Today’s News 17th March 2016

• Turkey's Erdogan Goes Full-Dictator: Designates Journalists And Teachers As "Terrorists"; Arrests Lawyers

  “It is not only the person who pulls the trigger, but those who made that possible who should be defined as terrorists, regardless of their title,” Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan said on Monday, in an attempt to convince parliament to include journalists, politicians, academics, and activists under the country’s anti-extremism laws.

  Erdogan’s comments came a day after the latest in a string of suicide bombings ripped through Ankara, killing 34 and wounding more than 100 in Kizilay. Since then, Turkey has arrested nearly 50 people with “suspected ties” to the PKK against which Erdogan is waging a highly personal crusade.

  Apparently, the President doesn’t think parliament is moving fast enough on his “request” to expand the definition of “terrorist” because in a speech on Wednesday, he effectively instructed lawmakers to get moving before also urging parliament to deal with “the issue of immunities.”

  Erdogan desperately wants to prosecute HDP members who he says are guilty of “inciting terrorism.” “We must swiftly finalize the issue of immunities,” he said. “Parliament must take steps on this issue swiftly,” he added, as if the first statement was in some way unclear.

  

  (Erdogan gets it, why don’t you?)

  But frankly, we’re not even sure why he bothers parliament with these things. Erdogan is going to do whatever Erdogan wants to do. We’re talking about a man who arrested two of the country’s preeminent journalists and had the nerve to charge them with “deliberately aiding a terrorist organization” when what they were in fact doing was exposing Erdogan for… wait for it… deliberately aiding a terrorist organization.

  And if that’s not absurd enough for you, there are countless other examples including an incident which saw a medical doctor put on trial for posting a picture of the President next to a picture of a fictional creature from a Tolkein novel on social media. 

  Turks are in fact so scared of their “leader” that just last month, a Turkish truck driver literally sued his own wife for cursing at Erdogan when he spoke on television. “I warned her,” the man later said.

  True to form, Erdogan didn’t wait on parliament to expand the definition of “terrorist” before he went ahead and arrested three academics for “terrorist propaganda” after they made the mistake of publicly asking the government to stop the siege on Cizre and other cities in the predominantly Kurdish southeast.

  “More than 2,000 academics signed a petition in January criticizing military action in the southeast, including round-the-clock curfews aimed at rooting out PKK militants who have barricaded themselves in residential areas in southeastern cities,” Reuters notes. “The petition outraged President Erdogan, who said the academics would pay a price for their ‘treachery’“.

  A few days ago, a group of lawyers made the mistake of holding a press conference to defend the academics who signed the aforementioned petition. On Tuesday, Erdogan arrested the lawyers too.

  Finally, when a British citizen who teaches at Bilgi University showed up at the courthouse to support the lawyers, he was also arrested. His crime, in his own words: “I am accused because I had several invitations to Kurdish new year (celebrations on March 21) published by the HDP – the third-largest party in the Turkish parliament – in my bag.”

  So there you go. Lessons learned all around we suppose.

  Better still, the President says he plans to start campaigning in April for his long-planned push to expand the powers of the presidency (because clearly he’s not powerful enough). Erdogan will look to rewrite the constitution (literally) in order that it might, in Bloomberg’s words, “feature a strengthened presidency while retaining a key role for the parliament.”

  Yes, “a key role for parliament,” where the third largest party is about to have their immunity stripped away so that Erdogan can prosecute the whole lot of them for being terrorists.

  Erdogan, Bloomberg goes on to write, “has devoted much energy to expanding the executive role of what’s traditionally been a largely ceremonial post, arguing that strong leadership will help extend a record of economic growth [but] only holds 317 seats in the 550-member parliament, short of the 330 votes needed to take a new charter to a public vote.” 

  Trust us. He’ll get it to a referendum. Votes or no votes. And then he’ll rig the referendum.

  Clearly, Nihat Ali Ozcan at the Economic Policy Research Foundation in Ankara (who spoke to Bloomberg) doesn’t get it: “The PKK is engaged in a direct confrontation with Erdogan with the aim of preventing him from turning his office into an executive presidency. However, Erdogan may benefit from a growing nationalist backlash in his campaign for a presidential system, as long as he maintains his crackdown on the PKK.”

  Gee, do you think so? 

  That’s been the entire gambit since last June’s elections. Erdogan lost ground to the pro-Kurdish HDP and so, he used the war on ISIS as an excuse to deliberately restart the conflict with the PKK in order to convince the public that it needs his protection lest the entire country should descend into chaos. Three months and a whole lot of lost lives later, AKP performed better in a November redo election that Erdogan – gun to his head – was “forced” to call when the coalition building process was sabotaged fell apart in August.

  We have no doubt that Erdogan will succeed one way or another in his bid to rewrite the constitution. Even if it kills him. Or wait. No. Even if it kills you.

  

  

  

  

  

• Will A Trump Presidency Really Change Anything For The Better?

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  I want to start this analysis by stating that I fully understand the whirlwind of public interest in Donald Trump’s campaign. However, for those that don’t get it, let me break it down for you.

  A sizable portion of the American population considers themselves “conservative.” More than 38% of U.S. citizens, according to Gallup, hold conservative political and social views. Only 24% of the public considers themselves “liberal.” Now, I realize that the term “conservative” means different things to different people, so I would apply a simple rule to categorize them — a conservative is easiest to identify by his or her distaste for normally liberal ideological views. Beyond that, different factions of conservatives disagree on a whole host of issues.

  The goal of any conservative candidate that hopes to be publicly “popular,” whether he actually intends to follow through with his promises or not, is to appear to be all things to all factions; to avoid alienating one faction to appease another. After he is elected (or, after he is placed in the oval office by the powers that be), he may abandon any care for appeasing any of his constituents. Until then, he plays the game so that Americans can maintain faith in the system for at least one moment every four years.

  Trump’s popularity is predicated on the fact that past Republican candidates have done little to make friends with true conservatives and have not sought alliances with the factions of conservatism that have been growing in momentum and power the past two decades. In fact, the Republican candidates presented to the citizenry in recent memory have ALL had characteristics more akin to liberal Democrats than conservative stalwarts. Mitt Romney, for instance, was essentially a carbon copy of Barack Obama in terms of political policy and voting record, with only slightly greasier complexion and equally mysterious religious background.

  Election after election, conservative Americans have been offered one RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidate after another: politicians whose rhetoric sounds principled but whose record is littered with big government policies, constitutional violations, and a disregard for the intentions of the founding fathers. It is very difficult to call yourself a “conservative” in America unless you respect (or at least claim to respect) the tenets of limited government, constitutional law, and a regard for the heritage of our founding principles. U.S. conservatives have not had a candidate sharing their views for a long time.

  Democrats may finally be experiencing a similar disenchantment with establishment candidates considering the surprising popularity of Bernie Sanders this election. The problem is, democrats are trapped in the big government mindset and are for the most part a lost cause. Their anti-establishment candidate is a self-categorized socialist, after all. The only hope for a constitutional small government candidate and a return to our founding principles in politics rests in the hands of Republicans, being that third parties are quashed before they get a chance to put their foot in the door.

  So, you have most if not all Democratic candidates working for bigger more powerful government which leads to increased corruption and less liberty. You also have most Republicans working for bigger and more powerful government and less liberty. And you have few, if any, candidates that represent the majority of voters seeking limited constitutional government.

  Those of us in the liberty movement call this the “false left/right paradigm". It is the most insidious form of social control present in our nation and it makes a mockery of the election process. That is to say, elections are now nothing more than a way for international financiers and elites to keep the masses in line by allowing them to believe (falsely) that they have a “choice” and thus power to determine the future of our country. In fact, our choice is contrived and we have no political power whatsoever. The rest of America is finally starting to become aware of the false paradigm that liberty proponents have been warning about for generations. Is it any wonder that people are becoming fed up with the system?

  The genius of Donald Trump as an election figure is that he has little to no political history. He does not have an extensive legislative or voting record that we can look back on and determine where he stands. His political affiliations have been all over the place with him identifying as a Democrat at one time, Republican at other times, and even independent. Most of us cannot really judge his potential based on this. Hell, I was a registered Democrat early in my life, so how can I hold it against Trump?

  Beyond Trump’s rather disturbing past affiliation and friendship with the Clintons, he is otherwise a blank political slate. And as a blank slate, Trump can in fact present himself as all things to all people.

