Month: June 2016

Back in April President Obama took a trip over to the UK in order to lecture another country on how to vote – Obama of course was staunchly in the Remain camp. Obama even penned an op-ed titled: "As your friend, let me say that the EU makes Britain even greater."

Of course, we all know the historic outcome of the Brexit vote, and we have even asked if it was Barack Obama who actually was the deciding factor:

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has never been shy of course, but lately has been making sure to remember all of those who tried to downplay or influence the vote. For example, in his first appearance in the European Parliament since the Brexit vote, Farage took the time to make sure the audience knew he hadn't forgotten that everyone laughed when Farage said that he was going to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, saying "You're not laughing now are you."

Farage hadn't forgotten Obama's attempt to influence the vote either. In a recent interview with Fox News, Farage was asked what can be done about Putin if the UK isn't in the EU, to which Farage raged that Obama had behaved disgracefully when compared to Putin.

"Well ultimately let me say this, Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain and I think behaved disgracefully, telling us we'd be at the back of the queue. Treating us, America's strongest, oldest ally, in this extraordinary way. Vladimir Putin maintained his silence throughout the whole campaign."

* * *

Oh that does it, Obama won't be inviting Farage on any of the remaining 36-hold golf outings!

via http://ift.tt/296lIyK Tyler Durden

Submitted by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

Tell a person that it's a big beautiful world, full of fresh opportunities and a sense of freedom that is just not available by staying put and you will inevitably be treated to a litany of reasons why expanding your life into more than one country just isn't practical.

Let's consider some of those commonly stated reasons, and why they might be unjustified. While largely directed at Americans, these are also applicable to pretty much anyone from any country (for example, Britain… or Germany).

"America is the best country in the world. I'd be a fool to leave."

That was absolutely true, not so very long ago. America certainly was the best – and it was unique. But it no longer exists, except as an ideal. The geography it occupied has been co-opted by the United States, which today is just another nation-state. And, most unfortunately, one that's become especially predatory toward its citizens.

"My parents and grandparents were born here; I have roots in this country."

An understandable emotion; everyone has an atavistic affinity for his place of birth, including your most distant relatives born long, long ago, and far, far away. I suppose if Lucy, apparently the first more-or-less human we know of, had been able to speak, she might have pled roots if you'd asked her to leave her valley in East Africa. If you buy this argument, then it's clear your forefathers, who came from Europe, Asia, or Africa, were made of sterner stuff than you are.

"I'm not going to be unpatriotic."

Patriotism is one of those things very few even question and even fewer examine closely. I'm a patriot, you're a nationalist, he's a jingoist. But let's put such a tendentious and emotion-laden subject aside. Today a true patriot – an effective patriot – would be accumulating capital elsewhere, to have assets he can repatriate and use for rebuilding when the time is right. And a real patriot understands that America is not a place; it's an idea. It deserves to be spread.

"I can't leave my aging mother behind."

Not to sound callous, but your aging parent will soon leave you behind. Why not offer her the chance to come along, though? She might enjoy a good live-in maid in your own house (which I challenge you to get in the U.S.) more than a sterile, dismal, and overpriced old people's home, where she's likely to wind up.

"I might not be able to earn a living."

Spoken like a person with little imagination and even less self-confidence. And likely little experience or knowledge of economics. Everyone, everywhere, has to produce at least as much as he consumes – that won't change whether you stay in your living room or go to Timbuktu. In point of fact, though, it tends to be easier to earn big money in a foreign country, because you will have knowledge, experience, skills, and connections the locals don't.

"I don't have enough capital to make a move."

Well, that was one thing that kept serfs down on the farm. Capital gives you freedom. On the other hand, a certain amount of poverty can underwrite your freedom, since possessions act as chains for many.

"I'm afraid I won't fit in."

The real danger that's headed your way is not fitting in at home. This objection is often proffered by people who've never traveled abroad. Here's a suggestion. If you don't have a valid passport, apply for one tomorrow morning. Then, at the next opportunity, book a trip to somewhere that seems interesting. Make an effort to meet people. Find out if you're really as abject a wallflower as you fear.

"I don't speak the language."

