33 Trillion Reasons Why The New York Times Is Wrong About Russiagate

Authored by Gareth Porter via ConsortiumNews.com,

New research shows The New York Times was even further off the mark in blaming Russian social media for Trump’s win…

Even more damning evidence has come to light undermining The New York Times‘ assertion in September that Russia used social media to steal the 2016 election for Donald Trump.

New research shows that a relatively paltry 80,000 posts from the private Russian company Internet Research Agency (IRA) were engulfed in literally trillions of posts on Facebook over a two-year period before and after the 2016 vote.

That was supposed to have thrown the election, according to the paper of record. In a 10,000-word article on Sept. 20, the Times reported that 126 million out of 137 million American voters were exposed to social media posts on Facebook from IRA that somehow had a hand in delivering Trump the presidency.

The newspaper said:

“Even by the vertiginous standards of social media, the reach of their effort was impressive: 2,700 fake Facebook accounts, 80,000 posts, many of them elaborate images with catchy slogans, and an eventual audience of 126 million Americans on Facebook alone.”

But Consortium News, on Oct. 10, debunked that story, pointing out that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti failed to report several significant caveats and disclaimers from Facebook officers themselves, whose statements make the Times’ claim that Russian election propaganda “reached” 126 million Americans an exercise in misinformation.

What Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 31, 2017 is a far cry from what the Timesclaims.

“Our best estimate is that approximately 126,000 million people may have been served one of these [IRA-generated] stories at some time during the two year period,” Stretch said.

Stretch was expressing a theoretical possibility rather than an established fact. He said an estimated 126 million Facebook members might have gotten at least one story from the IRA –- not over the ten week election period, but over 194 weeks during the two years 2015 through 2017—including a full year after the election.

That means only an estimated 29 million FB users may have gotten at least one story in their feed in two years. The 126 million figure is based only on an assumption that they shared it with others, according to Stretch.

Facebook didn’t even claim most of those 80,000 IRA posts were election–related. It offered no data on what proportion of the feeds to those 29 million people were.

In addition, Facebook’s Vice President for News Feed, Adam Moseri, acknowledged in 2016 that FB subscribers actually read only about 10 percent of the stories Facebook puts in their News Feed every day. The means that very few of the IRA stories that actually make it into a subscriber’s news feed on any given day are actually read.

And now, according to further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA ads—let alone were influenced by them—are even more astronomical. In his Oct. 2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, “Americans using Facebook were exposed to, or ‘served,’ a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds.”

That 33 trillion figure is 412.5 million times larger than the total of 80,000 IRA posts in that two year period. To put that in perspective, the Russian-origin Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.

Shane and Mazzetti did not report the 33 trillion number even though The New York Times’ own coverage of that 2017 Stretch testimony explicitly stated, “Facebook cautioned that the Russia-linked posts represented a minuscule amount of content compared with the billions of posts that flow through users’ News Feeds everyday.”

The Times‘ touting of the bogus 126 million out 137 million voters, while not reporting the 33 trillion figure, should vie in the annals of journalism as one of the most spectacularly misleading uses of statistics of all time.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2F2q4sc Tyler Durden

A Gun Capable Of Fitting Into A Wallet Is Being Sold By An American Arms Company

The National Interest recently profiled the latest firearm which is pushing the limits in terms of size and technology — except this isn’t a “big gun” but quite the opposite. A North Carolina company has produced and is currently selling a single-shot “credit card gun” which fits into a wallet, and which can be neatly tucked away in a person’s back pocket

A military analyst writing for The National Interest describes the gun, called the “LifeCard,” as “a single-shot, single-action .22 designed to resemble an innocuous credit card.”

The credit-card sized pistol was “fashioned from lightweight anodized aluminum with a steel trigger and tilt-up barrel” which enables “the 7 oz. pistol folds up into a 3.375 inch by 2.215 inch card that, despite its half-inch thickness, can fit with relative ease inside your back pocket or average wallet.”

It was developed by a North Carolina-based company Trailblazer Firearm, and has enough ammo storage for four rounds.

The company has billed it as a weapon of “last resort” in dangerous, unexpected situations, but it’s also sure to draw controversy given the extreme ease of concealment and potential for passing through security screenings, similar to the controversy evoked by 3-D printed guns.

Via Trailblazer Firearms

“Trailblazer Firearms fully intends to spearhead innovative new firearms products starting with the LifeCard, available later this month,” Trailblazer president Aaron Voight said in a statement. “New designs and true innovation have been the exception and our goal is to be the pioneer laying new trails for gun enthusiasts, designers, and manufacturers.”  

But Jared Keller, writing for the military website Task & Purpose, poses the following question regarding the weapon’s ultimate effectiveness in a life and death situation

But how effective would this $400, uber-hyped firearm actually be in a situation that calls for a stealthily concealed weapon, or a quick draw? The product is so new that reports from the urban battlefield have barely been released.

Though the tiny weapon, which is being compared to the turn-of-the-century Chicago palm pistol, was first unveiled in 2017, it is only recently picking up visibility in the media as the popularity of the weapon grows. 

It’s already angering some pundits and journalists on social media after an Israeli arms company recently took note of it

According to the National Interest the gun has been deemed in compliance with the American National Firearms Act given that it’s incapable of firing when folded

Below is a short video produced by the manufacturer showing just how quickly the “LifeCard” can be deployed. It definitely appears something straight out of James Bond’s collection.

* * *

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PyZYRF Tyler Durden

California Hit By 39 Quakes In 24 Hours As Scientists Warn Of “Movement Along The San Andreas Fault”

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

A series of large earthquakes has rattled California over the last 24 hours, and scientists are telling us that the shaking was the result of “movement along the San Andreas Fault system”

In recent months there has been an alarming amount of seismic activity all along “the Ring of Fire”, and there have been times when the number of global earthquakes has been way above normal.  Could it be possible that all of this unusual seismic activity is leading up to something?  As you will see below, experts are telling us that we are overdue for the “Big One” to hit California.  And when it does eventually strike, it could be far worse than most people would dare to imagine.

Most of the 39 significant earthquakes that have struck California within the last 24 hours have happened along the San Andreas Fault.  The following comes from CBS News

A swarm of earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, the largest measuring a 4.1 magnitude, rumbled through the Hollister area and the Salinas Valley Friday morning. CBS San Francisco, citing officials, reports the quakes rattled nerves but caused no major damage.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 4.1 quake hit at 5:58 a.m. PDT 12 miles southwest of the small community of Tres Pinos. It was followed by quakes measuring 3.6, 3.2 and 3.0.

Officials are saying that this shaking was caused by “movement along the San Andreas Fault system”, and the initial magnitude 4.1 quake was quickly followed by a series of more than 20 aftershocks

After a magnitude 4.1 earthquake struck 12 miles from Hollister at 5:58 a.m., more than 20 aftershocks rattled the area in the following hours. The smaller quakes registered as high as 3.6 magnitude and were felt as far away as Monterey and Santa Cruz.

