Friday night, police said.

    And just down the coast in Portland, we also witnessed some very ugly violence…

    One Portland, Oregon, police officer was injured by a protester, according to police. Portland Police reported on Twitter that protesters were throwing “projectiles” and “incendiary devices” at officers.

     

    Police used pepper spray on protesters who tried to march on a bridge Friday afternoon and later sheriff’s deputies used stingballs, filled with tiny rubber balls, on protesters who were throwing chairs at police, according to the department.

    These protesters are just copying what they saw in Baltimore.  And things would not have ever gotten so bad in Baltimore if the police had not been ordered to stand down and let the riots spiral out of control.  Now, we have learned that many police officers were so outraged by this that they want Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to immediately resign…

    During a Baltimore-based radio talk show on Thursday, a man who identified himself as a Baltimore police officer named “Jeff” called into the program and said fellow police officers were organizing to push out the city’s mayor.

     

    There is right now over 50 of us officers who are immediately asking for [Baltimore Mayor] Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to step down for what she did to us Monday,” the caller told WBAL radio host Derek Hunter.

     

    The Baltimore mayor has denied giving “stand down” orders and blamed the media for misinterpreting her comments about providing “a space” for protesters to loot.

     

    “Any other time in my career, if somebody were to throw a brick or a block at me, we would take immediate actions to pull our weapons on them. Numerous times on Monday when our officers were being injured, our commanders are telling us ‘stand down, stand down.’  You had no idea what it did to us as police officers to sit there,” said the self-described “21-year veteran” of the Baltimore police department.

    Scenes of protesters attacking police were broadcast all over the nation, and it was inevitable that we would start to see “copycat attacks” against the police start to happen.  In New York City, a plainclothes police officer was shot in the head on Saturday…

    A plainclothes New York City police officer was shot in the head and critically injured while in an unmarked police car Saturday as he and his partner attempted to stop and question a man they suspected of carrying a gun, officials said.

     

    Officer Brian Moore and his partner, Erik Jansen, noticed Demitrius Blackwell “walking and adjusting an object in his waistband” when they pulled up on him in their car, exchanging words with him before he turned and suddenly fired at least two rounds into the car, police Commissioner William Bratton said.

     

    “The man immediately removed the firearm from his waistband and turned in the direction of the officers and deliberately fired several times at the vehicle, striking Officer Moore in the head,” Bratton said at a press conference at a Queens hospital. The 25-year-old Moore was undergoing surgery but listed in stable condition.

    We are seeing the same thing when it comes to racially-motivated violence.  This is something that we witnessed in Baltimore, and now all over the nation people are being attacked just because of the color of their skin.

    For instance, one young man in California attacked a random passerby with a baseball bat

    A Fontana man accused of beating a passerby with a bat in an apparently random attack in Rialto, leaving the victim with life-threatening injuries that he was not expected to survive, was charged Wednesday with attempted murder allegedly committed as a hate crime.

     

    Jeremiah Ajani Bell, 22, was arrested Monday, a day after a daylight assault on 54-year-old Armando Barron, who was walking down the street when he was attacked.

    So why did this happen?  Well, apparently it was because the passerby had the wrong skin color

    “It appears he was targeting anybody who wasn’t black,” Rialto police Detective Sgt. Paul Stella said Wednesday.

    We witnessed an even more disturbing example of racially-motivated violence just the other day in South Carolina

    Witnesses and police say a mob of 60 black teens took to the streets of Charleston, South Carolina, to unleash attacks on unsuspecting drivers and pedestrians, all but one of whom were white.

    And of course police in some areas of the country are also using unnecessary violence.  Just consider what happened to a group of peaceful protesters in Denver on Wednesday…

    With much of the nation focused on the police abuse protests happening in Baltimore and New York City, the Denver police and their actions against a group of protesters on Wednesday has largely gone unnoticed.

     

    But police were dressed for war. Paramilitary style. And they weren’t going home without using a few cans of pepper spray and filling up a paddy wagon.

     

    Video that surfaced shows a group of about 100 protesters walking the streets of downtown Denver where they were met with line of motorcycle cops who forced the group on to the sidewalk.  One overzealous officer can be seen breaking away from the pack chasing down pedestrians, using his motorcycle as a large weapon.

    It’s war on the streets of America, and this is only just the beginning.

    As we enter the next major economic downturn, people are going to become angrier and even more desperate.  And desperate people do desperate things.  The next few years are not going to be a good time to be living in urban areas.  Even if you only have peace and love in your heart, that doesn’t mean that you won’t get caught in the crossfire as the violence escalates.

    For years, most of our politicians have been preaching hate and division.  For years, the mainstream media has been preaching hate and division.  For years, Hollywood has been preaching hate and division.

    Now we have a nation that is deeply, deeply divided and that is filled with hate.

    Things didn’t have to turn out this way, but they did.  I hope that you are getting ready for what comes next.



  • Israeli Soldiers Describe How They "Shot Innocent Civilians Because They Were Bored"

    On July 12 of 2014 we reported that “after conducting countless sorties and bombing raids aimed at Hamas operatives in Gaza during the fifth day of Operation Protective Edge, but resulting in well over a hundred innocent civilian deaths in the past week, Israel, realizing it is not generating any brownie points with the international “humanitarian” media, finally did what it had threatened to do over the last few days – launch a ground assault.”

