Month: August 2014

Taupe: It’s Not Just For The Oval Office Anymore

Submitted by Mark St.Cyr,

Whether it’s politics or business one thing remains the same: if you are designated or perceived as the leader, everything you say or do is viewed with an eye searching for obvious and hidden meanings. While at the same time the higher the level or more commanding the position, that search goes from the naked eye to one looking via an electron microscope.

Words matter, the way they are said can matter even more, yet what is just as important is the posture, and yes – that can include even your choice of attire.

Leadership can be very symbolic in its application for consumption. We hear all the time the running line “they wrap themselves in the flag” and so forth to describe politicians and others. So is it any wonder that when the leader of the free world takes to the podium during what by all credible standards is a world on the edge of unrest shows up wearing not the traditional dark suit and red or blue tie but – light tan, people from all walks say, “What the ____ is up with that?”

The reaction was near instantaneous across social media channels. The knee jerk over whelming first responses were (to be kind) a projection of weakness. The contrast between the surrounding stage set used in the press room and the tan suit was glaring. So much and so out-of-place did it seem that one couldn’t help to think of anything else but, why?  Was this just some fashion faux pas? Personally I don’t think so.

If people will remember one of the first highly visible changes of note made for all the world to take notice, was the complete gelding of the oval office and all its symbolic tones of color with a complete overhaul to neutral. i.e., Taupe.

It can’t be underestimated just how much of a message is being intentionally sent when one of the first acts is to take what is considered the most powerful and important office in the world, and completely change or strip away any essence of it and replace it with muted tones of taupe.

The oval office today is now a more neutered, bland, unappealing a washed in hotel ballroom-esque neutral tones of beige. It’s not what many are accustomed to remembering.

So bland is the office today that it seems we never see the president speak from it. In nearly 6 years I can only recall one. Taupe doesn’t make for good television, but the symbolic nature for people who are received in that office would be overwhelmingly obvious. The new red white and blue – is taupe.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with this administration or not doesn’t matter. I’m not discussing policy here. What I am talking about applies to any and all leadership.

Symbolism matters, especially when you’re at the highest of levels trying to project or convey messages across oceans and cultures. And what I’m trying to convey is just my observations, for I’m in the “leadership” business per se.

When businesses or executives find themselves unable to move their companies or people in the direction they want more often than not it boils right down to the what, and how the leader of that organization is presenting themselves, and what mixed messages he/she are sending. Even if the company has thousands of people. The leader is the avatar, and their public behavior (good or bad) is what will be amplified by the ranks. Period.

The issue at hand is when this messaging gets mixed, or in other words, the very people you think know what you mean – take it as the opposite.

What makes matters even worse is when people who you believe won’t even notice , or you’ve overlooked their interpretation of it all together in your calculus amplify the worst of intended meanings. i.e., Not only did your intended audience read you wrong, but so too did everyone else with even more disdain.

Currently we have Russia by all accounts invading and engaging in real warfare with Ukraine. Add to this the threats from ISIS. (or ISIL if you prefer) China flexing its military in a thumbing of the nose fashion with air to air engagements with war planes along with telegraphed over tones of discontent with once seemingly undisputed areas of territory. (the islands near Japan and others) The ongoing and ever increasingly volatile Israel/Hamas engagement. Along with the myriad of other ongoing issues. e.g., cyber attacks, U.S. border challenges, civil unrest, just to name a few.

This is where leaders of any stripe need to show and convey the message that they are either in control, or project an image of that control via words or symbolism. And on the world stage – every detail matters and conveys a message. And, this is where academia (or academics) get it wrong all the time.

They play or convey their message as if only the people watching are the people they are trying to trying to speak to. They are stunningly tone-deaf and usually blindsided by responses to their messaging because they can’t see past their own noses. (just look to any Federal Reserve explanation of monetary policy as a reference)

I could be wrong but unlike most I don’t feel the donning of that taupe suit was a fashion faux pas. I believe it was a deliberate act for symbolic effect to telegraph a message they want remembered by whomever they were trying to reach.

From my way of thinking it fits if you look at it through what words or messaging accompanied it. Words and tones such as (I’m paraphrasing) “We have yet to define a strategy, Congress will be involved and they’re not due back till next week, we’re not sure if that is true,” and so on.