  The other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is running against — Hillary Clinton, a rabidly liberal candidate even more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view far beyond that of Bernie Sanders. Those of us who have been in the writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without the villain.

  The unmitigated horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. (And yes, I am assuming according to the results of the primaries so far that the final election will be between Trump and Clinton).

  Donald Trump appears to be the perfect antithesis to Hillary Clinton. He is loud and boisterous and a bit obnoxious. He trash talks and says whatever he wants to the torment of liberals. He stomps on the throats of the political correctness police and doesn’t care if they call him a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. And, Americans LOVE IT. They can’t get enough of it.

  Conservatives are so tired of cultural Marxists, crazy feminists, the leftist domination of media, PC thought crime, forced immigration policies and the protection of illegal immigration, paying for social entitlement programs, etc., that they are ready to explode. They are, in fact, ready to go to war. I would even dare to say that a Clinton presidency would lead directly to guaranteed outright civil war. This is not an exaggeration.

  So, the real question is, is Trump a reflection of the frustration and defiance of the conservative population, or, is he a clever ruse by the establishment to co-opt and placate the conservative population before we rebel?

  Again, without much political background to examine and only rhetoric to go by, Trump is a mystery. If Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, then here are some of the actions he would have to pursue in order to prove it.

  1) The complete reversal of every unconstitutional Obama Administration and Bush Administration executive order.

   

  2) The pursuit of removal of the indefinite detention provisions and secret tribunals contained in the NDAA.

   

  3) The removal of FISA, and the end of the invasion of privacy and other violations of the 4^th Amendment by the NSA against American citizens.

   

  4) The end of secretive executive powers of assassination, including the assassination of American citizens without trial.

   

  5) The dismantling of the Department of Homeland Security in light of abuses of constitutional limits.

   

  6) The complete reversal of Obamacare.

   

  7) The immediate end to all refugee relocation programs related to the Middle East and Syria.

   

  8) The true enforcement of illegal immigration laws and border controls.

   

  9) The encouragement of states to assert their right to protect their borders based on the 10^th Amendment.

   

  10) An immediate call for an independent investigation into the immigration policies of the Obama Administration.

   

  11) An immediate independent investigation into the Benghazi attacks.

   

  12) An immediate independent investigation into the ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gun running program.

   

  13) An immediate independent investigation into the involvement of covert intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense in the funding and training of ISIS.

   

  14) An immediate call for an independent investigation of corruption within the election process itself, as well as the influence of international banks and corporations in the election process.

   

  15) The removal of unfair restrictions that prevent third party and independent candidates from participation in public debates.

   

  16) An immediate call for an investigative audit of the Federal Reserve as well as the pursuit of dismantling the fed and transitioning America back into constitutional sound money creation.

   

  17) An investigation into U.S. relations with the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements with the intention of ending all ties to said organizations if and when criminal conduct is discovered.

   

  18) An end to the revolving door of banking elites cycling through various cabinet positions within the White House.

   

  19) An immediate investigation into the influence of international financiers and globalist think tanks like the Council On Foreign Relations and their efforts to destroy the national sovereignty of the U.S.

   

  20) The end of globalization of U.S. foreign policy and economic policy which has weakened America, and the return to a more independent and self reliant American economic and defense infrastructure.

  I’m sure that readers can think of many other potential actions that would help to prove beyond a doubt that Donald Trump is the kind of anti-establishment firebrand he presents himself to be. If Trump does take such measures during his presidency, then he may be a president worth supporting, or even fighting for. If he pursues few or none of these measures, however, we can be relatively certain he is just another establishment puppet playing his part in the false left/right paradigm leading America toward oblivion.

  Whatever Trump is, his popularity does indicate a rising tide of discontent within the U.S. The insane circus atmosphere of election 2016 is no coincidence; it is a perfect representation of the overflowing tensions that permeate our culture and are leading to potential earth shattering conflict. Keep in mind that America’s economic situation was already decided back in 2008 and will only become worse as we move into the election season. Whatever tensions we see now will only multiply as financial crisis becomes more apparent to the masses.

  The idea that a Trump presidency will change much of anything is a rather farfetched one in my view. Trump’s popularity only suggests that people are seeking alternatives. The damage to America has for the most part already been done, and there will be no avoiding the consequences. That said, how we rebuild can still be determined. No political leader including Trump will ever be able to heal the American system or the American psyche, but the efforts of millions of independent and liberty minded Americans can. We have a long and terrible struggle ahead of us, but to look at it from an “optimistic” perspective, at least Americans are becoming sick of the status quo. That is a start.

  

  

  

  

  

• Wage Growth Dream Crushed – Weekly Earnings Rise Weakest In 18 Months

  If the labor market is “tight”, and jobless claims are at 42 year lows…

  

   

  And the 0.5ppt point rise in the labor force participation rate is “heartening”…

  

   

  Then please Dear Janet, oh arbiter of all things labor-ic, explain – after exuberant hope and hype during 2015 that escape velocity was coming – why real average weekly earnings growth just collapsed to just 0.6%, the weakest since August 2014?

   

  

   

  It appears the ‘dream’ is over!! As mal-investment-driven extrapolation of the trend of building and buying (i.e. excess inventories) has accelerated deep into recessionary-signaling territory as earnings growth has plunged…

  

   

  And the credit-card/leverageability is at its maximum once again to fill that gap.

  

  

  

  

  

• World’s Second Largest Reinsurer Buys Gold, Hoards Cash To Counter Negative Interest Rates

  The world’s second-largest reinsurer, German Munich Re which is roughly twice the size of Berkshire Hathaway Re, is boosting its gold reserves and buying gold in the face of the punishing negative interest rates from the European Central Bank, it announced today.

  As caught by Mark O’Byrne at GoldCore and reported by Thomson Reuters this afternoon, the world’s largest reinsurer is far from alone in seeking alternative investment strategies to counter the near-zero or negative interest rates that reduce the income insurers require to pay out on policies.

  Munich Re has held gold in its coffers for some time and recently added a cash sum in the two-digit million euros, Chief Executive Nikolaus von Bomhard told a news conference.

  

  Nikolaus von Bomhard in Munich, on March 16, AFP via Getty Images

   

  “We are just trying it out, but you can see how serious the situation is,” von Bomhard said.

  The ECB last week cut its main interest rate to zero and dropped the rate on its deposit facility to -0.4 percent from -0.3 percent, increasing the amount banks are charged to deposit funds with the central bank.

  Munich Re is one of the largest reinsurance companies in the world – It oversees €231 billion in investments. A small 3% allocation to gold would equate to buying gold worth €8.19 billion. At the current spot price of €1,130 per ounce that would equate to 7.2 million ounces or 225.4 tonnes of gold bullion

  The news is interesting and we believe that other institutions will follow in their footsteps and diversify into gold in order to protect themselves from negative yields. We have not heard of any other non central bank institutions diversifying into gold but it stands to reason that a small percentage will follow in Munich Res footsteps.

  * * *

  It isn”t just gold: the German company confirms that when rates turn negative enough, physical cash will be increasingly more valuable.

  As Bloomberg reports, the German company will store at least 10 million euros ($11 million) in two currencies so it won’t have to pay for the right to access the money at short notice, von Bomhard said at a press conference in Munich on Wednesday. “We will also observe what others are doing to avoid paying negative interest rates,” he said.

  Institutional investors including insurers, savings banks and pension funds are debating whether it may be worth bearing the insurance and logistics costs of holding physical cash as overnight deposit rates fall deeper below zero and negative yields dent investment returns. The ECB last week cut the rate on its deposit facility, which banks use to park excess funds, to minus 0.4 percent.

  “This may well become a mass phenomenon once interest rates are low enough — the only question will be where that exact point is,” said Christoph Kaserer, a professor of finance at the Technische Universitaet in Munich. “For large institutions, that may be the case sooner rather than later. The ECB will react with countermeasures, such as limiting cash.”

  As Bloomberg adds, Munich Re’s strategy, if followed by others, could undermine the ECB’s policy of imposing a sub-zero deposit rate to push down market credit costs and spur lending. Cash hoarding threatens to disrupt the transmission of that policy to the real economy.

  Munich Re, which oversees a total of 231 billion euros in investments, wants to test how practical it would be to store banknotes, having already kept some of its gold in vaults, von Bomhard said. This comes at a time when consumers are increasingly using credit cards and electronic banking to pay for transactions. Deutsche Bank AG Chief Executive Officer John Cryan has predicted the disappearance of physical cash within a decade.

