Warning: Real Inflation is Already 3%… and the Fed Wants More!

While the Fed Board of Governors continues with its “we don’t see inflation anywhere” shtick, one of its own in-house measures (the underlying inflation gauge or UIG) is about to hit 3%.

The UIG estimated on the “full data set” increased from a revised 2.91% in October to 2.95% in November.

Source: the NY Fed.

Yes, one of the Fed’s OWN inflation measures (and one that leads the CPI) is about to hit 3%. And by the way, the UIG is from the NY-Fed: the regional Fed bank involved in daily market operations with the best understanding of how the financial system actually works.

Why does this matter?

Because, as I outlined in my bestselling book The Everything Bubble: the Endgame For Central Bank Policy, since the mid-1990s, the Fed has embarked on a policy of intentionally creating asset bubbles to keep the financial system afloat.

In the late ‘90s we had the Tech Bubble or bubble in Technology stocks.

When that bubble burst in 2000, the Fed dealt with it by intentionally creating a bubble in housing: a more senior asset class that was more systemically important.

When that bubble burst in 2008, triggering the Great Financial Crisis, the Fed dealt with it by intentionally creating yet another bubble…

… this time in US sovereign bonds, also called Treasuries.

By the way, these bonds are THE most senior asset class in the US financial system. The yields on these bonds represent the “risk-free” rate against which EVERY asset class in the financial system is priced.

So when these bonds went into a bubble, EVERYTHING followed.

This is THE endgame for Central Bank policy. And the bad news is that inflation is what will lead to this bubble bursting.

You see, bond yields track inflation (as well as economic growth). So as inflation rises (again, the UIG is clocking in at 3% already, bond yields will rise.

When bond yields rise, bond prices fall.

When bond prices fall, the Bond Bubble bursts.

When the Bond Bubble bursts, the EVERYTHING bubble follows.

The time to prepare for this is NOW before the carnage hits.

On that note, we are putting together an Executive Summary outlining all of these issues as well as what’s to come when The Everything Bubble bursts.

It will be available exclusively to our clients. If you’d like to have a copy delivered to your inbox when it’s completed, you can join the wait-list here:

http://ift.tt/2zOZC2f

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

via http://ift.tt/2oL2rwb Phoenix Capital Research

Can States Reimpose Net Neutrality?

California flagWith “net neutrality” rules dead at the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), several politicians are looking to bring them back on the state level.

The day before last week’s FCC vote to repeal the Obama-era internet regulations, Washington state Rep. Brian Hansen (D–Bainbridge Island) introduced a bill to reinstate many of the provisions the feds were about to undo. This effort was quickly endorsed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who on the same day published a hodgepodge of policy proposals all designed to keep net neutrality alive in the Evergreen State.

Meanwhile, California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), published a post on Medium vowing to fight the regulatory rollback. “Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California,” he wrote.

Is that legally possible? A plain reading of the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order suggests that it is not. Says the commission: “we…preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing.”

Hansen rejects this preemption. The FCC is adopting a double standard, he tells Reason, by lessening federal authority over the internet but also increasing federal authority over state attempts to regulate the internet.

“The FCC is declaring that a certain set of federal statutory provisions do not give it the authority to regulate standards of conduct on the internet,” Hansen says. “Yet somehow, as if by magic, that same statute gives them the authority to preempt state attempts to regulate standards of conduct on the internet. I’m not sure how that can coexist.”

Last week’s FCC order addresses this by saying that federal communications law establishes “competitive, deregulatory goals,” that its repeal of net neutrality services these goals, and that preempting states from reestablishing net neutrality regulation is part of this approach. Thus, “an affirmative federal policy of deregulation is entitled to the same preemptive effect as a federal policy of regulation.”

Hansen maintains that the state-level net neutrality provisions contained in his bill are justified under a state’s “historic consumer protection authority.” Hansen’s bill prohibits any blocking or throttling of “lawful content” and bans paid prioritization—that is, charging consumers higher rates to prioritize faster service for, say, online gaming or video streaming.

Hansen’s bill is on shaky ground here too, says Tom Struble, an attorney and analyst at the R Street Institute.

States do have pretty wide latitude to pass their own consumer protection laws to guard against what they find to be “unfair or deceptive” practices, says Struble. What they can’t do is define “unfair or deceptive” to mirror the recently repealed net neutrality regulations.