It's said that Sir Richard Burton, the 19th century explorer, spoke 10 languages fluently and 15 more "reasonably well." I've always liked that distinction although, personally, I'm not a good linguist. And it gets harder to learn a language as you get older – although it's also true that learning a new language actually keeps your brain limber. In point of fact, though, English is the world's language. Almost anyone who is anyone, and the typical school kid, has some grasp of it.

"I'm too old to make such a big change."

Yes, I guess it makes more sense to just take a seat and await the arrival of the Grim Reaper. Or perhaps, is your life already so exciting and wonderful that you can't handle a little change? Better, I think, that you might adopt the attitude of the 85-year-old woman who has just transplanted herself to Argentina from the frozen north. Even after many years of adventure, she simply feels ready for a change and was getting tired of the same old people with the same old stories and habits.

"I've got to wait until the kids are out of school. It would disrupt their lives."

This is actually one of the lamest excuses in the book. I'm sympathetic to the view that kids ought to live with wolves for a couple of years to get a proper grounding in life – although I'm not advocating anything that radical. It's one of the greatest gifts you can give your kids: to live in another culture, learn a new language, and associate with a better class of people (as an expat, you'll almost automatically move to the upper rungs – arguably a big plus). After a little whining, the kids will love it. When they're grown, if they discover you passed up the opportunity, they won't forgive you.

"I don't want to give up my U.S. citizenship."

There's no need to. Anyway, if you have a lot of deferred income and untaxed gains, it can be punitive to do so; the U.S. government wants to keep you as a milk cow. But then, you may cotton to the idea of living free of any taxing government while having the travel documents offered by several. And you may want to save your children from becoming cannon fodder or indentured servants should the U.S. re-institute the draft or start a program of "national service" – which is not unlikely.

But these arguments are unimportant. The real problem is one of psychology. In that regard, I like to point to my old friend Paul Terhorst, who 30 years ago was the youngest partner at a national accounting firm. He and his wife, Vicki, decided that "keeping up with the Joneses" for the rest of their lives just wasn't for them. They sold everything – cars, house, clothes, artwork, the works – and decided to live around the world. Paul then had the time to read books, play chess, and generally enjoy himself. He wrote about it in Cashing In on the American Dream: How to Retire at 35. As a bonus, the advantages of not being a tax resident anywhere and having time to scope out proper investments has put Paul way ahead in the money game. He typically spends about half his year in Argentina; we usually have lunch every week when in residence.

I could go on. But perhaps it's pointless to offer rational counters to irrational fears and preconceptions. As Gibbon noted with his signature brand of irony, "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."

Let me be clear: in my view, the time to internationally diversify your life is getting short. And the reasons for looking abroad are changing.

In the past, the best argument for expatriation was an automatic increase in one's standard of living. In the '50s and '60s, a book called Europe on $5 a Day accurately reflected all-in costs for a tourist. In those days a middle-class American could live like a king in Europe. But those days are long gone. Now it's the rare American who can afford to visit Europe except on a cheesy package tour. That situation may actually improve soon, if only because the standard of living in Europe is likely to fall even faster than in the U.S. But the improvement will be temporary. One thing you can plan your life around is that, for the average American, foreign travel is going to become much more expensive in the next few years as the dollar loses value at an accelerating rate.

Affordability is going to be a real problem for Americans, who've long been used to being the world's "rich guys." But an even bigger problem will be presented by foreign exchange controls of some nature, which the government will impose in its efforts to "do something." FX controls – perhaps in the form of taxes on money that goes abroad, perhaps restrictions on amounts and reasons, perhaps the requirement of official approval, perhaps all of these things – are a natural progression during the next stage of the crisis. After all, only rich people can afford to send money abroad, and only the unpatriotic would think of doing so.

How and Where

I would like to reemphasize that it’s pure foolishness to have your loyalties dictated by the lines on a map or the dictates of some ruler. The nation-state itself is on its way out. The world will increasingly be aligned with what we call phyles, groups of people who consider themselves countrymen based on their interests and values, not on which government's ID they share. I believe the sooner you start thinking that way, the freer, the richer, and the more secure you will become.

The most important first step is to get out of the danger zone. Let’s list the steps in order of importance.

1. Establish a financial account in a second country and transfer assets to it immediately.

2. Purchase a crib in a suitable third country, somewhere you might enjoy whether in good times or bad.

3. Get moving toward an alternative citizenship in a fourth country; you don't want to be stuck geographically, and you don't want to live like a refugee.

