- Italy Is The EU's Weakest Link
Authored by George Frideman via MauldinEconomics.com,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President François Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi met Aug. 22 on an Italian aircraft carrier. They said they were meeting to talk about European policy after Brexit. The real discussion was about Italy’s economy and the steps needed to revive it.
The EU’s Integrity Is in Question
The location of their meeting is notable. It is a more militaristic location than Europeans normally prefer. The choice is even more interesting in light of the rumors that Germany might resume the military draft.
The US has been increasingly critical of Europe’s contribution to NATO. The EU’s GDP is larger than that of the US, but the EU’s contribution to its own defense does not reflect that fact. Europe’s limited militaries make it dependent on the US.
Holding the meeting on the aircraft carrier was meant to show that Europe has some defense capability. But it also shows how Brexit diminishes the EU’s military power. It was a good place to have a meeting as European unity is in question, with Italy as a weak link.
Italy’s Crisis Is Worsening
Italy’s economy is weak. There is no growth. The banking system is in bad shape. Unemployment is high. There is substantial public unrest, and Renzi’s standing is weakening. Italy has been somewhere between recession and stagnation since 2008. After eight years, the situation shows no signs of improving.
The Italians want to run a substantial budget deficit to stimulate the economy. The EU operates under a “stability pact.” This requires countries to keep deficits within certain limits but allows for exceptions.
France has operated outside the boundaries of the stability pact for years. Spain and Portugal were given exceptions as well. As Merkel put it, “The stability pact has a lot of flexibility, which we have to apply in a smart way.”
I’m not sure what “a smart way” looks like, but the issue does not apply to Italy. Renzi said, “Italy’s deficit has been at the lowest level of the last ten years.” He said that he “would go ahead with structural reforms and deficit reductions for the good of [Italy’s] children.”
In other words, Renzi said that he would further tighten spending. Merkel called his stance “courageous.” Hollande mentioned that the UK’s decision to leave the EU at some point in the future “requires a response by EU leaders.” Merkel agreed that they need to “deliver results.”
She was not clear on what those results would be.
Renzi’s Motives
Increased austerity has not worked in eight years. Accepting that Renzi is not insane, it is hard to understand why he thinks this move will work any time soon.
Merkel conceded that these actions “won’t show results in four weeks, but it sets the parameters for a sustainable and successful Italy.” No one expects it to work in four weeks, but the question is why it should work at all.
This means the Germans and French are going to use Brexit to explain why increased austerity is needed. It is not clear to me how Brexit leads to austerity, but Merkel seemed to be saying that. Also, Merkel made it clear that the European Commission might be willing to accommodate Renzi.
But Renzi’s proposed strategy hardly begs for accommodation. Renzi, who was seen as a maverick in Europe, is now being more austere than required. If Merkel offers congratulations, she has gotten everything she wants.
Part of this might be political gamesmanship. Renzi needs a victory. He could propose deep austerity and then demand concessions from the EU Commission. Once granted, he can be hailed as a tough negotiator.
But he would be bargaining against his own budget. Politics is strange enough that he might pull it off. An alternative is that by conceding this point, he is setting up an EU concession on the banks. That is pure guesswork, as there wasn’t a hint of it in the talks.
Nationalism in Italy Is on the Rise
In either case, the budget will be extremely unpopular and impose several more years of austerity. It will generate an exit movement, with proponents arguing that EU-imposed austerity caused these problems in the first place. The faster they get out of the EU the better.
For all I know, maverick Renzi lives, and he is doing this to trigger this movement. But whether or not he favors leaving the EU, there will be a movement as a result of this budget.
The argument for staying in the EU will be that Italy can’t get better without the EU. The argument for leaving the union will be that Italy will never get better if it stays.
In any case, the malaise that has gripped Italy for years will continue. It is important not to expect solutions in four weeks.
The problem with European unity is that after eight years, no one expects an improvement in four weeks. The question is whether this is the permanent condition of Europe. Perhaps this is the best Italy will do for a long time.
The scene on the aircraft carrier was designed to remind everyone that Europe has military power and to legitimize European unity in the face of Britain’s decision to leave. But it is not clear whether the Italian public will applaud or demand that the carrier be sold.
It isn’t clear that Italy will choose to leave by any means. But it is clear that the Italian economic crisis is not on its way to clearing up.