With the United States on the eve of a major holiday I believe a signal was trying to be sent that resembled,” Hey, we’re not going to do anything provocative, remember I’m/we’re the guy’s that toned down the oval office, remember? It’s the same color as this suit, remember? I want to assure you we’re not going to do anything provocative during this long weekend, and we want to make sure you remember we want to “talk first.” Remember?

This is the reason why I feel the color of choice for that press conference was taupe. (or subdued shades of beige if you prefer) It was sending a visual cue to all that we are not fiercely red, white, and blue. We are taupe. Just look at our most important room of honor and power to back this up was the messaging being conveyed in my opinion.

The real issue and problem with this messaging is if the people who it was intended to reach (i.e., other world leaders) receive it and view it the same way as the people the president represents. As “weak and embarrassing.”

Agree or not with the policies, but the decision for that suit in my opinion was anything but a faux pas, it was intentional.

What really matters in the end will be just how much of an error in judgment it turns out to be. For all our sakes, I hope it winds up to be no more than a detail on a Joan Rivers Fashion Police™ tape.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1B5PR6r Tyler Durden

Google Tests Drones in Australia

Australian farmer
Neil Parfitt recently became the first person in the world to
receive a delivery from a Google drone. The candy bar that was
delivered to Parfitt foreshadows a future in which small and medium
sized items will be delivered in minutes. Reason TV took a look at
the “drone boom” last year.

“Drone Boom: Why Drones Aren’t Just for Dropping Bombs
Anymore,” produced by Paul Detrick. Approximately 7
minutes.

Original release date was August 20, 2013. The original writeup
is below.

When you hear the word drone you may immediately think of bombs
being dropped in the Middle East or the surveillance of citizens
here in the United States, but engineers and aviation geeks have
wondered for decades if unmanned flight might solve a few of our
world’s problems or just make our lives a little easier.

Over 30 years ago, science magazines wondered if drones would
“sniff out pollution,” or, “make pilots obsolete,” and engineers
are saying that those ideas may be possible now.

“The technology has reached a point where it can be very
inexpensive to buy [unmanned aerial system technology],” says John
Villasenor, an engineer at UCLA and a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution. Villasenor says that advances in GPS,
airframe design, and flight control methods have made unmanned
flight available to pretty much anyone.

As a part of the FAA’s re-authorization of funds in February
2012, Congress passed a bill that included the integration of
unmanned aircraft into U.S. airspace. First for public entities
like law enforcement or fire fighters and second for civilians like
farmers or filmmakers with full integration by 2015. In July, the
FAA approved two drones for commercial use which could fly as early
as 2013.

The industry is growing so quickly worldwide that the
intelligence research firm the Teal Group, said in June 2013 that
unmanned aerial vehicle spending will more than double over the
next ten years from current expenditures of $5.2 billion annually
to $11.6 billion–totaling just over $89 billion in the next
decade.

“The potential of UAVs benefiting mankind in firefighting,
agriculture, pollution, stopping all sorts of loss of life because
we were able to send a remote vehicle instead of a human life into
that is amazing,” said Alan Tratnor of the California Space
Enterprise Center at an unmanned aerial vehicle policy symposium
put on by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in
March 2013.

The symposium is like a lot of public discussions going on
around the world right now about drones.

Drone like this one are becoming cheaper and more available to
civilians.”It’s a way to have a dialogue across the whole community
to make sure we are all thinking of the right things and moving in
the right direction together,” said Sandra Magnus, executive
director of AIAA.

Some companies have already hit the ground running with low
level aerial film making. Drone Dudes is a two year old company of
young filmmakers and engineers who shoot sporting events across the
United States. Whether it’s biking, surfing, driving or
skateboarding, Drone Dudes is able to capture aerial shots that are
considerably cheaper and more dynamic that using a crane or a
helicopter.

Magnus, who is also a former astronaut, says that she is aware
of the concerns people have about the new technology.

“Human beings, our very nature, we’re a little scary about
change because it’s the unknown, but we’re explorers too. And we
are constantly balancing that tension between what’s the unknown
like and part of us yearn to go into the unknown and all the debate
you hear about the use of unmanned vehicles on both sides, you’re
seeing that tension played out.”