    The ground assault promptly led to a mini-war in the Gaza Strip that left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead, of which 80% civilians, and reduced vast areas to rubble: a “war” which many speculated was a predetermined massacre by highly skilled, trained, and ethically drained Israeli soldiers who used civilians for target practice.

    Yesterday we got confirmation of that when a group of Israeli veterans released what the WaPo describes as “sobering testimony from fellow soldiers that suggests permissive rules of engagement coupled with indiscriminate artillery fire contributed to the mass destruction and high numbers of civilian casualties in the coastal enclave.”

    In a 242-page report titled “This is How We Fought in Gaza 2014” which was accompanied by videotaped confessions that aired on Israeli TV, the organization of active and reserve duty soldiers, called Breaking the Silence, gathered testimonies from more than 60 enlisted men and officers who served in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge.

    What they described was nothing short of mass butchery of civilians and a flaunting of the Fourth Geneva Convention: among the actions described by the soldiers are “reducing Gaza neighborhoods to sand, firing artillery at random houses to avenge fallen comrades, shooting at innocent civilians because they were bored and watching armed drones attack a pair of women talking on cellphones because they were assumed to be Hamas scouts.”

    According to the Washington Post, the director of the group, Yuli Novak, called the rules of engagement in the offensive “the most permissive” it has seen and amounted to an “ethical failure . . . from the top of the chain of command.” Novak called for an independent investigation.

    Some more details from the narrative that may have been fit for a barbaric middle-age crusade but has no place in our “civilized” times:

    The soldiers said they were told by commanders to view all Palestinians in the combat zones as a potential threat, whether they brandished weapons or not. Individuals spotted in windows and rooftops — especially if they were speaking on cellphones — were often considered scouts and could be shot.

     

    A first sergeant serving in the Mechanized Infantry in Gaza told the group, “If we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming, ‘I give up’ or something — then he’s a threat and there’s authorization to open fire.”

    The Israeli army, the IDF, promptly tried to downplay the claims stating that the testimonies in the report are anonymous and impossible to independently verify. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) declined to address details in the report and said that Breaking the Silence “does not provide IDF with any proof of their claims.”

    “This pattern of collecting evidence over an extended period of time and refusing to share it with the IDF in a manner which would allow a proper response, and if required, investigation, indicates that contrary to their claims this organization does not act with the intention of correcting any wrongdoings they allegedly uncovered,” the Israeli military stated.

    Just like in the case of Edward Snowden, the natural response was to attack the messenger: members of Breaking the Silence are viewed by many Israelis as “anti-military”, which it appears is a bad thing. 

    The group says its mission is to tell the Israeli public what the IDF hides and what serving in the occupied West Bank and in wars in Gaza and Lebanon is really like. After graduating from high school, all Israeli men and women — except those who get deferments because of religious study or for medical reasons — must serve in the military.

    Develop a conscience, however, is clearly frowned upon.

    In an interview with The Washington Post, a young tank gunner whose testimony is included in the report described how he and others fired cannon and machine gun bursts at random travelers on a main Gaza highway simply because they were bored and wanted to prove how good their aim was.

    “I am ashamed of this,” said the 21-year-old, who served in a Hamas hot spot near the town of Al Bureij in central Gaza.

    The gunner said he fired his Browning machine gun at a man pedaling a bicycle but missed because of the distance.

    “War crime is a big word,” he said in an interview at a Tel Aviv apartment Sunday. “I didn’t rape and kill anybody, but yeah, I shot at random civilian targets sometimes, just for fun, so yeah.”

     

    The same soldier said a friend in his unit was killed by shrapnel to the neck from a Palestinian mortar round and described how a burst of small-arms fire once breezed by his head.

    Yehuda Shaul of Breaking the Silence conceded that Gaza was a dangerous,
    chaotic landscape for Israeli troops. But he said the military had
    contributed to needless death and destruction with “a guiding military
    principle of minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming
    innocent civilians.”

    In other words, all out, brutal war, without the pleasantries of sparing civilians – a war passed on by countless generations, and in which both sides have no interest in taking the first step to end. Which is why it never will.

    Below is a sampling of the soldiers’ quotes explaining how they fought in Gaza:

    • “If you shoot someone in Gaza it ?s cool, no big deal”
    • “The lives of our soldiers come before the lives of enemy civilians”
    • “Rules of engagement were, in effect, to shoot to kill upon any identification”
    • “The instructions are to shoot right away… Be they armed or unarmed, no matter what”
    • “The civilian was laying there, writhing in pain”
    • “I really, really wanted to shoot her in the knees”
    • “We expect a high level of harm to civilians”
    • “Go ahead – his wife and kid are in the car too? Not the end of the world”
    • “People that look at you from the window of a house, to put it mildly, won ?t look anymore”
    • “We want to make a big boom before the ceasefire”
    • “They were fired at – so of course, they must have been terrorists…”
    • “Lots of innocent people were hurt in that incident, lots”
    • “What the hell, why did you have to shoot him again?”

    Full report (pdf)



  • "We Will Evolve Through Crisis, Not Proactive Change…"

    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    I very rarely read back any of the essays I write. But maybe that’s not always a good thing. Especially when they deal with larger underlying issues beneath the problems we find ourselves in, why these problems exist in the first place, and what we can and will do to deal with them. Not all of these things can and perhaps should be re-written time and again. Commentary on daily events calls for new articles, but attempts to define the more in-depth human behavior behind these events should, if they are executed well, be more timeless.