* * *
Watch George Friedman’s Ground-breaking Documentary Crisis & Chaos: Are We Moving Toward World War III?
- German Politicians Are Getting Nervous About Deutsche Bank
Just a few short days after Germany’s premier financial publication Handelsblatt dared to utter the “n”-word, when it said that in the aftermath of last week’s striking $14 billion DOJ settlement proposal, “some have even raised the possibility of a government bailout of Germany’s largest bank, which would be a defining event and a symbolic blow to the image of Europe’s largest economy”, German lawmakers are finally starting to get nervous.
According to Bloomberg, Deutsche Bank’s suddenly troubling finances, impacted by the bank’s low profitability courtesy of the ECB’s NIRP policy as well as mounting legal costs courtesy of years of legal violations, “are raising concern among German politicians.” At a closed session of Social Democratic finance lawmakers on Tuesday, Deutsche Bank’s woes came up alongside a debate over Basel financial rules. Participants discussed the U.S. fine and the financial reserves at Deutsche Bank’s disposal if it had to cover the full amount.
While the participants in the meeting did not reach any conclusions on the likely outcome, the discussion signals that the risks facing Deutsche Bank have the attention of Germany’s political establishment. Which means it’s almost serious enough where the politicians, in the parlance of Jean-Claude Juncker, “have to lie” or in this case redirect attention, ideally abroad: the German Finance Ministry last week called on the U.S. to ensure a “fair outcome” for Deutsche Bank, citing cases against other banks where the government settled for reduced fines.
Actually lying also works: on February 9 German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble told Bloomberg Television that he has “no concerns about Deutsche Bank.” That has probably changed.
The solvency problems facing Germany’s biggest bank have been widely documented: it is already ranked among the worst-capitalized lenders in European stress tests before U.S. authorities demanded $14 billion as an RMBS settlement, more than twice the €5.5 billion the bank has set aside for litigation and almost 80% of the bank’s market cap. Also, as we pointed out first in 2013, and as Matteo Renzi takes every chance to remind Germany, Deutsche Bank has a gargantuan €42 trillion in gross notional derivatives on its balance sheet. Just this week, the Italian PM told Bundesbank chief Jens Weidmann not to worry so much about Italy’s massive debt load but instead to solve the problems of German banks which had “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of euros of derivatives” on their books.”
But what may be most troubling is not what German politicians are talking about behind closed door, but what they are not talking about in public. Bloomberg notes that Merkel’s government is now maintaining a public silence on Deutsche Bank’s woes. Then again, what is there to say: if DB is indeed approaching the cliff, any discussion of the bank would only lead to more concerns about the bank’s viability. There was some discussion of DB, however, during a September 16 meeting of Germany’s Financial Stability Committee, a group of German finance officials and regulators, whose members concluded that the fine demanded by the U.S. government would probably be lowered, Handelsblatt newspaper reported. In other words, hope is once again a strategy. Sadly, when it comes to banks with multi-trillion balance sheets, this may not be the best approach.
And just to make sure that German politicians have even more to talk about, earlier today the Brussels-based Single Resolution Board, the resolution authority for 142 banks (including Deutsche Bank) warned that EU bank may need rescue funds equaling twice their ECB capital. As Bloomberg reported today, requiring banks to have at least that same amount as the minimum capital requirement set by the ECB in loss-absorbing liabilities will ensure that they can recapitalize themselves quickly after restructuring, SRB head Elke Koenig said.
The European Banking Authority said in July that the region’s banks may need as much as 470 billion euros ($524 billion) in additional MREL-eligible funding under conditions similar to those cited by Koenig. The EBA sample consisted of 114 banks representing 70 percent of the EU’s banking assets, including lenders not overseen by the SRB.
And the bulk of these funds will have to be procured by Europe’s largest bank: Deutsche Bank.
- Who Is Behind The Riots? Charlotte Police Says 70% Of Arrested Protesters Had Out Of State IDs
Confirming what many had suspected when viewing the sudden and intense collapse into anrchy that occurred in Charlotte this week, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN's Erin Burnett:
"This is not Charlotte that's out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals."
"We've got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They're not coming from Charlotte."
#Charlotte police: 70% of arrested protesters had out of state ID's, outside entities are causing these problems https://t.co/Kwya2xXerk
— OutFrontCNN (@OutFrontCNN) September 22, 2016
As shocking as this statement is, it should not be a total surprise. 18 months ago, as the riots flared in Ferguson, there was one man pulling the strings of this 'domestic false flag'… George Soros. In an apparent effort to "keep the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August," liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.
