Author: admin

Two senators who attended the Munich Security Conference over the weekend affirmed that the US has not developed a so-called “bloody nose” strategy to take out North Korea’s nuclear arsenal – contrary to prior reports in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.

“We are here to echo that there has not and has never been a bloody nose strategy,” said Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island. Whitehouse said he and other lawmakers who attended the conference were briefed by National Security Adviser HR McMaster had briefed a Senate delegation in a secure annex of Congress before the group traveled to the Munich Security Conference, he said on Sunday in the Bavarian capital.

Many security experts have warned that any kind of preemptive strike against the North risks creating hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of casualties. Victor Cha, a former White House official who had been considered for the post of ambassador to South Korea, warned in an essay against giving North Korea a “bloody nose” using a targeted military strike on the regime, according to Bloomberg.

That’s because even a small attack could spark a nuclear war that could devastate both the Korean peninsula and the Continental US – as well as leave many US allies at risk. The heaviest casualties, as we explained in a post over the summer entitled “What Would A North Korean Nuclear Attack Look Like?” Seoul and Tokyo could swiftly suffer millions of casualties from both nuclear and conventional weapons.

Furthermore, tipping the world into a potentially civilization-extinguishing conflict could stem from an accidental miscalculation by either side. In the most likely scenario, an accidental miscalculation during a missile or nuclear test in the Pacific impacts US military assets in Guam, triggering an overwhelming military response by the US.

That could devastate Northeast Asia and draw in both China and Russia, which have repeatedly warned the US to avoid military action, and have repeatedly pushed a peace plan that would see the US abandon its military exercises in the region – and remove its missile-defense systems in South Korea – in exchange for the North halting its nuclear program.

“It was very clear from H.R. McMaster,” said New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who also attended the briefing. Idaho Senator James Risch also attested that no such strategy exists.

Meanwhile, a North Korean state-run news agency published commentary criticizing President Trump’s hints at the possibility of a military intervention in North Korea, saying the state of about 25 million people is “fully ready” for both dialogue and war.

Here’s a breakdown of those comments courtesy of Bloomberg:

“At a time when the trend for improved inter-Korean relations is created on the Korean peninsula and the wish of the international community for peace and stability grows stronger thanks to the DPRK’s pro-active efforts, it’s hard to understand for the U.S. to tout a military option premised on the failure of what they called diplomatic ways.”

“The U.S. tries to put a brake on the DPRK’s additional military steps by threatening the latter with belligerent remarks and further inveigle south Korea and neighboring countries worrying about a war into the racket of sanctions and pressure against the DPRK and secure a justification for a risky preemptive attack in an extreme case”

“The Trump group driven into a tight corner within and without is tying to seek a way out by triggering a war on the Korean peninsula at any cost”

“The DPRK is fully ready for both dialogue and war.”

With the Winter Games in PyeongChang drawing to a close, military exercises involving joint US-South Korean forces are expected to resume over the next month or two. Only then will the recent detente between the South and North – symbolized by their fielding of a joint women’s ice hockey team – be tested.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2Ff2swL Tyler Durden

With the US on holiday for President’s Day and many Asia markets still closed for Lunar New Year holidays, it has been a quiet start to the week, even as last week’s dollar turbulence has resumed, while S&P futures are doing their best to levitate without anyone manning the controls.

World stocks were set for a sixth session of gains on Monday, extending a recovery from a selloff sparked by fears of creeping inflation and higher borrowing costs.

The MSCI world index rose 0.1% in Monday trading. The index has recovered nearly half of its losses from late January to last week’s low, posting a gain of 4.3% last week. That was its best weekly performance since December 2011.

“Market confidence often attracts even more market confidence, and that is what we are seeing at the moment,” said CMC Markets’ David Madden. “The cooling of the volatility index (VIX) has given some dealers the green light to buy back into the stock market, and while the fear factor keeps sliding, it is likely equity benchmarks will continue to push higher.”

Asian stocks rose for the 6th consecutive day, with Japan and South Korea sharaes advancing in holiday-thinned trade as the MSCI Asia Pacific index rose as much as 0.8% before trimming gains to 0.35%. Japan’s Topix rose as much as 2% after Japan’s exports beat estimate.

European shares struggled to carry forward last week’s momentum after rebounding from a selloff with their biggest weekly gain in 14 months. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index dipped -0.2% after erasing modest opening gains amid disappointing earnings reports, while a strong euro capped potential gains among European exporters.

In company specific news, Reckitt Benckiser fell -5% after posting its first-ever year of stagnant sales. Daimler sank -2% after US investigators said they are looking into whether the company used illegal software to cheat emissions tests on diesel vehicles in the US. Reports suggest the existence of documents indicating that one software function on Daimler diesel vehicles turned off the car’s emissions control system after driving just 26 km. Swiss Re rose on news Softbank was seeking to join the company’s board to influence how the reinsurer manages its $160BN in investments. Discussion is centred on a deal where Softbank would become an anchor shareholder in the company with a 20% to 30% stake while gaining multiple seats on the board. European steel companies including ArcelorMittal, Outokumpu and Tenaris climbed after Friday’s U.S. commerce department revealed recommendations to impose tariffs or quotas on imports of aluminum and steel, and China said it reserves the right to retaliate.