   

  “This shows the difficulties that the ECB is facing in its efforts to stimulate the real economy,” said Andreas Oehler, a professor of finance at Bamberg University in Bavaria. “Charging negative rates on overnight liquidity doesn’t stimulate longer-term lending. All it does is make companies’ and institutions’ payment transactions more expensive.”

  Incidentally, once the Fed’s infatuation with playing central planning doctor fizzles as the economy relapses into an accelerating downward spiral, negative rates are coming to the US next, as such the real-time experiments of how to evade a repressive monetary regime such as those conducted by the Munich Re CEO will be particularly useful to those who want to protect their assets once NIRP crosses the Atlantic.

  

  

  

  

  

• Politics: 50 Years Of Failure

  Submitted by Paul Rosenberg via FreeMansPerspective.com,

  Several decades ago, Saul Bellow wrote this:

  For the first time in history, the human species as a whole has gone into politics. Everyone is in the act, and there is no telling what may come of it.

  At this point, however, we can say what has come of it: failure. Politics has failed to deliver on nearly every promise it has made since the 1960s, and I think it’s time to hold it to account.

  50 Years In

  I was still a child in 1966, but I remember it fairly well. And I remember a good deal of the politics of the era, because my mom was involved with it. In fact, she helped to rewrite the Illinois State Constitution during those years. (Adoption came in 1970, but there were several years of work preceding it.)

  So, I know what people in that time were hoping to get out of politics… what they firmly believed they would get out of politics. Here’s the list:

  • A solution to the race problem.
  • An end to a pointless war.
  • A solution to the Middle East problem.
  • To improve education.
  • A solution to the problems of poverty and welfare.
  • An elimination of police brutality.

  Bear in mind that the people who were seeking these things were decent, well-meaning people. They truly wanted the world to be better, and they believed politics would make it happen.

  And to their credit, they worked to make it happen. Not only that, but their children and grandchildren have kept the faith and continued the fight. We now live in a world of all politics, all the time. And so, half a century in, I think we need to take a hard look at the results, which are these:

  The race problem

  Race problems have shifted over the past 50 years, but they are still very much with us. And when I say “shifted,” I mean this: If you go to the towns of the American South that were considered the cores of racism (in those days it was called “bigotry”), you’ll find that black and white people generally get along pretty well; far better than they did in the 1960s.

  Where racial tension survives and thrives these days is in the realm of the political and because of political actions. The typical white hater of the ’60s derided Negroes as being bad by nature. The “angry white men” of modern times are upset that their money, jobs, and opportunities are stolen via politics and handed to other people. (There is of course a residue of just plain hate.)

  The bottom line here is that politics is keeping racism alive. And if the truth is to be honestly faced, this is because a large number of political operatives would have no job if racial prejudice evaporated. It behooves them to keep it going.

  Verdict: Fail.

  Pointless war

  Vietnam goes, Iraq and Afghanistan come, and Syria may be next; ho hum, just another season in the long march of the military-industrial complex.

  Verdict: Fail.

  The Middle East problem

  Israel, the Arabs, bombs, terrorists, dictators… which decade’s headlines are these?

  Verdict: Fail.

  Education

  Test scores since the 1960s have steadily fallen; teachers’ unions have become ever-more rapacious and arrogant, colleges ever-more expensive. Metal detectors now adorn school buildings, teachers are forbidden to adapt the curriculum to the students, etc.

  Verdict: Fail.

  Poverty and welfare

  More people are on more welfare programs than ever before… and in the face of ever-declining scarcity in the world. And again, armies of political operatives would lose their jobs if these problems ever went away.

  Verdict: Fail.

  Police brutality

  Eric Garner, intensely violent and overly used SWAT teams, and an ever-increasing list of innocent victims.

  At the same time, every evening’s television shows laud “law enforcement” as our true and great saviors. Police departments are laden with bigger, deadlier tools and massive budgets. All of this while Acton’s dictum (“Power corrupts…”) remains.

  Verdict: Fail.

  We See, but Can We Perceive?

  There’s nothing secret about the facts itemized above. We’ve all seen them. The question is this: How many of us are able to accept them?

  Most people hate the reality that forces them to change their opinions. They fight it, cleverly and persistently. If the first reason to reject reality doesn’t work, it’s followed by a second, third, and fourth. And if excuses fail, anger, accusations, and wild displays may follow.

  Still, reality is what it is. And this particular slice of reality is that politics has failed. Profoundly.

  We may have leapt into politics with the best of intentions, but our efforts have failed to produce beneficial results… save of course that they allowed us to feel righteous. As far as changing the world, we’d have been better off gardening; that, at least, would have provided good food for people we cared about.

  We can either face reality or fight against it. But if we really care about the state of the world, we need to face the truth: Politics has failed miserably.

  

  

  

  

  

• Plot Thickens In New York Fed Heist As $30 Million In Cash Said Delivered To Mystery Chinese Man

  One week ago, we documented the Hollywood-esque theft of $100 million from accounts held at the NY Fed and belonging to the central bank of Bangladesh.

  In many ways, the heist was elegantly planned and executed and in others it was comically amateurish.

  Here are the basics: On February 5, Bill Dudley’s New York Fed was allegedly “penetrated” when “hackers” (of supposed Chinese origin) stole $100 million from accounts belonging to the Bangladesh central bank. The money was then channeled to the Philippines where it was sold on the black market and funneled to “local casinos” (to quote AFP). After the casino laundering, it was sent back to the same black market FX broker who promptly moved it to “overseas accounts within days.”

  Basically, hackers got ahold of Bangladesh’s SWIFT codes and bombarded the NY Fed with requests for funds from the country’s FX reserves. Mercifully, the Fed declined to clear separate transfers worth some $870 million, but not before $100 million got away.

  Four transfer requests totaling $81 million went through, but a fifth was held up when whoever was making the request tried to have $20 million sent to an imaginary NGO called Shalika Foundation but accidentally spelled “foundation” as “fandation.”

  According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the money was routed to three casino bank accounts via the Jupiter Street, Makati City, branch of Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. The country’s gaming regulator was investigating.

  Now, we get new details on what is a truly fascinating story.

  First, we learn that the hackers who spelled “foundation” wrong weren’t the only ones to do something silly. The requests came in on a Friday, which is notable because as WSJ writes, “Friday is the weekend in Bangladesh and the central bank’s offices were closed.”

  So, “the fact that the money was being wired to personal bank accounts in the Philippines rang alarm bells,” but apparently, the fact that it was a weekend did not.

  Still, there were people at the office.

  In fact, it was a printer error that tipped Bangladesh off to the scam. “Zubair Bin Huda, a joint director of Bangladesh Bank, found the printer tray empty when he looked on the morning of Feb. 5 for confirmations of SWIFT financial transactions that are normally printed automatically overnight,” Bloomberg reports. “Because it was a Friday — a weekend in Muslim-majority Bangladesh — Huda left the office around 11:15 a.m. and asked his colleagues to help fix the problem [but] it took them more than 24 hours before they could manually print the receipts, which revealed dozens of questionable transactions that sent the bank racing to stop cash from leaving its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to the Philippines, Sri Lanka and beyond.”

  As the story goes, Huda came into the office on Saturday and found a flashing message on the terminal connecting to the SWIFT system that read: “A file is missing or changed.” Finally, once Huda managed to get the things up and running his team found “receipts show[ing] the Federal Reserve Bank of New York sent back queries to Bangladesh Bank against 46 payment orders in different messages,” Bloomberg recounts.

  Well at that point, it was panic time but because it was Saturday, no one was home at the NY Fed. 

  Anyway, the crack squad at the Philippine anti-money laundering agency has determined that someone needs to check out the branch manager at the bank where the money ended up. That manager is one Maia Santos Deguito. “[She] is a key player here because if you don’t have the cooperation of the branch manager, this could not have been done,” Senator Serge Osmena, vice chairman of the country’s blue ribbon committee, which investigates major issues, told reporters on Wednesday.

  That’s correct. It’s also “slightly” suspicious that the CCTV cameras at the branch weren’t working when the money was withdrawn. Rizal wouldn’t immediately comment on the CCTV “issue.”

  Deguito decided to essentially plead to fifth in a hearing and it’s easy to understand why. She apparently ignored requests from the Bangladesh central bank to stop the transfers.

  After the money left the bank it went to two casinos and “a man of Chinese origin,” according to Reuters. 