As The Washington Times explains,There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
Still not buying it? As The New American recently reported, Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor.
That was before hackers with DCLeaks.com published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM.
Those same documents reveal the reason for OSF bankrolling BLM: the “dismantling” of America so that it can be recast according to the vision of Soros and his leftist cohorts.
The communist-on-its-face nature of these and other demands of the organizations under the BLM umbrella are a clear indicator of the real intent of BLM. The deep-pocketed funding by the likes of Soros, the Center for American Progress, the Ford Foundation, and Borealis Philanthropy show that BLM is the means, not the end.
BLM is little more than a tool of social revolutionaries hell-bent on destroying America so they can build their long awaited dystopia which they attempt to pass off as a utopia.
So with Hillary's poll numbers decling rapidly, and a debate looming that she would desperately like to be focused on domestic division as opposed to every email, pay-to-play, foreign policy misstep, and cough or stumble she has taken; is anyone shocked that 'out of state' protesters would turn up in Charlotte suddenly turning a peaceful but angry protest into tear-gas-filled deadly riots? And who is a big donor to Clinton?
George Soros: $7 million
Financier George Soros founded what would become the Quantum Fund in 1969 with $12 million. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he's now worth $24.7 billion and continues to invest through Soros Fund Management, a family firm. As a political donor, Soros has been mercurial. In 2004, he contributed $23.5 million to organizations opposing George W. Bush's reelection effort. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to both Clinton and Barack Obama, and that was it. Soros's Open Society Policy Center, the advocacy arm of his philanthropic network, spent $8.2 million on lobbying Washington in 2015. It focuses on international human rights, immigration, foreign aid, public health and criminal justice reform, among other issues. Since 2003, Soros has contributed $54 million to federal candidates and committees.
- Bill Fleckenstein Slams CNBC "Jerk" – "Don't Get In My Face Because I Won't Join Your Party"
Having been invited on to CNBC to discuss his views of the market, famous short-seller Bill Fleckenstein explained rather eloquently that QE4 is coming and people will wake up to the fact that central bankers “are the arsonists that create the fire, not the firemen that put it out.” This non-mainstream view was treated with disdain by CNBC host Tim Seymour who slammed Fleckenstein for “missing out” on the “artificial market’s” (because even CNBC now admits that’s what it is) gains. The response was epic.
“Don’t be such a jerk… I don’t ask to come on this show, you invited me… and don’t get in my face because I won’t join your party…”
Enjoy:
- Dear Obama, How Does A 60% Increase In NYC Homelessness Constitute A Recovery?
Last week, we wrote a post entitled “Harvard Crushes The “Obama Recovery” Farce With 9 Simple Charts” in which we reviewed a report from Harvard Business School on the true health of the U.S. economy. Given the title, it’s probably not terribly surprising that Harvard was somewhat “underwhelmed” with the Obama recovery after taking a multi-decade look at various economic metrics like labor force participation rates, new business formation, productivity and real household income.
Now, courtesy of data from the New York City Department of Homeless Services, we have a couple of additional charts to add to the list like the one below that shows a ~60% increase in the number of NYC families living in homeless shelters over the past five years. Aside from an increse during the “great recession”, the number of New York City families living in homeless shelter remained fairly constant at around 8,000 from July 2008 through July 2011. That said, over the following 5 years beginning in August 2011 through today, NYC has experienced a nearly 60% increase in the number of families living in homeless shelters to nearly 13,000.
Ironically, the increase in homelessness experienced during the “great recession” was just a blip on the radar compared to the past five years as residential rental rates in NYC have soared.
Alternatively, we offer up the following statistics from Mayor Bill De Blasio’s Fiscal 2016 “Mayor’s Management Report” highlighting a 42% increase in applications for “Emergency Rent Assistance” from New York City families at risk of losing their housing.
If this is what a “recovery” looks like to Obama we would certainly like to better understand how he would define a recession.
- Un-Becoming American – One Man's Painful Journey To Renouncing Citizenship
Submitted by 'Kevnice' via ForeignByNature.com,
In April 2012, I returned to Switzerland – my country of birth – to commence a new phase of my adult life.
Naturally, one of the first steps to undertake when establishing oneself in a new country is to open a bank account.