4. Keep your eyes open for business and investment opportunities in those four countries, plus the other 195; you'll greatly increase your perspective and your chances of success.

Where to go?

The personal conclusion I came to was Argentina (followed by Uruguay), where I spend a good part of my year and even more now that my house at La Estancia de Cafayate is completed.

In general, I would suggest you look most seriously at countries whose governments aren't overly cozy with the U.S. and whose people maintain an inbred suspicion of the police, the military, and the fiscal authorities. These criteria tilt the scales against past favorites like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK.

And one more piece of sage advice: stop thinking like your neighbors, which is to say stop thinking and acting like a serf. Most people – although they can be perfectly affable and even seem sensible – have the attitudes of medieval peasants that objected to going further than a day's round-trip from their hut, for fear the stories of dragons that live over the hill might be true. We covered the modern versions of that objection a bit earlier.

I'm not saying that you'll make your fortune and find happiness by venturing out. But you'll greatly increase your odds of doing so, greatly increase your security, and, I suspect, have a much more interesting time.

Let me end by reminding you what Rick Blaine, Bogart's character in Casablanca, had to say in only a slightly different context. Appropriately, Rick was an early but also an archetypical international man. Let's just imagine he's talking about what will happen if you don't effectively internationalize yourself now. He said: "You may not regret it now, but you'll regret it soon. And for the rest of your life."

via http://ift.tt/29mM3qa Tyler Durden

Authored by Bernie Sanders, originally posted Op-Ed via The NY Times,

Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children.

And it’s not just the British who are suffering. That increasingly globalized economy, established and maintained by the world’s economic elite, is failing people everywhere. Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent. The very, very rich enjoy unimaginable luxury while billions of people endure abject poverty, unemployment, and inadequate health care, education, housing and drinking water.

Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could.

During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I’ve visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize.

In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries.

Despite major increases in productivity, the median male worker in America today is making $726 dollars less than he did in 1973, while the median female worker is making $1,154 less than she did in 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. An estimated 28 million have no health insurance, while many others are underinsured. Millions of people are struggling with outrageous levels of student debt. For perhaps the first time in modern history, our younger generation will probably have a lower standard of living than their parents. Frighteningly, millions of poorly educated Americans will have a shorter life span than the previous generation as they succumb to despair, drugs and alcohol.

Meanwhile, in our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Fifty-eight percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Wall Street and billionaires, through their “super PACs,” are able to buy elections.

On my campaign, I’ve talked to workers unable to make it on $8 or $9 an hour; retirees struggling to purchase the medicine they need on $9,000 a year of Social Security; young people unable to afford college. I also visited the American citizens of Puerto Rico, where some 58 percent of the children live in poverty and only a little more than 40 percent of the adult population has a job or is seeking one.

Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires.

* * *

In other words – unless Hillary can put her special interest crony-capitalist history behind her (and impossible task against Trump's 'take no prisoners' approach) she will have to distract (to standa chance) by putting Bernie on the ticket as VP… Or Trump's gonna win.

via http://ift.tt/291BjMJ Tyler Durden

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,

The 10^th Anniversary Edition of the “In Gold We Trust” Report

As every year at the end of June, our good friends Ronald Stoeferle and Mark Valek, the managers of the Incrementum funds, have released the In Gold We Trust report, one of the most comprehensive and most widely read gold reports in the world. The report can be downloaded further below.

Gold, daily, over the past year – click to enlarge.

The report celebrates its 10^th anniversary this year. As always, a wide variety of gold-related topics is discussed, providing readers with a wealth of valuable and intellectually stimulating information. This year’s report inter alia includes a detailed discussion of gold’s properties in terms of Nicholas Nassim Taleb’s “fragility/ robustness/ anti-fragility” matrix, as well as close look at the last resort of mad-cap central planners that goes by the moniker “helicopter money”.

Since falling to a new multi-year low amid growing despondency and a crescendo of bearishness late last year,  gold has celebrated a rather noteworthy comeback. As our regular readers know, we pointed to many subtle signs that indicated to us that a trend change might soon be afoot as the low approached (particularly in gold stocks, see e.g. “Gold and Gold Stocks, it Gets Even More Interesting” or “The Canary in the Gold Mine” for some color on this).