“Any state laws that conflict with this deregulatory approach, this federal approach, are unlawful,” says Struble. That would include an explicit ban paid prioritization, a practice the FCC consciously deregulated in its order.

Gov. Inslee concedes this point, saying that “the FCC’s vote will preempt states from ensuring full net neutrality.”

What Inslee recommends instead is a series of workaround which will allow Washington to reimpose some form of the net neutrality regulations. This includes restricting access to the state’s utility poles to ISP’s that adopt net neutrality practices. Wiener makes a similar suggestion, saying that California should restrict access to utility poles and public rights of way to businesses that stick to those same net neutral practices.

This too would be run afoul of the FCC’s state preemption ruling, says Struble. He cites AT&T v. Portland, a 2000 case in which the Oregon city tried to force AT&T to allow competing ISPs to use its cable facilities as a condition for the city granting AT&T a cable franchise license. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal regulators’ refusal to adopt similar requirements for cable providers meant that Portland could not unilaterally impose them.

There is one item on the Inslee/Wiener agenda that could pass legal muster. Both men proposed using their states’ buying power to require government-contracted ISPs to adopt net neutrality practices. Struble says the states would be well within their rights to do this.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2oN7fRt
via IFTTT

OPEC vs IEA: Who’s Right On Oil Prices?

Authored by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,

Last week, the International Energy Agency made a lot of OPEC brows furrow when it warned that 2018 may not be a very happy new year for the cartel.

U.S. shale supply, the IEA said in its December Oil Market Report, is set to grow more than OPEC has estimated and this could be the undoing of the production cut that boosted prices this year.

OPEC, for its part, has insisted that U.S. shale production won’t grow as much as the IEA says, baffling some observers who now wonder who they should believe. But let’s put it another way: If the coach of a football team tells you that his team will win the cup because they’re the best, but the football association has estimated that the team is not the best one in the league, who would you believe?

OPEC has a history of underestimating U.S. shale. This underestimation led to the glut that sank prices in 2014. Now it stands to reason that the cartel is more cautious in its estimates of U.S shale oil developments, but this caution does not necessarily have to be reflected in comments. Let’s not forget that comments from OPEC officials—whether or not grounded in facts—have had a direct and immediate effect on prices from events such as the shutdown of the Forties pipeline network last week.

So, it would make sense to lean more towards what the IEA says, and it says that non-OPEC supply next year will probably rise by 1.6 million bpd—a 200,000 bpd upward revision on the previous OMR. U.S. shale production alone will, according to IEA’s latest estimate, grow by 870,000 bpd in 2018. Meanwhile, demand will rise by 1.3 million barrels daily next year, hinting at another glut in the making. 

Now, OPEC’s last forecast is that non-OPEC supply next year will rise by just 990,000 bpd next year to 58.81 million bpd, although the group does caution that any non-OPEC supply growth forecast involves considerable uncertainties regarding U.S. shale production growth. For the U.S. specifically, OPEC forecasts a 1.05-million-barrel daily supply growth next year, which will be partially offset by declines in producers such as Russia, China, and Mexico, among others.

That’s quite a discrepancy between IEA and OPEC figures, but it’s not the only one. The two more notably disagree on when the glut will be over. IEA is skeptical about it disappearing before the end of next year, while OPEC is upbeat, believing the market will return to balance in the second half of 2018 as demand growth accelerates. 

Sometimes OPEC’s forecasts sound like developments that the cartel can will into existence, and this market rebalancing forecast is one of these cases. It’s true that some OPEC members have been very diligent in their compliance to the lower production quotas. Others not so much, so those from the first group have actually cut more than they agreed to in order to compensate for the non-compliant ones.

Can the overachievers continue doing this to ensure the forecast materializes? They can, but they can’t do anything about U.S. shale, and it’s uncertain whether Russia will stay in the agreement after the end of June: Moscow has indicated it would rather quit as soon as politely possible. OPEC also has another problem that’s been there since the original deal, but recently has been garnering more attention. With oil prices higher, how long until one or more OPEC members decide to drop the deal and cash in on the price increase?

via http://ift.tt/2D3FpDT Tyler Durden

Dow-Poised to trade sideways for 21 months again?

As the Dow is quickly approaching the 25,000 level, some might find it hard to remember that in the very near past, the Dow traded sideways for 21 months!