I went down to the local Raiffeisen bank branch in the village of Aesch, Luzern, where my relatives and ancestors had lived and worked as farmers for over 10 generations.
At the bank I received the standard application forms required to open a basic checking account. The form asked me about my nationality. I marked Swiss as my nationality, and the United States as my second nationality.
The clerk reviewed the forms I had submitted. After careful consideration and some internal discussion she said, “I am sorry, we cannot open a bank account for you because you are a US citizen”.
“But I am a Swiss citizen!” I complained, in Swiss-German.
“I know, but you have the US nationality. Earlier this month we received a directive from top management not to open any more accounts for US passport holders, even if they are also Swiss. I am really sorry, but we cannot do anything for you”, she said.
I left the bank angry and confused.
I checked with several other banks. It was the same story with all of them.
I told the story to my Swiss relatives. They all had the same reaction: “But you’re Swiss!”
Nobody could understand.
At that time I was completely ignorant of FATCA, the global taxation of US citizens, the requirement to report foreign bank account balances over 10,000 USD to the US Treasury (FBAR), and all these compliance matters that – at least among US expats – have become hot button topics in recent years. I left the US at the age of 22 after university, never having really worked there beyond the part time student job, and had been living in Japan and Taiwan for the previous 7 years teaching English before moving to Switzerland.
It’s not as though the US government gives you an exit interview when you leave the country, explaining to you how to comply with all of their cumbersome laws. The burden is on you – the taxpayer – to inform yourself, or face heavy penalties – up to $10,000 for each year of non-compliance.
You’re guilty until proven innocent.
Suddenly, I realized that I had technically been non-compliant with the US for years, although I never made much money.
I was furious. What right did the US government have to try to tax me or make me declare anything to them, not having lived there for almost 10 years? No other developed country in the world requires this. I didn’t make enough money to actually have to pay US tax (you can exclude around $100K as foreign income), but the very principle of having to comply enraged me.
This was when I first considered renouncing my US citizenship.
I contacted the embassy in Bern, who quickly sent me an information package. All I had to do was back-file five years of returns (I could exclude all my earnings from US taxation), make an appointment at the US embassy in Bern, and pay a $450 administration fee. As I was already a citizen of Switzerland at birth I wouldn’t have to pay any exit tax. It only took 2-3 weeks to receive an appointment. It seemed quick and easy.
However, I hesitated.
What about my mother? She still lived in the US. What if she got sick or something? What if Switzerland or Europe becomes a terrible place to be in the future? What if the EU breaks up?
I thought it might be wise to keep my US citizenship, just in case. A second nationality is like an insurance policy against economic and social decline in the country of your first nationality.
But what to do, exactly? Should I go through the rest of my life outside of the US lying about it, maintaining that I am only Swiss?
I had been non-compliant for years already and had never heard anything from the US authorities. Maybe I could just continue under the radar forever?
Or should I just swallow my dignity and comply with all their rules? I only had to file a simple tax return and the FBAR form. As mentioned, I made too little money to owe tax anyway.
How did this concern my wife? What happens when we have children, and I die – wouldn’t they have to pay US inheritance tax on everything I owned? What would be the point of keeping US citizenship if I wasn’t planning on passing it on to my children?
I went back and forth like this in my mind for a couple of years. I couldn’t make a decision. I did not want to lie for the rest of my life, but neither did I want to comply.
Then in September 2014 came the tipping point for me: The US State Department raised the administration fee for renunciations by 522%, from $450 to $2,350!
I realized then that I was dealing with a criminal institution. They were the Mafia – either pay protection money your whole life, or pay one lump sum to get out.
What was preventing them from deciding to raise the fee to $5,000, or even $10,000?
Nothing prevents them. They could do whatever they wanted. There had been record numbers of renunciations over the past few years. It was good business. It’s not like there existed a powerful expat lobby in Washington pressuring them to change their policies on renunciation.
Rage took hold of me again. I was also angry at myself for hesitating on my first instinct and that my hesitation would cost me $2,000.
I let my rage stew for a few months. I researched the various forms of relinquishment, to see if I could find a way out of paying the fee (Renunciation is one type of relinquishment, and certain types of relinquishment do not require payment of the fee).
However I wasn’t ready to pledge allegiance to al-Qaeda and none of the other situations or criteria applied to me, so I finally bit the bullet and made an appointment for renunciation.