The dollar swung around from losses to gains and back to losses; the yen retreat from a 15-month high even as data showed Japan’s exports and imports grew strongly in January from a year earlier in a sign the economy continues to expand. As a result, the USDJPY rebounded as intraday traders who sold earlier, bought back after the Nikkei 225 closed 2 percent higher, boosting risk sentiment. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index recouped early losses as the greenback’s gains vs yen helped offset its decline against the Aussie and kiwi which were buoyed by commodity prices.

The U.S. currency has been weighed down by a barrage of factors, including worries about widening U.S. trade and budget deficits and speculation Washington might pursue a weak dollar strategy. There is also talk that foreign central banks may be reallocating their reserves out of the dollar.

* * *

Treasury futures were little changed while Australian sovereign bonds hold onto opening gains with 10-year yield four basis points lower. 10Y Treasuries yield closed at 2.87% on Friday, after rising to a four-year high of 2.944% last week. Treasuries are not trading Monday due to the holiday in the U.S.

Following today’s holiday respite, the U.S. Treasury will open the borrowing floodgates, and it’ll be up to bond traders to signal how much that extra supply will cost American taxpayers. The Treasury will pack in auctions totaling $258 billion this week, including record-sized sales of three- and six-month bills. With little in the way of significant economic data on the schedule, the sales will provide the clearest gauge yet of how steeply borrowing costs may rise.

Greek government bond yields dipped after a ratings upgrade from Fitch that highlighted improving sentiment towards the indebted southern European state. That marked an outperformance of euro zone peers, with yields across the currency bloc creeping higher in the absence of any fresh drivers.

WTI crude climbs fourth day, topping $62.50; Brent crude rose 0.3 percent to $65.05 per barrel. Gold gained 0.1 percent to $1,348.05 an ounce. Bitcoin rose back over $11,000 on Monday morning, rebounding more than 50% from recent lows.

Today sees the vote for the next Vice-President of the ECB (effectively Draghi’s deputy) as the highlight. It’s a two horse race between Spain’s Luis de Guindos (Spanish finance minister) and Ireland’s Philip Lane (governor of the Irish Central Bank) with the FT reporting that sources suggest the Spaniard is favourite. There is some controversy about his candidacy as he’s not an economist and there are fears that a transitioning political figure will weaken the image of the bank’s independence.

The minutes of the Fed’s last policy meeting, held amid the equities tumble on Jan. 30-31, are due on Wednesday. Besides the outlook on rates, markets will be keen to see what, if anything, the Fed makes of the gyrations in markets.

Top Overnight News

• President Trump spent much of his weekend hammering the FBI, Democrats, Robert Mueller’s investigation and his own national security adviser over Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election. Excepted from the criticism — Russia
• Theresa May will temporarily set Brexit aside and try to repair her image with young voters with a speech on education, an issue where the opposition has the upper hand; As May retreats to the countryside with her Cabinet to thrash out differences on Brexit, it’s starting to become clearer what the prime minister wants the divorce to look like. Some in Brussels will call it cherry- picking, but May wants to stay very close to the EU in some areas, while breaking free in others
• An historic expansion in U.S. borrowing during a period of economic growth, alongside rising bond yields, will cause a surge in the cost of servicing American debt, according to Goldman Sachs
• Rick Gates said to plead guilty, may testify against Manafort: LA Times
• Japan’s trade recovery powered into 2018, with exports and imports registering strong growth. The increase in imports resulted in the first monthly trade deficit since May 2017; Japan Jan trade balance -943.4 billion yen vs -1.0 trillion yen estimate
• Latvian central bank Governor Rimsevics, a member of the ECB’s governing council, was detained by the anti-graft bureau in a flurry of actions by officials
• Iraq’s political risk ranks among the highest in the world. A four-year war against the Islamic State left parts of entire cities in ruins. Corruption runs rampant. And its debt produces returns quadruple the average of peers
• Fed’s Powell has appointed monetary policy specialists Jon Faust and Antulio Bomfim as senior advisers, according to people familiar; Faust advised advised Yellen and Bernanke, Bomfim is a long-term economist at the Fed’s monetary affairs division
• Italy: Berlusconi (Forza Italia) and Salvini (Northern League) both failed to show up at an event in Rome Sunday at which they had been invited to sign a pledge to remain faithful to the center- right coalition
• China says proposed U.S. tariffs groundless; reserves right to retaliate
• Singapore to raise goods and services tax to 9% from 7% in 2021-2025
• U.K. Feb Rightmove house prices 0.8% vs 0.7% prev, y/y 1.5% vs 1.1% prev

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

Don’t expect markets to require too much energy today as the US is off for President’s Day. Today does see the vote for the next Vice-President of the ECB (effectively Draghi’s deputy) as the highlight. It’s a two horse race between Spain’s Luis de Guindos (Spanish finance minister) and Ireland’s Philip Lane (governor of the Irish Central Bank) with the FT reporting that sources suggest the Spaniard is favourite. There is some controversy about his candidacy as he’s not an economist and there are fears that a transitioning political figure will weaken the image of the bank’s independence. So that’s the intrigue for today.