  “$29 million ended up in an account of Solaire, a casino resort owned and operated by Bloombery Resorts Corp which is controlled by Enrique Razon, the Philippines’ fifth-richest man in 2015, a further $21 million went to an account of Eastern Hawaii Leisure Co., a gaming firm in northern Philippines,” and that, according to Teofisto Guingona, head of the Philippine Senate’s anti-corruption committee, is where “the paper trails ends” because “casinos are not covered by the country’s anti-money laundering laws.”

  So what of the mysterious “Chinese” man? Well, we don’t know. All we know is that he ended up receiveing $30 million in cash in three deliveries via an FX broker called Philrem Service Corp which of course wouldn’t talk to Reuters.

  Meanwhile, Bangladesh’s central-bank governor, Atiur Rahman – this poor guy…

  

  … took the fall, saying he “took moral responsibility” for the loss. He resigned after seven years at the bank. 

  We’re sure that any day now, Bill Dudley will set up a small table in his back yard, surround himself with reports sitting in the grass, and fall on his sword as well. After all, it’s his “moral responsibility.” 

  

  (Bangladesh… hmmm… is that some place we can see from the roof at 33 Liberty?)

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

• Is Steve Cohen Back To His Criminal Ways

  Over five years ago, months before most had heard of “expert networks”, soon to be the fixture in the biggest FBI/DOJ/SEC crackdown against hedge fund insider trading in history, and years before it would become clear to everyone that the now defunct SAC Capital was nothing but a fund making billions by trading on inside information, we quietly exposed just how it was that Steve Cohen’s hedge fund would almost as if by magic, always buy (or short) biotech companies, just ahead of successful (or not) Phase 1, 2 or 3 studies.

  We did this all the way back in November 2010, when we looked at SAC’s trades in three specific biotech names, CYBX, ITMN and MYGN, and asked three very specific questions:

  • Did SAC short CYBX in the days immediately preceding the adverse CYBX statement from August 12, 2004. And did it subsequently go long ahead of the favorable 8K from February 3, 2005. If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for such decision. Did SAC consult with an expert network or an outside consultant on any of the trades?
  • Did SAC go long ITMN in the days immediately preceding the favorable ITMN statement from March 9, 2010. And did it subsequently sell all of its holdings in advance of the adverse news from May 4, 2010. If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for such decision. Did SAC consult with an expert network or an outside consultant on any of the trades?
  • Did SAC sell its 700,000 shares in advance of the adverse MYGN news release from May 4, 2010. And did it subsequently sell all of its holdings in advance of the adverse news from May 5, 2010. If so, what was the investment thesis/catalyst for such a decision. Did SAC consult with an expert network or an outside consultant on any of the trades? Furthermore, what catalyzed the decision to reenter the stock.

  Today, more than five years later, we have a follow up question for Mr. Steve Cohen, and his “new” family office, Point72, regarding the firm’s most recent investment in microcap biotech company Celator, which as of Tuesday is not so micro anymore:

  Why did SAC go long Celator Pharmaceuticals (CPXX) in the days immediately preceding the company’s March 14 favorable Phase 3 trial result of Vyxeos for Acute Myeloid Leukemia? What was the investment thesis/catalyst for this decision. Did SAC consult with an expert network, an outside consultant or company insider when deciding to put on the trade?

  We ask this because yesterday afternoon, Point72 and its New York trading proxy EverPoint filed a 13G dislosing that as of the close of business of March 14, Steve Cohen had become the beneficial owner of an 8.3% stake in CPXX, amounting to 2,855,000 shares. As is traditional with 13G filings, it means Cohen acquired his threshold stake in one (or all) of the 10 calendar days preceding March 14 – the filing does not give the breakdown of how much, and on what days he did so, at a price of around $2/share.

  

  What makes Cohen’s acquisition particularly questionable, is that also on March 14, Celator issued a press release reporting a successful Phase 3 trial for an AML drug, Vyxeos:

  Celator Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: CPXX) today announced positive results from the Phase 3 trial of VYXEOS™ (cytarabine: daunorubicin) Liposome for Injection (also known as CPX-351) in patients with high-risk (secondary) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared to the standard of care regimen of cytarabine and daunorubicin known as 7+3. The trial met its primary endpoint demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in overall survival.

  The result was a spectacular move in the stock following the announcement, one which sent it over 400% higher in the afterhours session, hitting a price of $10 earlier today before closing at $9.38, and netting a profit to Steve Cohen of approximately $20 million assuming he acquired the stake when the stock was trading at $2/share over the past ten days, spending approximately $6 million to build up his reportable position. To be sure, we don’t know his cost basis, something many other 13G filings disclose, and as such we can only speculate, as well as wonder why Cohen decided not to provide this information.

  

   

  But more to the point, and as noted above, we were hoping that Mr. Cohen, who surely would not want his name dragged back into another insider trading scandal as he prepares to move back to managing other people’s money which he will be allowed to do again in 2018, now that the SEC has granted him a reprieve from the isolation of a family office, will provide us with the required information, the same information which several years ago was material enough for the Feds to unleash the most historic crackdown on a legendary hedge fund in modern capital market history.

  Because the alternative is all too obvious: Steve Cohen is back to his “neither admit nor deny criminal guilt” days of investing in biotech stocks on “hot tips” acquired by insiders through “expert networks” or otherwise. Then again, we doubt even he would be so bold as to file a 13G on the same day a company has soared by 400% on a successful Phase 3 trial.

  Or maybe he would, and if so did Steve merely suffer a relapse to his old, more “criminal” days we wonder?

  

  

  

  

  

• TRuMP KNoWS NoTHiNG…

  

  

  

  

  

• Shorts Slammed As Yuan Spikes Most In 6 Weeks

  The Fed’s cowardly “hold” sparked an avalanche of Yuan buying, USD selling this afternoon, squeezing shorts enough to dissolve the last 3 days of weakness. The 450 pips rip was the biggest since early February as for the 2nd time in a week (ECB and Fed) Yuan shorts have been taken to the cleaners…

   

  

   

  For now Chinese trading is ‘stable’ with CNH leaking lower (just as it did after The ECB escapade).

  

  

  

  

  

• "We Choose The Nominee, Not The Voters" – Republican Party Split Looms

  Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

  A Republican Party split is looking much closer after Tuesday. Trump won Florida, Rubio’s home state, and that led Rubio to drop out. However, Trump was denied a victory in Ohio, which was won by its own sitting governor, John Kasich. This will make it very difficult for Trump to win the necessary delegates for a first ballot in the Republican Convention. This Ohio victory doesn’t make Kasich a likely nominee in the least; it is just a spoiler to help the establishment pick who they want to be their nominee and that is certainly not Trump. Kasich has now won just one state so it appears that Ohio has sealed the fate of the Republican Party.

  Without Ohio’s 66 delegates, Trump now faces an extremely difficult path to reach the majority of delegates he needs to avoid a “contested” GOP convention. So the establishment looks like it will win and no candidate will enter the convention with a majority of delegates locked up. So after the first ballot, they are free to vote for whoever the establishment wants. It looks like the computer may be right after all. This is beginning to appear to be a very insane situation. The last time no candidate had the required amount for a nomination was 1976. Under the rules of the GOP, all these primaries were pointless. Delegates can choose one of the candidates who ran, or someone else entirely – Romney?

  With the people voting for Trump, the Republican Party may have to face a huge, strong anger backlash from his supporters.

  We are more likely to see a third party candidacy from Trump himself. The establishment will not have an outsider in that office so Trump might as well run third party to illustrate the corruption.

  The Republicans prefer Hillary to Trump any day of the week.

  The establishment fears ending elections that cannot be bought by their supporters, for their families might get fired from cushy jobs. Trump would not just sign whatever bill was put before him.

  Obama has been a joke. Obama misses more than 50% of the morning briefings. Ever since Bush was in office and Dick Cheney actually ran the country, those in power have preferred a stooge as president. That way, they get to do whatever they want while the “boss” actually does nothing. As the joke goes, when Russia invaded Georgia, someone ran in to tell President Bush. He said, “Really? Well I didn’t win that state anyhow. Texas would be a different matter.”

  Someone like Trump presents a huge threat to the establishment. They would have to assassinate him because he got in their way. The establishment might try blaming Cuba again or someone else they really do not like. The talk behind the curtain is clear— hand it to Hillary and everything remains intact.

  So a Republican split is looking more likely. They have drawn the line in the sand. By no means will they accept Trump. He might as well begin forming a third party. What is going to be exposed is that we do not live in a Democracy. As long as the people vote for their groomed candidates, the pretense is fine. Now when it threatens their existence, well it’s time to bring the grapes of wrath down upon everyone.