Any reason the Dow didn’t make any progress for over a year and half? Could part of the reason be a key Fibonacci extension level?

Below looks at the Dow Jones Industrial index over the past 13-years, where the Power of the Pattern applied Fibonacci Extension levels to the weekly closing highs in 2007 and weekly closing lows in 2009.

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

If one would have applied a Fibonacci extension level to the Dow at the 2009 lows, it would have suggested that if the Dow broke above the 2007 highs, it might find the 18,000 zone as a form of resistance in the future. In February of 2015, the Dow hit this level for the first time, then proceeded to chop sideways for the next 21 months. It took nearly a year and a half to finally break above the 161% level, which took place near last years election (November 2016).

Below looks at an update of the Dow with the next Fibonacci extension level (261%) applied to it-

CLICK ON CHART TO ENLARGE

The sharp rally since last November, now has the Dow quickly approaching the Fibonacci 261% Extension level, which comes into play at the 25,000 zone at (1) above.

Will this key extension level based upon the 2007 highs and 2009 lows, cause the Dow to trade sideways for 21 months again? I doubt that many thought the 161% level would become a resistance zone for the Dow at the time and it is understandable to question if the Dow will find the 261% level as resistance as well.

No doubt the trend is up and the Advance/Decline line shows NO signs of slowing down at this time. I wanted you to beware of that took place at the 161% level and that we could be within a couple of percent of another key extension level right now.

We will see over the next few months….”If it’s different this time.”

 

Chart pattern analysis with brief commentary:   

There is a ton of news and opinions about markets and stocks that make the decision-making process more difficult than it needs to be.    

I believe the Power of the chart Pattern provides all you need to see what is taking place in an asset and determine the action to take.  

This approach has worked well for me and our clients and I encourage you to test it for yourself. 

 

Send an email if you would like to see sample research and take me up on a30 DAY FREE TEST DRIVE of our Premium or Weekly Research

where I provide actionable alerts on breakouts and reversals in broad market indices, sectors, commodities, the miners and select individual stocks  

Email services@kimblechartingsolutions.com  

Call us Toll free 877-721-7217 international 714-941-9381 

 

Website: KIMBLECHARTINGSOLUTIONS.COM 

 

Receive daily research I post on the blog each day

 

Follow on Twitter 

 

See our latest webinar


via http://ift.tt/2kl3WfX kimblecharting

Global Yield Curves Are Snapping Steeper

Perhaps it is recency bias playing its tricks, but Treasury and Bund yields curves are steepening dramatically for the second day in a row, this time dragged higher by comments on longer-term issuance plans from Germany.

As always, German and US yield curves are moving in sync with a notable steepening again – the biggest 2-day steepening since Trump was elected.

The driver appears to be a report publushed earlier by Bloomberg that the head of Germany’s Federal Finance Agency says the government will seek to take advantage of persistently low interest rates and sell a greater volume of 30-year Bunds next year. The share of six-month and 30-year security issuance will rise in 2018 compared with the current year, while the share of 10-year Bund sales will decline.

As Citi notes, Treasuries are following its European peers and given how the flattening trend has dominated fixed income markets, one-sided positioning now looks vulnerable.

Furthermore, as we noted previously, there is potential for some violent moves in Bunds (and thus Treasuries). And the global biond market is suffering today…

Trend change…? Or rip to be sold?

via http://ift.tt/2BeiJ6D Tyler Durden

Republican Tax Plan Is Headed For Final Round Of Votes

Barring some unforeseen catastrophe (or another floor-vote surprise akin to Sen. John McCain’s last minute decision to strike down the Senate’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare), Congressional Republicans appear all but certain to pass the reconciled version of President Donald Trump’s tax-cut plan – the first time Congress has successfully passed comprehensive tax reform since 1986.

With their self-imposed Friday deadline looming, the Republicans’ Senate leadership managed to secure commitments from several holdouts, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Utah Sen. Mike Lee.

At last count, the only Senator who hasn’t committed to a ‘yes’ vote is Arizona’s Jeff Flake. Flake famously delivered a scathing speech condemning President Trump from the floor of the Senate after announcing that he would not seek another term. He has been an outspoken Republican critic of the Trump agenda, per Reuters.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Corker – the only senator who voted against the Senate’s original tax bill – said late last week that he would vote for the current bill after several provisions were added that would benefit him personally, along with a handful of other Republicans.