When you live in an area that sits along a major earthquake fault, it can be easy to forget the potential danger if nothing happens for an extended period of time.

But the danger is always there, and for many California residents the rattling that we witnessed on Friday was a clear reminder of that fact.

Thankfully, these earthquakes did not cause substantial damage, but local residents were definitely shaken up

One in Hollister said: “Was asleep, felt like someone was shaking the bed.”

Another resident in Monterey Bay expressed concern that recent quakes could indicate a major earthquake – commonly known as the ‘Big One’ – could be on the way.

They wrote: “Been feeling a lot of tremors the last several months.

“The Hayward Fault is overdue and coming to thump. Any time now. It’s definitely coming relatively soon.”

Hopefully this current shaking will fizzle out and things will go back to normal.

But experts tell us that California is definitely overdue for a major earthquake and that “the Big One” will happen at some point

Experts say California is overdue for a huge earthquake with some warning a major magnitude 7.0 is likely within the next 30 years.

A 2008 report by USGS described the Hayward Fault, which runs to the east of San Francisco, as a “tectonic time bomb” which could threaten the city’s seven million residents.

And when “the Big One” does strike, it could potentially be far worse than most people have ever imagined.

In a previous article, I quoted from a news story about a recent study that concluded that a major earthquake could potentially “plunge large parts of California into the sea almost instantly”

The Big One may be overdue to hit California, but scientists near LA have found a new risk for the area during a major earthquake.

They claim that if a major tremor hits the area, it could plunge large parts of California into the sea almost instantly.

The discovery was made after studying the Newport-Inglewood fault, which has long been believed to be one of Southern California’s danger zones.

When I first read that, I was absolutely stunned.

But according to Cal State Fullerton professor Matt Kirby, there is a very strong possibility that this could actually happen someday

Cal State Fullerton professor Matt Kirby, who worked with the Leeper on the study, said the sinking would occur quickly and likely result in part of California being covered by the sea.

“It’s something that would happen relatively instantaneously,” Prof Kirby said. “Probably today if it happened, you would see seawater rushing in.”

The fact that our planet is entering a time of unprecedented seismic activity has been a major theme in my work for a very long time, and I am particularly concerned about the west coast.  Just a few weeks ago, there was some unusual shaking farther north along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, and I anticipate that the shaking of coastal areas will continue to intensify until things finally break loose.

And the truth is that we can see signs of impending change all around us.  Down in southern California, a “moving sinkhole” is now traveling up to 60 feet a day, and it is “destroying everything in its path”

It is the beginning of the San Andreas fault, where experts fear ‘The Big One’ could begin.

But a small, bubbling pool of mud that stinks of rotting eggs near the Salton Sea is causing concern.

Dubbed ‘the slow one’, experts studying the phenomenon say it is similar to a ‘moving sinkhole’ – and is speeding up, destroying everything in its path.

Imperial County officials studying the muddy spring say it has has been increasing in speed through – first 60 feet over a few months, and then 60 feet in a single day.

Of course this is not just a west coast phenomenon.  We have been witnessing unusual seismic activity all over the world, and it has become very clear that our planet is becoming increasingly unstable.

Natural disasters are going to continue to grow worse and worse, and that is going to have extremely serious implications for all of us.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Dn2Xaf Tyler Durden

Kyle Bass Interviews Steve Bannon About China’s “Grand Strategy” For Global Domination

On a day when the yuan and the A-shares market rallied on reports of a possible breakthrough in deadlocked US-China trade negotiations (a report that was eventually rebutted by none other than Trump chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow), Real Vision demonstrated an ironic sense of timing by releasing a discussion between two of the most notorious China bears in the West: Hayman Capital founder Kyle Bass, who has staked his reputation on a massive short-yuan position, and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

Filmed more than a month ago in an undisclosed airplane hanger, the interview involved Bass quizzing Bannon about the former Trump campaign chief’s hostility toward China and why President Trump is justified in taking a hard line against the Middle Kingdom not just in his trade policy, but in the strategy of military containment that Trump has propagated, and how that contrasts with his predecessors “pivot to Asia.” Bass started to the interview by asking Bannon about China’s “grand strategy” and how it cuts against US interests.

Bannon

The “grand strategy” isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, Bannon explained. Through it, China is leveraging its economic resources to wage a concentrated war of influence against the US. It’s the most ambitious geopolitical strategy that we’ve ever seen, Bannon said. And right, now China is winning.

Their grand strategy is very simple. It’s to be a hegemonic world power. You can see it through One Belt One Road. You can it see through Made In China 2025. You can see through everything they’re doing like their strategy of being the East India Company in Sub-Saharan Africa, what they’re doing to the Caribbean, now what they’re doing in Latin America. What we call all forces of government– all areas of government focus on the economic war against the United States and their military build up.

For some bewildering reason, Wall Street and the Davos set have managed to wilfully ignore the threat posed by China by telling themselves that China isn’t territorially ambitious. But on this, they’re wrong – and China’s continued development of the South China Sea is all the proof one needs to understand that China is a geopolitical threat.

A lot of the Wall Street, City of London, and Frankfurt crowd have kind of said, oh, well, they’re not territorially ambitious. They’ve never been an expansionist power. Well, they’re a geopolitically, expansionist power. And it’s quite extraordinary what they’re doing. And they’re doing it at the same time.

But perhaps the most galling aspect of the West’s preference for appeasement over confrontation when it comes to China was the Obama administration’s willingness to accept China’s claim that its development in the South China Sea was for strictly peaceful purposes.

Three years later, what were uninhabitable reefs only recently have been transformed into 10,000 “stationary aircraft carriers.”

They call them reefs. These are stationary aircraft carriers– Mischeif, Scarborough Reef. All these– these reefs are basically aircraft carriers. And what they’ve done is they’ve put fire control, radar, search radars, and combat planes on them. These things can go.

The problem with Americans’ perception of China, as Bannon explained, is that most people don’t understand the significance of the South China Sea. In terms of trade, it’s a superhighway. And whoever can exercise unilateral control of that region can exert amazing influence on world trade. One-third of world trade – some $5 trillion annually – flows through the region.

My point. When people say the South China Sea, what you have to understand is it’s a superhighway of commerce. They have the biggest ships in the world 24/7, 365 days a year.

That’s why Bannon believes that the South China Sea is one of three flashpoints that could trigger the start of World War III.

You asked me what’s going to happen. I said on my radio show five years ago they would be in a shooting war. The situation in Qatar, and the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea are the two greatest hotspots of the world for global conflict to start. OK? It’s not Korea. Korea’s a vassal state of China. The whole Korean thing is nothing but a Chinese drama. OK?