Villasenor points out that in the late 1800s, when cameras
became cheap enough for many Americans to buy, there was tension
over that new technology too. Some of that tension grew over
privacy fears, a topic the unmanned aerial system community can’t
seem to escape.

Drone camera”I think civil libertarians have a right to be
concerned about privacy,” says Villasenor. “To deny that unmanned
aircraft […] will in some cases be used in manner that violates
privacy, that would be overly naive. It will happen.”

Villasenor points out that when it comes to government drones
with cameras the fourth amendment still should apply when it comes
to civilians, there are invasion of privacy statues people must
abide by.

“I also think it’s important for people with an interest in
civil liberties and everyone else to look at it on the other side
[…] We have, all of us, an affirmative first amendment right to
gather information so unmanned aircraft in the hands of people who
are gathering information which includes people in the news media
and others can be very powerful tools just like cameras are today,”
says Villasenor.

“Technology is a tool and you have to be mindful how you use
it,” says Magnus. “But we can’t let our fear keep us from reaping
the benefits of our brains, which is where the technology comes
from.”

Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Camera by Detrick, Sharif
Matar, Alex Manning and Tracy Oppenheimer.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1tZpDzd
via IFTTT

20,000 Pakistan Riot Police Unleash Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets As Protesters Breach PM’s Residence, 230 Injured

UPDATE: *POLICE, PROTESTERS CLASH IN ISLAMABAD; AT LEAST 230 HURT: AFP

Against the background we initialliy explained here, and the escalation we discussed here, Imran Khan’s “Pakistan Spring” has grown dramatically. The former cricketing-legend and erstwhile opposition leader’s call for people to take to the streets to demand new ‘unrigged’ elections has 1000s of protesters breaching the Prime Minister’s residence in Islamabad. Along with anti-government cleric Tahirul Qadri, Khan urged peaceful protest but, as AP reports, an estimated 20,000 police in riot gear are blocking the procession using tear gas and rubber bullets. Local hospitals report at least 100 injuries.

 

 

 

 

 

  • *SOME PROTESTORS HAVE ENTERED P.M. HOUSE PREMISES: SAMAA TV
  • *PAKISTAN POLICE FIRE TEAR GAS AT PROTESTORS: SAMAA TV
  • *PAKISTAN POLICE FIRE RUBBER BULLETS AT PROTESTORS; 100 INJURED

 

As AP reports,

Pakistani police fired tear gas at thousands of protesters as they tried to march toward the prime minister’s home in the capital on Saturday, blanketing the route with clouds of white smoke and scattering demonstrators.

 

Police also fired rubber bullets to disperse the crowd, injuring some protesters, and at least a dozen were taken to a nearby hospital, police said.

 

 

Riot police initially showed restraint to Saturday’s march but when the crowd started removing shipping containers used as barricades, they fired salvos of tear gas canisters that forced the crowds back. TV footage showed protesters, including women and children, scattering in retreat. Some fell to the ground and dozens were being treated in a hospital. Many, including two children, were shown being treated for effects of tear gas.

 

Police refused to give any estimates about the size of the crowd that had been headed toward the prime minister’s residence.

 

Police official Farman Ali said the injured have been shifted to a government hospital.

 

“They fired tear gas shells at us,” said Ahsanullah Fakhri, 28, who was bleeding from his leg, as he exited an ambulance with some seven other protesters who had multiple minor wounds.

 

“I think they are also firing some bullets, I think rubber bullets,” he added.

 

Khan described the police’s action against the crowd as illegal.

 

Now we will show this government, we will call for countrywide agitation and we will jam the whole of Pakistan.”

 

Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan quickly visited the scene to boost police morale.

 

“A group wanted to capture the prime ministers house and other buildings. We are under oath, and the police as well, to protect the state assets.”

*  *  *

*  *  *

A collection of clips…


Protestors enter Parliament House by GeoNews


Masked men used sling shots to attack police in… by GeoNewsw


Police fire teargas, rubber bullets at PTI, PAT… by GeoNews

*  *  *

At least this is something that could never happen in America… oh wait.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qUqXmG Tyler Durden

Is There Capitalism After Cronyism?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The more the Status Quo pursues the same old Keynesian Cargo Cult script of central planning and free money for financiers, the more self-liquidating the system becomes.