The Administrative Process Begins
My appointment was set at the embassy in Bern for February 20, 2015.
I had been told by the embassy beforehand that it generally took 2-3 months to process the Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN), the document which officially states that you are no longer a US citizen.
A few days before my appointment, I went to a networking event where I spoke with two insurance professionals who served foreign clients. They both related stories to me of US citizens in Switzerland that had renounced their citizenship. For one client it took the government 1 year to process his CLN. The other client had renounced 18 months earlier and still hadn’t received his CLN.
What the hell was going on?
February 20th arrived. My appointment was at 3 pm so I took the afternoon off work and headed to Bern.
It was an unseasonably warm and sunny day. People relaxed on benches and parks throughout the city as I walked. The sapphire blue sky was completely clear of clouds and there was no haze. You could see the awe-inspiring Alps in the distance with total clarity, the glimmering snowy tops providing a stunning backdrop to the gorgeous architecture of Bern.
I was early for my appointment so I relaxed in one of the parks near some teenagers. I wished I could worry about music and girls and who was cool in school instead of fretting over nationality and tax compliance. I collected my thoughts.
I went to enter the embassy about 15 minutes before my appointment. There were several US flags flying outside. I felt no emotion when I looked at them.
The entrance was guarded by some kind of African military guy wearing a bulletproof vest who opened the door after I rang a bell.
I had my work laptop with me. He gestured toward my laptop bag.
“Is that a laptop? Sorry, no laptops allowed in here”, he said in accented English.
Of course they were concerned with terrorists. I had heard that the Swiss branch of the CIA was headquartered in the same building.
But what the hell? There was never any mention about a No Laptop Policy in the information package I had received from Bern. I thought that it could be rather common for people to have a laptop with them.
I looked around. There was nowhere to put it.
“Uhhh… what do I do then? Where can I put this?” I asked him.
“Go see the lady outside by the security box”, he replied.
I asked her and she told me in Swiss-German that there was a police station a couple of short blocks down the way where I could leave it.
I headed down the street and looked around. I went left, then right. I did not see any police station.
I asked a guy on the street. He didn’t know anything about a nearby police station.
I checked the time on my mobile. I had less than 10 minutes. I didn’t want to be late for this appointment. I thought that they might cancel on me if I was a minute late – you never know with bureaucrats.
I jogged back to the lady at the security box.
“Sorry”, I said, “I looked around but did not see any police station. Can you indicate it again please?”
“It’s that building with the red awning”, she told me while pointing to the end of the street.
I went back to that building. There was something that looked like a bakery with a red awning, but it certainly wasn’t a police station.
I checked my mobile again. 5 minutes until my appointment. I started to sweat.
Next to the bakery there was an apartment building. I checked the entrance and it was open. I ran in there, quickly stashed my laptop bag behind some plants in a common/smoking area on the first floor, and jogged back to the entrance with 2 minutes to spare.
Once inside the building I went through the metal detector and checked my mobile phone in with security. They directed me down some stairs to a basement level.
As I walked into this area a female security guard greeted me.
“Good afternoon. I need to ask you to take off your sunglasses”, she said.
“They aren’t sunglasses”, I said. They are regular prescription glasses that tint when exposed to UV rays.
“What do you need them for?” she asked.
“To move through space”, I informed her.
“Well we don’t allow sunglasses in here. So please take them off until you reach the seating area.”
I took off my glasses and used sonar to find a seat, then put my glasses back on.
Once I regained my vision I saw that there were 3 other renunciants waiting before me, with expressions of resignation on their faces.
I was feeling too somber and involved in my own thoughts to make chit chat. I sat there silently.
While I was waiting, I eavesdropped on a British-accented woman talking with one of the other renunciants. She also had brought a laptop with her and in the course of conversation confirmed that the building with the red awning was indeed a bakery. They permitted her to store her laptop there for 3 Swiss francs.
What kind of an embassy is this? Running a cash-for-laptop-storage scam? Is this the embassy of the leader of the free world or that of a banana republic?
I only had to wait about 5 minutes. First, you go to a window and answer a few basic questions. They give you a pay slip which you then take to another window to make the payment of the $2,350. I got to the payment window which required you to ring a bell to open. I rang the bell and waited about 2 full minutes before someone answered.
I made the payment and they gave me a receipt. Then I took my receipt with me back to the waiting area.