And while China prefers to spin the South China Sea as a purely domestic issue – since, in their view, it is unquestionably Chinese territory – the US has everything to lose if it allows itself to be pushed out.

And they will tell you, no, it’s a vital thing. We need America. We need America here because if we lose the South China Sea, we will lose any type of commerce. China would control the whole place. And the Chinese understand that. That’s where they’re trying to push us out. And they’re starting to already have the psychological warfare of exactly that. Hey, it’s 12,000 miles away. It’s really Asia. What are we involved here for? This is another debacle.

China was able to cover its ambitions from Western scrutiny by leveraging its powerful checkbook. It didn’t cultivate allies in the American and UK business communities by force. Instead, it suborned them with investments that Bannon essentially views as bribes.

This is a direct confrontation with China to say, we’re not going to take it anymore. You’ve been in economic war with us. And we’re going to reassert us. Your question about how they ingratiate themself. They’re the guys wrote the biggest checks. They wrote checks to the universities. They’ve essentially bought off the city of London, Wall Street, and the corporations. I say this in a sense of kind of anger. The great investment banks in London and in New York became the investor relations department for this regime.

That’s why, when Wang Qishan visited the US in August to meet with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, he demanded some face time with US captains of industry. And when they demurred, fearful of finding themselves in the middle of the trade war debacle, Wang reminded them that he wasn’t asking.

Being on their back foot by the Trump strategy, they kind of said, hey, we need a financial advisory panel to help us understand what the United States wants and what the United States needs. And it was Paulson, and Schwarzman, and all these characters. And it’s interesting. When they need somebody to come over and help intermediate with the United States, they go to the same guys who have been profiting on this. My understanding is that people came back and said, hey, the UN General Assembly is happening. It’s opera season in New York. My schedule is full. And Wang Qishan said, hey, boys, I don’t think you’re listening. We’re having a meeting. I want everybody to show up.

When people look back on this period, Bannon said, they’re going to be stunned by how easily everyone went along with China’s wishes. But the economic threats emanating from China aren’t solely related to its “grand strategy”. There are also significant risks, as Bass would no doubt agree, in China’s financial sector, which Bannon likened to a house built on sand. And just like with China’s aggressive military posture in the pacific, Western institutions have enabled this as well. And when the reckoning comes in the form of a brutal debt crisis, the fallout will be even worse than what we saw in 2008. And what’s worse, the exact same culprits – the global investment banks and their bosses – will be to blame.

What we’ve seen, and I happen to believe, is that the Chinese economic system is built on a house of sand. And I think it’s going to lead us to a greater financial debacle than 2008 ever was in the exact same culprits that led to the financial crisis in 2008– the investment banks, the commercial banks, the hedge funds, and the government entities. It was the same elites that led to that financial crisis and got bailed out. They had no responsibility and no accountability. They’ve been the same exact actors that have exacerbated the situation in China.

And so yes, the reason the world’s elites – the Party of Davos, the people on Wall Street, what I call the IR departments of China, which are the investment banks, particularly Goldman Sachs and some commercial banks, the lobbyists for China, which is basically the 25 or 30 largest corporations that deal in China today – their lobbyists in Washington, DC. And the big private equity guys like Schwarzman and these guys are all going to have to be held accountable for what went on in China.

Regardless of what happens with the trade war, Bannon believes Trump is doing the necessary, if difficult, work to hold China accountable and to try and slow the global widening of its sphere of influence. China has already infiltrated our intelligence services and our military, they’ve infiltrated our financial system, and now they’re seeking to break apart unquestioned US hegemony over Latin America. 

Unless dramatic action is taken, it won’t be much longer until America has been completely boxed in.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2QhXgwZ Tyler Durden

Hackers Claim Breach Of 120 Million Facebook Accounts; Put Private Messages Up For Sale

Back On September 28, Facebook announced that as many as 90 million users may have had their “access tokens”, which keep people logged into their account, stolen by hackers. The number was subsequently reduced to 30 million accounts whose phone numbers and email addresses were accessed in the largest security breach in the company’s history.

Of the 30 million exposed, 14 million users had much more data harvested, including; “username, gender, locale/language, relationship status, religion, hometown, self-reported current city, birthdate, device types used to access Facebook, education, work, the last 10 places they checked into or were tagged in, website, people or Pages they follow, and the 15 most recent searches,” according to the company.

It now appears that their private messages were also compromised.

According to the BBC, hackers appear to have compromised and published private messages from at least 81,000 Facebook users’ accounts. The unknown perpetrators also told the BBC Russian Service that they had details from a total of 120 million accounts, which they were attempting to sell.

Meanwhile, Facebook said its security had not been compromised noting that the data had probably been obtained through malicious browser extensions.

Despite denying it had been breached, Facebook said it had taken steps to prevent further accounts being affected even though just over a month ago it admitted a massive hack had broken through its security tokens.

Meanwhile, the BBC said that while many of the users whose details were compromised are based in Ukraine and Russia, some are from the UK, US, Brazil and elsewhere.

“We have contacted browser-makers to ensure that known malicious extensions are no longer available to download in their stores,” said Facebook executive Guy Rosen.

“We have also contacted law enforcement and have worked with local authorities to remove the website that displayed information from Facebook accounts.”

The breach was first noted in September, when a post from a user nicknamed FBSaler appeared on an English-language internet forum: “We sell personal information of Facebook users. Our database includes 120 million accounts,” the hacker wrote.

The claim was examined by cyber-security company Digital Shadows which confirmed that more than 81,000 of the profiles posted online as a sample contained private messages. Data from a further 176,000 accounts was also made available, although some of the information – including email addresses and phone numbers – could have been scraped from members who had not hidden it.

The BBC Russian Service then contacted five Russian Facebook users whose private messages had been uploaded who confirmed the posts were theirs. One example included photographs of a recent holiday, another was a chat about a recent Depeche Mode concert, and a third included complaints about a son-in-law.

A sample of the data posted online

BBC notes that one of the websites where the data had been published appeared to have been set up in St Petersburg. Its IP address according to Cybercrime Tracker appears to have also been used to spread the LokiBot Trojan: it allows attackers to gain access to user passwords.

According to Facebook, the culprit behind the breach was from an extension that had been linked to a user’s platform and quietly monitored victims’ activity and sent personal details and private conversations back to the hackers.

While Facebook has not named the extensions it believes were involved but says the leak was not its fault. Cyber-experts told the BBC that if rogue extensions were indeed the cause, the browsers’ developers might share some responsibility for failing to vet the programs, assuming they were distributed via their marketplaces.  But the hack is still bad news for Facebook, which has had a terrible year for data security and questions will be asked about whether it is proactive enough in responding to situations like this that affect large numbers of people.