     

    Not that I would want to judge my own work, I’ll leave that to others, but I can still re-read something and think: that’s something I would like to read if someone else had written it. Since a friend yesterday sent me an email that referenced the essay below, I did go through it again and thought it’s worth republishing here. It’s from New Year’s Day 2013, or almost 2.5 years old, which should be a long enough time gap that many present day readers of The Automatic Earth haven’t read it yet, and long enough for those who have to ‘enjoy’ it all over again.

     

    I am not very optimistic about the fate of mankind as it is, and that has a lot to do with what I cite here, that while our problems tend to evolve in exponential ways, our attempts at solving them move in linear fashion. That is true as much for the problems we ourselves create as it is for those that – seem to – ‘simply happen’. I think it would be very beneficial for us if we were to admit to our limits when it comes to solving large scale issues, because that might change the behavior we exhibit when creating these issues.

     

    In that sense, the distinction made by Dennis Meadows below between ‘universal problems’ and ‘global problems’ may be very useful. The former concerns issues we all face, but can -try to – solve at a more local level, the latter deals with those issues that need planet-wide responses – and hardly ever get solved if at all. The human capacity for denial and deceit plays a formidable role in this.

     

    I know that this is not a generally accepted paradigm, but that I put down to the same denial and deceit. We like to see ourselves as mighty smart demi-gods capable of solving any problem. But that is precisely, I think, the no. 1 factor in preventing us from solving them. And I don’t see that changing: we’re simply not smart enough to acknowledge our own limitations. Therefore, as Meadows says: “we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.” Here’s from January 1 2013:

    *  *  *

    Ilargi: I came upon this quote a few weeks ago in an interview that Der Spiegel had with Dennis Meadows, co-author of the Limits to Growth report published by the Club of Rome 40 years ago. Yes, the report that has been much maligned and later largely rehabilitated. But that’s not my topic here, and neither is Meadows himself. It’s the quote, and it pretty much hasn’t left me alone since I read it.

    Here’s the short version:

    [..] … we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.

    And here it is in its context:

    ‘Limits to Growth’ Author Dennis Meadows ‘Humanity Is Still on the Way to Destroying Itself’

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: Professor Meadows, 40 years ago you published “The Limits to Growth” together with your wife and colleagues, a book that made you the intellectual father of the environmental movement. The core message of the book remains valid today: Humanity is ruthlessly exploiting global resources and is on the way to destroying itself. Do you believe that the ultimate collapse of our economic system can still be avoided?

    Meadows: The problem that faces our societies is that we have developed industries and policies that were appropriate at a certain moment, but now start to reduce human welfare, like for example the oil and car industry. Their political and financial power is so great and they can prevent change. It is my expectation that they will succeed. This means that we are going to evolve through crisis, not through proactive change.

    I don’t really think that Dennis Meadows understands how true that is. I may be wrong, but I think he’s talking about a specific case here . While what he makes me ponder is that perhaps this is all we have, and always, that it’s a universal truth. That we can never solve our real big problems through proactive change. That we can only get to a next step by letting the main problems we face grow into full-blown crises, and that our only answer is to let that happen.

    And then we come out on the other side, or we don’t, but it’s not because we find the answer to the problem itself, we simply adapt to what there is at the other side of the full-blown crisis we were once again unable to halt in its tracks. Adapt like rats do, and crocodiles, cockroaches, no more and no less.

    This offers a nearly completely ignored insight into the way we deal with problems. We don’t change course in order to prevent ourselves from hitting boundaries. We hit the wall face first, and only then do we pick up the pieces and take it from there.

    Jacques Cousteau was once quite blunt about it:

    The road to the future leads us smack into the wall. We simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers: a demographic explosion that triggers social chaos and spreads death, nuclear delirium and the quasi-annihilation of the species… Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years.

    Without getting into specific predictions the way Cousteau did: If that is as true as I suspect it is, the one thing it means is that we fool ourselves a whole lot. The entire picture we have created about ourselves, consciously, sub-consciously, un-consciously, you name it, is abjectly false. At least the one I think we have. Which is that we see ourselves as capable of engineering proactive changes in order to prevent crises from blowing up.

    That erroneous self-image leads us to one thing only: the phantom prospect of a techno-fix becomes an excuse for not acting. In that regard, it may be good to remember that one of the basic tenets of the Limits to Growth report was that variables like world population, industrialization and resource depletion grow exponentially, while the (techno) answer to them grows only linearly.

    First, I should perhaps define what sorts of problems I’m talking about. Sure, people build dams and dikes to keep water from flooding their lands. And we did almost eradicate smallpox. But there will always be another flood coming, or a storm, and there will always be another disease popping up (viruses and bacteria adapt faster than we do).

    In a broader sense, we have gotten rid of some diseases, but gotten some new ones in return. And yes, average life expectancy has gone up, but it’s dependent entirely on the affordability and availability of lots of drugs, which in turn depend on oil being available.

    And if I can be not PC for a moment, this all leads to another double problem. 1) A gigantic population explosion with a lot of members that 2) are, if not weaklings, certainly on average much weaker physically than their ancestors. Which is perhaps sort of fine as long as those drugs are there, but not when they’re not.

