Warning – Pokemon Go Can Spy On iPhone Users’ Google Account

Several news outlets reported on this yesterday.

Here’s the Forbes take:

iPhone users of Pokemon GO, beware: the app has access to your entire Google account. That’s a major problem for fans of the game. Shockingly, there’s no warning about the extensive permissions either. For now, it’s unclear if Android owners are affected, though reports of sporadic Google account access have emerged.

To be clear, the app, as it stands, can read and write emails. It can also view your Google Docs, search history and Maps use. And your private photos. It’ll also take data that’s standard for modern apps, like IP and email addresses. Given the app by necessity has to use location data, Niantic suddenly has access to incredibly private information of millions of individuals across the world.

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/29MoOde
via IFTTT

Commodity Chaos

After yesterday’s tumble it seems only apprproate that WTI Crude would suddenly be panic bid above $46.50 – the biggest move in 3 months (along with exuberant “well growth is coming thanks to Japan right” strength in copper). At the same time, gold is getting monkey-hammered (as silver flatlines)

 

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

Policing Online “Hate Speech” Against Police Following the Dallas Massacre

Dallas PD vigilTensions are high, people are angry, many are looking for someone to blame, and some of them are lashing out on social media with statements that have been variously described as “hate speech” or “criminal threats.”

In a week where America’s racial tensions were exceptionally exposed following the police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, as well as the massacre of Dallas police officers perpetrated by Micah Xavier Johnson, the line between a legal (if ill-advised) expression of anger and genuine threats of violence was repeatedly blurred. The question of whether or not police are a group entitled to “hate crime law” protections was also repeatedly raised. Indeed, President Obama himself reportedly described the killings in Dallas as a “hate crime” in a meeting with several police association officials

Last Saturday, Norwalk (Conn.) police arrested Kurt Vanzuuk, a 34-year-old white man for allegedly describing Johnson as a hero and calling for the killing of more police officers in a Facebook post. Vanzuuk’s Facebook page appears to be disabled or deleted, and thus far police have not released any direct quotes from the post which led compelled them to arrest Vanzuuk.

In Racine (Wi.), Byron L. Cowan, a 43-year-old black man, was arrested by local authorities and the FBI for allegedly writing “This is war,” calling for all black Americans to arm themselves and telling white police officers “to kiss there (sic) loved ones goodbye,” according to The Journal Times. Cowan was charged with solicitation of threat against a law enforcement officer as a hate crime, terrorist threats as a hate crime, and disorderly conduct. In asking the court for Cowan to be held on $75,000 bond, Racine County District Attorney Rich Chiapete was quoted by the Journal Times as saying, “each and every one of these threats needs to be treated as a serious, real and credible threat.” Cowan’s lawyer Anthony Jackson countered, “we view these threats as not credible, and they were really made more so in the heat of the moment.”

Four men were arrested in Detroit over the weekend for allegedly making online threats against police, per The Detroit News:

One of the Detroit men reportedly posted on Facebook that Johnson was a “hero” for killing the Dallas officers, and added: “He inspired me to do the exact same thing.”

Police said another man posted: “It’s time to wage­ war and shoot the police first.” The man told people to contact him to organize the effort to shoot officers.

The fourth suspect posted pictures and videos of officers being shot on his Facebook wall and wrote: “This needs to happen more often,” according to police.

Police are not immune from the consequences of their own online outbursts, as Detroit detective Nate Weekley was reportedly demoted to police officer after writing in a Facebook post that “The only racists here are the piece of [expletive] black Lives Matter terrorists and their supporters,” according to Detroit’s Fox2.

Clearly, calling for police or anyone else to be killed could be seen as an incitement to violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment. What gets tricky (which regular Reason readers and commenters know all too well) is determining whether or not these online outbursts are “true threats” or merely crude rants all too typical of online discourse. 

Furthermore, calling Johnson a “hero” may be truly stupid, outrageous, and offensive, but it’s hard to argue that such a statement automatically rises to a “true threat,” nor would it be possible to arrest and prosecute every single person who takes to social media and calls him one.

But this is why “hate speech” laws are the very definition of a slippery slope. If a person’s profession can be afforded extra protection under the law the same way race, religion, and sexual orientation can, and if the expression of unpopular ideas becomes prosecutable, we should expect to see more arrests based on social media rants, none of which are likely to change anyone’s minds or bridge the divide between the police and the portion of the public that views law enforcement with such profound distrust.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/29EVzYH
via IFTTT

Jeb Bush on Voting: “I Can’t Do It”

“I can’t vote for Donald Trump and I can’t vote for Hillary Clinton. It breaks my heart. This is my first time in my adult life I’m confronted with this dilemma.” 