Sen. Orrin Hatch further inflamed the scandal, which Democrats will undoubtedly attempt to leverage in their last-minute effort to block tax reform, when he admitted yesterday that he drafted the controversial language that helped flip Corker to a 'yes' vote, but said he couldn’t remember if the provision had been included in previous draft versions of the bill.

Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters to expect the House to vote on the reconciled bill in the early afternoon. The Senate is also expected to approve the legislation by Wednesday morning.

In their push to find something – anything – that could obstruct the bill, or force it back to the House for revisions, Democrats are frantically searching for provisions that they might be able to block under the so-called “Byrd rule” – an amendment to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which stipulates that senators can block a bill during the reconciliation process if its provisions would significantly widen the deficit.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas didn’t rule out the possibility of other issues involving the rule.

“We’re still talking to the parliamentarian about that,” Cornyn told Bloomberg. “So we simply don’t know for sure. But that’s what this process is designed to tell us."

With the tax bill almost certainly headed to the president's desk by week's end, here's a roundup of what happened yesterday, when Republicans finished tying up the last loose ends. Per Bloomberg:

House Republicans agreed Monday on $81 billion in disaster relief for areas hit by hurricanes and wildfires, the largest standalone aid bill in recent years, according to a document provided by a Republican lawmaker. The aid likely would be attached to a government spending bill that must be passed this week to keep the government open after Friday.

 

Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch pushed back on reports that the final bill’s pass-through provision included a last-minute change to appease the real estate industry, or to secure Senator Bob Corker’s vote.

 

The tax bill would lower taxes on average across the income spectrum for the first eight years, with the largest benefits going to upper earners, according to a new analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Next year, the average federal tax cut would be $1,610, the study found. The bottom fifth of income-earners would get an average cut of $60 and those in the middle fifth would get a $930 cut on average, according to the analysis. The top 1 percent would get $51,140 on average, and the top 0.1 percent would get $193,380, it found.

 

A separate report from the Tax Foundation found that the bill would add $448 billion to federal deficits over 10 years with economic growth factored in. The estimate is far lower than the $1 trillion deficit increases Congress’s official scorekeeper estimated for the House and Senate bills after accounting for economic growth.

 

Half the public thinks they’ll pay higher taxes under the Republican overhaul in a new Monmouth University poll, underscoring the difficulty the party faces in selling the plan.

While a handful of blue-state Republicans in the House are planning to vote against the final bill, the notion that it would easily pass the Trump-friendly chamber was never really in doubt.

Meanwhile in the House, a handful of Republicans have said they won’t support the final bill, including John Faso of New York, Dana Rohrabacher of California and Leonard Lance of New Jersey — but the “no” forces lack sufficient numbers to sink the bill. Most of the House GOP dissenters are from high-tax states and are concerned that the bill’s $10,000 limit on individuals’ state and local tax deductions will raise taxes on their middle-class constituents.

As strategists from Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs have pointed out in recent days, corporations – particularly banks, oil refiners, railroads and any other industry that derives most of its profits from the domestic market – will derive the biggest benefit from the legislation.

Trump, his advisers and Republican leaders continue to say the tax plan would help the middle class the most. But studies, including one Monday from Congress’s official scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, have found that lower income earners will actually see a higher tax burden by 2027, while high earners will see a more enduring benefit.

Meanwhile, Goldman estimated that the reconciled tax bill would add approximately 13% to its EPS in 2018.

As Republicans prepare for what would be their first major legislative accomplishment of the Trump era, here’s what's in the final draft of the bill.

* * *

BUSINESSES

CORPORATE TAX RATE: Falls to 21 percent from 35 percent. The House and Senate bills, as well as Trump, had earlier proposed 20 percent. Going to 21 percent gave tax writers more federal revenue needed to make the tax cut immediate. U.S. corporations have been seeking a large tax cut like this for many years.

PASS-THROUGH BUSINESSES: Creates a 20 percent business income deduction for owners of pass-through businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships. The House had proposed a 25 percent tax rate; the Senate, a 23 percent deduction.

CORPORATE MINIMUM: Repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax, which was set up to ensure profitable companies pay at least some federal tax.

INDIVIDUALS

TOP INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE: Falls to 37 percent from 39.6 percent. The House had proposed maintaining the 39.6 percent top rate and condensing the current seven tax brackets to four. The Senate had proposed cutting the top rate to 38.5 percent and maintaining the seven brackets.

PERMANENCE: The expectation is individual tax rates will snap back to current levels in less than 10 years. The individual tax rates in the House bill were permanent. The individual tax rates in the Senate bill would have expired after 10 years.

STATE AND LOCAL TAX (SALT): Both the House and Senate had proposed scaling back a popular individual deduction for state and local tax payments by limiting it to property-tax payments and capping it at $10,000. The compromise bill is expected to keep that cap, but also allow for continued deduction of state and local income tax payments.

MORTGAGE INTEREST: Caps the mortgage interest deduction at $750,000 in home loan value, down from the current $1 million. The House had proposed a $500,000 cap. The Senate bill left it at $1 million.

ESTATE TAX: Roughly doubles the exemption from the federal estate tax on inherited assets to about $11 million, but leaves the tax in place, mirroring the Senate proposal. The House bill had raised the deduction, but also entirely phased out the tax.

OTHER PROVISIONS:

OBAMACARE MANDATE: Repeals a federal fine imposed on Americans under Obamacare for not obtaining health insurance coverage. The House bill did not repeal the Obamacare individual mandate.

ANWR DRILLING: Allows oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The provision was sponsored by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

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

Donald Trump’s National Security Speech Won’t Change U.S. Foreign Policy

President Donald Trump gave a big national security speech yesterday, tied to the release of a written national security strategy. This marked a change from presidents Obama and Bush, who submitted their congressionally mandated national security strategies without an accompanying address. But the document itself is just as useless as its predecessors. U.S. foreign policy does not tend to comport with presidential rhetoric.

Trump’s national security strategy claims that the U.S. will avoid nation-building and needless interventions. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took to Twitter to applaud this as a “realist foreign policy,” something he has advocated himself for years. But there’s precious little evidence that the Trump administration is actually interested in that kind of approach in the real world, as opposed to in their rhetoric.

As Bonnie Kristian noted last week, Trump’s “new” national security strategy is unlikely to change the American pattern of “promiscuous intervention,” if for no other reason than that the administration has not yet attempted to change that pattern at all. From Afghanistan to Syria, the Trump administration has pursued a foreign policy that largely follows the contours set by the other post-9/11 presidents.

Trump’s Afghanistan policy boils down to less transparency about the quagmire, while in Syria the president ordered the bombing of government targets earlier this year while ramping up America’s military presence in the country. Trump has also expanded the war on terror in Somalia and around the Muslim world.

The disconnect between Trump’s national security strategy rhetoric and the reality runs the other way too.

The strategy document, for example, identifies China as a competitor, which The New York Times describes as a “radical departure” from the language used in the Obama era, when China was presented more as a strategic partner. Yet you’d be hard pressed to point to any actual Obama-era policy that treated China more as a partner than as a competitor. The main point of Obama’s “Asia pivot” was to contain China’s influence. The Trans-Pacific Partnership excluded China, the largest Pacific economy other than the U.S.

Trump, meanwhile, has made some attempts to improve diplomatic relations with China, engaging its leadership on issues like North Korea more substantively than his predecessor. He has also mostly avoided needless escalation in places like the South China Sea, where many countries, including China and some American allies, have mutually exclusive territorial claims.

The Chinese have noted this discrepancy. “On the one hand, the U.S. government claims that it is attempting to build a great partnership with China,” a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington said in a statement this morning. “On the other hand, it labels China as a rival.”

There were disconnects, even, between the national security strategy document and the speech Trump gave in support of it. Most prominently, the document appears to take a harder line against Russia, accusing it and China of being “revisionist powers” operating on the “edges of international law” to undermine the U.S. and change the status quo in their favor. In his speech, Trump said he hoped for a “great partnership” with those two countries “but in a manner that always protects our national interest.”