BBC contacted five people who confirmed the private messages were theirs.

Separately, BBC emailed the address listed alongside the hacked details, posing as a buyer interested in buying two million accounts’ details. The advertiser was asked whether the breached accounts were the same as those involved in either the Cambridge Analytica scandal or the subsequent security breach revealed in September.

A reply in English came from someone called John Smith. He said while the information had nothing to do with either data leak, his hacking group could offer data from 120 million users, of whom 2.7 million were Russians. However, Digital Shadows has told the BBC that this claim was doubtful because it was unlikely Facebook would have missed such a large breach.

“John Smith” did not explain why he had not advertised his services more widely. When asked whether the leaks were linked to the Russian state or to the Internet Research Agency – a group of hackers linked to the Kremlin – he replied: “No.”

Of course, if indeed 120 million user accounts were breached, and their information soon floods the world, it will be up to Zuckerberg to explain why he has so far failed to address this critical issue.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Qi6JV0 Tyler Durden

What The Looming Bear Market Might Look Like 

Reuters wants you to assume the stock market correction on Wall Street has entered into a full-blown bear market.

Their equity analyst then asks: What kind of bear market can we expect?

As shown below, all bear markets are not equal, they come in different shapes and sizes, but are less frequent than bull markets and, on average, much shorter. They can be very damaging if counter-cyclical buffers via the government or central banks are not properly deployed.

“The stock market is not the economy and the economy is not the stock market, but every U.S. recession over the last half century has been accompanied by major lurches lower on Wall Street.Will history repeat itself next year or 2020?,” asks Reuters.

Wall Street bear markets

Dana Anspach, an independent financial advisor, said since the early 1900s, the S&P has undergone 32 bear markets, which basic arithmetic would tell us that they occur once every three and a half years.

Strategists at First Trust Portfolio estimate since 1926 the average bear market lasted 1.4 years, with an average market loss of 41%.

The most recent bear markets on Wall Street in 2000-02 and 2007-09 saw the S&P collapse by over 45% and 50%, respectively.

“The correction underway on Wall Street has seen the S&P 500 fall 11.5% from its peak a month ago, while the MSCI World has fallen as much as 15% from its peak in January, also in part driven by major weakness in emerging markets. China, for example, is down 30% from its January peak.

But as long as the U.S. selloff is just a correction, the multi-year bull run remains the second-longest in history, even if it is losing steam. There are compelling reasons to believe it will roll over into a bear market, but getting the timing right is tricky.

Bull markets run much longer than bear markets as populations and economies expand. More people means more savings that need to be invested, and as equity historically has offered higher returns than bonds, stock markets attract more of those funds and rise over time,” said Reuters.

Bespoke Investments said the average bull market since 1927 is approximately 1,000 days. The most extended one in history was 1987 to early 2000 run of 4,494 days. Already, the current cycle is at 3,000 days, would break the record if run extends until June 2021.

The chart below from FT Portfolios shows that the average bull market since 1927 lasted 9.1 years, with an average cumulative total return of 480%. Reuters warns the current bull market is already 9.7 years long.

S&P & Recessions since 1965 

Anspach also said 53% of all S&P trading sessions have been “up” days and 47% have been “down” days. Regarding months, the split is 58% up and 42% down, and in quarters it is 63% up and 37% down.

October was a rough month for the stock market. The S&P dropped 6.9% last month, its worst month since 2011. The Nasdaq had its most significant drop since the 2008 crash.

Rough month in the stock market 

As the US expansion is becoming increasingly mature, investors’ concerns over declining global growth, escalating trade war, monetary tightening, and emerging market woes could be the tipping point that triggers the next rolling bear market in stocks.

The US expansion seems fine for now, but the next recession could loom sometime in late 2019/20. One narrative, that is growing louder, behind the October market panic is that smart money is derisking ahead of the next downturn.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2AKyLTG Tyler Durden

Gold, Yuan, & Why China’s Monetary Policy Must Change

Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

The next credit crisis poses a major challenge to China’s manufacturing-based economy, because higher global and yuan interest rates are bound to have a devastating effect on Chinese business models and foreign consumer demand. Dealing with it is likely to be the biggest challenge faced by the Chinese Government since the ending of the Maoist era. However, China does have an escape route by stabilizing both interest rates and the yuan by linking it to gold.

But will the Chinese have the gumption to take it?

This article examines the challenges and the possible solution. It concludes there is a reasonable chance China will embrace sound money, because it is in a position to do so and the dangers of not doing so could destroy the State.

Are the Chinese Keynesian?

We can be reasonably certain that Chinese government officials approaching middle age have been heavily westernised through their education. Nowhere is this likely to matter more than in the fields of finance and economics. In these disciplines there is perhaps a division between them and the old guard, exemplified and fronted by President Xi. The grey-beards who guide the National Peoples Congress are aging, and the brightest and best of their successors understand economic analysis differently, having been tutored in Western universities.

It has not yet been a noticeable problem in the current, relatively stable economic and financial environment. Quiet evolution is rarely disruptive of the status quo, and so long as it reflects the changes in society generally, the machinery of government will chug on. But when (it is never “if”) the next global credit crisis develops, China’s ability to handle it could be badly compromised.

This article thinks through the next credit crisis from China’s point of view. Given early signals from the state of the credit cycle in America and from growing instability in global financial markets, the timing could be suddenly relevant. China must embrace sound money as her escape route from a disintegrating global fiat-money system, but to do so she will have to discard the neo-Keynesian economics of the West, which she has adopted as the mainspring of her own economic advancement.

With Western-educated economists imbedded in China’s administration, has China retained the collective nous to understand the flaws, limitations and dangers of the West’s fiat money system? Can she build on the benefits of the sound-money approach which led her to accumulate gold, and to encourage her citizens to do so as well?

China’s economic advisors will have to display the courage to drop the misguided economic policies and faux statistics by which she will continue to be judged by her Western peers. If she faces up to the challenge, China should emerge from the next credit crisis in a significantly stronger position than the West, for which such a radical change in economic thinking undertaken willingly is impossible to imagine.

Post-Mao financial and monetary strategy

Following Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, the Chinese leadership faced a primal decision over her destiny. With Mao’s demise, the icon that forcibly united over forty ethnic groups was gone. It was the end of an era of Chinese history, and she had to embrace the future with a new approach. Failure to do so risked the fragmentation of the state through civil disobedience and would probably have ended in a multi-ethnic civil war.

Wise heads, which had observed the remarkable successes of Hong Kong and Singapore being driven by Chinese diasporas, prevailed. It was clear that in order to survive, the Communist Party would have to embrace capitalism while retaining political control. Mao’s nominated successor, Hua Gofeng, lasted no more than a year, being promoted upstairs out of harm’s way. It was his successor, Deng Xiaoping, who reinvented China. In the late-1970s, Deng, hating the Soviets for their involvement in Vietnam, reaffirmed the USSR as China’s main adversary. At this crucial point in China’s pupation she secured a strategic relationship with America by sharing a common enemy.

The seeds for the relationship with America had already been sown by Nixon’s first visit to China in 1972, so the Americans were prepared to help ease China into their world. Through the 1980s, the relationship opened China up to inward investment by American and other Western corporations, and there was a rush to establish new factories, taking advantage of a cheap diligent labour force and the lack of restrictive regulations and planning laws.

By 1983 it was clear that China’s central bank, the Peoples Bank (PBOC), had a growing currency problem on its hands, because it bought all the foreign exchange against which it issued yuan for domestic circulation. Inward capital flows were added to by the policy of managing the yuan exchange rate lower in order to stimulate economic development. Accordingly, as well as foreign currency management the PBOC was tasked with the sole responsibility of the state’s gold and silver purchases as a policy offset. The public was still banned from owning both metals.

In those days, China’s gold objective was simply to diversify her reserves. The leadership grasped the difference between gold and fiat money, just as the Arabs had in the 1970s, and the Germans had in the 1950s. It was prudent to hold some physical gold. Furthermore, Marxist economic theory taught in the state universities impressed on students that western capitalism was certain to fail, and that being the case, their fiat currencies would become worthless as well.

China’s secret accumulation of gold in the 1980s was also an insurance against future economic instability, which is why it was spread round the institutions that were fundamental to the state, such as the Peoples Liberation Army, the Communist Party and the Communist Youth League. Only a relatively small portion was declared as monetary reserves.

In the 1990s, inward capital flows were beginning to be supplemented by exports, and a new wealthy Chinese class was emerging. The PBOC still had an embarrassment of dollars. Fortunately, gold was unloved in Western markets, and bullion was readily available at declining prices. The PBOC was able to accumulate gold secretly on behalf of the state’s institutions in large quantities. But there was a new strategic reason emerging for buying gold, following the collapse of the USSR.

The end of the USSR in 1989 meant it was no longer America’s and China’s common enemy, altering the strategic relationship between the two. This led to a gradual change in China’s foreign relationships, with America becoming increasingly concerned at China’s emergence as a super-power, threatening her own global dominance.

These shifting relationships changed China’s gold policy from one where gold acted as a sort of general insurance policy against monetary unknowns, to its accumulation as a strategic asset.

Bullion was freely available, partly because Western central banks were selling it in a falling market. The notorious sale of the bulk of Britain’s gold by Gordon Brown at the bottom of the market was the public face of Western central banks’ general disaffection with gold. China was on the other side of the deal. Between 1983 and 2002, mine supply added 42,460 tonnes to above-ground stocks, when the West were net sellers.

The evidence of China’s all-out gold policy is plain to see. She invested heavily in gold mining and is now the largest national miner of gold by far. Chinese government refiners were also importing gold and silver doré to process and keep, and they set a new four-nines standard for one kilo bars. Today, China has a tightening grip on the entire global bullion market.

A decision was taken in 2002 by China to allow the public to buy gold, and the benefits of ownership were widely promoted by state media. We can be certain this decision was taken only after the State had accumulated sufficient bullion for its supposed needs.

China’s public has accumulated approximately 15,000 tonnes to date, net of scrap recycling, based on deliveries out of the Shanghai Gold Exchange’s vaults. Given the public is still banned from owning foreign currency, gold ownership should continue to be popular as an alternative store of value to the yuan, and currently between 150-200 tonnes are being delivered from SGE vaults every month.

Other than declared reserves, it is not known how much gold the state owns. But assessing capital flows from 1983 and allowing for the availability of physical bullion through mining supply and the impact of the 1980-2002 bear market, the PBOC could have accumulated as much as 15,000-20,000 tonnes before the public were permitted to buy gold. If so, it would represent approximately 10% of those capital flows at contemporary gold prices.

The truth is unknown, but we can be sure gold has become a strategic asset for China and its people. China must have always had an expectation that in the long-term gold will become money again, presumably as backing for the yuan. Otherwise, why go to such lengths to monopolise the global bullion market?

But there is a problem. As time goes on and a newer, western-educated generation of leaders emerges, will they still fully recognise the value of gold beyond being simply a strategic asset, and will they recognise the real reasons behind the West’s economic failures, given they have successfully embraced its economic and monetary policies?

These remain fundamental questions. But before teasing out answers to China’s current dilemma, we must dissect China’s current economic, monetary and geostrategic policies.

Working with the West’s monetary standards

The Chinese have embraced fractional reserve banking as the means of financing economic expansion. There are, however, significant differences compared with the West in the way this credit is dispersed. In the US, the commercial banks are all independent entities, nominally controlled through regulation. In China, roughly two-thirds of all bank assets are in state-owned banks. This structure permits the Chinese government to directly control overall bank lending strategy.

By controlling lending strategy, the state can ensure financing is provided for its strategic objectives. But importantly, the state also uses its nationalised banks to influence private sector capital flows and to ensure a cap is put on speculative excesses. Most recently, this has been seen in the deliberate reduction of shadow banking. Before that, the state jumped on speculation in commodities, and in 2015, the stock market bubble was pricked (though there were other influences at work – see below).

A point rarely recognised by Western analysts is that while the expansion of China’s bank credit has been more rapid than in the US, there is less money tied up in speculative activities. And it is excessive speculation that unseats markets.

Contrary to what many observers seem to realise, China’s financial system is more effective at financing production than that of the US. The US’s M2 may have doubled in the last ten years, but nominal GDP has increased by only 40%. China’s M2 has tripled, but China’s nominal GDP growth has almost matched it. In America, the balance of monetary expansion has gone into financial speculation and supports an economy dependent on continually increasing asset values as the basis of wealth creation.

China’s policy of ensuring that the expansion of bank credit is invested in production and not speculation may seem old-fashioned. But there is another reason she avoids the destabilising potential of speculative flows, and that is the likelihood America will use them to undermine China’s economy. Major-General Qiao Liang, the People’s Liberation Army strategist, in a speech to the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee (CCPCC) in April 2015 identified a cycle of dollar weakness against other currencies followed by strength, which first inflated debt in foreign countries and then bankrupted them. That then allowed US business interests to acquire assets at rock-bottom prices.

Qiao argued it was a deliberate American policy and would be used against China.

In his words, it was time for America to “harvest” China. Drawing on Chinese intelligence reports, in early 2014 he was made aware of American involvement in the “Occupy Central” movement in Hong Kong. After several delays, the Fed announced the end of QE the following September which drove the dollar higher, and “Occupy Central” protests broke out the following month.

It was obvious to Qiao that the two events were connected. By undermining the dollar/yuan rate, the Americans tried to disrupt the economy. Within six months, the focus of speculative excesses at that time, the Shanghai stock market, began to collapse with the SSE Composite Index falling from 5,160 to 3,050 between June and September 2015.

We cannot know for certain if Qiao’s suspicions are correct, but we can understand the Chinese leadership’s caution based on his analysis. It is extremely relevant to the situation today. A strong dollar is being driven by rising interest rates, “harvesting” Turkey, South Africa, and all the other states hooked on cheap dollars. It is also undermining the yuan exchange rate, threatening to harvest China as well. It seems likely, to the Chinese at least, that the current commentary about the disasters likely to befall China if the rate crosses Y7.000 to the dollar are down to whispers coming from the US Government.

For this and other reasons, the Chinese leadership is extremely wary of having dollar liabilities and the accumulation of unproductive, speculative money in the economy. It justifies to them their strict exchange control regime, whereby dollars are not permitted to circulate in China, and all inward capital flows are turned into yuan by the PBOC. However, the current exchange control regime also blocks the yuan from being widely circulated outside China, limiting its acceptance as an international currency.

That will have to change, if the yuan is to replace the dollar for China’s trade. Furthermore, a policy that leads to the mass accumulation of dollars has to be terminated at some point.

The answer is to back the yuan with gold

Major-General Qiao made it clear to the CCPCC that the dollar achieved global domination only after August 1971, when the link with gold was abandoned and replaced with oil. The link with oil was not through exchange values, as had been the case with gold, but through a payment monopoly. In Qiao’s words, “The most important thing in the 20th century was not World War 1, World War 2, or the disintegration of the USSR, but rather the August 15, 1971 disconnection between the US dollar and gold.”

Strong words, indeed. But if that’s the case, the Chinese will know that the most important event of this new century will be the destruction of the dollar’s hegemonic status. It requires careful consideration, and many unforeseen consequences may arise. The Chinese know they must not be blamed for the dollar’s demise.

So long as the world economy continues to grow without periodic credit dislocations, then China needs only to react to events, doing nothing overtly to undermine the dollar. She need never seek reserve currency status. No one can complain about that. But while central bankers may presume that they have banished credit crises, the reality is different. An independent, market-based view of the current credit cycle is that the onset of another credit crisis is becoming more likely by the day. That being the case, on current monetary policies China’s economy can be expected to crash, along with those of the West’s welfare states.

China’s manufacturing economy will be particularly hard hit by the rise in interest rates that normally triggers a credit crisis. Higher interest rates turn previous capital investments in the production of goods into malinvestments, because the profit calculations based on lower interest rates and lower input prices become invalid. This is a greater problem for China than for many other economies, because of her emphasis on the production of goods. In short, unless China finds a solution to the next credit crisis before it hits, she could find herself in greater difficulties than states where the production of goods is a minority occupation, purely from a production point of view.

From what we know of their strategic analysis of money and credit, the Chinese should be aware of the cyclical risk to production. If the yuan and the dollar go head-to-head as purely fiat currencies, the yuan will be the loser every time. It would mean the yuan would inevitably sink faster than the dollar in the run-up to the credit crisis, which appears to be happening now. As Qiao puts it, China is already being harvested by America. At some stage, China must act to protect herself from this harvesting. And that’s where her gold comes into play.

Stabilising the currency and the economy with gold

China originally accumulated undeclared reserves of gold as a prudent diversification from holding nothing but other governments’ liabilities. This then turned into a quasi-strategic policy, through encouraging her citizens to accumulate gold as well, while continuing to ban them from owning foreign currencies. We know roughly how much gold her own citizens have, but we can only guess at the state’s holding. It will soon be time for China to declare it.

The reasoning is straightforward. At this late stage in the global credit cycle, and so long as the yuan is unbacked, yuan interest rates will rise to the point where Chinese business models will be destroyed. The only way that can be stopped is to link the yuan to gold, so that interest rates align with that of gold, not the rising rates of an unbacked yuan weakening against the dollar whose interest rates are rising as well.

China will be taking a major step by putting an end to the dollar era that has existed since August 1971, when gold as the ultimate money was driven out of the monetary system. She must be ready to do this urgently, despite the opinions of Western-educated economists within her own administration. Some Western central banks may face acute embarrassment, having sold and leased their gold reserves, so that they are no longer in possession. China must move soon to avoid further rises in dollar interest rates undermining the yuan even more.

That time must be approaching. China must resist the temptation to defer such an important decision, allowing the yuan to fall much further. The neo-Keynesians in Beijing will argue that a lower yuan will compensate exporters facing American tariffs. But all that does is drive up domestic prices, and increase the cost of commodities required for China’s infrastructure plans. No, the decision to move must be sooner rather than later.

Assuming China has significant undeclared gold reserves, this could be done very simply through the issuance of a perpetual jumbo bond, paying coupons in gold or yuan at the holder’s option. This financial model, without the gold convertibility feature, is based on Britain’s Consolidated Loan Stock, first issued in 1751 and finally redeemed in 2015. Being undated, there was no capital drain on the exchequer, except at the exchequer’s option.

The broad advantages to this approach will become self-evident, and what follows is an outline proposal showing how monetary stability and the removal of systemic risk can be achieved. To give the markets time to adjust the gold price for China’s remonetisation, these proposals should be announced in advance of the bond’s introduction, together with full disclosure of China’s true gold reserves. The bond would impart a basic yield to gold, allowing for an additional portion of the yield to reflect China’s credit risk. It will be priced to ensure holding the bond is attractive to savers and investors, making it a credible alternative to owning physical bullion. Because the bond need never be paid off, it should benefit China’s credit standing in the markets and underwrite international demand for the yuan itself.

Further currency issues by the PBOC would then have to be backed by gold, as was the case with the Bank of England’s note issuance under the Bank Charter Act of 1844. Banks would be given a limited timescale to separate their deposit-taking functions from their loan books, which would substitute bond issues as the main instrument for funding loan business.

Bank deposits would earn nothing, and perhaps even face administrative costs. Depositors and savers would therefore channel their savings into the new bank bonds or the new jumbo bond. The banks and the banking system would no longer present a systemic risk.

This would mean that monetary expansion in China would only occur through gold imports, mine supplies, and scrap recycling of jewellery. Given China’s annual mine output of over 400 tonnes, and assuming the state already owns significant undeclared reserves, there should be sufficient gold backing to put the yuan on a gold standard by these means. A one-trillion-yuan bond issue with a 3% gold coupon, assuming a gold price of Y15,000 ($2,150 at current exchange rates) would require a maximum of only 62 tonnes of gold to pay the annual coupon, assuming all holders opt for interest paid in gold. In practice, most interest is likely to be drawn in yuan.

The cost of borrowing for production would then be realigned with the general price level in China, reinstating Gibson’s paradox as the producer’s price-to-funding cost relationship. Export businesses would be saved from higher interest rates on their borrowings but would have to adjust to a sound currency environment. Switzerland manages with a relatively strong currency, and in pre-euro days, so did Germany. Foreign-owned factories, whose owners are only there for a declining yuan exchange rate, will face wide-spread closures. But that releases workers for other functions more relevant to China’s future.

Therefore, disruption of legacy export industries is unavoidable, even necessary. The drift away from them is already embedded in economic policy. The Chinese always knew that relying on exports was only a stepping-stone to her own self-sufficiency. For the long-term, we may presume she knows sound money provides a more stable business environment than fiat money, especially when she is the world’s largest consumer of industrial materials priced in dollars.

It was gold-backed sterling that made tiny Britain the greatest nation on earth in the second half of the nineteenth century. Sound money works for a savings-driven economy, and with the Chinese saving a substantial part of their net income, that is China’s defining characteristic.

Protecting citizens’ wealth and savings is the leadership’s underlying priority. The value of the accumulated wealth of China’s savers relative to those in other nations with declining fiat currencies would be both secured and enhanced. Doubtless, the purchasing power of gold would continue to rise compared with that of unbacked fiat currencies, encouraging foreign demand for China’s new undated jumbo bond. The rise in its market value measured in foreign currencies would not only ensure continuing demand for the bond but create capital gains for existing owners of it along the way.

Making the yuan convertible into gold would allow China to end exchange controls and for the currency to be freely available and desired for trade. The PBOC would wind down its foreign currency reserves and take no further part in foreign exchange markets.

However, it would amount to a fatal attack on the federal dollar’s status, unless, as seems unlikely, the American Treasury swiftly follows it by reintroducing a credible form of convertibility into gold that avoids the flaws of the Bretton Woods system. The US Treasury states that it holds 8,133 tonnes of gold, which could be used for this purpose.

At current prices, the UST’s gold is valued at $325bn, and at a likely price after China’s announcement, perhaps $600bn. If the Treasury’s gold actually exists, China should be delighted to buy it if the US tries to sell some of it to suppress the gold price. After all, China has both dollars and Treasury bonds to sell in return for gold in far larger quantities. And America would be foolish to obstruct settlement of Chinese sales of Treasuries as some commentators have suggested, because that would simply undermine global confidence in both the dollar and dollar bond markets.

It is hard to see how the US can match a sound-money plan from China. Furthermore, the US Government’s finances are already in very poor shape and a return to sound money would require a reduction in government spending that all observers can agree is politically impossible. This is not a problem the Chinese government faces, and the purpose of a gold-linked jumbo bond is not so much to raise funds; rather it is to seal a price relationship between the yuan and gold.

Whether China implements the plan suggested herein or not, one thing is for sure: the next credit crisis will happen, and it will have a major impact on all nations operating with fiat money systems. The interest rate question, because of the mountains of debt owed by governments and consumers, will have to be addressed, with nearly all Western economies irretrievably ensnared in a debt trap. The hurdles faced in moving to a sound monetary policy appear to be simply too daunting to be addressed.

Ultimately, a return to sound money is a solution that will do less damage than fiat currencies losing their purchasing power at an accelerating pace. Think Venezuela, and how sound money would solve her problems. But that path is blocked by a sink-hole that threatens to swallow up whole governments. Trying to buy time by throwing yet more money at an economy suffering a credit crisis will only destroy the currency. The tactic worked during the Lehman crisis, but it was a close-run thing. It is unlikely to work again.

Because China’s economy has had its debt expansion of the last ten years mostly aimed at production, if she fails to act soon she faces an old-fashioned slump with industries going bust and unemployment rocketing. China offers very limited welfare, and without Maoist-style suppression, faces the prospect of not only the state’s plans going awry, but discontent and rebellion developing among the masses.

For China, a gold-exchange yuan standard is now the only way out. She will also need to firmly deny what Western universities have been teaching her brightest students. But if she acts early and decisively, China will be the one left standing when the dust settles, and the rest of us in our fiat-financed welfare states will left chewing the dirt of our unsound currencies.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2zqoIRP Tyler Durden

Soros Partners With Mastercard To Hand Out Money To Migrants

Billionaire investor George Soros has repeatedly denied rumors that he is helping to finance the migrant caravans making their way up from Honduras and Guatemala through Mexico with the ultimate aim of reaching the US.

But that’s about to change, as the “Open Society” founder – who famously financed much of the opposition to Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh – is now partnering with Mastercard to hand out money (in the form of ‘investment capital’) to migrants, refugees and “others struggling within their communities worldwide,” according to Reuters. Through their partnership, Soros is effectively providing open financial support for migrants and refugees seeking to enter the US and Europe.

Soros

The partnership between Soros and Mastercard, which they are calling Humanity Ventures, is the result of a pledge that Soros made in September to spend $500 million to address “the challenges facing migrants and refugees.”

In a statement, Soros and Mastercard declared that government aid programs haven’t been enough to solve the issues facing refugees, suggesting that this is a problem that only the private sector can solve.

Migrants are often forced into lives of despair in their host communities because they cannot gain access to financial, healthcare and government services,” Soros said.

“Our potential investment in this social enterprise, coupled with Mastercard’s ability to create products that serve vulnerable communities, can show how private capital can play a constructive role in solving social problems,” he added.

Right away, Soros plans to spend $50 million to provide “scaleable” health-care and education solutions. He intends to ‘invest’ the money in businesses founded by migrants.

“Humanity Ventures is intended to be profitable so as to stimulate involvement from other businesspeople,” Soros said.

“We also hope to establish standards of practice to ensure that investments are not exploitative of the vulnerable communities we intend to serve.”

Soros has said that he would prefer ‘Humanity Ventures’ to be profitable to attract “other businesspeople”, it’s unclear how, exactly, he plans to earn anything approaching a reasonable rate of return by handing out risk free loans to migrants and refugees.

This comes after Master Card back in 2016 admitted that it has handed out prepaid debit cards to migrants and refugees traveling through Europe, something the company did with the explicit blessing of the European Union and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Mastercard

Perhaps MSNBC and other liberals who blindly claim that Soros and his network of non-profits aren’t providing financial assistance to migrants approaching the US should consider this before they continue with their denials.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2P8uvWP Tyler Durden

If You Think Trump And Powell Aren’t Getting Along…

Authored by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

If you think President Trump is upset with Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, you should see what’s going on in India. Central bankers had been every government’s close friend for years; a decade even. The relationships were beyond chummy, particularly as many governments celebrated their central bank heroes for heroically heroic actions saving the world from something like a repeat of 1929.

While conventional perceptions were shaped by things like QE and low rates, reality, of course, has been much different. Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson recently said people like Ben Bernanke saved us all from that other disastrous fate. Except the US economy is about to complete an entire decade where it has underperformed the Great Depression.

It’s the one headline you won’t see anywhere, especially not on a perfect Payroll Friday.

What that has meant for more than the US economy is often massive distance between broad categorized perception and experience. Central bankers say one thing and most of the time people believe them even if it doesn’t seem consistence with their own experience; even former President Obama is desperate to claim credit for this economic boom current President Trump is constantly talking about.

And yet, Trump is acting up about Jay Powell. It doesn’t follow, unless you realize the danger of a boom that never boomed.

It’s that way in India, too, only things have already descended to the extreme. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), that country’s central bank, has been operating a relatively constant monetary policy. Up until recently, however, that caused no disturbance nor disagreement. In other words, something has really changed.

India’s Finance Ministry has threatened just this week to invoke banking law if RBI doesn’t give in to demands from the Modi government. Unlike Western central banks, India’s is independent only by tradition. In statute, the RBI operates at the pleasure of the government. Section 7 of the central bank act hands authorities broad powers should central bankers act outside of established policy agreements.

These had been mostly informal up until the last two months. Again, the central bank was largely left alone because neither the Modi government nor Manmohan Singh’s regime before saw anything wrong with it. Any disagreements were minor and kept inhouse.

Not so any longer. There were media reports RBI Governor Urjit Patel had offered to resign earlier this week.

Modi’s complaints about “his” central bank run both to the familiar as well as the far more devastating. The Prime Minister has, like US President Trump, taken to criticizing “high” interest rates – even though RBI has raised its benchmark policy rate only twice in recent months and refrained from doing so at its most recent meeting. This comes after the central bank had been reducing them for two and a half years.

RBI’s rate which had been 8% was trimmed to 6% by the end of 2017. On October 5, the central bank abstained on a third rate hike which would have pushed it back up to 6.75%. It remains at 6.5% instead, hardly a serious measure for disruption and political turmoil.

This is scapegoating, pure and simple. Rate hikes are not what has changed the landscape in India. This is (thanks T. Tatteo):

The government wants the RBI to provide more liquidity to the shadow banking sector, which has been hurt by the defaults of major financing company, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services (IL&FS). Those defaults triggered sell-off in bonds and stocks of non-banking financial companies. The government has been asking the RBI for a dedicated liquidity window for these lenders similar to one allowed during the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.

Modi wants the RBI to repeat its 2008 measures. It sounds sort of serious, right? Enough to trigger a government/central bank crisis. 

These shadow troubles aren’t starting from rupee markets, a key distinction (like in 2008). I wrote on October 2, the day before the WTI curve shipped off toward contango:

For one, IL&FS is being characterized as a shadow bank and that’s the right way to think about them. As is the company’s very heavy dependence upon, you guessed it, Eurobond financing. Things started to go south even before India’s currency plunged along with all the rest. The rupee’s descent is merely the wrong side of “dollar” tightening.

The mechanics of oil are related to the eurodollar conditions for India and beyond. If India has gotten itself into a world of hurt, where is oil demand going to come from? That country was one of the last remaining places on earth, EM or not, where fast growth wasn’t just fairy tale talk. India has been, hands down, the best performing of the EM group.

Textbook deflationary disruption.

In other words, if the world economy loses India, too, placing that place alongside China in the eurodollar destructive column, WTI contango makes perfect sense having nothing to do with a supply glut. Eurodollar consistency in each market, foreign and domestic.

Modi’s sudden change of heart about Patel really has nothing to do with interest rate hikes. Makes you wonder about Trump’s similar reassessment of Powell.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PFSYSS Tyler Durden

“The Real Economic Shock Is Yet To Come” – Trade War Deepens Across Asia 

The last chance to avoid a full-blown 2019 trade war may come later this month when President Trump is scheduled to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G-20 Buenos Aires summit in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina. It will be the first-ever G-20 summit to be hosted in South America and could be one of the most significant meetings in quite some time — as both leaders will try to resolve trade disputes.

Right now, the economic impact of the escalating trade war between Washington and Beijing seemed to deepen last month as factory activity and export orders dove across Asia, with some analyst warning Reuters that the worst has yet to come.

New data earlier this week showed exporters and factories came under severe pressure, as manufacturing surveys showed some growth in China, but a rapid slowdown in South Korea and Indonesia and a straight out contraction in activity in Malaysia and Taiwan.

Those data points followed weak industrial production numbers from Japan and South Korea on Wednesday.

Much anxiety was seen by computer and human traders on Thursday, as U.S. Treasury bonds fell after data suggested a slowdown has now washed ashore into U.S. manufacturing, construction, and productivity.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of national factory activity declined to a six-month low of 57.7 points last month from 59.8 in September. A reading above 50 indicates growth in manufacturing, which accounts for about 12% of the U.S. economy.

“You have a tightening of monetary conditions around the world, a slowdown in Chinese demand, and financial market turmoil that affects sentiment and investment decisions,” said Aidan Yao, senior Asia EM economist at AXA Investment Managers.

Yao said, “many orders from abroad are still frontloaded in anticipation of yet more tariffs and the impact is still mostly indirect, through the business confidence channel.”

“The real economic shock is yet to come,” he warned.

China reported slower manufacturing growth in October for the second straight month as the country’s trade war dispute with the U.S. deepens, according to a private sector manufacturing report.

The manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) was 50.2 — lower than the 50.6 that analysts expected in a Reuters Eikon poll. The official manufacturing PMI was 50.8 in September.

A DBS Bank examination of Asian supply chains for products headed for the U.S. shows the most significant exposures in machinery and electrical equipment are in South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

The report also mentioned South Korea’s minerals and petrochemicals exports were exposed, as well as Indonesia’s transportation industry, which studied the correlation between China’s imports from Asia and its U.S. exports.

In late August, we pointed out how the first round of US-China tariffs in early July might have already slowed down global trade. Now, Reuters points out that the Harpex index, which tracks weekly container shipping rates, has collapsed 25% from its June peak.

Reuters notes that “things can get worse.”

“Washington has already imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, and China has retaliated with duties on $110 billion worth of U.S. goods in a row sparked by U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands for sweeping changes to China’s intellectual property, industrial subsidies and trade policies.

But absent any deal between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who are expected to attend a G20 summit this month in Buenos Aires, the recently introduced 10% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods will be raised to 25% and other tariffs may be placed on the remaining $250 billion-or-so of Chinese products which escaped the initial rounds,” said Reuters.

And here is the bombshell: “As everyone anticipates a further tariff hike…there is still a lot of front-loading going on. After Jan. 1, we expect many trade and economic activities to tumble,” said Kevin Lai, senior economist at Daiwa Capital Markets.

The storm clouds have been gathering for many months, it is now that the downside risks are becoming increasingly more pronounced. A recession is coming. 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2SJta72 Tyler Durden