Yesterday on MSNBC, Jeb Bush explained his decision to abstain from voting for either of the major party candidates in 2016: “The simple fact is there’s a threshold past which anybody that steps into the Oval Office must go past. And I don’t think either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump pass that threshold. In terms of temperament, character, trust worthiness, integrity. So what do you do? I mean if you believe, like I do, the presidency is sacred ground and you want a president that uphold the Constitution and I don’t believe that either one of the candidates fulfills that primary kind of objective, uh, I can’t vote for either one of them.”

Pressed by interviewer Nicolle Wallace, he stood firm: “Yeah. I can’t do it. I can’t do it….Neither for me. And you’re not going to get me to change that.”

While the former Florida governor and presidential wannabe has said repeatedly that he respects people who feel the need to make a different choice in November, he’s the one who has got the right end of the stick here.

As I note in my Reason cover story against voting, the social cost of an individual refraining from voting is very low: Even someone as high-profile as Jeb opting out of major party voting is wildly, spectacularly, insanely unlikely to create a situation that threatens the stability of our form of government or triggers a cascade that undermines the legitimacy of the election. And even as a non-voter (perhaps especially as a non-voter), Bush is pretty clearly discharging any responsibility that might exist to participate in civic life far more thoroughly than the little old lady to votes in every election but otherwise spends all her time doing cross stitch.

Meanwhile, insisting that Bush vote in this election imposes a high moral cost on him: Jeb has a strong view about the qualifications for the presidency—something he describes as “sacred”—and asking him to vote for Trump or Clinton is asking him to violate those principles and dirty his hands for no appreciable gain.* In a season where more people than ever are holding their noses and pulling the lever for someone who they don’t think would be a good president, why are we treating Bush like a villain for having principles and sticking to them?

It’s not logically consistent to tell a non-voting Bush that it’s his fault if the wrong guy wins and does bad things, yet exempt people who vote for one of the two major party candidates from blame when the winner (predictably) does bad things. 

As a sidenote: Bush did leave the door open for a third-party vote: “There’s other people running. There’s the libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld. I don’t know. they don’t get a lot of airtime yet.” 

Meanwhile, Sen. Ben Sasse is expressing similar qualms over at Medium, although in more opaque language. 

* Reminder: Bush’s vote almost certainly will not determine the outcome of the election. Even in the drama of Bush v. Gore, one additional vote in Florida would not have altered the outcome of the election: 

In all of American history, a single vote has never determined the outcome of a presidential election. And there are precious few examples of any other elections decided by a single vote. A 2001 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by economists Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter looked at 56,613 contested congressional and state legislative races dating back to 1898. Of the 40,000 state legislative elections they examined, encompassing about 1 billion votes cast, only seven were decided by a single vote (two were tied). A 1910 Buffalo contest was the lone single-vote victory in a century’s worth of congressional races. In four of the 10 ultra-close campaigns flagged in the paper, further research by the authors turned up evidence that subsequent recounts unearthed margins larger than the official record initially suggested.

The numbers just get more ridiculous from there. In a 2012 Economic Inquiry article, Columbia University political scientist Andrew Gelman, statistician Nate Silver, and University of California, Berkeley, economist Aaron Edlin use poll results from the 2008 election cycle to calculate that the chance of a randomly selected vote determining the outcome of a presidential election is about one in 60 million. In a couple of key states, the chance that a random vote will be decisive creeps closer to one in 10 million, which drags voters into the dubious company of people gunning for the Mega-Lotto jackpot.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/29EWqbS
via IFTTT

California Councilwoman Suggests Dead Dallas Cops Got What They Deserved

Just a few short days after five Dallas officers were murdered in a horrific shooting, Reinette Senum – a Nevada City, California Councilwoman – posted her thoughts on the shooting to the politically-correct Facebook, proclaiming "this was completely incited by America’s police force."

 

The controversial community leader has been asked to resign after suggesting that the Dallas Police Department got what they deserved.

As CBSLocal reports,

The Placer County Sheriff’s Association issued the following statement after the councilwoman implied Dallas Police brought such horror on themselves:

 

“The situation really speaks for itself. Reinette has the absolute right to express her opinion; however, we find her statement to be offensive to the men and women that protect their communities and especially to those that have sacrificed their lives for a noble cause. We would expect someone that has a position of leadership in their community to use that platform to bring unity, not division. We are very disappointed that she wasted that opportunity and decided she should attack the very people that would protect her despite her position.”