Ronald and Mark are inter alia looking into the question whether gold’s recent comeback marks the resumption of the secular bull market, and which factors are likely to drive precious metals in coming years. As they correctly argue, the increasing desperation of central bankers and their willingness to boost inflation at all cost is going to lead to a plethora of unintended consequences, all of which are likely to boost the gold price.

They also shed light on one issue that  – apart from a handful of exceptions –  is clearly not on anyone’s radar screen at the moment: namely the possibility that central banks might finally “succeed”. In other words, the possibility that gold’s recent rise is actually the harbinger of another event widely regarded as “impossible” – the return of price inflation.

In this context, we want to reproduce a chart from the report, which shows the proprietary Incrementum inflation signal vs. the gold price and a number of other inflation-sensitive assets. As can be seen, the signal has flipped rather forcefully toward inflation, after having been stuck for several years in “disinflation/ deflation” territory.

The Incrementum Inflation Signal vs. inflation-sensitive assets – click to enlarge.

This incidentally jibes with the ECRI Future Inflation Gauge, which has recently reached a new multi-year high as well. As can probably be imagined, if the message of these signals is actually borne out, central banks will be facing quite a quandary. It also has potentially far-reaching implications for investors of all stripes, which the report discusses extensively as well.

Conclusion and Download Link

We are certain that our readers will find this year’s In Gold We Trust report just as interesting and entertaining as its predecessors. In fact, we believe the anniversary report is an especially well done issue. Enjoy!

Full PDF can be downloaded here, or read below…

In Gold We Trust 2016-Extended Version

via http://ift.tt/29dBU05 Tyler Durden

Things have not been going according to plan for Kuroda-san and his policy-making ‘Peter-Pan’s in Japan. Since The Bank of Japan unleashed NIRP on its ‘saving’ community – which, according to the textbooks would force money to reach for riskier investments, pumping stocks up, or flush cash into inflationary consumption – stock prices have collapsed and bond prices have exploded… In fact, in six months, bonds are outperforming stocks by a central-bank-credibility-crushing 70%!!!

Rate cuts…not working

h/t @jsblokland

And it’s not just The BoJ that is struggling – since The Fed hiked rates, The S&P is down 3.5% and Treasuries are up 16%!!

2016 – The year when the central-planners were finally exposed!!

via http://ift.tt/296bkXy Tyler Durden

If Bernie Sanders and his supporters are still waiting to see whether or not Hillary Clinton is willing to move far enough left on some issues, the release of Clinton's Tech & Innovation Agenda yesterday should make everyone a little bit less concerned.

According to the Clinton campaign website, Hillary's Tech & Innovation Agenda has five key parts, much of which Clinton has touched on in the past. However as Wired reports, there are a few new proposals as well, including deferring student loans interest free and loan forgiveness in general.

From Wired

The presumptive Democratic nominee has touched on tech issues in an ad hoc way before, urging Silicon Valley to help fight radicalization online and calling for greater protection for on-demand workers. This is the first time, however, that Clinton—or any presidential candidate for that matter—is synthesizing these ideas into a comprehensive platform.

 

Though many pieces of the agenda are policy prescriptions Clinton has announced in the past, including a plan to bring broadband access to every American home by 2020, the tech platform includes newer proposals as well. Her plan would, for instance, allow would-be entrepreneurs to defer their student loans interest free for up to three years as they launch their businesses. Business owners who locate in “distressed communities” or start a social enterprise also could ask the government to forgive as much as $17,500 in loans after five years in business.

 

The goal of this part of the plan is to encourage millennials to start businesses. Entrepreneurship among young Americans has fallen drastically, and student debt is often cited as one of the greatest obstacles to starting up.

 

The tech agenda also affirms Clinton’s commitment to net neutrality; her desire to make the United States Digital Service, a tech team that modernizes government processes, a permanent part of the executive branch; her plan to train 50,000 computer science teachers over the next decade; and her interest in ensuring tech companies can recruit top talent from anywhere in the world. According to the platform, Clinton “would ‘staple’ a green card to STEM masters and PhDs from accredited institutions.”