Judging by the mainstream media, the most pressing problems facing capitalism are:

1) income inequality, the basis of Thomas Piketty’s bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century, and

2) the failure of laissez-faire markets to regulate their excesses, a common critique encapsulated by Paul Craig Roberts’ recent book The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

These critiques (and many similar diagnoses) reach a widely shared conclusion: capitalism must be reformed to save it from itself.

The proposed reforms align with each analyst’s basic ideological bent. Piketty’s solution to rising wealth inequality is the ultimate in statist centralization: a global wealth tax.

Roberts and others recommend reforming capitalism to embody social purpose and recognize environmental limits. Exactly how this economic reformation should be implemented is a question that sparks debates across the ideological spectrum, but the idea that capitalism can be reformed is generally accepted by left, right and libertarian alike.

Socio-economist Immanuel Wallerstein asks a larger question: can the current iteration of global capitalism be reformed, or is it poised to be replaced by some other arrangement?

Wallerstein and four colleagues explored this question in Does Capitalism Have a Future? (Oxford University Press, 2013).

Wallerstein is known as a proponent of world systems, the notion that each dominant economic-political arrangement eventually reaches its limits and is replaced by a new globally hegemonic system.

Wallerstein draws his basic definition of the current dominant system–let’s call it Global Capitalism 1.0–from his mentor, historian Fernand Braudel, who meticulously traced modern capitalism back to its developmental roots in the 15th century in an influential three-volume history, Civilization & Capitalism, 15th to 18th Centuries:

The Structures of Everyday Life: Volume 1

The Wheels of Commerce: Vol. 2

The Perspective of the World: Volume 3

 

From this perspective, there is a teleological path to global capitalism’s expansion beneath the market’s ceaseless cycle of boom-and-bust. This model of ever-larger systems of global dominance has been further developed by Braudel disciples such as Giovanni Arrighi (The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the Origins of Our Times).

It is this latest and most expansive iteration of capitalism–one dominated by the mobility of global capital, state enforcement of privately owned rentier/cartel arrangements and the primacy of financial capital over industrial capital–that Wallerstein and his collaborators view as endangered.

Amidst the conventional chatter of social spending countering markets gone wild–as if the only thing restraining rampant capitalism is the state–Wallerstein clearly identifies the state's role as enforcer of private cartels.

This is not just a function of regulatory capture by monied elites: if the state fails to maintain monopolistic cartels, profit margins plummet and capital is unable to maintain its spending on investment and labor. Simply put, the economy tanks as profits, investment and growth all stagnate.

This is why Wallerstein characterizes this iteration of capitalism as “a particular historical configuration of markets and state structures where private economic gain by almost any means is the paramount goal and measure of success.”

 

Even those who reject this description of free markets and the self-interested pursuit of profit can agree that the prime directive of capitalism is the accumulation of capital: enterprises that fail to accumulate capital lose capital and eventually go bust.

As economist Joseph Schumpeter recognized, capitalism is not a steady-state system but one constantly reworked by “creative destruction,” the process of the less efficient being replaced by the more efficient.

In Wallerstein’s view, Global Capitalism 1.0 could end in the frustration of capitalists to continue reaping large and fairly secure profits. If capital can no longer accumulate capital, this iteration of capitalism runs out of oxygen and creative destruction will usher in a new arrangement. (Wallerstein’s chapter in the book is titled why capitalists may no longer find capitalism rewarding.)

Though the status quo believes that amending the political-financial rules is all that’s needed to maintain the current centralized arrangement, Wallerstein believes that following the old rules will actually intensify the coming structural crisis.

As the state-cartel crony-capitalism that dominates the financial and political realms unravels on multiple levels, it's difficult not to agree with Wallerstein that the more the Status Quo pursues the same old Keynesian Cargo Cult script of central planning and free money for financiers, the more self-liquidating the system becomes.

*  *  *
This entry is drawn from an essay published in The American Conservative Magazine; a Kindle Edition is available for only $3.98/issue.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1B5AaMH Tyler Durden

Were European Bonds Mispriced in 2012 or are they Now?

By EconMatters

 

How to properly value European Bonds

 

This seems to be the biggest question in financial markets for me right now because the math just doesn`t add up any way you slice it. When you look at the pricing for European bonds this conclusion jumps out from an analyst perspective, either European bonds were analyzed and incorrectly priced two years ago, or they are currently being analyzed and mispriced today!  