The rest of the week isn’t really that overloaded with data. Wednesday seems to be the big day with the flash February PMIs the focal point with manufacturing, services and composite readings due in Europe and the US. As a reminder, the January manufacturing reading for the Euro area came in at an impressive 59.6, albeit slightly down from the highs above 60 in December and November last year. The consensus is for another small pullback to 59.2 on Wednesday, while the composite is expected to edge down to a still solid 58.4 from 58.8. Outside of this Wednesday sees the monthly U.K. employment release with eyes on wages as the BoE gets closer to their next hike. FOMC minutes from the January meeting will be a focus later that day but it will be outdated news given it occurred before the higher AHE’s and CPI/PPI prints and before the market sell-off. The other highlight later in the week will be Friday’s release from the Fed of the semi-annual monetary policy report to Congress, which lays the foundation for Fed Chair Powell’s semiannual testimony on the 28th of February. For the rest of the week ahead see the end of today’s note for the full preview.

Back on Friday, the US Commerce department proposed that the US should impose tariffs or quotas on imports of steel and aluminium. One of the options was a 24% global tariff on steel imports and 7.7% duty on aluminium imports. The news contributed to a 4.51% rally in the steel sector within the S&P and a 2% rise in aluminium. Looking ahead, President Trump has until mid-April to decide on potential actions. In terms of other initial responses, China’s Ministry of Commerce has noted that it reserves the right to retaliate if the tariffs are imposed, while Germany’s acting economy minister Zypries said “we don’t share the assessment that steel imports from Europe…might threaten US national security”, “so there’s no basis for any unilateral US import restriction on steel”.

Staying in the US, the S&P initially traded c0.9% higher during the session but pared back gains to close +0.04% as news broke that Special Counsel Mueller had charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to interfere in the 2016 US election. That said, the S&P was still up 4.3% for the week while now ‘only’ 4.9% down from its all-time high in late January. The VIX rose marginally and for the first time in six days (+1.7% to 19.46). In Europe, the Stoxx 600 was up for the third day with all sectors in the green (+1.09%, +3.3% for the week), while the DAX (+0.86%) and FTSE (+0.83%) also advanced.

This morning in Asia, market are trading higher with the Nikkei (+1.80%), Kospi (+0.59%) and ASX 200 (+0.64%) all up while other key bourses are closed for the lunar New Year holidays. Datawise, Japan’s January trade deficit was smaller than expected (-943bn Yen vs. -1trn Yen expected) with exports growing above expectations (12.2% yoy vs. 9.4% expected) and outpacing import growth of 7.9% yoy.

Back to Friday, Nick Burns in our team published a Credit Bite called “The Resilience of Loans”: In the aftermath of the recent inflation induced spike in volatility he analysed the impact it has had on the relative performance of HY bonds and leveraged loans. One of the key relative value views in our 2018 outlook was that loans would fare better than bonds if we did indeed see an inflation/ rising yields led move higher in volatility that puts pressure on credit spreads. You can download the report here.

Staying with our team, Michal Jezek published a one-pager called “IG Bond Strategy Charts & Comment:Outflows Hit Credit Funds” which provides charts and short commentary on the latest IG bond fund flows and puts them in the broader context of flows in other asset classes. You can download the report here.

Now briefly recapping other markets performance from Friday. Government bonds firmed for the first time in three days, with core bond yields down 4-7bp (UST 10y -3.4bp; Bunds -5.7bp; Gilts -6.4bp) while peripherals yields also fell 4-8bp. Turning to currencies, the US dollar index strengthened for the first time in five days (+0.57%), while the Euro and Sterling fell 0.80% and 0.52% respectively. In commodities, WTI oil was up 0.55% to $61.68/bbl. Elsewhere, precious metals weakened c1% (Gold -0.50%; Silver -1.33%) and other LME base metals broadly advanced, in particular aluminium (Zinc +0.14%; Copper +0.71%; Aluminium +1.99%).

Now onto Brexit, the EU negotiator and former Belgium PM Guy Verhofstadt noted a Brexit trade deal with the EU is unlikely to be fully finalised before March 2019. Instead, he said “…what is possible…will be the withdrawal agreement. (Then) inside that withdrawal agreement (is) also an agreement on the transition”,  which describes what the future relationship will be. This “annex” will then allow both sides to clarify the trade deal details over the two year transition period. Elsewhere, he did not think a bespoke agreement was possible, noting “….there can be not a type of saying….that we like, this is not interesting for us…”

Over in Germany, the new SPD leader Ms Nahles noted “I’m convinced we will get a majority” approvals from 464,000  SPD members to form a coalition government with Ms Merkel’s bloc, although conceded that we “…don’t have a plan B”.