  Their mistake: they assume this will all blow over. Where they are wrong is that to defeat Trump, they must expose the truth. It’s their game and they make the rules. Your vote really means nothing to them. I suspect this is step one in what the computer warns will be an entirely new political system ahead.

  *  *  *

  Still in denial at just how little yout vote counts… Watch this stunning admission by an RNC member…"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held.

  

  

  

  

  

• Japanese Exports To US Plunge Most Since 2011 As Weak Yen Tailwind Evaporates

  Japan just posted its largest trade surplus in 5 years (+JPY243bn) as exports dropped 4% YoY (worse than expected) but imports fell 14.2% (better than expected). However, the biggest standout was the ongoing deterioration in Japanese exports to the US which dropped by the most since 2011 as the ‘advantages’ of a devalued currency appear to have hit their limit. Time for some more devaluation Abe… or Peter Pan(ic).

   

  

   

  “The tailwind from the weak yen has gone. We can’t help but hold a pessimistic view on the outlook for exports,” said Atsushi Takeda, an economist at Itochu Corp. in Tokyo, said before the figures were released. “Domestic demand won’t be dependable at all, and the same goes for exports. I can’t deny the possibility of another economic contraction this quarter.”

  

  

  

  

  

• How Negative Interest Rates Will Turbocharge The Migrant Crisis

  Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

  In the 1989 Batman movie, the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) showers a crowded Gotham street with free money.

  In the scene, it looks like it’s raining hundred-dollar bills. The people love it. Little do they know, the money is actually a trap. Once the Joker has lured them into the street, he unleashes poisonous gas.

  I think the latest gimmick to stimulate the economy is pretty much the same thing. It’s one of the most absurd ideas I’ve heard in a while. And that’s saying something, considering the outrageous schemes our economic luminaries have recently come up with, like…

  • Faking a space alien invasion to help stimulate the economy.
  • Minting a trillion dollar coin.
  • Negative interest rates.
  • Banning physical cash.
  • Cash for clunkers.
  • Increasing rounds of money printing, euphemistically called “quantitative easing.”

  These ideas would be comical if people in power didn’t actually take them seriously. But they do.

  It’s the same bad medicine the economic witch doctors have been prescribing for years. With a track record like this, it’s hard to imagine they could come up with something even more ridiculous. But they have.

  This latest gimmick goes well beyond the absurdity of their previous ideas. It’s verifiably insane. And the scariest part is, this dangerous idea is gaining currency. It’s spreading across the world like a smallpox outbreak.

  Helicopter Money

  Politicians and establishment economists call this scary idea “a basic income.” I call it sheer lunacy.

  It’s where the government gives you money just because. There’s no requirement to work or even display a willingness to work. You could sit at home all day, watch TV, and still get a check from the government.

  Simply put, a basic income is “free” money the government hands out to everyone unconditionally.

  European politicians are heavily pushing this policy.

  • Finland wants to pay its citizens around $1,000 a month.
  • The Netherlands and the U.K. have also proposed dishing out free money.
  • In Switzerland, there’s a proposal to hand out around $2,800 a month to everyone. This one is surprising since the Swiss are generally sensible about money.
  • The basic income virus has also infected Canada, which recently announced a pilot program in Ontario.

  It’s just a matter of time before the idea gains traction in the U.S. In fact, U.S. central economic planners are already discussing it.

  You might recall former Fed chair Ben Bernanke’s nickname, “Helicopter Ben.” He got the name after he spoke publicly about using helicopter drops of money to “stimulate” the economy. This is just another flavor of a basic income.

  Whether you call it free money, a basic income, or helicopter money, the idea is spreading. It’s the next potion the economic witch doctors will use once their latest scam—negative interest rates—not only fails to cure our economic ailments, but predictably makes them worse.

  No matter, the idea will be politically popular. Who would protest free money?

  And, once a country adopts a basic income, it would be next to impossible to get rid of it until the system collapses under its own weight. Who would vote for a politician that stops (or even slows down) the gravy train?

  The Joker used free money to lure the people of Gotham to poisonous gas. Now real world politicians are using the same trick. They’re using free money to lure the masses into perpetual dependence on government.

  More Problems Ahead for Europe

  If Europeans think they have a migrant problem now, just wait until they institute a basic income.

  It’s obvious what will happen…

  Once European governments start handing every person thousands of dollars in free money each month (more than many in Africa make in a year), everyone will be scrambling for Europe.

  A basic income is a sure recipe for economic disaster and increased cultural tensions. It’s an environment where blowhards and demagogues flourish. Unfortunately, this has happened repeatedly throughout Europe’s history. Once again, it’s going to lead to some very bad things.

  I think a basic income will greatly accelerate this recurring trend.

  Without a basic income and other welfare benefits, immigrants are usually skilled and the very best of people. But the average European will surely forget that once free money draws in the world’s riffraff.

  This is why, although the financial effects will be severe, the sociopolitical ones will be much worse.

  Here’s the bottom line: All you can do is protect yourself from the consequences of all this stupidity. This is a big reason why I think everyone should own some gold.

  Gold is the ultimate form of wealth insurance. It’s preserved wealth for thousands of years through every kind of crisis imaginable. It will preserve wealth during the next crisis, too.

  Unfortunately, most people have no idea how to prepare for the next economic collapse…

  

  

  

  

  

• How The Establishment Works (In 1 Cartoon)

  Your mouth… their money…

   

  

   

  Source: Ben Garrison

  

  

  

  

  

• P2P Property Lending Explodes In China; Officials Panic

  PBoC governor Zhou Xiaochuan thought about it, and decided it’s probably not a good idea for borrowers to get P2P loans for down payments on homes.

  In fact, he said last weekend, it’s illegal: “Funds used for down payments cannot be borrowed.”

  Vice-governor Pan Gongsheng, one of Zhou’s deputies, echoed his sentiments. “Property agencies and developers are not qualified to conduct financial business. They are illegally doing financial business,” he explained. “This business they are engaged in, and jointly with peer-to-peer lenders and down payment credit firms, has not only raised the leverage of residents’ house purchases, worn down the effectiveness of macro policy controls and added to financial risks, but has also increased risk in the property market.”

  Now you might think that what’s implied there is too bad to be true – even in the increasingly ludicrous world of P2P and marketplace lending. But in fact, P2P lenders in China have indeed been funding down payments on homes, embedding an enormous amount of excess leverage into the market while simultaneously driving up prices in Tier-1 cities.

  “Home sales in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, China’s ‘first-tier’ cities, grew 14% last year compared with about 7% nationwide,” FT reports. “In Shenzhen, the average price per square meter in February increased by about 50% compared with a year earlier, according to Soufun, a real estate consultancy.”

  Theoretically, this shouldn’t be happening. Although Beijing has gradually relaxed the rules on down payment requirements for both first- and second-homes in an effort to boost the economy, FT reminds us that “in the wake of the collapse of the US housing market in 2008, China launched restrictions on mortgages to rein in the country’s then red hot property market, which was part-fuelled by speculation on borrowed money.”

  But as we noted late last month, shadow banking has a way of creeping into every market in China and as soon as you stamp out one conduit, another pops up in an endless game of Whack-a-Mole. Somehow, leverage always finds a way.

  Over the past year or so, a new phenomenon has emerged: P2P lending for down payments on homes, and as we alluded to above, it’s just as utterly insane as it sounds. Bloomberg recounts one borrower’s experience: 

  When Fu Songtao found his ideal home in the suburbs of Shanghai, he faced the typical problem of would-be homebuyers: Coming up with enough cash for a down payment. So Fu turned to an online solution. His property agent offered him a zero-interest loan, funded entirely online by peer-to-peer lenders, that covered almost half his deposit.

   

  “Everybody I know took out these loans,” said Fu, a 29-year-old employee of a state-owned enterprise, who borrowed 380,000 yuan ($58,000) a year ago, with interest payments to lenders subsidized by the property agent, for his 3 million yuan apartment, and has seen its value increase to 3.3 million yuan since. “If you can borrow like that, why not?”

  Right, “why not?” One reason is because you are effectively taking out a zero down payment mortgage. If you can’t figure out the problem with that then you probably have no business buying a home in the first place. 

  In any event, this type of lending is proliferating – at a rapid clip. In fact, according to Bloomberg, “peer-to-peer lending for property in China grew more than six times faster than loans extended through banks last year” to $18 billion. That’s up 163% over 2014 and dwarfs the 21% increase in outstanding mortgages.