 

Silicon Valley will probably be most interested, however, in Clinton’s policies regarding privacy and encryption, both topics that have intersected with the country’s national security interests in the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, California. But the newly released agenda may not satisfy. Though Clinton’s plan notes the importance of tech companies and law enforcement working together to preserve “individual privacy and security?,” it offers little in the way of specifics or new information. Clinton has repeatedly called for collaboration between Silicon Valley and the government to win the war against terrorists both online and off, but it’s never clear just how she’d convince a reluctant tech community to cooperate.

Here is the wording from the Factsheet

Defer Student Loans to Help Young Entrepreneurs:

 

A smaller proportion of millennials today are starting new ventures as compared to their predecessors. This is not for a lack of desire—more than half of America’s millennials say they want to start a business—but barriers like student debt and a lack of access to credit are holding young people back. Hillary is committed to breaking down barriers and leveling the playing field for entrepreneurs and innovators who are launching their own start-ups. Hillary will allow entrepreneurs to put their federal student loans into a special status while they get their new ventures off the ground.  For millions of young Americans, this would mean deferment from having to make any payments on their student loans for up to three years—zero interest and zero principal—as they work through the critical start-up phase of new enterprises. Hillary will explore a similar deferment incentive not just to founders of enterprises, but to early joiners – such as the first 10 or 20 employees.   Additionally, for young innovators who decide to launch either new businesses that operate in distressed communities, or social enterprises that provide measurable social impact and benefit, she will offer forgiveness of up to $17,500 of their student loans after five years.

* * *

So there we have it, Hillary Clinton will pull millennials out of from the basement of their parents house and into the world of business simply by allowing loan deferments that don't accumulate interest. For those that can somehow survive a new business in a stressed community for five years, the government will forgive those loans as well.

Just as long as nobody ever addresses the core issues that are driving millennials into debt with no real opportunity to repay that debt to begin with, the status quo will continue to survive, and the politicians will all be left scratching their head as to why these programs just aren't working. Once again, the Federal Reserve and its monetary polices are left intact, and the politicians won't ever be forced to make any real fiscal reforms – that would just be too difficult.

via http://ift.tt/294oKUV Tyler Durden

The Brexit vote is history, and so is David Cameron’s reign as Britain’s prime minister whose gamble to allow an EU referendum backfired spectacularly. And today, in what Bloomberg earlier dubbed his “last summer” Cameron had the unpleasant task of telling his Eurocrat peers during what is hist last Brussels summit why he failed. Only he didn’t and instead, as the FT writes, Cameron flipped the tables and told European leaders he lost the EU referendum because they failed to address public concerns over immigration, as tensions rose ahead of looming Brexit negotiations.

The British prime minister said at his final summit in Brussels on Tuesday that fears of mass immigration were “a driving factor” behind the vote and free movement would have to be addressed in Brexit talks. While he did not call her out by name, Cameron was effectively blaming Angela Merkel, whose overly accepting immigration policy in 2015 unleashed a historic refugee wave which ultimately ended up being the deciding factor behind the referendum outcome.

As the FT writes, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and other leaders “blocked British demands before the referendum for an “emergency brake” on migrant numbers and the idea remains anathema to many member states.  Cameron, who announced his ­resignation after last week’s referendum, said that he wanted Britain and the EU to retain “as close an economic relationship as possible”. But, at an emotional dinner, he warned that the UK could not continue to accept large numbers of EU migrants, even if that meant losing access to the single market.”

His remarks underscored the hard task facing both sides in reaching a new accord. Addressing the German Bundestag before the Brussels summit, Ms Merkel warned the UK that there would be no “cherry picking” in its Brexit negotiations. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker underscored this when he said that he wants the article 50 “letter to be sent as soon as possible.” Giving the UK instructions on how to proceed, Juncker said during a press conference that “if someone from the Remain camp will become British prime minister, this has to be done in two weeks after his appointment. If the next British PM is coming from the Leave campaign, it should be done the day after his appointment.”

Juncker urged the UK “swiftly” to clarify its position regarding its plans to break from the EU, warning that the bloc could not be “embroiled in lasting uncertainty”. He also hit back at criticism of him in some parts of the British press, claiming he was not a “faceless bureaucrat” and “would like to be respected”.

More importantly, Cameron’s resignation – not literal but figurative – suggests that any hope the Remain camp may have had for a redo of the referendum has been extinguished.