Before we take a look at this week’s calendar, we wrap up with other data releases from Friday. In the US, the February Uni. of Michigan consumer sentiment index was above market and the second highest since 2004 (99.9 vs. 95 .5 expected). In the details, inflation expectations were unchanged mom, with the 1 and 5 year-ahead expectation at 2.7% and 2.5% respectively. The January  housing starts (1,326k vs. 1,234k) and building permits (1,396k vs. 1,300k) were also both above market, with the latter up 7.4% yoy and at a fresh cycle high. Elsewhere, the January import index (1% mom vs. 0.6%) and export index (0.8% mom vs. 0.3%) were both above expectations. Factoring in the above, the Atlanta Fed now estimate 1Q GDP growth of 3.2% saar, while the NY Fed expect 3.1% saar. In the UK, January core (ex-auto) retail sales was below market at 0.1% mom (vs. 0.6% expected) and 1.5% yoy (vs 2.4% expected).

With US markets shut for Presidents’ Day, expect it to be a pretty quiet start to the week with mainly second tier data releases due including February house price data in the UK and the Euro area current account reading for December. Away from that, Euro area finance ministers are expected to vote for the next ECB vice-president position, as well as debate Greece’s bailout.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2oakF7q Tyler Durden

President Trump capped off an active weekend on Twitter by taking a shot at Oprah Winfrey – who he hopes runs for office “so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!”

Trump said that the media icon looked “very insecure” while interviewing a panel of Michigan voters on CBS’s “60 minutes,” asking questions which the President claims were “biased and slanted.” 

Just watched a very insecure Oprah Winfrey, who at one point I knew very well, interview a panel of people on 60 Minutes. The questions were biased and slanted, the facts incorrect. Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2018

Winfrey, made her debut as a “60 minutes” correspondent last September, stoked rumors of a run for the White House during her acceptance speech for the Cecil B. de Mille award at the 2018 Golden Globes in front of 19 million people (a six-year viewership low). 

“For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dare speak the truth to the power of those men. But their time is up. Their time is up!” Winfrey said. “So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon.” 

Following the speech, the internet lit up as rumors of a possible Winfrey 2020 run began trending heavily on social media. 

BULLETIN: I’m told my two of @Oprah‘s close friends that she is “actively thinking” about running for president in 2020 https://t.co/clLEw7VS3a

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 8, 2018

Prior to her Golden Globes speech, Winfrey told InStyle magazine. “It’s not something that interests me,” Winfrey said. “I don’t have the DNA for it.”

However after the speech however, Stedman Graham – Winfrey’s partner of three decades, added fuel to the fire – telling the Los Angeles Times “It’s up to the people,” adding “She would absolutely do it.” 

Shortly thereafter, liberal Oprahites chimed in over the notion of President Winfrey:

But seriously, Oprah for president speculation:
(A) makes some sense, all things considered
(B) is based on *zero* evidence that she’d even consider doing it
(C) has actually been around for a while! Q-poll in March had her nat’l approval at +29. pic.twitter.com/42ggO4WFda

— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) January 8, 2018

She’s running.

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) January 8, 2018

Our president is giving her state of the union.

— roxane gay (@rgay) January 8, 2018

If Oprah does run, conservatives already have a catchy bumper sticker lined up – as an Arizona man has filed for the trademark “NOprah” because, as he says, enough already with celebs in the Oval office.

[insert: 0115-oprah-fun-art-no-prah-getty-11.jpg]

NOPRAH: Trump is the exception–not the rule. Oprah will not be President. As Hillary proved, you can’t buy the office. pic.twitter.com/9evIolqVMo

— thebradfordfile (@thebradfordfile) January 8, 2018

Of course, Winfrey’s long-standing friendship with Hollywood sexual predator Harvey Weinstein may also affect her chances:

[insert: op1.JPG ]

Watch the “biased and slanted” interview below:

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2CvKcMA Tyler Durden

Authored by Molly Jane Zuckerman via CoinTelegraph.com,

The Central Bank of Poland has admitted to funding anti-cryptocurrency campaigns on social media, specifically Polish Youtuber Marcin Dubiel and his Dec. 2017 video, “I LOST ALL THE MONEY?!,” Polish news portal money.pl reports.

The social media campaign against crypto was carried out by Central Bank of Poland in conjunction with Polish Youtube partner network Gamellon, Google Ireland Limited, and Facebook Ireland Limited, allocating about 91,000 zloty (around $27,000) for producing anti-crypto content.

Money.pl reports that the Central Bank’s campaign also had videos published on the Planeta Faktów (Planet of Facts) Youtube channel, which has over 1.5 mln subscribers. Dubiel’s Youtube channel has over 900,000 subscribers.