    It’s quite simple, isn’t it? Increasing wealth makes us destroy ancient multi-generational family structures (re: the nuclear family, re: old-age homes), societal community structures (who knows their neighbors, and engages in meaningful activity with them?), and the very planet that has provided the means for increasing our wealth (and our population!).

    And in our drive towards what we think are more riches, we are incapable of seeing these consequences. Let alone doing something about them. We have become so dependent, as modern western men and women, on the blessings of our energy surplus and technology that 9 out of 10 of us wouldn’t survive if we had to do without them.

    Nice efforts, in other words, but no radical solutions. And yes, we did fly to the moon, too, but not flying to the moon wasn’t a problem to start with.

    Maybe the universal truth I suspect there is in Meadows’ quote applies “specifically” to a “specific” kind of problem: The ones we create ourselves.

    We can’t reasonably expect to control nature, and we shouldn’t feel stupid if we can’t (not exactly a general view to begin with, I know). And while one approach to storms and epidemics is undoubtedly better than another, both will come to back to haunt us no matter what we do. So as far as natural threats go, it’s a given that when the big one hits we can only evolve through crisis. We can mitigate. At best.

    However: we can create problems ourselves too. And not just that. We can create problems that we can’t solve. Where the problem evolves at an exponential rate, and our understanding of it only grows linearly. That’s what that quote is about for me, and that’s what I think is sorely missing from our picture of ourselves.

    In order to solve problems we ourselves create, we need to understand these problems. And since we are the ones who create them, we need to first understand ourselves to understand our problems.

    Moreover, we will never be able to either understand or solve our crises if we don’t acknowledge how we – tend to – deal with them. That is, we don’t avoid or circumvent them, we walk right into them and, if we’re lucky, come out at the other end.

    Point in case: we’re not solving any of our current problems, and what’s more: as societies, we’re not even seriously trying, we’re merely paying lip service. To a large extent this is because our interests are too different. To a lesser extent (or is it?) this is because we – inadvertently – allow the more psychopathic among us to play an outsize role in our societies.

    Of course there are lots of people who do great things individually or in small groups, for themselves and their immediate surroundings, but far too many of us draw the conclusion from this that such great things can be extended to any larger scale we can think of. And that is a problem in itself: it’s hard for us to realize that many things don’t scale up well. A case in point, though hardly anyone seems to realize it, is that solving problems itself doesn’t scale up well.

    Now, it is hard enough for individuals to know themselves, but it’s something altogether different, more complex and far more challenging for the individuals in a society, to sufficiently know that society in order to correctly identify its problems, find solutions, and successfully implement them. In general, the larger the scale of the group, the society, the harder this is.

    Meadows makes a perhaps somewhat confusing distinction between universal and global problems, but it does work:

    You see, there are two kinds of big problems. One I call universal problems, the other I call global problems. They both affect everybody. The difference is: Universal problems can be solved by small groups of people because they don’t have to wait for others. You can clean up the air in Hanover without having to wait for Beijing or Mexico City to do the same.

    Global problems, however, cannot be solved in a single place. There’s no way Hanover can solve climate change or stop the spread of nuclear weapons. For that to happen, people in China, the US and Russia must also do something. But on the global problems, we will make no progress.

    So how do we deal with problems that are global? It’s deceptively simple: We don’t.

    All we need to do is look at the three big problems – if not already outright crises – we have right now. And see how are we doing. I’ll leave aside No More War and No More Hunger for now, though they could serve as good examples of why we fail.

    There is a more or less general recognition that we face three global problems/crises. Finance, energy and climate change. Climate change should really be seen as part of the larger overall pollution problem. As such, it is closely linked to the energy problem in that both problems are direct consequences of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you use energy, you produce waste; use more energy and you produce more waste. And there is a point where you can use too much, and not be able to survive in the waste you yourself have produced.

    Erwin Schrödinger described it this way, as quoted by Herman Daly:

    Erwin Schrodinger [..] has described life as a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment — that is, by exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement would hold verbatim as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products.

    The energy crisis flows seamlessly into the climate/pollution crisis. If properly defined, that is. But it hardly ever is. Our answer to our energy problems is to first of all find more and after that maybe mitigate the worst by finding a source that’s less polluting.

    So we change a lightbulb and get a hybrid car. That’s perhaps an answer to the universal problem, and only perhaps, but it in no way answers the global one. With a growing population and a growing average per capita consumption, both energy demand and pollution keep rising inexorably. And the best we can do is pay lip service. Sure, we sign up for less CO2 and less waste of energy, but we draw the line at losing global competitiveness.

    The bottom line is that we may have good intentions, but we utterly fail when it comes to solutions. And if we fail with regards to energy, we fail when it comes to the climate and our broader living environment, also known as the earth.

    We can only solve our climate/pollution problem if we use a whole lot less energy resources. Not just individually, but as a world population. Since that population is growing, those of us that use most energy will need to shrink our consumption more every passing day. And every day we don’t do that leads to more poisoned rivers, empty seas and oceans, barren and infertile soil. But we refuse to even properly define the problem, let alone – even try to – solve it.

    Anyway, so our energy problem needs to be much better defined than it presently is. It’s not that we’re running out, but that we use too much of it and kill the medium we live in, and thereby ourselves, in the process. But how much are we willing to give up? And even if we are, won’t someone else simply use up anyway what we decided not to? Global problems blow real time.