That phrase “national interest” does a lot of work in U.S. foreign policy. It’s an ill-defined term that justifies all kinds of policy decisions, mostly interventionist ones. In Trump’s incarnation, the national interest includes ensuring the U.S. is a “winner” in trade and other economic arenas. That imposes a zero-sum thinking that can only lead to the U.S. losing out. Attacks on free trade, while popular with some voters, are an exercise in killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Given Trump’s decades-long history of pushing protectionism and trashing trade, this may be one of the few places where his foreign policy will end up matching his rhetoric. That would be a tragedy.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ByPWGz
via IFTTT

A.M. Links: House Votes on GOP Tax Bill Today, Trump’s Lawyers to Meet Mueller’s Investigators, Three Deaths Confirmed After Washington Amtrak Derailment

  • The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Republican tax bill today.
  • White House lawyers are expected to meet with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team this week.
  • Three deaths have been confirmed so far as a result of yesterday’s Amtrak derailment in Washington state.
  • “Members of Congress and government watchdogs are questioning why a little-known House agency used taxpayer funds to investigate a sexual harassment complaint involving Rep. Blake Farenthold’s office last year, and then failed to make the results public.”
  • Saudi Arabia intercepted a missile fired at Riyadh from Yemen.
  • The WannaCry ransomware attack has reportedly been linked to North Korea.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2kKxkeJ
via IFTTT

Jedi Mind Trick: The Disturbing, Destabilizing Abnormal Is Now Normal

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Disturbing, destabilizing abnormalities are now accepted as normal life in America.

Forgive me for wondering if the populace of America hasn't fallen for a Jedi mind trick:

Disturbing, destabilizing abnormalities are now accepted as normal life in America:

1. Sprawling tent camps of homeless sprout like flowers of poverty in U.S. cities, leaving mountains of trash that speak volumes about systemic failure, destitution and overwhelmed city services.

2. The Federal Reserve's vaunted "Wealth Effect" that was supposed to be a tide that raised all boats at least a bit has concentrated wealth and power in the top 5%, 1%, and 1/10th of 1%, leaving the bottom 95% with diminished prospects and a thinning stake in The American Project.

3. The stock market's year-long levitation while the real-world economy decays is a perverse counter-correlation that reflects the widening divide between those enriched by the asset bubbles and those left further behind.

4. In the midst of a supposedly resurgent U.S. "recovery" in its 9th year of wonderfulness, the opioid epidemic has killed tens of thousands and crippled hundreds of thousands of lives and families, yet the federal government, supposedly the most powerful force on the planet, is frozen in a decades-long law-enforcement/Drug Gulag obsession, blind to the Big Pharma Cartel that has created and fueled the epidemic as a means of reaping billions in profits.

5. The nation's Corporate/Billionaire-owned Media obsess endlessly over the chimera of Russian collusion, as if that was the Big Story That Matters, while the nation's rigged economy is coming apart at the seams.

6. While the Sports Media Empires fret over the decline of fan engagement in the NFL, nobody dares mention that Pro Sports is now unaffordable to the vast majority of households.

7. Healthcare costs continue spiraling higher, even as Americans are visibly less healthy.

8. The endless media circus of celebrity scandal, the Russian collusion propaganda parade and the over-saturation of sports obscure the Permanent War Policies of America's Central State.

9. While The Deep State has entered the common lexicon, all the media chatter does little to illuminate the internecine battles within the Deep State that are playing out as shadows cast in the Russian Collusion Kabuki theater.

10. The reality that all these social, political and financial abnormalities are inherently destabilizing is never covered in the Corporate Media, but this orchestrated refusal to face the disturbing facts of systemic decay leaves the status quo increasingly fragile and prone to unexpected disruption.

If the "America" displayed in the Corporate Media seems like "the Real America," then this is not the America you're looking for.

*  *  *

I'm offering my new book Money and Work Unchained at a 10% discount ($8.95 for the Kindle ebook and $18 for the print edition) through December, after which the price goes up to retail ($9.95 and $20). Read the first section for free in PDF format. If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

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

Is Renter Nation Dead? Single-Family Housing Starts, Permits Highest Since 2007

October's 13.7% MoM spike in housing starts was revised dramatically lower to just +8.4% which makes November's 3.3% rise (vs expectations for a 3.1% decline) somewhat less impressive. Building Permits dipped from recent highs.

Northeast starts tumbled -39.6% and down -12.9% in Midwest, but jumped in South +11.1% and West +19.0%

While both cohorts rose, single-family starts are now at their highest since 2007…

 

Additionally Single-family permits are the highest since 2007…

Is reneter nation dead?

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2BLHBC6 Tyler Durden