- A Loser's Malice: What's Behind Obama's Attacks On Putin
Submitted by Michael Jabara Carley via Strategic-Culture.org,
Relations between Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Barack Obama are poisoned and irretrievably damaged. It’s therefore a good thing that Obama is leaving office on 20 January. Bad US-Russian relations are of course nothing new. Since the Anglo-American war against Iraq in 2003, the US-Russian relationship has been headed downhill. For Obama, it appears that everything has gotten personal. The US president often acts like a petulant adolescent, jealous of a high school rival. You know, the kid who does everything better than he does. The lad takes it badly and won’t let it go. He challenges his nemesis to some new contest at every opportunity only to lose again and again. That’s got to be hard on the ego. Between Obama and Putin there have been many such encounters. Nor can it help that western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin.
Let’s consider Obama’s remarks at his last press conference on Friday, 16 December. «The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us», said Obama: «They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms. They don’t innovate». This was insulting both Putin and his country, but not enough apparently for Obama. «They [the Russians] can impact us if we lose track of who we are. They can impact us if we abandon our values. Mr. Putin can weaken us, just like he’s trying to weaken Europe, if we start buying into notions that it’s okay to intimidate the press, or lock up dissidents, or discriminate against people because of their faith or what they look like».
Western cartoonists so often ridicule Obama as out of his depth in comparison to Putin
What on earth is Mr. Obama talking about? Intimidate the press? The Moscow newspapers and television media are loaded with «liberals». Many Russians call them «fifth columnists». They are «people with ‘more advanced’ worldview[s] who do not tolerate ‘Russian propaganda’ themselves», according to one colleague in Moscow. But Mr. Putin tolerates them and pays them no mind.
«Lock up dissidents… discriminate against people»? What alternate reality does Mr. Obama live in? Doesn’t produce anything people want to buy? The United States buys rocket engines that it does not now produce at home. Maybe the Americans, a Russian commentator joked, can use high tech trampolines to get into space and do without Russian technology.
In an interview the previous day with the American National Public Radio Obama ranted about Putin. It must have been a rehearsal for his press conference. «This is somebody, the former head of the KGB», said Obama, «who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia… countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn; is currently making decisions that's leading to a slaughter in Syria». What stupefying hypocrisy; what utter nonsense. Putin was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB, but never its head, and he certainly has not «crushed democracy in Russia». He even treats his political opposition with respect compared to Obama who dismisses president-elect Donald Trump as some kind of Russian Manchurian candidate. The Russians, according to Obama, interfered in the US presidential elections, and helped defeat fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton. They hacked the Democratic National Committee’s hard drive and passed thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, although, according to others, an outraged Clinton insider leaked the cache of embarrassing emails. Obama has dismissed that possibility. The Russians did the hack, he insists , and Putin must be held personally responsible.
In Syria, the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists
Where’s the evidence? In Moscow, an angry Putin challenged Obama to put up or shut up. This is a hard thing for Obama to do. The Russians, he says, «counter American efforts to expand freedom at every turn». One wonders where that would be. In the Ukraine where the United States and European Union backed and guided the coup d’état against the democratically elected Ukrainian government? Or in Syria where the United States and its NATO and regional vassals are waging a war of aggression against the legitimate government in Damascus, backing jihadist terrorists? How many democratic governments or popularly supported political movements has the United States plotted against or destroyed since 1945? The list is long, including the 1996 Russian presidential election.
Remember 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed?
Obama directly raised the issue of Syria during his NPR interview. The liberation of E. Aleppo from Al-Qaeda and other jihadists has infuriated the west. To the everlasting shame of France, the Eiffel Tower was darkened to mourn the defeat of Al-Qaeda. The Mainstream Media (MSM) is up in arms. Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Palestinian and Iraqi militias have helped the Syrian Arab Army to cleanse Aleppo of jihadist terrorists, and thwart the United States and its vassals. This is what galls Obama, being outmanoeuvred by a lesser man than he and a lesser country than the United States. How deplorable to speak of the liberation of E. Aleppo as «a slaughter in Syria».
Obama’s frustrations began several years ago. Remember back in 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons and warned of «red lines» that could not be crossed? Apparently, the US government came within an ace or two of launching massive air attacks on Syria. Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making. All the while, Putin kept urging Russian-US cooperation against the jihadists in Syria, trying to draw the United States away from its ruinous policies. To no avail. Who then acted with greater statesmanship, Putin or Obama?
In 2013, when the US government started a propaganda campaign about Syrian chemical weapons, Putin intervened and the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons, removing the US pretext for intervention. The print media had a field day showing Putin helping Obama out of a corner of his own making.