Dubiel’s video makes no mention of the paid aspect of the Youtuber’s inspiration. Since Dec. 8, 2017, the Dubiel’s digital story of a young man who invests all his money in crypto only to lose it all has amassed over 500,000 views. 

The description of the video contains the hashtag #uważajnakryptowaluty, which is the Polish Financial Supervision Authority and the Central Bank of Poland’s joint website dedicated to warnings against the use of cryptocurrencies.

The clip’s dramatic climax takes place in a restaurant when the main character can’t pay for his date’s meal with his new crypto investment, causing her to throw fiat money at him and storm out in a huff.

While problems with cryptocurrency-related online advertisements have recently emerged, with China allegedly banning all such ads from social media within the country, anti-crypto ads are more unusual.

After officially recognizing both trading and mining of cryptocurrencies in Feb. 2017, Poland seems to have stayed out of the crypto news cycle. However, after Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro announced the launch of a national cryptocurrency, the petro, Poland is reportedly one of the foreign investors willing to trade food and medicine for the new petro currency.

The video ends with the “evil” crypto investor that led Dubiel to ruin laughing while counting his fiat riches.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EDxWjb Tyler Durden

Which cities are the world’s economic powerhouses, and what portion of global wealth is located in these key urban centers?

Today’s chart pulls information from the latest report from market research firm New World Wealth, which Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins previously cited weeks ago when we visualized the shift in global wealth over the last decade.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

THE WORLD’S WEALTHIEST CITIES

The data shown in this chart represents the total amount of private wealth held by all the individuals living in each of these cities.

Figures here include all assets (property, cash, equities, business interests) less any liabilities. Meanwhile, government funds are excluded from these figures.

New World Wealth also mentions that there were eight cities that just missed out on the top 15: Houston, Geneva, Osaka, Seoul, Shenzhen, Melbourne, Zurich and Dallas.

It should also be made clear that wealth is a different measure than Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is another common metric used to gauge economic power. That said, we do have a list of U.S. cities by GDP sizeif you’d like to explore the GDP measure on a city level, as well.

WEALTH PAST AND PRESENT

According to the same report, over last 10 years, the cities with the fastest growing rates of wealth were San Francisco, Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, and Sydney.

Meanwhile, Mumbai is expected to be the city that will see the highest rate of growth over the next decade.

Interestingly, the report also singles out two major Chinese cities as ones to watch:

Shenzhen: With $770 billion in wealth, this city just misses the Top 15 list. It’s considered the high tech capital of China and is home to the Shenzhen stock exchange (2nd largest in China, and 8th largest in the world). Major smartphone manufacturer Huawei is also based in the city.

Hangzhou: With $425 billion in wealth, this city doesn’t quite measure up to others on the list at first glance. However, it’s actually only a 45 minute train ride away from Shanghai ($2.0 trillion) – and people that work in Shanghai often have homes here as it is considered more scenic. Hangzhou is the fastest growing major city in China (in terms of wealth growth), and ecommerce giant Alibaba notably calls the city its home, as well.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EDmbtb Tyler Durden

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There’s no defense like a good offense.

For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparat colluded to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent presidency of Donald Trump.

Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and the CIA, plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ, possibly along with the British Foreign Office (with the involvement of former British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood) and even Number 10 Downing Street.

Those implicated form a regular rogue’s gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly Chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place, securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy “Steele Dossier,” and nailing erstwhile National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a bogus charge of “lying to the FBI”); Lisa Page (Strzok’s paramour and a DOJ lawyer formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition); former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let’s not forget – current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests. Finally, there’s reason to believe that former CIA Director John O. Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation.

Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and President Barack Obama himself, who according to text communications between Strzok and Page “wants to know everything we’re doing.” Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally implausible.

On the British side we have “former” (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a year ago under mysterious circumstances), and whoever they answered to in the Prime Minister’s office.

The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be allowed to be pulled back!

What to do, what to do . . .

Ah, here’s the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That’s not even Donald Trump. It’s Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!

Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume all the allegations in the indictment are true, however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending not to notice that that presumption doesn’t apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on “genetic” grounds.)

Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions (R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a few conclusions:

• Finally, “collusion” is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any hint that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included it. They didn’t. That means that after months and months of “investigation” – or really, setting “perjury traps” and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul Manafort’s alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes. Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always was.

• And yet, “collusion” still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, “colluded” with the indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there was no actual cooperation. It’s a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent (of someone else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit Trump as a Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian desperados supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they’re also Putin’s dupes.

• Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with the hysteria over social media placements by “Russian interests” on account of which hysterical Senators demanded that tech giants impose content controls, or dimwit CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange for – well, pretty much nothing. (The CIA denies it, which leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50 per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to “self-enrichment” as one motive of the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the indictment that the Russian goal was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system” by posting content on “divisive U.S. political and social issues.” What! Americans disagree about stuff? The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment, Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to “promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed.” (He wagged his finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn’t occur to Rosenstein that he and his pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political ends.

• Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans’ attention to their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration, Black Lives Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA, #Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that they’ve been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade?

• An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S. does. At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big “if” – it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the table that a lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this gargantuan Russian scheme was (as reported by Politico) an “expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and employed as many as hundreds of people.” Millions of dollars! Hundreds of people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election. That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the guise of “democracy promotion.” The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the “Demintern” in analogy to the Comintern, an organization comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also coordinated internationally at the official level through the less-well-known “Community of Democracies.” It is oftendifficult to know where the “official” entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department, Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED, Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often successful “color revolutions” targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.

• “Mitt Romney was right.” Already many of Trump’s supporters are not only crowing with satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing their gaze from the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign threat. “This whole saga just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt Romney was right” for “suggesting that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe,” is the new GOP meme. To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen, this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already.

The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans’ attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy.

Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EOgbNf Tyler Durden

Banks like to pretend that they’re so much more established and secure than the world of cryptocurrencies, but as anybody who pays close attention to the headlines would know…that’s just not the case…

Setting aside all of their rhetoric about embracing the blockchain, banks have mostly avoided or opposed cryptos (Goldman Sachs, sensing the opportunity for profit, is one notable exception), often citing their volatility and the ease with which they can be used to launder money as qualities that disqualify them from being taken seriously (though, as we recently witnessed with the US dollar, perhaps banks need to rework this volatility argument a bit).  Even yesterday’s announcement of the first criminal charges against a cryptocurrency trader pales in comparison to the many, many crimes that banks (or even one bank) have settled allegations of. The real answer to why the banks’ dislike cryptocurrencies is probably because they feel threatened. The recent selloff notwithstanding, the rise of cryptocurrencies has continued unabated, despite the efforts of some of the most powerful governments on Earth, while the concept is still very young, it does have potential to shake up the aging fiat system. In order to understand the race between the banks and cryptocurrencies, we developed a visual to see just how “David” is comparing to “Goliath.”

Using data from Yahoo Finance and CoinMarketCap.com, HowMuch.com‘s data team developed a visual that compares the market caps between some of the world’s largest banks and the largest cryptocurrencies. On the left blue column, there are four banks listed from largest to smallest market caps: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of China, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. Conversely, the right red column features the total cryptocurrency market, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, NEO, Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, Cardano, and Stellar. The larger the circle, the bigger the market cap.

Total Crypto Market Exceeds Size Of JPMorgan; Banks Fight Back In Attempt To Slow Growth

After an extraordinarily volatile (even for bitcoin) start to the year, cryptocurrencies are rallying once again, with bitcoin breaking above $10,000. As of Feb. 16, 2018, the crypto market had a market cap of $470 billion – larger than the size of the United States’ largest bank, JPMorgan Chase.

Bitcoin’s market cap alone is comparable to Bank of China’s. The second largest cryptocurrency by market cap, Ethereum, is comparable in size to Morgan Stanley. It is stats like these that have the global banking sector worried that cryptocurrencies are on track to make a serious impact on their operations.

One of the most recent efforts to help slow the pace of crypto growth were announcements from several banks saying that customers could no longer purchase digital currency with their credit cards. Berkshire Hathaway’s Charlie Munger has called Bitcoin “totally asinine” and Warren Buffet has said he would “buy a five-year put on every cryptocurrency.”

Overall, cryptocurrencies are seeing their size and value top even some of the largest financial institutions in the world. This has caused banks to fight back and attempt to slow their growth. However, even banks clearly don’t know what they really want. After JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon famously declared Bitcoin a “fraud”, it is interesting to now see a report published by the investment bank that calls Bitcoin-based ETFs the “holy grail for owners and investors.”

And should the bitcoin ETF become a reality, do you really think banks will turn down those lucrative fees?

What do you think?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2FewMaK Tyler Durden

Authored by Branko Milanovic via Global Inequality blog,

It is Saturday evening and snowing in New York. I have nowhere to go, I do have things to do (my book!) but my memories take over.

Like for example, the simple question of how is the world ruled. I think that lots of misunderstanding among people in the world comes from inability to visualize how organizations and countries are managed: people either overestimate their singularity of purpose and scheming, or try to convince themselves that there is a full freedom of action and that things are decided on merit. Neither is true. The truth is complex, elusive and lies somewhere (somewhere!) in the middle: it is what Nirad Chaudhury called in a broader context of human history “Libertas in imperio”.

I can describe it, I am afraid, best using the examples that I know well, from my life and long association with the World Bank.

Proposition 1. The world is ruled by a cabal.

Around 1989 when Yugoslavia was in its death-throes (which were not obvious to the naïve types like myself) when on vacation there I wrote an article for an economics and politics weekly in Belgrade that argued that the best privatization strategy, under the last (sensible and brilliant) Yugoslav PM, Ante Markovic, should be such that vouchers  be distributed to all citizens of the country and citizens be allowed to buy shares in enterprises in whatever part of the country they wished.