  

  In some ways this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, borrowers (and speculators) see the price gains the practice is fuelling and, not wanting to miss out, dive in as well, driving prices still higher and perpetuating a kind of greater fool boom. Have a look, for instance, at the following chart which shows that China’s housing bubble – at least in Tier-1 cities – is alive and well: 

  

  As we put it last month, “now that the Chinese stock market bubble has burst, the local population has to find a new asset class which to chase for the next few months, and for the time being that asset is housing; and since the politburo gets to boast that the Chinese economy is ‘improving’ as a result of this scramble, no ‘macroprudential brakes’ will be deployed before it is again too late.”

  Well, when it comes to macroprudential brakes, the Politburo might be prepared to make an exception for P2P down payment loans. Just as P2P lenders were forbidden from loaning money for stock purchases last summer, so too is Beijing set to ban P2P loans for down payments. “New rules being drafted by the central bank, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and other bodies would bar developers, peer-to-peer networks and other non-banks from offering down-payment loans,” Bloomberg writes. “Banks would be required to scrutinize mortgage applications and reject those with deposits funded by loans.” 

  “[External financing] started to boom in 2014, helped by online and mobile technologies,” Clement Luk, chief executive officer for eastern China at realtor Centaline, told Reuters, who also notes that “property loans account for around 15 percent of all online financing in China, according to Xu Hongwei, chairman of a data provider on the business, Wangdaizhijia.” Shanghai-based Yingcan says the number is far higher, at 23%.

  And while at least one broker is already under investigation for facilitating down payment loans, analysts say the sector will be difficult to police, given the fact that lenders brand them with innocuous names that would not immediately indicate that they were made for down payments on property. Here’s BofAML with a bit of color on the market:

  The overall property market recovery that began in the spring of 2015 has been supported by a string of monetary-easing measures and supportive property policies. Moreover, the pursuit of capital gain and lack of attractive alternative investments amid the economic downturn have stimulated purchase demand in Tier-1 cities and helped fueling up prices while the supply remains tight. A recent Xinhua News article has warned about housing speculation, especially in Shenzhen, suggesting speculative purchases account for 30% home transactions at present. Home mortgages loan as a percentage of total loans are still relatively low, at 10.1% in Beijing, 14.5% in Shanghai and 22.9% in Shenzhen, vs. 15.4% nationwide. However, there are some other forms of leverage gaining its popularity to speculate in the Tier-1 housing markets, such as mortgage down-payment loans provided by some property agents and P2P platforms. But the size of such loans should still be quite small. For example, the outstanding loans by Lianjia (a leading player in this field) are at RMB2.9bn currently, with typical maturity of 90 days.

  If the typical maturity is 90 days and with interest rates sometimes running as high as 2% per month, it seems rather clear to us that borrowers might indeed default en masse should the economy take a decisive turn for the worst and should Beijing live up to its promise of stripping excess capacity from the industrial sector. 

  On the other side of the equation, lenders are promised returns of up to 10% per year for financing this madness.

  Of course this is, like the rest of China’s shadow banking sector, a Catch-22 for Beijing. If China cracks down on down payment loans, it may curtail the property market and thus dent the economy. If they don’t crackdown, more and more leverage will be embedded into the system making the eventual collapse that much more spectacular. Summing up the government’s dilemma is Hu Xingdou, an economics professor at the Beijing Institute of Technology:

  “China has learned a lesson from the U.S. subprime crisis. The Chinese government understands that they have to solve problems like housing and overcapacity. At the same time, they can’t bring further risks to the financial system, as the banks already have a lot of bad debt.”

  

  

  

  

  

• Which Presidential Frontrunner Is The Best For Energy?

  Submitted by Jessica Ruane via OilPrice.com,

  The future of America's energy policies will heavily depend on who our next president is. Each presidential candidate has strong views on energy policy. Both democratic candidates Sanders and Clinton strongly support the need to move towards developing clean and renewable energy sources. On the other side of the aisle, republican frontrunners Trump and Cruz have taken the opposite stand, and they want to focus resources solely on more drilling, fracking, and lifting regulations on nuclear power and domestic energy exploration. So for those who have a vested interest in crude oil, you're likely going to side with the stance of the republican candidates. If you're all for renewables, the democrats share your vision.

  As you know, the factors that influence oil prices are complex, but the amount of oil the U.S. can produce is a major one. Each candidate has strong opinions (and policies) on domestic drilling, so our next POTUS could dramatically affect the way this industry swings in the future.

  Here’s where each of the four strongest presidential candidates stand on energy policy in America.

  Bernie Sanders

  "I will work toward a 100 percent clean energy system and create millions of jobs. We have little time to aggressively cut carbon emissions. Transitioning to a 100 percent clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is possible and affordable. It will create millions of jobs, clean up our air and water and decrease dependence on foreign oil."

  Sanders is the candidate for environmental enthusiasts. Mother Jones called him the “best candidate on climate change.” He has also been endorsed by national environmental organization, Friends Of The Earth.

  His Plan:

  • Ban offshore drilling, Arctic drilling, natural gas exports, and mountaintop removal coal mining

  • Stop attempts to lift the ban on crude oil exports

  • Ban fracking through the U.S.

  • Expand access to solar and wind energy

  • Invest in geothermal energy

  • Halt nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States and invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy solutions

  Track Record:

  • Introduced bills like the Residential Energy Savings Act, the Green Jobs Act, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program

  • His Low Income Solar Act would provide loans to solar developers to give low-income families access to solar power

  • Helped form a public-private partnership, Efficiency Vermont, and Burlington, Vermont became the first city in the U.S. to run off 100 percent renewable energy

  • Has partnered with the National Guard to improve military energy efficiency to make Vermont a leader in clean-energy

  • In 2011, Bernie announced a three-year, $15 million federal commitment to open the first-ever New England national laboratory

  How Oil Prices Would Be Affected

  Sanders is by far the most aggressive candidate against oil. The only fossil fuel subsidy he supports is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that helps low income families with their heating bills. If his plan were passed, the U.S. would be unable to drill, frack, or export oil and natural gas. Therefore, the price of crude oil would likely increase.

  Hillary Clinton

  "On my first day as President, I'll set two big goals. I want the U.S. to have half a billion solar panels by 2020. And I want us to generate enough renewable electricity to power every home in America in the next 10 years. With the right investments, we’ll create good-paying jobs and make America the world’s clean energy superpower."

  Clinton is a big supporter of solar. The prominent environmental group, League of Conservation Voters, has endorsed her. While certain aspects of Hillary Clinton’s background may be questionable, she is making a strong push towards renewable energy sources.

  Related: Choking And Lifting Preventing The Decline In U.S. Shale?

  Her plan:

  • Have every U.S. home powered by renewable energy by 2027

  • Ban offshore drilling

  • Implement $30 billion plan to help coal communities transition away from coal production and move towards developing clean energy

  • Implement a three-month gas tax holiday, where the 18-cent per gallon federal tax on gas between Memorial Day and Labor Day would be lifted

  • Impose a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies

  • Begin negotiations for a North American Climate Compact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico

  • Set ambitious emissions reduction goals

  • Develop common infrastructure standards across the continent

  • Invest in low-carbon transportation

  • Set continent-wide reduction standards for methane

  • Work to strengthen national pipeline safety regulations

  • Create a new national infrastructure bank to invest in new infrastructure projects

  • Make the federal permitting process for clean energy more efficient in order to expand access to it

  Track record:

  • Has come out against the Keystone pipeline

  • Repeatedly voted for legislation that extended the production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy sources

  • Proposed making current tax credits for wind and solar production permanent

  • Has been criticized by environmental groups for supporting fossil fuel production and failing to take a strong stance on lifting the ban on exporting crude oil

  How Would Oil Prices Be Affected?

  Clinton has been very careful not to upset big oil. This is probably because her campaign has received million from fossil fuel lobbyists. She also supports natural gas. For the most part, she's played nice with the oil industry, so prices probably won't be too affected, although her recent swing to the left on many environmental issues has oil companies worried that they'll lose an ally. It remains unclear whether her stronger environmental policies are just a ploy for votes, or if these are lasting changes.

  Donald Trump

  “I'm in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy.”

  “We are going to bring the coal industry back 100 percent.”