Temporarily thwarted in Syria, the United States opened up a new front on Russia’s southern frontier in the Ukraine. It backed the coup d’état in Kiev and turned a blind eye to the fascist vanguard, which kept the new Ukrainian junta in power. «The fascists are just ‘a few bad apples’», officials said in Washington, thinking that NATO had scored a great victory in getting its hands on Sevastopol so it could kick the Russian Black Sea fleet out of its traditional home base.
You have to give credit to Obama; he was ambitious, aiming for a big prize and the humiliation of Russia and its president. Again, he was thwarted not so much by President Putin but by the Russian people of the Crimea who immediately mobilised their local self-defence units backed by «polite people», Russian marines stationed in Sevastopol, to kick out the Ukrainians with scarcely a shot fired. They organised a referendum to approve entry into the Russian Federation. Reunification was quickly approved by a huge majority and celebrated in Moscow. Putin gave a remarkably candid speech, explaining the Russian position. «NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round».
«NATO remains a military alliance,’ he said, «and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory», Putin said
It all happened so quickly, Obama must have looked on, dumbfounded, sputtering with angry frustration at having been outmanoeuvred by Crimean Russians who knew a thing or two after all about «innovating» and defending their land. Russians in the eastern Ukraine also resisted, taking up arms to defend themselves against Kiev’s fascist battalions.
That was too much. Putin became Obama’s nemesis. The US president struck back with economic sanctions, which his European vassals quickly endorsed. When Malaysian Airlines, MH17, was shot down over the eastern Ukraine, Obama and the EU at once accused Putin of being responsible without a shred of evidence. In fact, the available evidence points to the Kiev junta as the guilty party, but the MSM paid no attention. It ran an orchestrated propaganda campaign leading to harder sanctions against Russia intended to sabotage the Russian economy and break the Russian government.
Obama and his advisors again miscalculated. The Russian government instituted its own sanctions against the EU, and looked for other sources of supply or replaced foreign imports with Russian products. «We can do without Polish apples and French cheese», most Russians thought. «Liberals» sulked over the loss of their camembert, but that’s a small price to pay for Russian independence. Obama was outsmarted again by Russians who, he insists, can’t innovate. As for the EU, it suffered huge economic losses because of sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot. It’s getting to be a habit; the EU has again renewed its sanctions against Russia.
The EU has suffered huge economic losses because of its anti-Russia sanctions at American behest in a classic case of shooting oneself in the foot.
Whilst the Ukrainian crisis dragged on, Obama had to turn his attention back to Syria. In the autumn of 2015, Putin ordered Russian aerospace and naval forces to intervene on behalf of the hard-pressed Syrian government which asked for assistance against the western-backed jihadist invasion. The tide of battle slowly turned. Again, Obama was caught off guard; again, the US plan to overthrow the Syrian government was thwarted by Obama’s nemesis. The United States tried bogus truces to allow its jihadist mercenaries to refit and resupply. At first, the Russians did not seem to catch on, accepting American proposals as genuine. They had to learn the hard way, but they did eventually. The liberation of E. Aleppo, although overshadowed by the simultaneous loss of Palmyra, is another blow to Obama’s policies and to his fragile ego.
How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?
No wonder the US president is lashing out at Putin, publically insulting him and his country. No wonder the MSM is up in arms. How could this «weaker… smaller country» outsmart the all-powerful Mr. Obama and the great US Hegemon?
Like the USSR before it, Russia has always had to pursue a politique du faible, a poor man’s policies, never having the abundant resources of it western adversaries. Russians learned early on to innovate. The fox has to make its way in a world full of dangerous wolves.
What Obama must hate most of all is Putin’s exposure of US support for Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Who indeed is responsible for the «slaughter» in Syria? Obama calls it fighting for democracy. «Airstrike democracy», Putin once derisively replied. «Do you realise what you have done?» Putin asked at the UN in 2015, shocking the MSM. Obviously not, if one is to judge by Obama’s remarks of the last few days. He’s still the obsessive adolescent with doubts about himself and in over his head against a real statesman. Thank heavens Obama is on his way out the door of the White House. It’s not a minute too soon. Olliver Cromwell’s famous remark in 1653 to the Rump Parliament seems apposite. «You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately… Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!»
- Goldman Sachs' 2016 Review (Crossword-Style)
2016 was chock-full of surprises, both in markets and in politics.