    The more we look at this, the more we find we look just like the reindeer on Matthew Island, the bacteria in the petri dish, and the yeast in the wine vat. We burn through all surplus energy as fast as we can find ways to burn it. The main difference, the one that makes us tragic, is that we can see ourselves do it, not that we can stop ourselves from doing it.

    Nope, we’ll burn through it all if we can (but we can’t ’cause we’ll suffocate in our own waste first). And if we’re lucky (though that’s a point of contention) we’ll be left alive to be picking up the pieces when we’re done.

    Our third big global problem is finance slash money slash economy. It not only has the shortest timeframe, it also invokes the highest level of denial and delusion, and the combination may not be entirely coincidental. The only thing our “leaders” do is try and keep the baby going at our expense, and we let them. We’ve created a zombie and all we’re trying to do is keep it walking so everyone including ourselves will believe it’s still alive. That way the zombie can eat us from within.

    We’re like a deer in a pair of headlights, standing still as can be and putting our faith in whoever it is we put in the driver’s seat. And too, what is it, stubborn, thick headed?, to consider the option that maybe the driver likes deer meat.

    Our debt levels, in the US, Europe and Japan, just about all of them and from whatever angle you look, are higher than they’ve been at any point in human history, and all we’ve done now for five years plus running is trust a band of bankers and shady officials to fix it all for us, just because we’re scared stiff and we think we’re too stupid to know what’s going on anyway. You know, they should know because they have the degrees and/or the money to show for it. That those can also be used for something 180 degrees removed from the greater good doesn’t seem to register.

    We are incapable of solving our home made problems and crises for a whole series of reasons. We’re not just bad at it, we can’t do it at all. We’re incapable of solving the big problems, the global ones.

    We evolve the way Stephen Jay Gould described evolution: through punctuated equilibrium. That is, we pass through bottlenecks, forced upon us by the circumstances of nature, only in the case of the present global issues we are nature itself. And there’s nothing we can do about it. If we don’t manage to understand this dynamic, and very soon, those bottlenecks will become awfully narrow passages, with room for ever fewer of us to pass through.

    As individuals we need to drastically reduce our dependence on the runaway big systems, banking, the grid, transport etc., that we ourselves built like so many sorcerers apprentices, because as societies we can’t fix the runaway problems with those systems, and they are certain to drag us down with them if we let them.



  • Government Using Subprime Mortgages To Pump Housing Recovery – Taxpayers Will Pay Again

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    It seems hard to believe, but your government is purposely recreating the mortgage debacle of 2007 and putting you on the hook for the billions in losses coming down the road. In their frantic effort to generate the appearance of economic recovery they are willing to gamble with taxpayer’s money while luring unsuspecting blue collar folks into buying houses they can’t afford. During the previous housing bubble, greedy Wall Street bankers, deceitful mortgage brokers, and corrupt rating agencies colluded to commit the greatest control fraud in the history of mankind. This time it is your government, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve, that is actively promoting the lending of money to people incapable of paying it back. And again, you the taxpayer will be on the hook when it predictably blows up.

    The FHA, created during the first Great Depression, is supposed to be self-sustaining through mortgage insurance premiums charged to homeowners, just like Fannie, Freddie, Medicare, Social Security, and student loan lending were supposed to be self- sustaining through taxes, fees, and interest. This agency was supposed to promote homeownership for lower income Americans, but has been used by politicians as a tool to capture votes, payoff crony capitalist benefactors, and as a Keynesian stimulus tool designed to kindle a fake housing recovery. They entered the fray at the tail end of the last Fed/Wall Street created housing bubble, insuring a huge number of subprime mortgage loans from 2007 through 2009. The taxpayer has already had to bail out this incompetent, politically motivated, joke of an agency to the tune of $1.7 billion in 2014.

    Edward J. Pinto, a former Fannie Mae official, estimates that under standard accounting practices the agency is already insolvent to the tune of $25 billion. Mark to fantasy accounting hasn’t just benefitted the criminal Wall Street cabal, but also the bloated pig government housing agencies – Fannie, Freddie and the FHA. The FHA’s share of new loans with mortgage insurance stood at 16.4% in 2005 and currently stands at 44.3%. This is a ridiculously high level considering the percentage of first time home buyers is near all-time lows and low income buyers have lower real median household income than they had in 2005. Distinguished congresswoman Maxine Waters, who once declared: “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.”, prior to them imploding and costing taxpayers $187 billion in losses, thinks the FHA is doing a bang up job. Her financial acumen is unquestioned, so you can expect another bailout in the near future.

    “Above all, we must strive to have a healthy, viable FHA that can continue to facilitate homeownership for first-time and low-income home buyers, while standing ready in the unfortunate event of another housing downturn.”

    How could politically motivated government apparatchiks insuring subprime mortgages with down payments of 3.5%, using weak underwriting standards, easing restrictions on borrowers with past foreclosures, in a housing market poised to drop by 20% when this next Fed/Wall Street housing bubble pops possibly go wrong? The entire faux housing recovery, which has driven average home prices up 30% since 2012, has been driven on the high end by The Wall Street hedge fund buy foreclosures in bulk and rent scheme, along with hot money cash from Chinese and Russian oligarchs, while the low end is being propped up by Fannie, Freddie, and the FHA with their brilliant idea to insure 3.5% down payment mortgages to future foreclosure aspirants.