  His Plan:

  • Remove the cap and trade tax that the Obama administration has passed

  • Wants to use the natural gas in the Marcellus Shale

  • Plans to cut off U.S. support in Libya unless they give the U.S. 50 percent of their oil for the next 25 years

  • Wants to lift permitting restrictions on drilling for oil, and heavily increase drilling in the U.S.

  • Wants to build up domestic supplies of oil and natural gas to reduce our dependence on OPEC, which he blames for the volatility in global oil prices

  • Increase fracking

  • Supports the Keystone pipeline

  • Make major improvements to the country's infrastructure

  Track Record:

  • Has described wind energy as "not good economically" and “destroying shorelines all over the world"

  • Legally fought to prevent the construction of wind farms in Scotland, and won a lawsuit to stop an offshore wind farm in Ireland

  • Said wind farms are "disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people’s health"

  • Said that solar energy is an "unproven technology"

  • Has been criticized for failing to give specifics on his energy policies

  • Has denied global warming

  How Would Oil Prices Be Affected?

  Trump has stated that one of his primary goals as president is to drive down the price of oil. The viability of his plans is questionable, to say the least. With recent statements that he wants to "cut the head off of ISIS and take their oil," and his vow to break up OPEC, it's hard to imagine any of his proposals being implemented.

  Ted Cruz

  “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years."

  "We are on the verge of an American energy renaissance, and I will lift the regulations that are prohibiting exploration, the Keystone pipeline, and job creation."

  His Plan

  • Increase "responsible energy exploration" including fracking, offshore drilling, and building the Keystone pipeline

  • Broaden energy development on private land

  • Block the Obama administration's “Clean Power Plan,” a set of regulations that would impose stricter requirements on power plants

  • Reduce America's dependency on foreign energy sources, and increase the exploration of domestic energy reserves

  • Allow states to control energy resources on federal land

  • Shrink the power and size of the federal government by eliminating federal regulations and policies surrounding energy

  • Abolish the IRS, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development

  Track Record

  • As a Senator, he authored the American Energy Renaissance Act which was designed to reform and improve our national energy policy by reducing government intervention and improving access to our natural resources

  • Included in this legislation is a provision to prohibit the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions

  • Voted against a five year extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC)

  • Vocal critic of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate, a federal program that requires transportation fuel sold in the U.S. to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels, and has introduced legislation to phase out RFS over the course of five years

  • Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge: "I pledge to the taxpayers of my state, and to the American people, that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."

  • Signed the Contract From America to stop new regulations on climate change

  How Oil Prices Would Be Affected

  The oil and gas industry has invested heavily in Ted Cruz's campaign. He's in good standing with the industry in his home state of Texas, which was responsible for 40 percent of all U.S. oil production in 2014. With his vow to increase domestic oil production through drilling and fracking, the price of oil would likely fall under his leadership.

  Regardless of who you side with, it's important to look closely at each candidate's track record on energy policy, and understand the legislation they want to put forward. The direction of energy policy in America depends largely on who gets elected president. Will we invest in wind and solar? Or will we double down on offshore drilling and fracking to shore up our supply of oil and natural gas?

  

  

  

  

  

• In Dramatic Move, Syrian Kurds Set To Declare Proto-State On Erdogan's Border

  Well, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s worst nightmare is about to come true.

  For days there have been rumors that Syria might attempt to adopt some manner of federal system at peace talks in Geneva as a kind of compromise on the way to negotiating a political solution to the country’s five-year conflict that’s killed some 300,000 people and created the worst refugee crisis Europe has seen since World War II.

  But one of the problems with the “peace talks” is that no one who really matters in terms of the opposition was invited. The High Negotiations Committee (which represents a collection of Saudi-backed anti-Assad elements) is only comprised of representatives from the “moderate” rebels and let’s face it: Russia and Hezbollah just rolled most of them up in five short months, all but forcing them to surrender at Aleppo.

  So it’s not even clear what a federal system would look like with the FSA and the other “moderates.” How would they administer anything in their current depleted condition especially considering they’d live under constant threat of attack from the half dozen (at least) jihadist elements operating in the country?

  The groups who are actually still capable from an operational perspective are al-Nusra, ISIS, and of course, the Kurds (the YPG). Now obviously, you can’t exactly invite ISIS or al-Nusra to Geneva (even though you can, apparently, arm them and send them money), but you could certainly have invited the Syrian Kurds who have been exceptionally effective at battling extremists and who control the entire northern part of the border with Turkey save one small strip west of the Euphrates.

  

  (Kurdish controlled areas are in purple)

  But when the Kurds checked the mail for their Geneva invitation they discovered that as usual, they got the short end of the stick (no doubt thanks to Erdogan). But that’s ok. Because now, they are simply going to take matters into their own hands and declare a federal system.

  “After being excluded from the talks in Geneva, which began on Monday, [the Kurds] are drawing up plans to combine three Kurdish-led autonomous areas of northern Syrian into a federal arrangement,” Reuters reports, adding that “Aldar Khalil, a Kurdish official and one of the organizers, said he anticipated the approval of a new system, and ‘democratic federalism’ was the best one.”

  Idris Nassan, another Kurdish official, told Reuters he also expected a declaration of federalism.

  According to a document seen by Reuters, the Kurds felt the step was necessary because they “envision the failure of U.N.-led peace talks in Geneva.” 

  “The system envisions areas of democratic self-administration that will manage their own economic, security and defense affairs,” the document asserts. The details, Kurdish officials said, would be worked out later. The name of the new proto-state: “The Federal Democratic System of Rojava-North Syria.”

  “Now the conference has just started in Rmelan, about 200 representatives of Rojava have joined [the event]. They represent different ethnicities and nationalities. There are Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Syriacs, Turkomans, Armenians, Circassians and Chechens,” Barzan Iso, a Kurdish journalist, told RT. “Also we have representatives from the Syrian democratic forces, YPG, women defense units.”

  “Within days, probably today, self-governing [bodies] of three Kurdish cantons in Syria’s north will declare a federation,” Abd Salam Ali, a PYD party rep in Moscow, told RIA Novosti “Separation of Rojava [Western Kurdistan] from Syria is not an option. We remain [a part of Syria], but declare a federation,” he said.

  From a common sense perspective this makes perfect sense. The Kurds have been defending themselves against virtually everyone for years in Syria and not only that, they managed to make territorial gains while fending off random shelling from inside of Turkey. They’re certainly in a better position to govern themselves than any other group operating in the country including the Alawite government and those who are still loyal to it. 

  Of course this is just about the last thing Erdogan wants to see. Ankara equates the YPG with the PKK and thus with terrorism and worse, Erdogan fears that a Kurdish state on his border will embolden Kurds in southeast Turkey – who, you’re reminded are under bloody seige by government forces that allegedly burned 150 people alive in Cizre last month – to declare autonomy, something the pro-Kurdish HDP supports. 

  For their part Russia is firmly on the side of the Kurds after demanding that they be invited to Geneva. 

  “If the Kurds are ‘thrown out’ of the negotiations on Syria’s future, how can you expect them to want to remain within this state?”  Sergei Lavrov asked in an interview with Russian REN TV channel that aired on Sunday.

  Good question. 

  “The second round of inter-Syrian talks is underway in Geneva, but Syrian Kurds were not invited. It means that the future of Syria and its society is decided without Kurds. In fact, we are pushed back into a conservative, old-fashioned system which does not fit well with us,” Rodi Osman, the head of Syrian Kurdistan’s office in Moscow, told RIA Novosti. “In light of this, we see only one solution which is to declare the creation of [Kurdish] federation. It will serve the interests of the Kurds, but also those of Arabs, Turks, Assyrians, Chechens and Turkomans – all parts of Syria’s multinational society.

  And with that, we can start to see how the next conflict in Syria begins. Erdogan has already shelled the Syrian Kurds in the past month and he’s made it very clear that a Kurdish state on his borders would not be tolerated. “Unilateral moves carry no validity,” the Turkish foreign ministry said, in a terse statement. Ankara will now use every PKK attack and every suicide bombing as an excuse to attack the new proto-state and Erdogan will probably invade later on down the road on the excuse that he’s not invading Syria, but rather a hostile country that supports terrorist elements in southeast Turkey. 

  Note that you heard it here first.

  

  

  

  

  

• "Is This What We Want For A President?" – Trump Launches First Hillary Attack Ad

  For weeks, pundits had been wondering why Donald Trump is holding back from launching direct attacks on Hillary Clinton: after all, only some unpredictable event, or a “brokered convention” (which would “lead to riots” according to Trump) can prevent Trump from being the republican candidate at this point, and the longer Trump delays, the higher the momentum against him on the national arena.