As Goldman's Allison Nathan explains, the year began with a perfect storm of worries that had become all too familiar already in 2015. Oil prices plunged and fears of faltering growth and a sharp depreciation of China’s currency escalated, driving disruptive sell-offs in credit and other risk assets. Confidence in global growth faltered, particularly after an anemic US GDP report for Q1.
But oh, how the world has changed. Today, the price of crude oil is almost exactly double its January low in the wake of announced production cuts by OPEC and key non-OPEC producers (Russia). We expect WTI oil prices to move higher to a peak of $57.50/bbl in 1H17 as the cuts push the oil market into deficit and whittle down the current large inventory surplus. But we also expect shale producers to respond to the higher prices, implying limited upside from there.
The rebound in oil prices led to a remarkable turnaround in credit markets, with HY Metals & Mining and E&Ps returning 49% and 36%, respectively, YTD; default rates normalizing; and spreads no longer pricing recession risk. We expect a further moderate compression of spreads in 2017 given expectations of a generally positive macro environment, gradual improvement in credit fundamentals, and, of course, our somewhat rosier oil outlook.
And fears about China have generally receded into the background as Chinese policymakers continued an ambitious stimulus program that helped stabilize growth. A more dovish tilt by the Fed in response to the tightening of financial conditions caused by the Q1 sell-off also assuaged market fears. But we warn that China risk is not far from the surface.
Capital outflow pressures have resumed amid the renewed strengthening in the US dollar. And policies that re-ignited growth in the short-term have just increased concerns about the future, particularly as credit growth has climbed. These potentially destabilizing trends merit watching next year, despite our mainline view of orderly currency moves and a continued bumpy deceleration in Chinese growth. (Side note: Meeting growth targets will be paramount next year amid China’s leadership transition.)
It was not long after the market left China, oil, and credit concerns in the dust that political uncertainty took center stage—a place where it has solidly remained since. Brazil had its president impeached amid one of the country’s longest recessions/depressions on record; French primaries established an unexpected presidential candidate in former Prime Minister François Fillon; and Italy will enter the new year with an interim government following the resignation of Matteo Renzi.
And we’ve not forgotten about one of the biggest political shocks of the year (decade, century?!): the UK’s vote in favor of Brexit. The now infamous Article 50, which needs to be activated to formally start the UK’s withdrawal process, still has not been triggered, and likely won’t be before March.
Meanwhile, UK and EU priorities for their future relationship remain at odds, leaving market participants closely watching “soft Brexit”/”hard Brexit” swings in the headlines. That said, UK growth has proved remarkably resilient, and assets have held up with the exception of sterling, which is 10% weaker than before the referendum. Next year, we expect a formal start to Brexit talks, a moderation in UK growth, and further declines in sterling as uncertainty over Brexit sinks in.
While it was hard to trump (sorry, we couldn’t resist!) the shock of Brexit, we dare say that Donald Trump defying almost all polls and betting markets to win the US Presidential election did just that. Trump’s cabinet and policy leanings are still being sorted out, but there appears to be potential for significant change ahead, be it in taxes, or environmental policy. There is no question that the policies of the new administration and their market implications will be Top of Mind throughout 2017.
The unexpected election outcome also super-charged the narrative around two themes already in train: the global trade slowdown and reflation. Trump’s protectionist rhetoric—and the considerable executive power he will have on trade policy—do not bode well for global trade growth, which had already slowed considerably in recent years, or for some multilateral trade deals on the table (think the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP). Although we are keeping an eye on potential protectionist measures (a particular risk for EM Asia and Mexico, but also a likely drag on US growth), we otherwise see signs of a moderate improvement in trade ahead. Key to watch: how countries respond to the apparent shelving of the TPP (e.g., bilateral vs. multi-lateral trade talks).
On reflation, we expect fiscal expansion and some further tightening in the labor market to sustain inflationary momentum in the US alongside moderately stronger growth, with US 10-year yields expected to end 2017 at 2.75%. This should be good news for equity markets at first: We expect the S&P 500 to rise to 2400 through 1Q2017, but then see the index settling to 2300 by year-end as rates rise further and investors recalibrate their policy outlooks. We still caution that equities are vulnerable should rates move too much, too fast, given stretched valuations following years of exceptionally low rates.
Lastly, despite recent market optimism about fiscal expansion providing more stimulus, central bank policy will never be too far from investors’ minds next year. (And let’s not forget that ECB and BOJ asset purchases in fact enable more fiscal spend, so the lines between monetary and fiscal policy continue to blur.) We expect an acceleration of divergence as the Fed follows last week’s hike with three more in 2017 while the ECB and BOJ continue their asset purchases under new and apparently more sustainable parameters.