    We have the employment to population ratio at 35 year lows. We have had stagnant real wage growth since 2008 as low paying service Obama jobs have replaced higher paying production jobs. We have real median household income at 1989 levels and still 9% below the 2008 peak. We have mortgage applications 56% below the 2005 peak and hovering at 1996 levels. We still have 4 million homeowners underwater in their mortgages. We have housing starts languishing 40% below the long-term average. We have the home ownership rate of 63.8% at quarter of a century lows. We have mortgage rates at all-time lows. And we have home prices soaring far above the inflation rate and wages because the Federal Reserve, in collaboration with the Federal government decided to create another housing bubble (along with stock and bond bubbles) to rectify the disastrous consequences of their last housing bubble.

    This is the absolute perfect point in time when the FHA thinks it is necessary for them to lure low income, low IQ, credit challenged dupes into the housing market. Risky mortgages are increasingly being underwritten by thinly capitalized non-banks and guaranteed by the FHA. In 2012 the large Wall Street banks represented 65.4% of FHA-backed loans. That number is now 29.6%, as even the risk seeking Wall Street criminal banks have come to their senses and realize loaning money to people that won’t be able to repay them will end badly – AGAIN. In their place, dodgy mortgage brokers (non-banks) now represent 62.2% of the FHA lending. Of course, once these low life mortgage brokers make the loans, Wall Street will package them, get a AAA rating from their bitches at S&P or Moodys, and then peddle them to yield seeking pension plans and life insurance companies. Sound familiar?

    If you thought the FHA was supposed to help young, employed, first time home buyers who have a limited credit history, you would be badly mistaken. There is a reason first time home buyers only make up 29% of all home buyers, near the all-time low. Over history, when the housing market was not being manipulated by warped Federal Reserve monetary policies and government intervention, first time home buyers accounted for 40% to 45% of all home sales. Even with all-time low mortgage rates, courtesy of the Fed’s ZIRP, the lack of jobs, crushing student loan debt, low wages, and over-priced homes has kept traditional young buyers out of the market. But, the FHA’s goal is to convince anyone who can fog a mirror to get into the housing market before it’s too late.

    saupload_141114_FirstTimeHomebuyer

    To get some perspective on how the FHA is actively creating the next multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout, you need to understand FICO credit scoring. Here are the categories:

    • Excellent Credit: 781 – 850
    • Good Credit: 661-780
    • Fair Credit: 601-660
    • Poor Credit: 501-600
    • Bad Credit: below 500

    The average FICO score of all Americans is 687, barely above the Fair Credit level. The average for Americans getting a mortgage is 724, down from 750 in 2012, as the reckless mortgage brokers have taken share from the banks. It is only rational that people with good credit should be the only people borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars for 30 years. Not in the eyes of the FHA and their politician overseers, who buy votes by doling out free shit to their constituents. Why not houses? You can get an FHA loan with a credit score as low as 500, so long as you have a 10% down payment. And once you hit a 580 credit score, you only need a 3.5% down payment. Credit scores below 600 mean that you have significant derogatory information on your credit report. In other words, you have proven to be a deadbeat. Credit scores below 600 are the result of missing multiple payments on credit cards and auto loans; having multiple collection items or judgments; and potentially having a very recent bankruptcy or foreclosure. Sounds like someone I’d loan money to.

    After financial institutions lost hundreds of billions (covered by American taxpayers at the point of a gun through TARP) by peddling low or no down payment mortgages for $500,000 McMansions to deadbeats with no willingness or means of repaying, the percentage of low down payment mortgages rationally plunged from 77% to 60% for first time buyers. Low down payment mortgage loans are a high risk proposition. It wasn’t that long ago when a borrower had to put up 10% to 20%. If you can’t save enough for a 10% down payment then you probably shouldn’t own a house. If your down payment is less than 8%, you are immediately underwater as the costs to sell a home usually total 8% of the selling price. The percentage of first time buyer mortgages with a low down payment mortgage has risen to 66% in the last year and is headed higher, as the FHA is pushing hard on their 3.5% down payment loans.

    percent-obtaining

    As a general risk guideline, your monthly mortgage payment, including principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance, should not exceed 28% of your gross monthly income. Total debt to income generally cannot exceed 43% of your gross monthly income. These guidelines have worked for decades in assessing whether a borrower can afford a mortgage. Why would an arrogant bureaucratic agency, controlled by politicians like Mel Watt and Maxine Waters, follow standard industry risk standards when they are only gambling with taxpayer funds? The FHA is exempt from the qualified mortgage requirement of a 43% debt-to-income ratio. Many loans have a debt-to-income ratio above 55%. Even worse, the FHA only looks at mortgage payments in their calculation. What do you think the odds are of a borrower with a 580 credit score, making $3,000 per month with a $1,500 monthly mortgage payment, of defaulting? They would be high under normal circumstances, and will be off the charts after the next financial bubble bursts and millions are put out of work again.