While I was waiting, I watched and heard two other people go through the entire renunciation process, which takes less than 5 minutes. So it was anti-climactic when it was finally my turn as I had just heard everything twice.
My turn. I met with the consul, a big friendly portly man behind a bulletproof window. I had to confirm some information in writing. Then he recited the Oath of Renunciation; I didn’t even need to say it myself. When he finished, I signed a statement which includes the text of the Oath.
I handed over my US passport which he then took and punched a few holes in, invalidating it.
The consul then informed me that it would take 3-5 months before I would receive my CLN. It would be mailed from Washington to the embassy in Bern, and they would contact me when they received it.
He then asked me if I had any plans to travel to the US during this time. I said No.
He explained to me that until I receive my CLN, I would not yet be officially non-American. US immigration law however states that US citizens must enter the United States on their US passport, which the embassy had just confiscated. This meant that it was very likely that I would be barred from entry if I tried to enter the US, unless it was an emergency such as a funeral, in which case they might let me in provided that I could document as much as possible (i.e. provide a death certificate).
I told him that was fine. I didn’t need to enter the US in the next 3-5 months.
That concluded my renunciation. The whole thing was over in about 30 minutes. I grabbed a can of beer on the way to the train station and headed home, feeling the whole experience to be surreal.
Administrative Ping Pong
It was August 2015. Six months had gone by and I had not heard anything from Bern.
My mother suggested that I called the embassy. Of course US consular services are only available for calls during a 2 hour window each day.
Once I got through and identified myself, I explained that I had been told it would take 3-5 months to process my CLN and that now 6 months passed by without news.
“Yeah”, began the counselor, “it has been taking a lot longer lately due to some IT issues. I see that your application is still open but it is somehow hung up in the system in Washington. I am afraid there is nothing we can do about this from here.”
“OK, that’s fine, I will just wait a bit longer”.
I waited longer. The temperature cooled down and the leaves changed color.
Then it was October. My mom was starting to freak out a little and suggested that I call again. I explained that they had said there was nothing they could do. She insisted that I try again.
So I called again.
“Yeah”, began the counselor, “it has been taking a lot longer lately due to some IT issues. I see that your application is still open but it is somehow hung up in the system in Washington. I am afraid there is nothing we can do about this from here.”
“OK, that’s fine, I will just wait a bit longer”.
I practically gave up at this point. My mom started writing letters to her local Congressman.
The leaves fell from the trees and were replaced with snow. Christmas and New Year’s came and went.
Over the holidays, I had an idea. I recalled that a college buddy of mine was in the Peace Corps and had later been placed at the US Department of the Treasury. So I called in a favor. I asked him if he knew anyone in the State Department, specifically US Citizens Services.
It turns out he did. He put me in touch with someone at State named Eric, who knew someone else that handled renunciations.
I wrote an e-mail to the contact. She responded, saying that my case had been resolved already in April 2015 and that Bern should have my paperwork.
Incredulous, I called Bern a few days later in early January 2016.
“Hey Bern, Washington told me that my case had been resolved already 9 months ago and that you should have my paperwork”, I complained.
“That is incorrect”, replied Bern. “It was with Washington until only a few days ago when it was sent back over to us”.
“I see. Do you think that Washington just forgot to click a button or something in the system? And that it came back to you because I contacted them, and they finally moved it forward?” I asked.
“We can’t be sure, but that sounds about right”, they replied.
Sure enough, a week later I finally received my Certificate of Loss of Nationality.
Final Thoughts
My experience with the delays and the experiences of those others I mentioned (plus other similar experiences that I read about on various message boards) left my Spider Sense tingling. While I can never be sure, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether certain administrators in Washington don’t intentionally delay finalizing renunciation cases as a form of administrative punishment. They know that you are in administrative limbo and cannot visit the US during this time. Could it be a final, spiteful, parting middle finger in your face from the US government?
That’s the kind of high level service you get for paying exorbitant government fees. You would think that with such a price tag you’d at least get quick service. In the end I needed to use government contacts and pull administrative strings to finally receive the service for which I paid so generously.
It didn’t do much to diminish the impression I had of dealing with a banana republic, rather than the greatest superpower the world has ever known.
- That said, I am truly grateful. I consider myself to be quite lucky.
- I am grateful to have been a citizen at birth of one of the most prosperous, most developed, and most democratic societies in the world. Without Swiss citizenship it would have been a much more difficult decision.