  That all changed earlier today when Trump finally launched his first “attack ad” against Hillary in a tweet asking “Is this what we want for a president”:

  Is this what we want for a President? https://t.co/2yYy6Nyta9

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 16, 2016

  The clip, which will surely attact national attention tonight, contains everything from a laughing Putin, to an ISIS terrorist, and of course, a barking Hillary, has a simple message: “we don’t neet to be a punchline.” It will resonate.

  

  

  

  

  

• Wait A Minute – Who's The Real Fascist?

  Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

  The core belief of the Establishment is the central state should run everything.

  If you're an Establishment insider, the mainstream media will give you plenty of column inches and airtime to label Donald Trump a "dangerous" fascist: for example, Democratic insider Robert Reich's fear-mongering frenzy Donald Trump is a 21st century American fascist, in which Reich conveniently overlooks constitutional limits on any president, "fascist" or not.

  In effect, Reich is announcing the Constitution is dead and powerless to limit the President. Well, if that's the problem, then why not attack the real problem, which is the Imperial Presidency? Why not? Reich served an Imperial President as a loyal lackey, that's why–and he remains an energetic supporter of the central state and its bread-and-circuses institutionalized serfdom.

  If you're an Establishment insider, you'll get ample opportunities in the corporate media to label Bernie Sanders a "dangerous" socialist. You don't even have to be a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (a staple of the Clintons' attack strategy)–any insider can get airtime to label Sanders as "dangerous"–either because he's socialist, or because he's not radical enough. Any attack will do, and you'll get plenty of opportunity to flesh out any attack, no matter how biased or nonsensical.

  It is of course classic Orwellian Doublespeak to label any threat to one's power "fascist," and to laud one's corrupt and venal allies as "freedom fighters," but the Establishment's panicked reliance on accusations of fascism is new and yes, dangerous. So let's step back and ask–precisely who's the fascist here?

  It turns out that the definition of fascism widely attributed to Mussolini– "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power"–has no provenance: researchers cannot find this quote in any original source material.

  Here is an excellent exploration of the topic: Benito Mussolini on Fascism and Corporatism

  Via the research cited in Mussolini on the Corporate State, we have a verified Mussolini statement on the fascist conception of the state's role in the economy and society:

  The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41).

  In other words, the all-powerful central state worshipped by Reich and all the other Establishment insiders, Democrat and Republican alike, is the true culmination of fascism. So if we strip away the Orwellian Doublespeak, we find that it's actually Reich and his fellow believers in the goodness and rightness of the all-powerful central state and central bank who are the real fascists.

  The core belief of the Establishment is the central state should run everything: the state should run the mortgage industry (hey, it does–95% of all mortgages are government-backed or guaranteed); it should run the financial system via setting interest rates, buying bonds and other assets and bailing out/protecting private banks (hey, it does–thank you, Federal Reserve); it should control higher education (the central state not only funds the higher education cartel, it also owns most of the $1.4 trillion in student loan debt); it should control the economy via protecting and enforcing favored monopolies and cartels, and of course the state needs to track any domestic "threats" via surveillance and suppress any resistance to its power by force, media attacks, lawsuits, IRS investigations, social-media smear campaigns, etc.–which is precisely what the U.S. central state's toadies, lackeys, apparatchiks, thugs, bought-off media hacks, et al. do.

  

  That, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism, and that's the Establishment's America. No wonder central-state lackeys like Reich have unleashed frantic attacks against Trump and Sanders–they fear their fascist paradise of central-state-cartel-capitalism might somehow be threatened.

  And like all fascists and fascist states, they over-react to any threats to their power. This over-reaction eventually backfires, for it reveals the true nature of their loyalties and their project: that there is an endless need for more state regulations, controls, programs, guarantees and promises that all will be better as long as you cede control of everything that matters to the state. You are of course still "free" to choose your breakfast cereal and which outpost of the Ministry of Propaganda you wish to view/read/listen to.

  

  The carrot dangled by the fascist state is always the same: there is a free lunch for everyone who cedes control over their lives to the state. For corporations, the free lunch is a quasi-monopoly; for debt-serfs, new programs that erase their debts (i.e. transfer them to others), and for everyone, more entitlements, up to the Nirvana of the fascist state, Guaranteed Minimum Income for all.

  The tragic irony is, as we all know, there is no free lunch. The central state generates the illusion there is a free lunch to institutionalize the dominance of the wealthy and powerful and institutionalize serfdom for everyone else.

  Global Crisis: the Convergence of Marx, Orwell and Kafka (July 25, 2012)

  

  

  

  

  

• Here Is What Janet Yellen Answered When Steve Liesman Asked If The Fed "Has A Credibility Problem"

  The most amusing moment of today’s Janet Yellen press conference occured when none other than Steve Liesman asked Yellen a question, one which he may regret as it is dangerously close to “Pedro da Costa” territory, which goes to the heart of the matter: “does the Fed have a credibility problem?”

  The question goes to the Fed’s self-described role of being “data-dependent”, because if the Fed indeed adhered to the data, it would be hiking right now: it’s latest forecast sees long-term unemployment of 4.7-5.0%, right where the official unemployment rate is currently, while the Core PCE of 1.7% is already higher than the high range of the Fed’s 2016 year end forecast of 1.4%. In light of this data, it makes no sense for the Fed not to be hiking, and certainly makes no sense to be reducing the number of expected rate hikes in 2016 from four to two.

  The jarring congitive dissonance appears to have finally hit Liesman, who asked the following question:

  Madam Chair, as you know, inflation has gone up the last two months. We had another strong jobs report. The tracking forecasts for GDP have returned to two percent. And yet the Fed stands pat while it’s in a process of what it said at launch in December was a process of normalization.

   

  So I have two questions about this. Does the Fed have a credibility problem in the sense that it says it will do one thing under certain conditions, but doesn’t end up doing it? And then, frankly, if the current conditions are not sufficient for the Fed to raise rates, well, what would those conditions ever look like?

  The answer was a 261 word jumbled nightmare of James Joyceian stream of consciousness interspersed with high-end econobabble that we, for one, were completely unable to follow. This is what Yellen responded verbatim:

  Well, let me start — let me start with the question of the Fed’s credibility. And you used the word “promises” in connection with that. And as I tried to emphasize in my opening statement, the paths that the participants project for the federal funds rate and how it will evolve are not a pre-set plan or commitment or promise of the committee. Indeed, they are not even — the median should not be interpreted as a committee-endorsed forecast.  And there’s a lot of uncertainty around each participant’s projection. And they will evolve. Those assessments of appropriate policy are completely contingent on each participant’s forecasts of the economy and how economic events will unfold. And they are, of course, uncertain. And you should fully expect that forecasts for the appropriate path of policy on the part of all participants will evolve over time as shocks, positive or negative, hit the economy that alter those forecasts. So, you have seen a shift this time in most participants’ assessments of the appropriate path for policy. And as I tried to indicate, I think that largely reflects a somewhat slower projected path for global growth — for growth in the global economy outside the United States, and for some tightening in credit conditions in the form of an increase in spreads. And those changes in financial conditions and in the path of the global economy have induced changes in the assessment of individual participants in what path is appropriate to achieve our objectives. So that’s what you see — that’s what you see now. 

  Got that?

  Apparently neither did Liesman, who openly admitted in his traditional post-Fed spar with Rick Santelli, the following:

  Santelli: Steve, could you understand any of it? Any of it seriously? Just a yes or no.

  Liesman: Not much, it was not precisely responsive to the question i asked.

  To be sure, Yellen’s response to Liesman’s very simple question merely confirms that any credibility the Fed may have had is long gone; but the real emerging problem for the Yellen Fed is when such stalwart adherents to the Fed’s party line as Steve Liesman are not only losing the plot, but are openly admitting that Yellen no longer makes sense.

  And if the Fed can not make a favorable impression on those who are paid to at least pretend that they “get it”, what about the rest of the market. 

  Worst of all, since the Fed peddles only in faith and “perpetuating the narrative” du jour, in this case one that the Fed has credibility despite not doing what it has explicitly said it would do, how long until it is not just Liesman, but everyone else, who openly admits that the Fed’s emperor is fully naked.

  The exchange between Liesman and Santelli is below. We apologize for the poor picture quality: CNBC appears to have edited this particular segment out.

  

  

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest