Month: April 2017

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Reading up on the Syria ‘chemical attack’ issue (is that the right term to use?). The headlines are entirely predictable, and by now that probably won’t surprise anyone, no matter where they are or what views they adhere to. We know there’s been an attack and that some kind of chemical was used. The media talk about sarin.

They also, almost unanimously, blame the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad for it. But that’s the same government that just this week saw both US Foreign Secretary Rex Tillerson and US UN enjoy Nikki Haley point to a significant shift in American policy, towards a view that removing Assad is no longer a priority in US Middle-East policy.

That comes after many years of insisting that Assad must be removed. And after many years of US involvement in removing other regimes in the region, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi. It also comes on the eve of a large Syria conference, the first in a long time, due to start today. Russia and the States send only lower-level representatives, politically sensitive etc., but still.

The question arises what reason the Syrian government could possibly have to launch a chemical attack anywhere on its territory, gruesome pictures of which, with many child casualties, were posted soon after the attack supposedly too place. And that’s where logic at least seems to break down.

Syria was not supposed to have any chemical warfare arsenals left, far as I understand, there was an accord to that extent in 2013. Did they hide any (Saddam WMD style?!), or did they recently obtain them (from Russia?!). But most of all, why use them on the eve of a conference where you have everything to gain?

I’ll be the last to claim that I know, but it certainly doesn’t make a lot of sense. Being denied recognition, legitimacy even in a sense, for years, and then throw it away the day before? Not even declaring Assad -and by association Putin and Iraq- to be complete idiots would seem to explain that. And they’re not idiots.

The Russians say a ‘rebel’ chemical weapons depot may have been hit. I don’t know, and barely a soul does, but opinions have been pre-cooked, and there we go again. There are pictures of White Helmets tending to the wounded, but then if this were sarin, that might not be advisable to do with bare hands and without gas masks. And the White Helmets themselves are not beyond scrutiny either. Meanwhile, Trump has followed everyone else in the West in accusing Assad.

Any of this sound familiar? It does to me. When I open my -personalized, no less- Google News page, all main headlines concerning either US politics or topics like the Syria chemical attack come from a ‘select’ group of ‘media’. It’s all NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC, all the time. Google likes The Hill too, for some reason. Since my page is ‘personalized’ I don’t know how it is for others, but I have an idea.

The same opinion-forming (leading) ‘reporting’ that happens in the case of Syria, is also applied to the US. And it’s tearing the country apart, bit by inevitable bit. The MSM’s answer to the Trump campaign- and subsequent election- has been to do more of the same ‘leading’, much more. And they have plenty of takers. Subscriptions are way up, so they think they’ve hit a gold mine, a very welcome one too given where sales numbers were heading.

Trump’s the best thing that happened to WaPo in years. But then again, they still lost, and bigly. Their preferred candidate lost. And the entire storyline they had spun over, say, the entire year leading up to November 8, had gone nowhere. None of it got Hillary elected, and none of it was ever proven.

Now, of course, it’s not the job of news organizations to choose sides in politics (their job’s the opposite), and even less to make up a storyline in order to promote whatever side they pick. It’s really weird that that aspect has been largely lost on America over the past few years; not that it’s entirely new, don’t get me wrong, but it got a lot more pronounced and ‘brazen’.

It’s as if people have all of a sudden started to find it normal that their news sources tell them what to think. The echo chamber has become both much larger and a whole lot more cramped at the same time. And got far too comfy with 1984.

What makes it even weirder is that it should be obvious to us all that there has been a large shift in politics as well, albeit over a longer period of time. There is no left in the system anymore, there is no left left; workers and the poor in general have nobody left who represents them.

This is true in the US as it is in Europe. Britain’s Labor party is all but dead, Holland’s Labor equivalent went from 38 to 9 seats in the recent election, the list goes on. The US democrats? Are you kidding? Left? Left of what?

The media have followed this development as much as they have led the way. There’s a lot of synergy there; it’s just that there’s none left with the people they’re either supposed to represent or inform. But that in turn means you might as well say that the whole thing is dead. What left there still is left will have to re-invent itself.

The political system and the media may cross-pollinate as much as they want, and they obviously seem to want that a lot, but they still depend for their survival on a connection with people, voters, readers. Only, they appear to have concluded Groucho stye that “Hey, if you can fake that, you can fake anything..”

Problem is, this did cost the US media’s candidate the election. So now they’re echo-chambering to less than half of the population. Who are so receptive that they may be temporarily fooled into thinking they’re doing fine. But the other -more than- half already thinks they’re full of it, and that’s not going to change back (my humble prediction).

If the US MSM would go back to impartial reporting, they would be fine. The same is true for the Democratic party -and its link to the poorer part of America. But both have made their beds (and bets) and must now lie on them.

For the media, this means being forced to turn over ever more readers and viewers to ‘new media’. It’s not even a technology thing, it’s just that they themselves have chosen to become irrelevant. And yes, it is ironic that the soon-so-be richest man on the planet, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, controls the bigliest web success and destroys the WaPo at the same time. It’s an awful shame too. But the paper for him is financial pocket change, not a legacy of hard work.

Bezos et al do this by trying to dictate what people think, by becoming Edward Bernays and Joe Goebbels. The idea might have worked without the Interwebs, but I must retract that: it would have been sacrificed on the altar of economic mayhem. Lots of irony in there, though.

The New York Times and Washington Post owe their reputation to America’s times of plenty, and those are gone, long gone. These papers are no longer capable of Woodward and Bernstein, because there’s nothing left that’s objective, the entire focus is partisan now, and that means you’re going to miss out on the big, the real stories, if they’re your news sources.

And it’s not even that they’re papers, and they may or may not get digital; it’s their owners’ choices for certain political directions that’s doing them in. Maybe that’s an inevitbale process; that news organizations must perish one sources change, or processes, or range. I’m not sure of that, though; I think they’re squandering a 100 year -or so- legacy on an altar of political megalomania.

And that gets me to what got me thinking about the reporting on Syria’s chemical attack to begin with, and the way it’s presented. That is, I read a lot of things, it’s what I do, but instead of the journalists asking the questions, I know it’s up to -people like- me to do that. That goes for Syria, and just as much for US domestic issues. There’s nobody left I can rely on. Again I aks of you: any of this sound familiar?

I’m by no means ready to go with everything Fox says, or any -formerly- right-wing source. But I can no longer trust the left wing either, let alone the formerly neutral ones. I’m on my own. And so are you.

Now, Russia spying on America is a done deal, of course they do. Everyone spies on every other one, if they have the technology they will do it. But Susan Rice ‘unmasking’ people in the Republican campaign is a step or two further. It may be technically legal, but it skirts far too close for comfort to potential political interference.

Since the entire Russia story was never proven, after a year and change of investigation by the entire media AND intelligence machine, I think perhaps it’s reasonable to suggest that it was always merely a convenient front for spying on Trump and the other Republicans. I don’t know that, it’s deduction that leads me there.

Still, of course the Russia-Trump connection probe just keeps on going. They haven’t found a thing, no shred, after all this time, but maybe, maybe… Look, I always said that a Trump presidency would be ugly and stupid -just still preferable to Hillary- but this ‘Putin is the devil’ meme is a lot uglier than that.

If and when you lose, as the Dems and their media have, doubling down is not the way to go, not if you want to win the next one. You have to look at what mistakes you’ve made and learn from them, not focus even more on what is or was wrong with the other side. That makes no sense. Losers must lose with grace, as much as winners win with it.

It’s not just in the US that people have completely lost sight of this most basic of principles; in the UK the post-Brexit bickering just won’t stop, and everything gets worse in the process. But it’s all about blaming the others, not your own side. How that can be helpful when you’ve lost is not clear to me at all.

Susan Rice will be before a Senate or Congress committee soon, and it will be interesting to see what she has to say. I’m sure her legal counsel have previously assured her that it was all perfectly within her job prescription. But she, what can I say, she doesn’t look good in her press appearances.

And you can complain all you want about the photos with only males in Trump’s office, but the entire glass ceiling female crew, Donna Brazile, Huma Abedin, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, they all look to have broken that ceiling but from the wrong side, (lost in gravity?!), and in the wrong way. They’ve all either cheated to get where they are (were), or cheated while they were there.

What a loss that is. That ceiling must be broken, badly, but not by women who are part of it. It fits the overall picture, though. If and when nothing is what it seems, it’s a lot easier to get people to believe what you tell them, certainly when you can put a NYT or WaPo stamp on what you’re saying. The problem is, by now you’ll only be talking to less than half of the people. And that’s on a good day.

The whole thing is broken, and you don’t heal that by pointing out to what extent the other side is broken. You heal it by looking at your own f*ck-ups, and then correct them. And until you do that, the risk of chemicals raining down on kids in Syria will just continue to be the same as Obama ordering drone strikes. Or the US and UK and France and Germany selling weapons to the Saudis that allow them to obliterate an entire nation and people in Yemen.

This is not about Assad, it’s about you, and Theresa May and Trump and Obama and Hillary and W. and Merkel and Tony Blair and scores of French and German politicians who’ve kept the death racket alive all these years. It’s where the money is.

via http://ift.tt/2oNVx55 Tyler Durden

Via Disobedient Media

The April 4th, 2017 incident at Khan Sheikhoun has provoked an emotional response around the world after images began to emerge showing civilian adults and children apparently suffering from the effects of chemical weapons. President Donald Trump has stated that the attack has totally changed his views towards the Syrian civil war, and may alter his intended strategy there.

Although Western media immediately accused Bashar al-Assad of participating in a gas attack against his own people, the evidence indicates that the intended target was not immediately in a civilian area and was in fact a location where Syrian White Helmets were on the scene with rebel groups at what observers have claimed was a storage facility for conventional and chemical munitions. Additionally, evidence indicates that rebel groups may have had prior knowledge of the attack and knew that there was a risk of chemical weapons being unleashed. The attack also came in the aftermath of a trip by Senator John McCain to meet with groups known to associate with radical jihadist factions in Syria, at a time when the United States government has been engulfed in a power struggle between different political factions who disagree strongly over what should be appropriate policy in regards to the Syrian civil war.

I. Evidence From Khan Sheikhoun Does Not Support Assertions Of Airborne Chemical Weapons Use

Evidence which has emerged in the aftermath of the attack at Khan Sheikhoun indicates that not only was the nature of the attack misreported by the media, but that certain individuals on the ground in Syria may have had foreknowledge of the attack up to several days before it happened. On April 3rd, 2017, an anti-Assad journalist tweeted that the next day he would be launching a media campaign to cover airstrikes on the Hama countryside, including the use of chemical weapons. It is not clear how the reporter was able to know that chemical weapons would be used an entire day before the attacks occurred.

Observers further noted that on April 1st, 2017, a doctor on the ground in Khan Sheikhoun, Dr. Shajul Islam, had received several shipments of gas masks in the days running up to the chemical incident. The revelations on Twitter fueled speculation that opposition figures were aware of the chemical attack days before it actually happened, contesting the narrative that the Syrian government was responsible. Daily Mail has reported that Dr. Shajul Islam was at one point sought by the British government in connection with the abduction of two journalists in Syria, and security services have stated that Islam and his brother may have had ties to ISIS executioner “Jihadi John.”

Additionally, footage from the scene of the incident taken by the Syrian White Helmets appears to show that their operatives were not assisting victims in a manner that was consistent with established protocol on how to handle sarin saturated bodies. Images appear to show that Syrian White Helmet operatives were handling purported sarin victims with their bare hands, rather than with gloves, which is necessary to prevent the rescuer being injured by the chemical themselves. They also appear to be using simple dust masks, which are not suitable protection in the event of a sarin attack.

Disobedient Media has reported in January that the Syrian White Helmets are heavily supported by the United State government via USAID, are implicated in war crimes committed in Aleppo and other parts of Syria during the civil war and appear to have a large number of members who are involved with local Syrian militia groups and jihadist organizations.  The White Helmets have also been caught staging rescue footage for propaganda purposes in the past.

United Arab Emirates-based Al-Masdar News has also cited Twitter users who noted that photos of the Khan Sheikhoun attack appear to show storage facilities rather than a residential area and speculated that the White Helmets may have been using the location alongside rebel groups who were storing munitions in the area. The Russian Ministry of Defense have stated that the release of any chemicals was a result of a Syrian government airstrike against rebel supply depots in the area where chemical arms were being produced.

II. Rebels Are Known To Have Possessed And Used Chemical Weapons In Syria For Some Time

While the Syrian government surrendered their chemical arms stockpiles for destruction several years ago, evidence indicates that rebel groups in Syria have ramped up their own supplies of the deadly weapons systems and have not hesitated to deploy them in combat. On June 23rd, 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Syrian government had completed the removal of all chemical weapons from the country per and agreement they had reached with the United States. The handover was confirmed by the United Nations Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. While the Syrian government have surrendered their chemical weapons, rebel groups have acquired and used them in increasing numbers.

The supplies for these weapons appear to come from multiple sources. Before they were handed over to the U.S. military, rebel groups such as ISIS were able to capture stockpiles of chemical weapons from Syrian army depots. On July 9th, 2014, just weeks after the Syrian army’s handover, The Guardian reported that ISIS had captured a massive former Iraqi chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, confiscating over 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled with sarin. Research has also led to speculation that ISIS and other rebel groups may have been able to access materials for chemical weapons stored by Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  In November 2016, The New York Times acknowledged that ISIS had used chemical arms at least 52 times in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS is not the only rebel group to possess sarin and other kinds of chemical munitions in Syria however. Video obtained by Daily Mail shows that Syrian rebel groups in Libya have been experimenting with various kinds of chemical weapons for some years now. In 2014, the United Nations acknowledged that “abandoned” sarin gas cylinders had been located in the city of Aleppo. On April 8th, 2016, Voice of America reported that jihadist group Jaysh al-Islam used chemical weapons in attacks against Kurdish troops in Aleppo.

III. The Khan Sheikhoun Incident May Be Part Of An Ongoing Power Struggle Over U.S. Policy In Syria

The chemical attack also appears to play into the ongoing power struggle between the American political establishment and members of the new Trump administration. Political figures who are hawkish towards the Syrian government have noted with some dismay that President Trump had until this week been apparently unwilling to prosecute the United States’ stated goal of enacting regime change in Syria, citing the larger threat of ISIS and other jihadist terror groups as a priority.

The United States politicians who have taken funds from countries known to supply rebel groups with materials for the production of chemical weapons were also been meeting with rebel factions known to association with jihadist groups in the run up to the attack. On February 22nd, 2017, CNN reported that McCain had made a secret trip to northern Syria the week prior. McCain’s made the trip despite the fact that since late 2015, the Western media has finally admitted that there were no longer any “moderate” rebel groups in Syria. In January 2017, Representative Tusli Gabbard returned from a visit to Syria to confirm these reports, as well as to reveal that U.S. support was effectively delivering arms to jihadist groups such as al-Nusra, al-Qaida, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS who are operating inside Syria. McCain claimed to be meeting with forces who are preparing to combat ISIS in Eastern Syria, but The Guardian has reported that these groups are mainly comprised of mercenaries who have and will fight for jihadist groups if the price is right. Disobedient Media has also previously reported that in 2014, McCain accepted a donation of $1 million from Saudi Arabia. The CEO of Al-Masdar News, Leith Abou Fadel, recently posted images on Twitter in April 2017 showing Saudi-made chlorine agents found in East Aleppo which were being used to create chemical bombs.

The trip to meet with rebel groups is not McCain’s first. On May 27th, 2013, The Daily Beast ran an exclusive report revealing that Senator John McCain had made another secret trip into Syria to meet with “assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army.” McCain made the trip in spite of the fact that documents obtained by Judicial Watch which state that the United States was fully aware of the growing jihadi presence among Syrian rebel groups, and reports emerging in the American press indicating that rebels were increasingly engaging in war crimes. In August 2013, three months after McCain’s visit, civilians in the Ghouta neighborhood of Damascus were hit with a chemical attack after rockets containing sarin struck the area. Though most of the mainstream press immediately blamed the Syrian government for the tragedy, German paper Die Welt has since run a report alleging that the sarin did not come from the Syrian government, but from stockpiles held by jihadist rebel group Al-Nusra.

ZeroHedge has reported that McCain angrily slammed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after the White House backed comments Tillerson and ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley made stating that the United States would no longer primarily focus on regime change in Syria. McCain’s desire to push regime change in Syria, his constant drive to seek confrontation with Russia, his close financial relationship to a state which is known to have supplied rebel groups with materials for crude chemical weapons and the now common knowledge that there are no “moderate” rebels remaining in Syria raises serious questions about the true nature of McCain’s secret missions he has embarked on in the country over the past few years.

The Syrian government has been making serious gains in the civil war, recapturing the city of Aleppo and pushing against rebel groups in many other parts of the country with the support of the Russian Federation. It is strategically counterintuitive to assume that Bashar al-Assad would engage in a chemical attack on Syrians just one week after figures in the American government expressed the opinion that they would be willing to allow him to remain in power. The Syrian government no longer even possesses chemical weapons, as the United Nations and U.S. Department of State have already confirmed.