Between this divergence, Trump, China, and a number of important European elections, 2017 is sure to be yet another interesting year for markets.
We wish you a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.
* * *
While you're relaxing on the sofa, full of food, and wine, here's Goldman's year-end crossword…
- How Americans Spent Their Money In The Last 75 Years (In 1 Simple Chart)
Consumer spending makes up a large percentage of the United States economy. We all have bills to pay and mouths to feed, but where do Americans spend their money? Here is a breakdown of how Americans spent their money in the last 75 years…
In the chart above, spending is broken into 12 categories: Reading, alcohol, tobacco, education, personal care, miscellaneous, recreation & entertainment, healthcare, clothing, food, transportation and housing. Each category is further broken down into spending by year, from 1941 to 2014, and each category is given a unique color. The data were collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data is adjusted for inflation and measures median spending of all Americans.
Unsurprisingly, housing expenses have almost always been the largest area of spending in America for over 70 years. The only exception is 1941, when spending on food averaged $8,311, whereas spending on housing came to $7,537. However, in 1941 the government included alcohol in the food spending category, which inflates the food spending data for that year. In the other years, alcohol was given its own category. In every other year measured, spending on housing outpaced every other category.
Another interesting trend is the downward slope of spending on clothing. Americans spent the most on clothing in 1961 for an average of $4,157. In every year measured since 1961, spending on clothing fell, even when accounting for inflation.
At the same time, Americans began spending more on education, transportation and healthcare. Spending on education has increased far more than any other category, jumping from $242 in 1941 to $1,236 in 2014. Education spending increased at a particularly fast rate between 1984 and 1994 and onward. While spending on healthcare increased between 1941 and 2014, overall spending dipped between 1973 and 1984, but then began rising rapidly thereafter.
Between 1941 and 2014 Americans spent money on most of the same things, with a few changes. Housing has persisted as a large area of spending for Americans, as has the food category. However, spending on food and clothing has fallen when adjusting for inflation while spending on education and healthcare has risen quickly.
- The 'Triggered' 12 Days Of Trumpian Christmas
- At What Age Do You Outgrow IKEA?
By Priceonomics
If you’re a twenty something, it may already have happened: that awkward moment when you realize all your friends have the same Pinsoshen coffee table from IKEA.
The Swedish brand’s reputation for stocking stylish furniture and selling it for low prices has made it a one-stop shop for cash-strapped students furnishing their first apartments.
But when do they leave IKEA behind in favor of something more grown-up? We wanted to find out, so we analyzed data from Earnest , a Priceonomics customer. We analyzed a dataset of more than 10,000 anonymous user responses on spending habits. When does it begin? When does it end? And where do people turn when they’re ready for something new?
We first wanted to know how reliance on IKEA changes over a person’s lifetime, so we calculated the percent of our clients who shopped at IKEA. For the sake of comparison, we did the same for Lowe’s, a home improvement chain with similar overall popularity within our dataset.
As it turns out, age 34 is when you start to outgrow IKEA:
Data source: EarnestIt’s written in the data: you’re more likely to buy from IKEA when you’re 24 than at any other time in your life. IKEA remains popular throughout the late 20s and early 30s, but drops after age 34. We may as well call the 10-year period spanning the mid-20s and mid-30s the “IKEA decade.”
Lowe’s, meanwhile, shows the opposite trend: people are more likely to shop there as they get older. This makes sense, as increasing homeownership means more home improvement projects.
We wanted to further explore where shoppers turn once they grow out of their IKEA interiors. For each of 14 top furniture retailers, we found the age when the most respondents reported shopping at that store. We tabulated those “peak customer ages” below.
Data source: EarnestNot only is IKEA popular among young adults, it is the only retailer with a peak customer age below 30.
People in their 30s are more likely to shop stores that specialize in housewares and home accessories like Bed Bath & Beyond and Williams-Sonoma – perhaps because their IKEA furniture is still serving them well.
The oldest customers in our dataset prefer to do it themselves, favoring Home Depot and Lowe’s. When buying ready-to-use furniture, they visit big-box retailers like Ashley Furniture.
Beyond age, we were curious about which personal attributes predict furniture retailer preference. We calculated the percent of men and women in our sample claiming to shop each brand.
Data source: EarnestBy and large, men and women visit the same stores when they go furniture shopping. And they visit IKEA in particularly even numbers. But do-it-yourself stores like Home Depot and Lowe’s are visited by men more often than women, and women visit most of the other stores we considered in greater numbers than men.