 

Many Californians have begun to question her ability to lead; with one resident saying, “This is hardly behavior fitting of a civic leader. She needs to resign immediately for such reckless behavior.”

*  *  *

With four more months until the elections, we suspect the actions of many will get considerably worse as the rhetoric of some becaomes increasingly divisive.

via http://ift.tt/29uW4Bm Tyler Durden

Who’s Most Afraid Of Contagion From Italy’s Bank Meltdown?

Submitted by Don Quijones via WolfStreet.com, 

French and German banks.

Contagion is the reason Italy’s banking crisis is all of a sudden Europe’s biggest existential threat. Greece’s intractable problems are out of sight, out of mind; Brexit momentarily spooked investors and bankers; but Italy’s banking woes have the potential to wipe out investors and undo over 60 years of supranational state-building in Europe.

 

The last few days have seen growing calls for taxpayer-funded state intervention, a practice that was supposed to have been consigned to the annals of history by Europe’s enactment of new bail-in rules on Jan 1, 2016. The idea behind the new legislation was simple: never again would taxpayers be left exclusively holding the tab for European banks’ insolvency issues while bondholders were getting bailed out. But even before the new rules have been tried out, they are about to be broken, or at least bent beyond all recognition.

A loophole has already been found in the rules that would allow the Italian government and European authorities to raid European taxpayers in order to prop-up Italy’s third largest publicly traded bank, Monte Dei Paschi, while leaving bank bondholders and creditors whole, as Reuters reported a few days ago:

The rules, which have been in force since January, allow a state to directly acquire a stake in a bank that fails a stress test and cannot raise capital in the markets because of “a serious disturbance” in the domestic economy.

Oh, and no bank is officially allowed to pass or fail the European Central Bank’s 2016 stress tests, as we reported a few months ago, after a number of banks, including nine Italian banks, failed the test in 2014. Clearly, those at the top of the financial pecking order — banks and their bondholders — are protected once again from the disastrous consequences of another market meltdown, one that in many ways they precipitated.

The fact that in Italy, thanks in part to a quirk of the tax code, some €200 billion of bank bonds are held by retail investors adds an extra political dimension to the mix, as The Economist points out:

If the bail-in rules are applied rigidly in Italy, the outcry from savers will both damage confidence and leave the door to power open for the Five Star Movement, a grouping that blames Italy’s economic troubles on the single currency.

But it is the direct contagion effect that has Europe’s policymakers and central bankers most concerned. Contagion is a particularly acute problem in the Eurozone due to the so-called “doom loop” that exists between sovereigns and their banks, thanks in large part to the ECB’s tireless efforts to underpin both Europe’s biggest banks (by providing them with an endless supply of free money) and its bond markets (by doing “whatever it takes” to make European sovereign bonds virtually risk-free).

As a result, banks have been able to make a tidy margin by simply buying government bonds at officially zero risk. Another consequence, whether intended or not, has been to create a very dangerous relationship of mutual dependence between governments and banks. When banks invest heavily in government debt, they become dependent on the government’s good performance, which is clearly not a given, especially in the Eurozone. Meanwhile, the governments depend on the banks to continue purchasing their debt, which for the moment is a given. However, if either one falters, the consequences can be dire for both.

Despite pressure from fiscally hawkish Eurozone countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland to put an end to the doom loop by removing the risk-free status of certain sovereign bonds, to the barely concealed horror of Italian and Spanish politicians and bankers, recent figures from Standard & Poor’s show that banks across the EU have been investing more heavily than ever in government debt, increasing their exposure to €791 billion. The total amount that international banks have lent to Italy alone is €550 billion.

So which country’s banks are most exposed to Italian sovereign debt (apart from Italy itself)?

France — and by a long shot!

As Die Welt reports, the total exposure of French banks to Italian debt exceeds €250 billion. That’s triple the amount of exposure of the second most exposed European nation, Germany, whose banks hold €83.2 billion worth of Italian bonds. Deutsche bank alone has over €11.76 billion worth of Italian bonds on its books. The other banking sectors most at risk of contagion are Spain (€44.6 billion), the U.S. (€42.3 billion) the UK (€29.77 billion) and Japan (€27.6 billion).

These elevated levels of exposure help to explain why no matter how much Angela Merkel would love for the Eurozone’s new bail-in rules to be universally applied to the letter — for her own political survival, if nothing else — the risk of contagion, including for the already deeply distressed Deutsche Bank, is simply too great to be ignored. If Italian banks began falling like flies, it would only be a matter of time before investors began selling (or shorting) Italian bonds en masse, by which point the Doom Loop would be in full flow. And once it starts, it’s very hard to stop.