It was an utterly quixotic proposals because the national nomenklaturas were precisely then working on the break-up of the country and the last thing they wanted was to cooperate with each other which they would have to do if their citizens owned shares in companies in the other republics. So, the proposal was dead on arrival.

But one afternoon, in the weekly’s nice boarding room, I explained the proposal in detail to one of weekly’s main writers on social issues.  The writer was a Serbian fascist (I am using the term not in a derogatory but strictly political sense) enamored with Italian fascism. (German was I think a bit too heavy for his taste.) He was a painter, who studied and lived in Italy, was proud of his relationship with MSI leadership, admirer of Mussolini. He also looked the part: could have been on any of the bas-reliefs that adorn Euro city near Rome: tall, well-built, square-jawed, straight posture, walking always straight with head held high. A real bell’uomo. In Rome in 1934, he would have been Mussolini’s favorite barbarian painter.

But he was, when at home, a Serbian nationalist.  So after carefully listening to me and basically nodding his head during most of the conversation, a couple of days later he came with a stinging two-page attack on my proposal titled “The World Bank sends its CIA spy to sell Serbian enterprises to foreigners”.

Now, was he mad? Not at all. He was, I am convinced, a smart guy, but he saw the world and organizations in it as an immense plot within which everything was strictly hierarchical:  ordinary people had no ideas or will of their own. So if I was  then in Belgrade arguing X, it must have been not only cleared by my superiors, but ordered by them.  And by superiors’ superiors and so forth all the way to the US Secretary of the Treasury, and perhaps Wall Street and perhaps the Jews.

The truth was that I was even risking reprimand from the World Bank because I had no business doing anything with Yugoslavia, publishing articles or creating trouble while on vacation.

But what was the reverse of this view?

Proposition 2. The world is ruled on merit.

This is the view that many people hold about their own involvements and that of institutions they work for. (Academia is a bit different, so I will leave it out). But this view of moral and intellectual rectitude is widely shared in think-tanks (and I worked in one in Washington), international organizations and probably many others (like Oxfam, Medecins sans frontiėres, Open Society etc.).

But is it true? Here I could ply the readers with numerous examples, but I will choose the one that, like the Belgrade story, sticks in my mind.

I was in the Research Department, and thus fairly independent from World Bank’s hierarchy, but it was desirable that I spend a given number of weeks annually working on concrete “operational” issues. It happened that the offer that I got involved a study of how heating and transportation subsidies in a Central Asian country affected its income distribution. It was easy to do and I promptly came back with the conclusion that they were pro-poor and should be kept.

But this was not the policy of the World Bank. The year was 1994 or 1995 and everybody believed in Fukuyama and Larry Summers. So the decision or rather the diffuse feeling (because you do not need a formal decision on matters like these to know what the “correct” answer is) was made before the report was even started that the subsidies should be eliminated. The leader of the group, not the most brilliant person, was smart enough to know what the desired conclusion was and that his/her career would be helped if the empirical analysis supported it.

So when it did not, he/she totally ignored it, and after several endless meetings where I was supposed to be somehow convinced that the data must surely be wrong, that part of the report was either not included or totally ignored. (I cannot remember what happened.) Because I was not brave or stubborn enough, I gave up a (hopeless) struggle after a couple of attempts and went back to my numbers and equations.

I was outside that particular hierarchy; so I was relatively free. But I then thought: let’s suppose that I was hierarchically under the project leader and that I was courageous enough to stick to my guns. What would have happened? My arguments would have been ignored; I would not have been demoted or fired. But in my next annual review, I would have been given the lowest possible grade, salary increase would be nil, my promotion prospect would be zero, and the explanation would never address the substantive issue: it would be that I was not collegial, failed to work in a team spirit etc. It could be even that I would have been asked to attend “team building” seminars like the Soviet dissidents were sent to psychiatric asylums.

The problem would never even be mentioned to have consisted in a disagreement on substance. Rather it would have been treated as some  maladjustment problem on my part; perhaps I was harassed when young or had a difficult childhood. Because, of course, the institution is not closed to different viewpoints and welcomes diverse opinions and “vibrant” or “robust” (these are the preferred terms) dialogue.

This is how the weeding out of undesirable views would have proceeded. 

*  *  *

So who was right: the Mussolini’s admirer or the Washington consensus believer? Or nobody. Your call.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2BButyU Tyler Durden

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Washington is moving inevitably on a global war plan. That’s the grim conclusion one has to draw from three unfolding war scenarios.

Ultimately, it’s about American imperialism trying to assert hegemony over the international order for the benefit of US capitalism. Russia and China are prime targets for this global assault.

The three unfolding war scenarios are seen in Syria, North Korea and Ukraine.

These are not disparate, disassociated conflicts. They are inter-related expressions of the American war plans. War plans which involve the moving of strategic military power into position.