 

Possible Explanations for Large Valuation Gap 

 

Belgium 10 Year Bond Yield

One might say it is a little of both, the yields shouldn`t have been that high two years ago, and they shouldn`t be this low right now. However, the gap is just too large from a valuation standpoint to hold much water or relevance here. The next possible answer is that central banks have made interest rates for borrowing money so low that this has incentivized bondholders to accumulate more bonds in search of a yield vehicle to invest this ZIRPMoney. 

 

 

Ireland 10 Year Bond Yield

Also, the US QE Program of $85 Billion per month, much of this money may have found its way into the European banking and financial markets further incentivizing liquidity driven asset purchases of all kinds in Europe. But remember, Europe itself has done very little besides the main weapon of ZIRP compared with the United States, and these are European bonds we are talking about. But if it just comes down to ZIRP offering enough of an incentive to buy what were perceived as risky bonds for investors just two years ago, why weren`t these yields much lower as soon as ZIRP began in Europe? 

 

 

One answer might be that there was a scale issue regarding liquidity, and ultimately there was a lag effect, until liquidity reached a certain threshold, first of filling the deleveraging credit gap, then there is enough to spill over into alternative investments like chasing yield trades. However this two year period also happened to correspond with the $85 Billion QE policy in the United States, and this seems to have been some of the catalyst for ditching investments like Gold in favor of Yield Investments. There is also this ‘Binary Mentality’ in financial markets in evaluating an investment risk or trading strategy, it is ‘Risk On’ or ‘Risk Off’, ‘Yield On’ or ‘Yield Off’, or European bonds are ‘Safe’ or really ‘Risky’. 

 

Fundamentals in Europe Haven`t Changed

 

 

Italy 10 Year Bond Yield

However when you look at the fundamentals and compare them to 2012 things haven`t really changed that much in Europe from a ‘getting their financial house in order’ standpoint, and their economies aren’t exactly booming, so these bonds seem as risky now as they ever have been from a solvency standpoint. I realize that the higher yields feed on themselves and make Europe`s outlook worse by some metrics, and that lower yields help alleviate near-term financing concerns from an interest on debt perspective, but the moves in these European bond yields just don`t make sense on a valuation standpoint, who would buy these bonds at current prices and yields? [Moreover, lower yields may be bad because it allows the governments to put off the much needing structural reforms that are necessary for fixing Europe in the long run.] The possible answer is that banks think that they can front run central banks, beg for QE, and get the central banks to take these bonds off their books. 

 


How Big can the ECB Balance Sheet Really Get?

 

 

Spain 10 Year Bond Yield

But remember Europe hasn`t really done any bond buying program, and it really seems like a big risk to take with your only real out being that Mario Draghi can convince policy makers to buy European bonds in any sizeable scale to make all these bonds good values here. The scale is enormous because the amount of debt that Europe needs to sustain their deficit spending weak economies that are not very competitive from a global standpoint outside of Germany is enormous each year. Furthermore, the ECB is really going to buy “all of these European bonds” from Italy to Belgium? The math doesn`t add up, just think about the Fed`s 4.5 Trillion dollar balance sheet, how big would the ECB balance sheet need to be to have any real impact in buying all these bonds from the banks that currently hold them? 

 

What Will Germany Sign Off On?

 

Would Germany really sign off on this even if it was potentially possible to buy even half the bonds of these European countries? This just seems ludicrous and I hope this isn`t a real investment rationale for buying all these European bonds, that the ECB is going to take them off their hands regardless of price. The other explanation is that these bond investors think they can get out quick enough, make enough money before ZIRP and the market reverses itself, and basically dump these bonds back onto the market without getting hurt. 

 

 

However, when you calculate the magnitude of how many bonds were bought all across Europe with deficit spending needed to sustain largess social governments, taking yields down from such heights just two years ago, this is a lot of bonds that will have to be dumped onto the market, what effect is this going to have regarding a tremendous spike in yields during this process? 