Does geographic location influence retailer preference? We next looked at the percent of respondents from each state who identified themselves as IKEA shoppers. Results are listed below for all states for which we had at least 10 respondents.
Data source: EarnestThe Swedish brand began its North American expansion in the mid-Atlantic states, and this region still has the most IKEA brick-and-mortars. But it doesn’t lay claim to the most shoppers; that distinction goes to the Midwest and West Coast, which are home to the top 8 states.
This ranking is curiously uncorrelated to a listing of IKEA’s store locations. The top 4 states have just one store apiece. The popularity of IKEA in the west may have less to do with store ubiquity and more to do with lifestyle attributes that make the brand a natural fit.
- Singer George Michael Dead At 53
In a year that has claimed the lives of some of the most prolific and visible musical talents of more than one generation, including Prince and David Bowie, it is morbidly fitting that the man who gave us “Last Christmas”, George Michael, passed away on Christmas Day, “peacefully at home” according to his publicist.
As the BBC first reported, the star, who launched his career with Wham in the 1980s and later continued his success as a solo performer, is said to have “passed away peacefully at home”.
Thames Valley Police said South Central Ambulance Service attended a property in Goring in Oxfordshire at 13:42 GMT. Police say there were no suspicious circumstances.
The cause of death has not been revealed.
Michael, who was born Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou in north London, sold more than 100m albums throughout a career spanning almost four decades.
In a statement, the star’s publicist said: “It is with great sadness that we can confirm our beloved son, brother and friend George passed away peacefully at home over the Christmas period.
“The family would ask that their privacy be respected at this difficult and emotional time. There will be no further comment at this stage.”
Michael nearly died from pneumonia in late 2011. He received treatment in a Vienna hospital after which he made a tearful appearance outside his London home.
He said it had been “touch and go” whether he lived. Surgeons had performed a tracheotomy to keep his airways open and he was unconscious for some of his time in hospital.
Michael’s 1990 album Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1 had been set to be reissued.
It was due to be accompanied by a new film featuring Stevie Wonder, Elton John and the supermodels who starred in the video to his hit single Freedom! ’90.
* * *
Together with so many other greats who passed away in 2016, we thank George for the memories.
- Bank Of Canada Lays Out In YouTube Clip How The Economy Could Tank
As MacLean’s Jason Kirby points out, the Bank has taken to YouTube to warn Canadians about the dangers of too much debt and unrealistic house price expectations. He wonders, however, whether anyone will listen as one after another real estate bubble form in Canada, a nation whose household debt ratio has never been higher.
As BMO pointed out, when the latest household debt ratio data was released, the upward trend in household debt goes back for the 26 years for which it has records and is showing no signs of slowing down.
“While it looks as though the Vancouver housing market is cooling after the foreign buyers’ tax was implemented, the Toronto market remains very strong, and others are showing signs of improving as well,” said BMO senior economist Benjamin Reitzes.
Meanwhile, none other than Canada’s central bank has ramped up its warnings about heavily indebted households and the unreasonable expectations driving the housing market, yet all indications are that Canadians have stuffed cotton in their ears.
In Toronto, for instance, house prices are up nearly 15 per cent since the summer when Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz warned that price gains in the city were “difficult to match up with any definition of fundamentals that you could point to.” In the more than 15 years that the Teranet-National Bank House Price Index has tracked property prices in the city, there’s never been a six-month period when prices rose that fast. Meanwhile, the latest figures released by Statistics Canada showed the household debt-to-income ratio broke yet another record in the third quarter.
Now Canada’s central bank is trying a different platform to get its message across: YouTube.
In a video posted Monday on YouTube, in conjunction with the release of the Bank’s semi-annual financial system review last Thursday, Bank of Canada senior policy adviser Joshua Slive sketches out how Canada’s dangerous brew of debt and inflated house prices could combine to devastate the economy.
Here’s the scenario that worries the Bank.
1. As the Bank has pointed out already, households are highly indebted and house prices are rising at an unsustainable rate, though as Slive observes, people can often cope with these vulnerabilities for an extended period.
2. That is, until an economic shock triggers a negative chain of events. For instance, a severe recession would lead to “a sharp increase” in unemployment.
3. A lot of households, especially those carrying the heaviest debt loads, would have trouble meeting their debt payments. As a result, some households would start to default on their loans, and in turn, banks and trust companies would foreclose and try to sell those houses.
4. At the same time, with the economy slowing, new buyers would delay house purchases until the economy improved. Given the challenges already facing the economy, this could “cause a large drop in house prices.”