Last week’s massacre of over 100 Syrian government forces by American warplanes near Deir ez-Zor was an audacious overt assault by the US on the Syrian state. The US, along with other NATO allies, have been up to now waging a seven-year proxy war for regime change against Russia’s ally, President Assad. The massacre last week was certainly not the first time that US forces, illegally present in Syria, have attacked the Syrian army. But it seems clearer than ever now that American forces are operating on the overt agenda for regime change. US troops are transparently acting like an occupation army, challenging Russia and its legally mandated support for the Syrian state.

Heightening international concerns are multiple reports that Russian military contractors were among the casualties in the US-led air strike near Deir ez-Zor last week.

Regarding North Korea, Washington is brazenly sabotaging diplomatic efforts underway between the respective Korean leaderships in Pyongyang and Seoul. While this inter-Korean dialogue has been picking up positive momentum, the US has all the while been positioning nuclear-capable B-52 and B-2 bombers in the region, along with at least three aircraft carriers. The B-2s are also reportedly armed with 14-tonne bunker-buster bombs – the largest non-nuclear warhead in the American arsenal, designed to destroy North Korean underground missile silos and “decapitate” the Pyongyang leadership of Kim Jong-un.

American vice-president Mike Pence, while attending the Winter Olympics in South Korea, opening last week, delivered a blunt war message. He said that the recent detente between North Korea and US ally South Korea will come to an end as “soon as the Olympic flame is extinguished” – when the games close later this month. This US policy of belligerence completely upends Russia and China’s efforts to facilitate inter-Korean peace diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the situation in Eastern Ukraine looks decidedly grim for an imminent US-led invasion of the breakaway Donbas region. Pentagon military inspectors have in the past week reportedly arrived along the Contact Zone that separates the US-backed Kiev regime forces and the pro-Russian separatists of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Donetsk’s military commander Eduard Basurin warned that the arrival of Pentagon and other NATO military advisors from Britain and Canada indicate that US-armed Kiev forces are readying for a renewed assault on the Donbas ethnic Russian population.

Even the normally complacent observers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), charged with monitoring a nominal ceasefire along the Contact Zone, have lately begun reporting serious advancement of heavy weapons by the Kiev forces – in violation of the 2015 Minsk Peace Accord.

If the US-led Kiev forces proceed with the anticipated offensive next month in Donbas there are real fears for extreme civilian casualties. Such “ethnic cleansing” of Russian people by Kiev regime forces that openly espouse Neo-Nazi ideology would mostly likely precipitate a large-scale intervention by Moscow as a matter of humanitarian defense. Perhaps that is what the US planners are wagering on, which can then be portrayed by the dutiful Western news media as “another Russian aggression”.

US-based political analyst Randy Martin says: “It is undeniable that Washington is on a war footing in three global scenarios. Preparation for war is in fact war.”

He added:

“You have to also consider the latest Nuclear Posture Review published by the Pentagon earlier this month. The Pentagon is openly declaring that it views Russia and China as targets, and that it is willing to use nuclear force to contest conventional wars and what the Pentagon deems to be asymmetric aggression.”

Martin says that it is not clear at this stage what Washington wants exactly.

“It is of course all about seeking global domination which is long-consistent with American imperialism as expressed for example in the Wolfowitz Doctrine following the end of the Cold War,” says the analyst.

“But what does Washington want specifically from Russia and China is the question. It is evidently using the threat of war and aggression as a lever.

But it is not clear what would placate Washington.

Perhaps regime change in Russia where President Putin is ousted by a deferential pro-Western figure.

Perhaps Russia and China giving up their plans of Eurasian economic integration and abandoning their plans to drop the American dollar in trade relations.”

One thing, however, seems abundantly clear. The US is embarking on a global war plan, as can be discerned from the grave developments unfolding in Syria, the Korean Peninsula and Ukraine. Each scenario can be understood as a pressure point on Moscow or China to in some way acquiesce to American ambitions for global dominance.

To be sure, Washington is being reckless and criminal in its conduct, violating the UN Charter and countless other international laws. It is brazenly acting like a rogue regime without the slightest hint of shame.

Still, Russia and China are hardly likely to capitulate. Simply because the US ambition of unipolar hegemony is impossible to achieve. The post-Second World Order, which Washington was able to dominate for nearly seven decades, is becoming obsolete as the international order naturally transforms into a multipolar configuration.

When Washington accuses Moscow and Beijing of “trying to alter the international order to their advantage” what the American rulers are tacitly admitting is their anxiety that the days of US hegemony are on the wane. Russia and China are not doing anything illegitimate. It is simply a fact of historical evolution.

So, ultimately, Washington’s war plans are futile in what they are trying to achieve by criminal coercion. Those plans cannot reverse history. But, demonically, those plans could obliterate the future of the planet.

The world is again on a precipice as it was before on the eve of the First and Second World Wars. Capitalism, imperialism and fascism are again center stage.

As analyst Randy Martin puts it:

“The American rulers are coming out of the closet to show their true naked nature of wanting to wage war on the world. Their supremacist, militarist ideology is, incontrovertibly, fascism in action.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2o9FlN0 Tyler Durden