 

Paper Gains on Bank`s Balance Sheets Likely to Reverse to Actual Losses Again

 

 

Portugal 10 Year Bond Yield

Remember so far these banks and financial players have gained ‘paper gains’ on their books, they of course book the yield profits, but these are small relative to the price moves in these bonds. However the bonds are still on their books and nothing has changed in Europe and in reality many of these ‘paper gains’ on the books will reverse themselves. In many cases any financial institution who bought bonds over the last year in Europe at extremely high historical prices relative to recent history and the dire fundamentals of Europe from a debt to GDP standpoint is going to incur massive losses on these bonds that make the banks themselves extremely vulnerable to collapse. Basically needing to be bailed out all over again, i.e., the collapse of the Spanish Real Estate market, and the after effects of all this bad debt on bank`s balance sheets who had exposure to the overbuilding in Spain. 

 

The Problem with Accumulating Assets without regard to Fundamental Value means these Assets are Forever Stuck on the Bank`s Books – Nobody will buy them when they need to sell

 

 

France 10 Year Bond Yield

But based just on the fact that bond investors have no real clue what any of these bonds should be priced at just in a two year period, I have no confidence that their models over a ten year time period have any validity or insight regarding valuations and sound investment decisions. It seems more likely that somebody in Europe is going to have to take huge haircuts on these bond positions, as unlike Japan Europe relies on external funding for these bonds. It seems like the likely scenario is that yields start rising slowly at first with the extinction of the massive US QE program in October by the Federal Reserve. And pick up steam as the ECB cannot deliver relative to the expectations already priced into European Bonds, and then the technicals take over fueled by the reality that Europe was never fixed. This leads to the same scenario for these bonds getting ‘re-priced’ back into the bond market that we had just two short years ago. That most of these bondholders will have to take massive haircuts on these positions, and in two to five years European bonds are back pushing the upper limits of yield once again on an increased insolvency risk profile or EU breakup entirely.

 

 The German Bund is a Long-Term Short over 10-Year Duration

 

But the one thing that is certain is European bonds are not properly priced today on any scenario. There is a high probability that these bonds are completely worthless in ten years for some of these countries, the math just doesn’t work out in some of these peripheral countries. The German Bund also looks like a short at least back to 1.2% from the current 0.88 % yield for the 10-year duration as the market has really gotten ahead of itself in a slow summer, and as markets often do overshoot based upon one-sided momentum trading. 

 

European Bonds Biggest Bubble in a World of Mispriced Assets

 

I would also reiterate that most of these European bonds are massive shorts, just take positions, be able to stay in these markets for ten years, and most of these bonds are going to ‘re-price’ back to the fundamentals of Europe and a sustainable risk profile. Any investor buying European bonds at these prices is going to lose money on this investment when they have to sell these same bonds in an escalating yield environment. 

 

More Money Has Been Lost Chasing Yield the last 10 Years than any other Investment Strategy – Yet it Remains one of the most popular – so much for “Prudential Regulation” Janet Yellen as being an Effective Tool for Containing Risk to the Financial System

 

Remember you haven`t made money on a trade until the position is officially closed out, good luck buying European bonds in the biggest bubble of the vast universe of bubbles that currently exist in the financial universe that we find ourselves in due to incompetent Central Banks, matched only by incompetent governments who spend more than they can possibly take in regarding revenue, all cheered on by irresponsible banks who want their investment risk subsidized by others. I am a finance guy, and the math ultimately has to make sense, and it just doesn`t make any sense in Europe, and unlike the United States, the margin of error for Europe is not nearly as big to fall back on!

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Email Subscribe | Kindle




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tkkbco EconMatters

This Is How ISIS Is Building An Airforce

The Islamic State is nothing if not ambitious. Despite no record of current 'airplane' assets in their annual reports, ISIS has begun detaining and forcing Syrian pilots to train militant fighters to fly stolen aircraft. According to CNN Arabic, the pilots (and their planes and helicopters) were abducted when the terrorist group gained control of Tabqa military base. It appears that if beheadings, executions, and whippings are not enough to strike fear into the hearts of the locals, then (just as America is tryiung to do), an air assault will greatly demoralize. We can only imagine how this changes Obama's strategy (and just where are all the rest of Syria and Iraq's airplanes stored?)

 

 

Via Al Arabiya,

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria said in a recent tweet it is forcing detained Syrian pilots to train militant fighters to fly stolen aircraft, CNN Arabic reported on Saturday.

 

In an account reportedly associated with the militant group, ISIS said in a tweet the pilots were abducted when the group gained control over the Tabqa military airbase in Raqqa Province.