5. If house prices fell, it would push down household wealth, which has received a huge boost from the housing boom, and that could curtail consumer spending, which itself has become a primary driver of growth. The added stress on the financial sector would also weigh on the economy as lenders cut back on making new loans. Slive doesn’t use the term, but what he’s talking about is a credit crunch.
There is good news, Slive says. Stress tests show Canada’s big banks will be just fine even with a large drop in house prices (stress tests also showed that both Belgian Dexia and Spanish Bankia were perfectly solvent just months prior to their respectively failrues). It’s also important to note that the Bank, in its financial system review, said there is a “low probability” of a sharp correction in house prices. But there’s no getting around the immense damage such a scenario would have on the economy.
The video is a break from regular fare on the Bank of Canada’s YouTube channel, which is largely made up of speeches by top Bank officials. And even if Slive’s delivery is trademark central-banker dry, the message is stark, and shows the Bank is desperate for Canadians to heed its warnings on debt and rising house prices.
If there’s one quibble to be made, it’s with the initial domino that the Bank sees setting everything in motion—a severe recession leading to job losses. Since the U.S. housing bubble popped and that country went into its long, dark funk, a chicken-versus-egg debate has raged over whether the housing collapse triggered the U.S. recession, or whether something else, like soaring oil prices, brought on the recession and turned the housing slowdown into a total collapse. What’s beyond debate is that America’s housing market reached its frothiest in mid-2006, and then began its decline, one-and-a-half years before the recession began.
Whatever the case, the Bank’s video should be another wake-up call for Canadians, but “not that anyone’s listening” as Jason Kirby laments.
Here’s the video in full.
- Islamists Attack Christmas, But Europeans Abolish It
Submitted by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,
- A statue of the Virgin Mary was ordered taken away by a court in the French municipality of Publier. Senator Nathalie Goulet slammed the judges as "ayatollahs of secularism".
- A German school in Turkey just banned Christmas celebrations: the school, Istanbul Lisesi, funded by the German government, decided that Christmas traditions and carol-singing would no longer be allowed. A Woolworth's store in Germany scrapped Christmas decorations telling customers that the shop "is now Muslim".
- Europe is already mutilating her own traditions "to avoid offending Muslims". We have become our own biggest enemy.
- Muslims are also reclaiming "the mosque of Cordoba". Authorities in the southern Spanish city recently dealt a blow to the Catholic Church's claim of ownership of the cathedral. Now Islamists want it back.
- The final result of Europe's self-destructive secularism could seriously be a Caliphate.
"Everything is Christian", Jean-Paul Sartre wrote after the war. Two thousand years of Christianity have left a deep mark on the French language, landscape and culture. But not according to France's Minister of Education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem. She just announced that instead of saying "Merry Christmas", state officials should use "Happy Holidays" — clearly a deliberate intent to erase from discourse and the public space any reference to the Christian culture in which France is rooted.
Jean-François Chemain called it the "eradication of any Christian sign in the public landscape". A year ago, the controversy was ignited in the French town of Ploermel, where a court decided that the statue of Pope John Paul II, erected in a square, had to be removed for violating "secularism".
Then, a statue of the Virgin Mary was ordered taken away by a court in the municipality of Publier. Senator Nathalie Goulet slammed the judges as "ayatollahs of secularism".
The newspapers of the French "left", outraged by the "right's" ban on burkinis on the French Riviera, have been endorsing this anti-Christian policy.
France's Council of State has just ruled that "the temporary installation of cribs [nativity scenes] in a public place is legal if it has a cultural, artistic or festive value, but not if it expresses the recognition of a cult or a religious preference". What precautions to justify a millenary tradition!
In the town of Scaer, a nursing home has been the subject of a similar secularist complaint, for the presence of a fresco of the Virgin Mary. Then, it was the turn of the manger in the train station of Villefranche-de-Rouergue, in Aveyron. In the town of Boissettes, the church bells have been muted by court decision.
Fortunately, some ideas from the Observatory of Secularism — the organ established by President François Hollande to coordinate his neo-secularist policies — have not been implemented. One proposed even to eliminate some Christian national holidays to make room for the Islamic, Jewish and secular holidays.
President Hollande, on the occasion of Easter, "forgot" to express holiday wishes to the Christians of France. But a few months before, Hollande had extended his best wishes to the Muslims during the feast of Eid, which closes Ramadan. "Hollande's greeting to Muslims is opportunistic and political. For the Socialist Party, it is a crucial electoral clientele", said the French philosopher Gerard Leclerc in the newspaper, Le Figaro.