It wasn’t just Cameron: even before the session began there had been signs of renewed hostility towards Downing Street. After a heated debate, which at one point degenerated into catcalls and boos for Nigel Farage, the UK Independence party leader, the European Parliament voted for a resolution calling on Britain to begin divorce proceedings immediately.

Some of Mr Cameron’s fellow EU leaders made similar testy remarks. “Married or divorced, but not something in between,” said Xavier Bettel, the Luxembourg prime minister. “We are not on Facebook, with ‘It’s complicated’ as a status.”

As explained over the weekend, the pace and nature of Britain’s exit from the EU together with the triggering of Article 50, have become the most contentious issues in both London and Brussels since last week’s vote. Most of the leaders of the UK’s Leave campaign, who are likely to form the core of a new British government, have said they want to begin Brexit negotiations before invoking Article 50 of the EU treaties, which would formally trigger two-year exit proceedings.

Merkel made it clear that she and other EU leaders have refused to engage in negotiations until Article 50 is invoked, setting up the first of what could be years of difficulties facing Cameron’s successor. Mark Rutte, the Dutch premier and formerly one of Mr Cameron’s closest allies, argued for Britain to be granted “some space”. But he was unforgiving in his reasons why, saying: “England has collapsed politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” Which, incidentally, is what Brussels calls a victory for Democracy.

Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, said it was not for Britain to dictate the pace of talks. “It’s not up to the British Conservative party to set the agenda,” he told the National Assembly in Paris.

What happens next?

On Wednesday, Mr Cameron will be asked to leave the summit while the remaining 27 members hold informal talks on how to approach Brexit negotiations and how to stop them from stretching out over many years.

Addressing the German Bundestag before the Brussels summit, Ms Merkel warned the UK that there would be no “cherry picking” in its Brexit negotiations, her toughest response yet to the Leave campaign’s hopes of securing access to the EU’s internal market while limiting freedom of movement.

 

She spelt out that the EU’s internal freedoms were indivisible: if Britain, like Norway, wanted access to the internal market then, like Norway, it would have to accept freedom of movement, she said.

Which goes back to the original point Cameron made, namely that it is Merkel’s stickiness on freedom of movement that led to the victory of the Leave camp.

The winner today, however, was Nigel Farage, who stole the limelight when he was booed after he called on the EU to take a “grown-up and sensible” attitude to negotiations with the UK. He claimed the result would offer a “beacon of hope” to “democrats” across Europe and threatened that  “the UK will not be the last member state to leave the European Union.”

As we showed earlier, Farage concluded: “When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?”

Farage’s moment in the spotlight aside and Cameron’s apparent concession on the possibility of a second referendum, the reality is that while all EU leaders would be delighted to see Britain reverse course and choose to stay, most would be loath to offer any concessions for fear that succumbing to blackmail would encourage others.

Cited by the FT,  a senior adviser to one the eurozone’s most powerful leaders said that “this is a matter of survival for us. We cannot allow these tactics to succeed.” 

Countries such as France and the Netherlands that were once sympathetic to Britain’s plea for curbs on free movement of workers would now be some of the most opposed to further concessions.

As the FT adds, yielding to British pressure would be a gift to anti-EU politicians that the French and Dutch leaders are trying to defeat in elections early next year. Eastern European leaders, meanwhile, appear as implacably opposed to overturning cherished free movement rights.

Then again, as we reported last night, it is now too late, and most likely by design: sensing the Brexit crisis “opportunity”, Italy is already planning how to bend Eurozone rules against the use of public funds for bank bailouts, and is strategizing how to funnel €40 billion of European cash into its insolvent banking system. Should Europe reject Italy’s overture? Then Italy’s PM Renzi will simply threaten with his own referendum, which considering the recent shocking wins by the Euroskeptic 5 Stars Movement in the Rome and Torino mayoral election, will be all he needs to say to get his way.

Or rather not his way, but the way of the person who is quietly covering up all his tracks: after all why are Italy’s banks insolvent? Well, who was governor of the Bank of Italy from 2005 to 2011 when he blessed all of the hundreds of billions of now non-performing loans? Why former Goldman Sachs employee and current head of the ECB, Mario Draghi of course, who just may end up the biggest winner from the Brexit crisis. Because as everyone knows, one should never leave a crisis go to waste.

via http://ift.tt/29mrpq1 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Economica blog,

• '55–>'80…core population rose by 19 million and 22 million 25-54yr/olds found net new employment…or 1.16 jobs per the every new 25-54yr/old…obviously, immigration made some sense.