The involvement of the US-supported White Helmets, who have a history of association with war crimes and extremist groups in Syria and the apparent anger from the factions in the American government who oppose President Trump’s policies in Syria suggests that the facts surrounding the Khan Sheikhoun attack are being intentionally distorted for political gain. The apparent association of Senator John McCain with groups linked to extremism in Syria just weeks before the attack and his financial ties to states which have supplied rebel groups with chemical arms only serves to create further concerns that factions of the United States government are illicitly attempting to promote confrontation and drive increased U.S. military involvement in Syria. It may be some time before the full picture about the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy becomes apparent, but is more than clear that Syrian rebel groups hope to use the incident as a means of provoking increased Western support in their fight against the Russian-backed government.

via http://ift.tt/2oNZQNY William Craddick

The S&P 500 could be creating this week, its 3rd bearish wick (reversal pattern) in the past 6-weeks. Bearish wicks in any asset always get our attention. When they take place just below an important Fibonacci Extension Level, they really get our attention! Let’s exam what is taking shape of late.

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

Both charts above are the S&P, weekly closing prices on the left and candle sticks on the right. We applied the 161% Fibonacci extension level to the 2016 weekly closing lows/highs, in each chart. 6-weeks ago the S&P ran into the 161% level at (2), where it stopped on a dime. It spent three weeks at the at the 161% level, where it looks to have created two bearish wicks and one doji star pattern.

After hitting the 161% level at (2), the S&P has backed a small percent. While it has been soft, it could have created 3 bearish wicks out of the past 6-weeks at (3), which is just below the key Fibonacci level.

The week is far from over and the 1-year trend remains solidly up. The S&P 500 needs to close tomorrow, to determine if a 3rd weekly bearish wick in a row did take place. Bulls would not want to see the S&P close down hard tomorrow. Strong rally today/tomorrow would eliminate this weeks bearish wick.

Even though the wicks are important, all short term price action below the 161% level will be important over the next few weeks. 

 

Not a subscriber to our research products yet? 
Email us for discount and trial offers to get started 

Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2oNMuBl kimblecharting

In an unexpected statement made by the former COO of Goldman Sachs and current director of Trump’s National Economic Council, Gary Cohn told a private meeting with lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday evening that he could support legislation breaking up the largest U.S. banks – a development that could provide support to congressional efforts to reinstate the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law – and impact if not so much his former employer, Goldman Sachs, whose depository business is relatively modest, then certainly the balance sheets of some of Goldman’s biggest competitors including JPM and BofA.

According to Bloomberg, Cohn said he generally favors banking going back to how it was “when firms like Goldman focused on trading and underwriting securities, and companies such as Citigroup Inc. primarily issued loans.”

What Cohn may not have mentioned is that with rates as low as they are, issuing loans – i.e., profiting from the Net Interest Margin spread – remains far less profitable than trading and underwriting securities in a world in which virtually every “developed world” central banker is either directly spawned from Goldman, or is advised by an ex-Goldman employee,

The remarks surprised some senators and congressional aides who attended the Wednesday meeting, as they didn’t expect a former top Wall Street executive to speak favorably of proposals that would force banks to dramatically rethink how they do business.

 

Yet Cohn’s comments echo what Trump and Republican lawmakers have previously said about wanting to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era law that kept bricks-and-mortar lending separate from investment banking for more than six decades.

As Bloomberg further notes, Wednesday’s Capitol Hill meeting with Cohn was arranged by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, and included lawmakers from both political parties and their staffs. The discussion covered a wide range of topics, including financial regulations and overhauling the tax code, the people said.

The WSJ adds that Cohn was asked by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) whether the administration planned to carry out a promise included in the Republican 2016 platform—and made by the Trump campaign—to restore the law separating traditional commercial banking from Wall Street investment banking. The law was repealed in 1999. Cohn expressed an openness to working with Warren on the issue, and said he could support a simple policy completely separating the two businesses, these people said.

There are various ideas for restoring some form of Glass-Steagall, running the gamut from splitting apart firms completely to separating their various operations under an umbrella holding company.

 

While Cohn’s comments are consistent with other statements by Trump administration officials, it isn’t clear how much support there is for the idea among Republicans more broadly. Warren has in the past introduced a bill she called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act. In the last Congress, it received one Republican co-sponsor. Additionally, while Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has also said the administration is open to implementing some version of President Donald Trump’s campaign promise. But in his Jan. 17 confirmation hearing, he expressed concern that “separating out banks and investment banks right now under Glass-Steagall would have very big implications to the liquidity in the capital markets and banks being able to perform necessary lending.”

While the Trump team has endorsed the Glass-Steagall idea, it hasn’t come forward with its own proposal. Meanwhile, Treasury officials are meeting with financial-industry officials to discuss ways to roll back rules adopted under the Obama administration. They are due to make recommendations to the White House in early June.

Some observers said they didn’t view Mr. Cohn’s comments as a threat. “We continue to believe that a return of some form of Glass-Steagall remains more of a headline risk rather than a real policy risk and we think the odds are against the reinstatement of the law,” Brian Gardner, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said in a note to clients Thursday.

 

“I don’t think we’re concerned,” said one banker at a large firm. The bank is “pleased with the direction” of Mr. Trump’s administration and its executives aren’t racing to change strategy or make a big new lobbying push. “It’s the same day as it was yesterday,” this person said. “It’s not a time to go crazy.”

 

Tim Pawlenty, president of the Financial Services Roundtable trade group, said Thursday: “Large financial institutions play a role in the American economy other institutions are not able to fill. We are working with Congress and the administration on a common-sense approach to financial regulation modernization and look forward to more progress.”

Still, while Cohn’s statement may be simply posturing, some see Cohn’s support as notable: “he was the most likely obstacle within the Trump White House” to restoring Glass-Steagall, said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Cowen & Co., in a note to clients. “With him supporting Glass-Steagall’s restoration, there is no one in the inner circle left to fight it.”

Mr. Seiberg said banks may be underestimating the threat: “At some point the market is going to have to accept that the Trump administration is serious about restoring the Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking.”

As a reminder, Glass-Steagall was adopted in the 1930s as a way to keep securities businesses separate from taxpayer-insured banks. The separation between lending and investment banking slowly eroded in the latter part of the 20th century, as banks won regulatory exceptions to diversify their businesses. Since Congress repealed the law in 1999 under Bill Clinton, some liberals have pushed for reinstating it, “calling such a move a simple way to make the economy more stable by removing a taxpayer backstop from risky activities. Proponents of bringing back the law also say it would diminish the size and political influence of large Wall Street banks.”

The 2010 Dodd-Frank regulatory-overhaul law took a half-step toward Glass-Steagall when it mandated the Volcker rule, which bars banks from certain activities unless they are trading on behalf of their customers. Many banks have since closed so-called proprietary trading desks.

Ultimately, even with Cohn allegedly behind the push repeal, the Glass-Steagall idea hasn’t gained broad support yet, even among Democrats. As the WSJ concludes, former Federal Reserve Gov. Daniel Tarullo, the Fed regulatory guru who stepped down Wednesday, was asked about Glass-Steagall earlier this week. He pointed out that in 2008, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers—two investment banks without traditional lending businesses—caused significant financial stress.

“Just by separating things doesn’t mean people stay out of trouble,” he said, adding that there would be costs to forcing banks to separate and lose the potential business advantages of combining their operations. “If you are going to have those costs and still have financial stability problems…then maybe we are not getting much after all.”

Unfortunately he may be right: the current financial environment is one in which the concern is not so much separating securities businesses from taxpayer-insured operations, as separating the $14 trillion in global liquidity sloshing around courtesy of central banks, from the rest of “organic” liquidity. It is that particular separation that will be a far bigger headache in the coming years than even reinstating Glass-Steagal.

* * *

Finally, while the likelihood of a new Glass-Steagall is low, the financial industry is already preparing for a worst case scenario, and firms such as Credit Sights are warning that a return of the Depression-era law would hurt banks.

In a note from CreditSights’ Pri de Silva, he writes that while some politicians and regulators, including Donald Trump, have been calling for a new Glass-Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, only FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig has put forward a detailed proposal; “implementing it could hurt global financial markets and financial stability.”