This Christianophobia is the Trojan Horse of Islam. As Charles Consigny writes in the weekly Le Point, "Through this tabula rasa of the past, France will make a clean sweep of its future". Unfortunately, France is not an isolated case. Everywhere in Europe, a weary, secularist absence of purpose and confused values damns Christianity in favor of Islam.
A jihadist terrorist, targeting a symbol of Christian tradition, last week slaughtered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin. But Europe is already mutilating her own traditions "to avoid offending Muslims". We have become our own biggest enemy.
The annual candlelit Saint Lucia ("Sankta Lucia") procession, a Swedish Christian tradition celebrated for hundreds of years, is "dying" out. Uddevalla, Södertälje, Koping, Umeå, and Ystad are among the growing numbers of cities no longer holding this lovely cultural event. According to Jonas Engman, an ethnologist at the Nordic Museum, the declining interest in the St. Lucia procession accompanies a more general alienation from the culture of Christian Sweden. A study conducted by Gallup International reveals that in observing the Christian religion, Sweden is "the least religious in the West". In the meantime, with a young, strong, driven sense of purpose and a set of sharia values, Islam is growing.
A German school in Turkey just banned Christmas celebrations. The school, Istanbul Lisesi, funded by the German government, decided that Christmas traditions and carol-singing would no longer be permitted. The Washington Post summarized the decision: "No teaching of Christmas customs, no celebrations and no Christmas caroling". It is not an isolated incident. A Woolworth's store in Germany also scrapped Christmas decorations, telling customers that the shop "is now Muslim".
In Britain, David Isaac, the new head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), told employers that they should not suppress Christian tradition out of fear of offending anyone. Previously, Dame Louise Casey, the British government's integration "tsar", warned that "traditions such as Christmas celebrations will die out unless people stand up for British values".
In many Spanish towns, such as Cenicientos, the municipality of this Autonomous Community of Madrid removed the Christian Stations of the Cross. Then, Madrid's mayor, Manuela Carmena, decided to remove the city's traditional Nativity display at the Puerta de Alcalá.
Muslims are also reclaiming "the mosque of Cordoba". Authorities in the southern Spanish city recently dealt a blow to the claim of ownership of the cathedral by the Catholic Church. Built on the site of Saint Vincent's church, it then served as a mosque for over 400 years when Islamic Spain was part of a caliphate, before the Christian kingdom of Castile conquered the city and converted it again into a church. Now Islamists want it back.
Muslims are also reclaiming "the mosque of Cordoba". Authorities in the southern Spanish city recently dealt a blow to the claim of ownership of the cathedral by the Catholic Church. Built on the site of Saint Vincent's church, it then served as a mosque for over 400 years when Islamic Spain was part of a caliphate, before the Christian kingdom of Castile conquered the city and converted it again into a church. (Image source: James (Jim) Gordon/Wikimedia Commons)
Belgium, the most Islamized democracy in Europe, is also purging its Christian heritage. The Nativity, the traditional manger scene, has not been put up in the Belgian town of Holsbeek, just outside Brussels. Claims were scenes it was scrapped to "avoid offending Muslims".
As reported by the newspaper La Libre, school calendars within Belgium's French speaking community are also using a new secularized terminology: All Saints Day (Congés de Toussaint) is now be referred to as Autumn Leave (Congé d'automne); Christmas Vacation (Vacances de Noël) is now Winter Vacation (Vacances d'hiver); Lenten Vacation (Congés de Carnaval) is now Rest and Relaxation Leave (Congé de détente); and Easter (Vacances de Pâques) is now Spring Vacation (Vacances de Printemps). Then Belgium installed an abstract, de-Christianized Christmas tree in the capital, Brussels.
In the Netherlands, the Christian tradition of Black Pete is under attack and it will soon be abolished. In Italy, Catholic priests this year canceled Christmas to "avoid offending Muslims".
The final result of Europe's self-destructive secularism could seriously be a Caliphate, in which the fate of its ancient and beautiful churches recapitulates those in Constantinople, where the Hagia Sophia, for thousand years Christianity's greatest cathedral, was recently turned into a mosque. The muezzin's call now reverberates inside this Christian landmark for the first time in 85 years.
Islamic terrorists targeted Christmas in Berlin, but it is the Christian secularists who are abolishing it all over Europe.
- The Scariest Forecast For Treasury Bulls
With Trump’s border tax adjustment looking increasingly likely, the stock market – as JPM has warned in recent days – is starting to fade the relentless Trumponomic, hope-driven rally since election day instead focusing on the details inside the president-elect’s proposed plans. And, as explained earlier in the week, if the border tax proposal is implemented, economists at Deutsche Bank estimate the tax could send inflation far above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target and drive a 15% surge in the dollar.