- I am grateful that I did not have any assets or much money when I renounced, which made compliance easier and virtually costless.
- I am grateful that I was not subject to exit tax. For those subject to exit tax, upon renunciation the IRS taxes you as if you had sold all of your assets.
- Finally, I am grateful that I do not have to vote in the 2016 US presidential election.
- Doctor: Hillary's "Abnormal Eye Movements" Hint At Serious Health Issues
By John R. Coppedge, MD, FACS is a general surgeon from Texas, originally posted on The Hill
In 2014 Conan O’Brien did a spoof of Hillary Clinton‘s interview with Diane Sawyer about her lack of lingering health issues following her 2012 concussion. In an obviously photoshopped version Clinton’s eyes are made to oscillate crazily.
It was a very funny piece. Now, it may not seem so funny.
Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.
Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline.
It comes out of the base of the brain and runs along the floor of the skull, immediately beneath the brain before coursing upward to the eye. Dysfunction of that muscle causes the striking picture of the eyes not aiming in the same direction and causes the patient to suffer double vision.
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton’s known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton’s physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton’s physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton’s transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
Additionally, when patients who have decreased intracranial blood flow becoming volume depleted (dehydrated) or have a drop in blood pressure loss of consciousness can occur. That could explain her witnessed collapse in New York City on 9/11.
One thing that is taught early in medical school is that a patient’s history, physical exam, signs and symptoms should usually lead to a single diagnosis.
Crudely put “when you itch, it is probably not lice and fleas but one or the other.” More professionally put, in most cases the patient’s symptoms can be explained by one unifying diagnosis, not a constellation of disparate ones. The admittedly speculative scenario I propose is an attempt to understand and rationally explain what is going on, based on known facts and the observable signs exhibited by Clinton.
Having previously written about this, I once again suggest that she undergo an independent neurologic exam and have proper studies to determine whether or not she still has a blood clot at the base of her brain, swelling of the brain, increased intracranial pressure and whether or not her 2012 traumatic brain injury was accompanied by a skull fracture with or without bleeding around or in the brain itself and if there are any residual areas of scarring of the brain.
Critics will rightly point out that I have not examined Clinton. They will point out that I am not ophthalmologist or a neurologist. But I am a physician and the concepts discussed above are taught to every medical student early in their education. Her traumatic brain injury, transverse sinus thrombosis, subsequent symptoms, falling, passing out and now the obvious problem with eye movement are all fact, not speculation.
It would be very helpful if Clinton agreed to an independent exam and to have the questions raised here answered. It is too important not to get this right.
- Retired Green Beret Warns "We Haven't Been This Close To Nuclear War In A Long Time"
As can readily be seen by the current events, the world has not been this close to a nuclear war and World War 3 in a long time. There are four major flashpoints right now that could easily escalate and ignite a powder keg, transforming from a regional conflict or conflicts into a world war: Syria, the South China Sea, Ukraine, and North and South Korea. The “reconstruction” of a Cold War-type faceoff, initiated by the U.S. and NATO building up forces in Eastern Europe and facing off against Russia.
A nuclear war will be initiated by an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) detonation over the continental U.S., followed by a nuclear exchange and a war with conventional forces.
As of this writing, the U.S. has “mistakenly” bombed Syrian governmental military forces, causing at least 60 deaths with more than 100 others wounded. The Russian government is sizzling, especially with the response by (of all people) Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the UN had this to say to the media, as reported by CNN:
“We are investigating the incident. If we determine that we did indeed strike Syrian military personnel, that was not our intention. And we of course regret the loss of life.”
True humanitarians, all, and especially she, the wife of Cass Sunstein and a true Marxist disciple of the Weather Underground (along with Cass) regrets the loss of life. The airstrikes occurred just two days before the U.S. and Russia were supposed to have joint airstrikes against ISIS. As ISIS is a creation of the U.S. State Department and the administration, it seems the U.S. decided to strike their true intended target…the Assad government forces…as it wants to topple Syria, and escalate things with the Russians.
Meanwhile last week, the U.S. flew two B-1B nuclear bombers along the DMZ to bluster North Korea with a show of force in response to the nuclear bomb test they conducted just a week prior. South Korea also threatened to reduce Pyongyang to ashes, while North Korea prepares for yet another nuclear test in the near future. More than 20 missile tests have been conducted by North Korea just this year alone. This is not counting the satellite launch at the beginning of the year in which they placed their second satellite into orbit…a path of trajectory, mind you, that takes it over the continental U.S. several times per day.
Ukraine cease fire agreements between the populist forces (rebels) in the eastern provinces and the U.S.’s puppet Poroshenko-government has been violated innumerable times as the fighting in Donetsk continues. In the meantime, the IMF just approved a 2-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine and the U.S. is supplying Poroshenko’s government with “nonlethal” U.S. military equipment. Russia has been posturing a tremendous number of troops (some DOD estimates range as high as 150,000) on its western border facing Ukraine: they have conducted military exercises, including some within Crimea, which they annexed from Ukraine in 2014.
The United States has been beefing up its presence in the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as in Poland and Moldova, the latter emplacing U.S. missile systems for “defense” that can be converted to offensive, nuclear missiles in hours. In addition to this, the U.S. is deploying B-61 nuclear bombs to Germany’s Buchel airbase. Russia has countered with ordering the deployment of the Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad, Russia’s westernmost military base in a direct standoff against the U.S. buildup in Germany and Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile things in the South China Sea are heating up as the U.S. has moved naval assets into the area in a show of force in support of Japan over the disputed Senkaku islands face-off between Japan and China. Last week the Russian navy linked its assets with China’s in the two countries’ joint naval exercises that could turn into a combat operation and a Chinese invasion at the drop of a hat.
There is a slow buildup and preparation of media coverage that is trying to paint Russia in the leading role of the aggressor in all of this. It isn’t working, except with those who are ill-informed. The bottom line: with the U.S. election year in complete disarray and civil unrest lurking as a result of social and economic breakdowns, a war would be the perfect thing to justify suspension of the elections and the inculcation of martial law in the “interests of national security.” The general civilian publics of all of the nations would be the ones to suffer, and it wouldn’t be the first time that it happened. Politicians – the ones who “regret the loss of life” in a war – are not the ones to lose their own lives or the lives of their children when the balloon goes up.
- Spot The Odd (Hedge Fund Strategy) Out
The trend is your friend… until the end. August was a great green month for many hedge funds (with Multi-Strategy and Event-Driven strategies doing best). But, as RBC notes., ‘trend-following’ CTA/Managed Money funds “got smoked.”
Spot the odd strategy out…
Commodity trading advisers, the catch-all phrase for a breed of quantitative investors who use trends in asset prices and volatility as trading signals, posted some of the hedge fund industry’s worst losses in August — and it isn’t getting better. The group is down between 1 percent to 1.5 percent this month, according to Credit Suisse Group AG.
Wrong-way bets on everything from Treasury rates to commodities have cost trend followers as market correlation whipped up before this week’s meeting of the Federal Reserve. In particular, CTAs paid a price for betting interest rates would fall in the second half of the year, Credit Suisse said.
“The trend-following CTAs have given back the vast majority of a profitable first half of 2016 as their long equities, long rates and short crude gambit results in losses,” wrote Mark Connors, Credit Suisse’s global head of risk advisory in New York, in a note to clients Tuesday.
It’s a reversal of fortune for the group, which by Credit Suisse’s estimate had been one of the best hedge-fund categories in the nine months through June, rising 5.4 percent. As RBC explains,
STRATEGY PERFORMANCE UPDATE SEES SYSTEMATIC / CTA / TREND-FOLLOWING SMOKED QTD (2nd column from right) FOLLOWING THE VaR SHOCK: That said, those with shorter-term models have likely profited from the pivot back into the old ‘long fixed income / long equities / long crude / long gold / short volatility regime seen over the past few sessions, so expect these strategies turn again turn higher imminently as leverage is re-deployed.
Given the force and speed at which they ditched equities, it’s likely CTAs contributed to the recent bout of volatility, said Credit Suisse’s Connors, particularly since equity long-short funds increased stock holdings to near-peak levels. During the stretch, the VIX spiked 40 percent in one day and the S&P 500 Index had its worst daily loss since the British vote to leave the European Union. The stage was set for a rough patch starting in June, when crude’s decline caused the trend-following managers to bet against the commodity. While that bet worked as oil dropped 14 percent in July, it burned shorts the following month when crude snapped back 7.5 percent.
“When trends switch, they have a short-term model and can pick up on that, and they caught the move in oil in June,” said Connors by phone. “The frequency of shifts in oil are hard to trade.”
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...