• Sees severely harming credit profiles of the big 6 banks (BofA, Citigroup, Goldman, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo), bondholders, trading counterparties and other bank creditors of these banks, U.S. banks’ global competitive advantage, and liquidity in bond, repo markets
• Could also curtail credit creation due to constraints placed on banks/brokers, steep capital requirements, which in turn would become headwind for economic growth and “the smooth functioning” of financial markets
• If broker-¬dealers’ ability to make markets is constrained, ability to act as shock absorbers would be pruned, spikes in volatility may increase
• Notes potential lack of clarity about parent-¬level debt (issued for TLAC)
• Notes proposal calls for eliminating or watering down many of the “prudent safeguards” implemented since the credit crisis, including CCAR, DFAST stress tests, and replacing them with 10% tangible equity ratio that doesn’t distinguish between a subprime mortgage or a leveraged loan and a U.S. government obligation

In short, while it was the post-Glass Steagall world that led to the 2008 financial crisis, Wall Street has already fallen back to its traditional defense mechanism: threatening that far greater doom and gloom lie in story if the Trump administration does the one thing that may actually protect taxpayers. As a result, with Wall Street effectively running the current administration, we doubt the probability of a Glass Steagall reinstatement is even worth talking about.

via http://ift.tt/2oecuYw Tyler Durden

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

During a recent interview with Democracy Now, Noam Chomsky demonstrated what everyone with a clear head and capacity for critical thought should already know. Just because you have a strong dislike for Donald Trump, doesn’t mean you latch on like a lunatic to every nonsensical Russia conspiracy theory because you’re still crying about Hillary’s loss.

As Noam Chomsky accurately states:

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Noam Chomsky, I’d like to ask you about something that’s been in the news a lot lately. Obviously, all the cable channels, that’s all they talk about these days, is the whole situation of Russia’s supposed intervention in American elections. For a country that’s intervened in so many governments and so many elections around the world, that’s kind of a strange topic. But I know you’ve referred to this as a joke. Could you give us your view on what’s happening and why there’s so much emphasis on this particular issue?

 

NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s a pretty remarkable fact that—first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn’t just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn’t like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone—it’s the least of it—the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it’s considered—it’s turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world.

 

 

So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump’s programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That’s—the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can’t believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, “Sure, that’s just what they ought to be doing.”

 

So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That’s not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it.

Watch the clip here.

Yes, I know. Chomsky works for Putin too.

via http://ift.tt/2nhe6ld Tyler Durden

The U.S. government’s foreign surveillance incidentally collects information on lawmakers and their staffs as often as once a month, according to a new report.

In what seems like the first attempt to shift the narrative of Susan Rice's alleged wrongdoings, the report positions the 'unmaskings' as "routine" almost as if the fact that 'everyone's doing it' somehow negates the fact that the law was allegedly broken.. (as The Hill reports)

Congress frequently receives alerts that its members and their aides have been unmasked and their identities shared with intelligence and law enforcement forces, Circa said Thursday.

 

Circa said such alerts, named “The Gates Notification” after former CIA Director Robert Gates, go to the Gang of Eight leadership team in Congress. The Gang of Eight includes the Speaker and House minority leader, the Senate Democratic and Republican leaders, and the bipartisan heads of both chambers’ intelligence committees.

 

Circa added the lawmakers often don't learn about such unmasking unless it involves a hacking or security threat.

 

Intelligence community sources speaking on the condition of anonymity confirmed to Circa that lawmakers'  names may appear in executive branch intelligence reports.

However, the plot thickens further, as Fox news reports that the intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.

"This is information about their everyday lives," Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. "Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

 

On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines.

 

Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow.

…

The most recent government data shows that unmasking or identifying Americans happens in a number of cases. The Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17 intelligence agencies, said "…in 2015, NSA disseminated 4,290 FAA Section 702 intelligence reports that included U.S. person information. Of those 4,290 reports, the U.S. person information was masked in 3,168 reports and unmasked in 1,122 reports."  

The report said "NSA is allowed to unmask the identity for the specific requesting recipient only under certain conditions and where specific additional controls are in place" and those conditions were met for "654 U.S. person identities" in 2015.

That means Americans were identified in 26 percent of the cases, or roughly one in four intelligence reports.

Still we are sure CNN will keep plugging away with its "nothing to see here, move along" narrative… until the last lonely viewer has switched off.

via http://ift.tt/2nOYJMN Tyler Durden

…..then…….

………..then……

…….and, finally……….

All of which proves, if you’re going to be a complete screw-up and try to glide by on your blonde hair alone, you really need to learn from the mistress of them all.

via http://ift.tt/2oNKYPG Tim Knight from Slope of Hope