While this would be bad for stocks, as a 5% increase in the dollar translates into about a 3% negative earnings revision for the S&P 500 all else equal, a surge in inflation would also wreak havoc on bond prices, and send interest rates surging, at least initially, before they subsquently plunge as a result of a rapidly tightening, deep “behind the curve” Fed unleashes a curve inversion and recessionary stagflation becomes the bogeyman du jour.
There’s more.
In a separate report by Deutsche, the bank looks at future prospects for rates and concludes that “tightening monetary policy, higher breakevens, and declining central bank purchases relative to net supply should all contribute to significant bearish steepening during 2017.”
In its analysis of future bond rates, Deutsche Bank says that the biggest risk is that when looking at the menu of “threats” presented by the Trump stimulus, “there is a significant risk that if the Fed decides to aggressively lean against higher inflation expectations, the entire “regime shift” might stall. That is, higher wages and inflation expectations are a prerequisite to the substitution of capital for labor, which is in itself necessary for more rapid productivity growth and hence higher potential growth and sustainably higher levels of r*.”
And then the focus shifts so that whatever degree of accommodation is warranted, there will be the push to rebalance away from rising short rates to shrinking the Fed’s balance sheet, in other words, the Fed begins real normalization.
In DB’s model, the net effect of ending reinvestment of SOMA portfolio run-off, some asset sales, and an ECB taper is almost 200 bps. This would allows 10s to move well over 4 percent in 2018. That although roll offs are significant – maybe $50 billion/month – in order to get the balance sheet down from more than $4 trillion to say $1 trillion before the 4-year presidential term is over would still require asset sales of approximately $50 billion.
Assuming Deutsche Bank is correct, the result would be the scariest forecast bond bulls have seen in years: a 10-Year TSY whose yield fades all gains attained during the past decade, in the span of just two short years, hitting 4.5% in early 2019. The adverse implications from such a fast, steep move on all asset classes, not just bonds, would be devastating.
Will this forecast come true? Readers can make their own determinations upon reading DB’s assumptions:
Formally, DB’s model of 10s has three explanatory variables. The main driver is the ratio global QE purchases to net supply in nominal terms with a nine-month lead, i.e., the market is forward looking. Global QE and supply figures are from the US, Europe and Japan. The other two variables in the model are Fed funds and the 2s/funds spread. The model is estimated between October 2006 and September 2016.
These assumptions are summarized in the following three scenarios:
- Base case: Trump’s fiscal stimulus, amounting to about $530 billion per year for ten years.
- Base case + ECB taper + Fed portfolio rolloff. In this case, 10s are about +70bp higher in yields than in the base case.
- Base case + ECB taper + Fed portfolio rolloff + Fed asset sales. 10s are about +100bp higher in yields than in base case.
The assumptions in the scenarios are:
- President-elect Trump’s stimulus package, scored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget adds $5.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. This averages to $530 billion per year, starting in July 2017, around the time the plan is expected to be passed by Congress.
- The ECB tapers QE purchases by ½ in 2018, and stops all purchases in 2019.
- Fed balance sheet reductions: The Fed stops reinvestments of maturing Treasuries and MBS pre-payments starting Q4 2017. Asset sales at $250 billion in 2018 and $500 billion in 2019.
- The Fed funds target range rises to 2.50%-2.75% by year end 2019, with the 2s/funds spread at 60bp.
Visually:
Needless to say, DB is convinced that there is a lot of pain coming for the bond market. To wit:
“Our strongest market view, therefore, is that investors should be short duration. Rates are going higher. The curve should end up steeper but this Fed’s initial reaction as per this week can confuse curve dynamics. Real rates should not rise more than breakevens. In the short run dollar strength should persist.”
We are far less confident, especially if indeed the border tax is implemented, sending the dollar soaring, US exports, and GDP crashing, and corporate profits plunge. In short: if Trump unleashes a recession by implementing a policy which is meant to eliminate the US trade deficit.
In such a case, forget steepeners: buy every flattener you can get your hands on, and then use leverage, because before you know it the 2s30s will be back in the double digits, then single, and then, not too long from now, negative.
Whether that is the catalyst that will kick off QE4 or whatever the current number is, we don’t know, but by that point China will be spitting up blood as a result of a historic collapse in the Yuan, hundreds of billions in monthly outflows and a paralyzed, and crushed financial system. Ironically, in light of the devastation that may soon befall China should Trump’s policies pan out, the US – recession or not – may still be the “cleanest dirty shirt” in a world where things are about to get very messy.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...