    People who are serial defaulters with 580 credit scores cannot expect to get the lowest rates. They should expect to see interest rates that are at least three percent higher than interest rates awarded to borrowers with good credit. Even the 3.5% down payment requirement is flexible for the FHA. The FHA is perfectly willing to accept a gift or inheritance as a down payment. So, you could have no savings, a 580 FICO, a 50% debt-to-income ratio and a gift from your parents and that would be sufficient to get you a loan. And it gets better. The transaction can be designed with the buyer paying a higher price but getting a credit for closing costs that covers the 3.5% down payment and other fees. Therefore, a serial deadbeat can purchase a house with a government guarantee without putting up one dime of their own cash. Sounds like a great deal for the taxpayer.

    I have personal experience with a current FHA mortgage transaction as my 79 year old widowed mother is in the midst of selling the 900 square foot row home that she has lived in for 58 years in the first ring of suburbs outside of Philadelphia. It was once a vibrant middle class neighborhood of working folk, but has been gradually decaying as the old guard dies off and is replaced by lower class Section 8 tenants. She is selling ten years too late as prices have dropped 30% since 2005. She asked $72,900 and received an offer within two weeks of $66,000, with a $4,000 closing credit. My siblings and I didn’t expect her to get an offer in the 60s, as the dump next door was sold for $30,000 and went Section 8 a couple years ago. Anyone buying this house is destined for another 30% loss over the next ten years. So we told her to take the offer before it was too late.

    My brother and I met the realtor at her house after work a couple weeks ago. We sat around the dining room table that had seen so many family gatherings over the last half century and discussed the particulars of the deal and the buyer’s background. It was an enlightening glimpse into the Federal government’s futile attempt to engineer a housing recovery on the backs of hard working tax payers with good credit. The buyer is a 20 something guy living with his parents, with a girlfriend and a young kid. He reportedly makes $29,000 per year. His girlfriend was not on the mortgage application. The only logical explanation is she has bad credit. He is putting 3.5% down and getting an FHA guaranteed mortgage. The $4,000 closing credit will cover his 3.5% down payment and closing costs. He evidently has no money to put down when purchasing this home. Sounds promising.

    As a high risk borrower he will be lucky to get a 5.5% rate mortgage. In a world where risk mattered, it should be 7.5%. He should thank Ben and Janet for encouraging this type of mal-investment across the country with their 0% interest rate policy. His monthly cost to own this home would be approximately $800, or about 33% of his monthly gross income. Of course, no one brings home their gross income. The $800 would be about 40% of his take home pay after taxes. He did arrive at the house in a nice car, so it is very likely he has at least one auto loan of $20,000 or more. If he doesn’t have a dime to put down on the house, he is likely acting like a true American and rolling a $10,000 credit card balance at 17% interest. His total debt payments assuming a six year auto loan at 3% and making the minimum payments on his credit card would total at least 55% of his monthly gross income. Lucky for him, the FHA doesn’t worry about his non-mortgage debt payments.

    So this guy comes home each month with about $2,000 of income and pays out $1,300 in debt payments, leaving him $700 to pay for health insurance, food, utilities, cable, cell phones, entertainment, and any vices he and his baby momma may have. If this isn’t a recipe for default, nothing is. No bank in their right mind would loan this man $66,000 for 30 years at 5.5%. That’s where the crooked nonbank mortgage companies enter the scene, just as they did when their patron saint Angelo “the tan man” Mozilo was roaming the land doling out billions in subprime mortgages while cashing in his stock options in 2005. Remember back in the glory days from 2002 through 2007 when mortgage company fronts, staffed by used car salesmen, pizza delivery guys, and convicted criminals peddled no-doc, negative amortization, liar loan, subprime slime to every Juan, Bubba and Lakeisha, filling the derivative pipeline for Wall Street to destroy the financial system? They’re back.

    These parasites don’t worry about individual risk, financial risk, or systematic risk. They care about upfront fees and their ability to package their toxic subprime mortgages and dump the risk on someone else before it all blows up again. They are willing to issue mortgages to people unlikely to repay because there is a big difference between the risk that faces the company, and the risk that faces the blood sucking founder of the mortgage front. It’s a perfect opportunity for shysters and scumbags. You set up a mortgage company, and take extraordinarily opulent commissions on all loans you book. In this Fed created paradise of low interest rates, investors are desperate for yield. An FHA loan provides the opportunity for an investor to receive a good yield and a guarantee from the Federal government – aka YOU THE TAXPAYER.

    The conscienceless CEO and executives of these MBS machines revel in the vast commission revenue as the loans are booked. These companies retain little or no capital on their balance sheets. Instead, they pay dividends to the owners as quickly as possible, before the bottom drops out. When the next Fed induced financial crisis happens the mortgage company will go bankrupt, but the slimy owners will walk away unscathed. These fly by night operations are booking as much business as possible before the music stops playing. When the music stops, the taxpayer will be on the hook again, as the FHA will need a $25 billion to $50 billion bailout. The FHA is flying under the radar, still in the shadow of equally insolvent Fannie and Freddie. Their mission is supposedly to help lower income people achieve the American Dream, but their politically motivated actions today will lead to millions of borrowers experiencing an American Nightmare and taxpayers footing the bill for their crackpot Keynesian scheme, aided and abetted by the Janet Yellen and her Fed cronies.