• '80–>'00 population rose by 37m and 35m new jobs among them…or 95% of the new adults had jobs available.

• '00–>'16 core population rose by 5m and a decline of 600k jobs…plus a decline in full time jobs of 500k.

• '48–>'80 18 million more 55+yr/olds vs 5 million more jobs among them (27% of new elderly found net new jobs).

• '80–>'00 11 million more elderly vs. 3 million new jobs among them (27%).

• '00–>'16 33 million more elderly vs. 17 million new jobs (52%) among them (11 million found net new full time jobs).

 

And just for perspective…the Russell 3000 vs. the 25-54yr/old population, 25-54yr/old total jobs, and 25-54yr/old full time jobs.

US mortgage debt outstanding vs. the 25-54yr/old population, 25-54yr/old total jobs, and 25-54yr/old full time jobs.

US oil consumption vs. the 25-54yr/old population, 25-54yr/old total jobs, and 25-54yr/old full time jobs.

 

 

Over the next decade 2016–>2026, the Census estimates core population to rise by 5 million and a 19 million increase among 55+yr/olds…and yet the trends of elderly continuing to work far longer and core population dropping out seem to be gaining speed.  Just another concern to add to the very long list.

via http://ift.tt/293cuSd Tyler Durden

As the Democrats hurried to get ahead of the news cycle by releasing a report of their own in advance of the official House Select Committee's report on Benghazi, they also unveiled how a longtime Clinton friend and adviser is benefiting monetarily from their friendship.

Part of what the Democrats released contained a redacted transcript of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal answering committee's questions during the investigation. The redaction marks were easily lifted and as the LA Times reports, the transcript reveals negative things for both Republicans and Democrats. For Republicans, the transcript showed that the investigation was used in part to dig into Blumenthal's financial contracts with David Brock, the founder of liberal website Media Matters. On the other hand, the transcript revealed how lucrative it can be to be a close Clinton friend – not that readers of this site are shocked at that statement. As a reminder of the most recent finding, a Clinton Foundation donor and high frequency trader – with absolutely no experience in the field –  found himself magically placed as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.

We know that being a Clinton can be lucrative, even if you have to explain why all of your in-laws rich friends lost all of their investment with you sometimes. But it turns out that being a close friend of the Clinton's can be almost as financially rewarding.

As the LA Times reports, here is the transcript in question that shows Sidney Blumenthal admitting that due to his friendship with the Clinton's and by extension Clinton ally David Brock, he makes around $200,000 a year giving consulting advice to Brock's businesses.

Q: Okay. And what was your relationship with Media Matters at that time period?

 

A: I was a consultant to Media Matters. I’m sorry I—

 

Q: That’s okay.

 

A: I overlooked that.

 

Q: When did you become a consultant for Media Matters?

 

A: I would say the very end of 2012.

 

Q: Okay. And how did that come about, that you became a consultant for Media Matters?

 

A: I have had a very long friendship with the chairman of Media Matters, whose name is David Brock, from before he founded this organization, and I have sustained that friendship. And he asked me to help provide ideas and advice to him and his organizations.

 

Q: So you began your relationship, your paid relationship, with Media Matters at the end of 2012.

 

A: Right.

 

Q: Does that continue to this day?

 

A: It does.

 

Q: Okay. And what is your salary or your contract with Media Matters?  How much money are you earning from them?

 

A: I’d say it’s about $200,000 a year.

 

Q: And has that been roughly consistent from when you began receiving payment from Media Matters?

 

*[redacted due to Chairman Gowdy’s refusal to allow release of transcript].

 

A: I would say it’s — I’d have to check. I think it’s increased a little bit. It’s increased some.

 

Q: Okay. Are you familiar with the organization American Bridge?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Have you received any compensation from American Bridge over the last five years?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: Okay. And how much compensation have you received from American Bridge?

 

A: Well, when I talk about that amount of money, I mean all of those organizations.

 

Q: So all of David Brock’s entities —

 

A: Right.

 

Q: — combined are 200,000?

 

A: About.

 

Q: Okay.

 

A: Something like that.

 

Readers might also recall that Blumenthal was one of the names left off the official Secretary of State calendar during times when he and Clinton would meet.