 

ISIS seized the airbase earlier this month. The major airfield houses warplanes, helicopters, tanks and other artillery and ammunition, which were also confiscated by ISIS, according to several media reports.

 

ISIS did not provide any information about the nature of the training, according to CNN Arabic.

*  *   *

As NYTimes reported,

The fall of the Tabqa air base followed the group’s seizing of two other Syrian military bases and gave it effective control of Raqqa Province, which abuts the Turkish border and whose capital city, Raqqa, has long served as the group’s de facto headquarters.

 

Photographs posted Sunday on Twitter accounts sympathetic to ISIS showed bearded fighters in the air base, standing next to a destroyed fighter jet and appearing to cut the head off a dead soldier.

*  *  *

Some more of the 'loot'




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qTTvwT Tyler Durden

Past Fear, Present Fear

From Slope of Hope: I was looking at the entire history of the volatility index (the oft-cited “VIX’) and found an interesting parallel. Take note of this chart

0831-oldfix

So what we have here is:

+ Cyan tint – a grinding, multi-year slide following the bursting of a gigantic bubble. In this instance, it was the bursting of the Internet bubble, and during Greenspan’s deliberate inflation of the housing bubble, investors got calmer………..and calmer.

+ Yellow tint – The slide seemed to be over, and there was a period where fear seemed to be coming back. However, it really never seemed to take hold.

+ Magenta tint – Just when it seemed that fear was forever outlawed, and the VIX cracked briefly to lows never seen before (Grey tint), there was a sudden burst higher in volatility. In the case of February 2007, it was when the Chinese stock market made a brief tumble.

+ Green tint – Nope, the fear index falls back again to similar levels it has been grinding around at for a while. The “VIX fix” seems to be permanent.

Now take a look at more recent history, and apply every single one of those descriptions to the chart below. The only difference I see is that the most recent burst (Magenta) was muted compared to the one from 2007.

0831-newvix

Of course, after nearly six years of this nonsense, even someone like me starts to worry that, for the first time in the history of the universe, It Really Is Different This Time. But, ummm, that’s kind of what they want us to think, isn’t it?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1tYHuGD Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

It’s Settled: Central Banks Trade S&P500 Futures

Based on the unprecedented collapse in trading volumes of cash products over the past 6 years, one thing has become clear: retail, and increasingly, institutional investors and traders are gone, probably for ever and certainly until the Fed’s market-distorting central planning ends. However, one entity appears to have taken the place of conventional equity traders: central banks.

Courtesy of an observation by Nanex’s Eric Hunsader, we now know, with certainty and beyond merely speculation by tinfoil fringe blogs, that central banks around the world trade (and by “trade” we mean buy) S&P 500 futures such as the E-mini, in both futures and option form, as well as full size, and micro versions, in addition to the well-known central bank trading in Interest Rates, TSY and FX products.

In fact, central banks are such active traders, that the CME Globex has its own “Central Bank Incentive Program”, designed to “incentivize” central banks to provide market liquidity, i.e., limit orders, by paying them (!) tiny rebates on every trade. Because central banks can’t just print whatever money they need, apparently they need the CME to pay them to trade.

 

So the next time you sell some E-minis, ask yourself: is the ECB on the other side? Or the BOE? Or, perhaps, you are selling S&P 500 futures to Kuroda. Who knows: there is no paper trail anywhere, although a FOIA request and/or the discovery from a lawsuit, class action or otherwise, of the CME’s central bank incentive program would likely yield some stunning results.

But the only place where “discovery” would be by far the most interesting, is for the CME to disclose just which central banks provide, or take such as at 8am every morning when one market sell order takes out the entire bid staack, the most liquidity when it comes to central bank trades in “Metals Futures Contracts (Physicals).”

Because imagine the shock and awe if and when it is uncovered that the biggest active manipulators of gold are not some junior-level traders out of Britain’s criminal bank cartel, but the central banks themselves.

Finally, while the list above deals with international central banks “providing” ES liquidity, those wondering why the NY Fed is not on the list and just how the Fed’s active trading team participates in the market without breaking the law, we have just one word: Citadel.

Source: Modifications to Central Bank Incentive Program. CME/CBOT/NYMEX/COMEX #14-038




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wTnEkL Tyler Durden