    The FHA has $64 billion of liabilities on their balance sheet supported by $3 billion of capital. They are currently accelerating their guarantees to subprime borrowers with 3.5% down mortgages. Fannie and Freddie will purchase mortgages with only 3% down payments. Wall Street issued $1 trillion of mortgage backed securities last year, with the Fed buying 20% of the issuance as part of QE3. If this sounds like a replay of the waning days of the last Fed induced housing bubble, it’s because it is. Both debacles have been fueled by the mal-investment created by an easy money, excessively low interest rate environment, designed to benefit bankers, billionaires, politicians and mega-corporations. The Fed already has $1.7 trillion of Wall Street generated toxic mortgage debt on its bloated balance sheet. By the time this imminent catastrophe runs its course, there will be another trillion of toxic mortgages polluting their insolvent balance sheet.

    To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, anyone who wants the government and Federal Reserve to create a housing recovery, deserves to get it good and hard, like a four by four to the side of their head. Subprime mortgages, subprime auto loans, and subprime student loans driven by preposterously low interest rates are the liquefying foundation of this fake economic recovery. Most rational people would agree that loaning money to people who will eventually default is not a good idea. But it is the underpinning of everything the Fed and government apparatchiks have done to keep this farce going a little while longer. It will not end well – Again.

     



  • Following "Terrorist-Fighting" Ban On Cash, France Passes "Le Patriot Act"

    In its efforts to 'protect' its citizens from terrorists, France deemed it necessary in March to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy,"  and drastically reduced the public's freedom and privacy to spend. Today, that freedom and privacy took another blow as the French government passed "Le Patriot Act" dramatically beefing up the government's spying powers.

     

    First a ban on cashFrench Finance Minister Michel Sapin brazenly stated  that it was necessary to "fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy." He then announced extreme and despotic measures to further restrict the use of cash by French residents and to spy on and pry into their financial affairs.

    These measures, which will be implemented in September 2015, include:

    Prohibiting  French residents from making cash payments of more than 1,000 euros, down from the current limit of  3,000 euros.

     

    Given the parlous state of the stagnating French economy the limit for foreign tourists on currency payments will remain higher, at 10,000 euros down from the current limit of 15,000 euros.

     

    The threshold below which a French resident is  free to convert euros into other currencies without having to show an identity card will be slashed from the current level of 8,000 euros to 1,000 euros.

     

    In addition any cash deposit or withdrawal of more than 10,000 euros during a single month will be reported to the French anti-fraud and money laundering agency Tracfin.

     

    French authorities will also have to be notified of any freight transfers within the EU exceeding 10,000 euros, including checks, pre-paid cards, or gold.

    *  *  *

    And now, as Bloomberg reports, a 'ban' on personal privacy…

    A proposed French law beefing up the government’s spying powers following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks in Paris sailed through the lower house of parliament.

     

    The National Assembly said 438 lawmakers voted in favor, 86 against, and 42 abstained. The bill now goes to the Senate which can suggest amendments but not overturn the assembly’s vote.

     

    The wide margin of victory came even as mounting opposition to the bill united business leaders, the Communist Party, Internet activists and lawyers. The country’s two main parties — the ruling Socialists and former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP — back it as necessary to combat terrorism, even though some prominent members of both parties voted against it.

     

    The bill has generated heated rhetoric: the head of the Paris Bar and a former head of the country’s business lobby said it will seriously undermine constitutional liberties while Prime Minister Manuel Valls accused opponents of being naive about the threats facing France. The fallout from the disclosure in 2013 of massive surveillance by U.S. authorities, and the enduring negative reputation of George W. Bush’s 2001 “Patriot Act” have added to the controversy.

     

    “This law doesn’t go as far as the Patriot Act because that was never its founders’ intention and because even if they wanted to copy their American counterparts, the French services lack the means to listen to everyone permanently,” said Eric Denece, director of the French Center for the Study of Intelligence.

    The proposed law sets rules on how investigators can tap phone lines, locate people through mobile phones, intercept e-mails, take secret photographs and enter homes to place microphones without preliminary approval of a judge. It also creates a new independent body overseeing surveillance activities. And for the first time, it gives France’s top administrative court the power to order an end to surveillance.

    Opponents have focused on its supposed lack of effective oversight, its wide definition of threats facing France, and the use of algorithms to analyze communication patterns.

     

    “Serious flaws include expansive powers for the prime minister to authorize surveillance for purposes far beyond those recognized in international human rights law; lack of meaningful judicial oversight; requirements for private service providers to monitor and analyze user data and report suspicious patterns; prolonged retention periods for some captured data; and little public transparency,” Human Rights Watch said in a April 6 statement.

    Don't forget – it's for your own protection.. and if you do not agree – you're a terrorist too:

    Valls rejected the criticism in his speech to parliament.

     

    “The law is strictly focused on preventing serious threats,” he said. “The criticisms and postures that evoke a French Patriot Act or a police state are irresponsible lies.”

    *  *  *

    Feel safer now?



  • Oil Rises After API Reports First Inventory Draw In 16 Weeks

    For the first time since the first week of January, API reports a 1.5 million barrel inventory draw (against last week’s 4.2mm build). This also comes with a 336k draw from Cushing following on from last week’s 162k draw. Oil prices have responded by pushing higher, though it appears most of this was priced in.

    If DOE confirms this draw, then this will be the first draw since the first week of Jan…

     

    Which appears to have been largely priced in today…

     

    Charts: Bloomberg



Digest powered by RSS Digest