The AP noted that Clinton's calendar also repeatedly omitted private dinners with political donors, policy sessions with groups of corporate leaders and "drop-bys" with old Clinton campaign hands and advisers. Among the names that were omitted from Clinton's schedule but again were found on the detailed planning documents were longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal, consultant and former Clinton White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former energy lobbyist Joseph Wilson and entertainment magnate and Clinton campaign bundler Haim Saban.

Here's one more interesting tidbit about Sidney Blumenthal – he was also employed by the Clinton Foundation during Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State to provide unsolicited intelligence on Libya. Now wouldn't that be something to leave on the official calendar?

via http://ift.tt/2938QYt Tyler Durden

Submitted by Troy Vincent via The Mises Institute,

The night after the vote for an independent United Kingdom from the European Union had concluded I found myself at dinner with my wife trying to explain why the world portrayed by many financial analysts and news outlets was so filled with doom and gloom. “Why does the UK leaving the EU necessitate a global or UK financial meltdown?” she asked. And then it hit me, this was the question the world’s largest financial publications were failing to ask, or at the very least to answer honestly.

The answer to this question can be as complex as you would like to make it, but the clear and simple answer is this: the UK leaving the EU fundamentally necessitates neither of these things. To justify this simple answer we need only consider what affords a national economy its productivity. The intellect of the talented people of the UK that create value, the infrastructure, the primary institutions, and the capital goods that allow individuals to turn their time into valuable outputs have not changed. It is not as if London’s financial district or the many manufacturing industries around the UK were decimated by a meteor and must be rebuilt from the ground up. Physically and intellectually the UK is the same today as it was the day before the vote to secede.

So, what then is causing all of the commotion? Once again, the answer can be as complicated as we would like to make it, but without foolishly trying to perform an accounting measure by forecasting what the cost and benefit of each change in tax and trade policy might be, we need only admit that the real cause of the hysteria is purely political in nature. The uncertainty that has put the fear of god into some economists and financial analysts is only a matter of petty political gamesmanship. As Mises so astutely observed, “Economic progress is the work of the savers, who accumulate capital, and of the entrepreneurs, who turn capital to new uses. The other members of society, of course, enjoy the advantages of progress, but they not only do not contribute anything to it; they even place obstacles in its way.” The EU, with thousands of laws seeking to govern each detail of economic activity, such as the power efficiency of toasters and tea kettles, is nothing more than an obstacle for entrepreneurs and their employees across Europe.

By threatening greater taxes and tariffs as a result of a vote for a more sovereign, less centralized and bureaucratic system of governance, the EU is demonstrating the very sort of tyrannical attitude toward trade arrangements that the Brexit advocates sought to escape. Economists have been fixated on the costs of the loss of trade the UK will suffer, ignoring the benefits and the fact that a trade deal is simply a handshake and a signature on a piece of official government paper. There is nothing that prohibits mutually beneficial voluntary trade between two people or two nations other than an oppressive government body. The many trade complications that have been presented over the past month are much less economic conundrums and much more scare tactics that sound as if they came from Lord Vader giving an ultimatum to join the Galactic Empire. They can be summarized by something like, “You can choose to be independent but you will feel our wrath.”

It is this fear that drives uncertainty about the future and the uncertainty that drives turbulence in markets. To reiterate, this turbulence is entirely unnecessary, as trade deals can and would be struck between two mutually benefiting nations barring some greater despotic governmental force like the EU holding at ransom some other portion of their economy. Logically and economically speaking, if both Germany and the UK benefited from trading with one another last week, why wouldn’t they continue to trade with one another today? The only reason that this arrangement would not take place is if the cartel called the EU, of which Germany is a member, prohibited them from doing so. It is clear in this example that it is not the UK’s independence that is the problem but instead the power that the EU has over policies to which its member states are subject.

If there is one thing that the EU should hope for it is complete economic catastrophe as a result of this vote; that their threats and fear mongering leads to action resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Otherwise, if the UK proves that you can leave the union, maintain friendly trade relations and continue to be a dominant global economy, it would signal the beginning of the end of the EU. If other nations see proof that you can escape the Brussels bureaucracy with only minor short-term complications it will surely lead to an exodus from the destined-to-fail union.

via http://ift.tt/28YUVk8 Tyler Durden