“The whole banking market is under pressure,” former ECB executive board member Lorenzo Bini Smaghi told Bloomberg. “We adopted rules on public money; these rules must be assessed in a market that has a potential crisis to decide whether some suspension needs to be applied.”

In other words, European taxpayers, get your wallets out, again. Your banks need you!

Oh, and Smaghi, besides being a former central banker, is also the current chairman of Société Générale, one of France’s biggest banks, presumably heavily exposed to Italian banks and sovereign debt, and as such a large potential beneficiary of a massive taxpayer-funded bailout of Italian banks.

It didn’t take long before David Folkerts-Landau, Chief Economist at Deutsche Bank – whose shareholders have gotten crushed and whose bondholders are getting restless – picked up the baton and told the Welt am Sonntag that a US TARP-like European bank bailout of €150 billion was needed to “recapitalize the banks.” This is code for using taxpayer money to bail out bondholders and stockholders, along with executive compensation, including his own. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.

So the European banking crisis is coming into full bloom. Deutsche Bank in February tried a ludicrous ruse: buying back its own bonds. But even that miracle-nonsense has now flopped and its shares and CoCo bonds have plunged. Read…  I’m in Awe at How Fast Deutsche Bank is Coming Unglued

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

N.C. Exempts Police Recordings from Public Records Laws

Body cameraNorth Carolina has just passed, and Gov. Pat McCrory has signed, legislation that would declare that police recordings—both body camera and dash cam footage—are not public records under state law and would follow a different set of disclosure rules.

All of this is happening at a time where citizens are hungry for police actions to be more transparent and accountable to the public so that abuse can be fought against. Instead, North Carolina is using their concerns over the potential privacy over those who are being filmed to significantly curtail the ability for citizens to see what is happening in police recordings.

There’s two major components to HB 972: when people may view these recordings and when the recordings may be publicly released.

For disclosures—who may watch a recording—the law requires the viewer to be a person in the recording or a representative for a person in the recording (and they cannot record or copy the video). Even then, police have wide discretion to decide how much of a recording to allow somebody to watch or to decide it contains “highly sensitive” material and reject the request. The person can then appeal to the courts, and a judge can overrule them if the judge determines the police abused their discretion.

A judge will also be the person deciding whether police footage will be publicly released. The law enforcement agencies cannot decide for themselves to release footage.  And in order to get a court order to get footage released, the requester needs to have a sense of actually what they’re looking for and what time it takes place in the video footage. That is to say, you have to already know what’s in the video and where in order to request having it released.

The state has been attempting to spin the law as a good thing because it also prohibits the footage from being kept confidential in a police officer’s personnel file, and therefore completely hidden. But that’s cold comfort when the process to gain transparency is dependent on the mercy and cooperation of the police themselves and judges.

The North Carolina chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is not happy:

“Body cameras should be a tool to make law enforcement more transparent and accountable to the communities they serve, but this shameful law will make it nearly impossible to achieve those goals,” said Susanna Birdsong, Policy Counsel for the ACLU of North Carolina. “People who are filmed by police body cameras should not have to spend time and money to go to court in order to see that footage. These barriers are significant and we expect them to drastically reduce any potential this technology had to make law enforcement more accountable to community members.”

There is some good news in the bill, though it’s completely unrelated to police footage access. HB 972 also authorizes a needle exchange program for the state and access to naloxone kits to help counteract drug overdoses. Actually, that’s really good news. A shame it’s been attached to this terrible policy that helps give cover to police secrecy.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/29M2ZLd
via IFTTT

Bernie Sanders & Hillary Clinton ‘Stronger Together’? – Live Feed

Some say Sanders sold out to Hillary, others that he had no choice if Democrats are to beat Trump, but one thing is for sure – the unholy union of Sanders and Clinton today on stage in Portsmouth, New Hampshire will be must-watch for awkward body-language. Sanders is expected to endorse Hillary and her Wall Street money… Trump had a few things to say, as you can imagine…

 

 

Live Feed:

via http://ift.tt/29BHVo7 Tyler Durden

PIMCO Lashes Out At “Flip-Flopping” Fed: ‘Stop Focusing On The Stock Market’

We truly live in interesting times: what was once tinfoil conspiracy theory, namely that the Fed is entirely focused on propping up the stock market, has become not only mainstream thought, but overnight in a scathing essay by prominent PIMCO economists, including Mihir Worah, PIMCO blasted the Fed for constantly "flip-flopping", and telling Janet Yellen that "the Fed should focus on rising wages, not the stock market.

Of course, the Fed's traditional response is a well-rehearsed one: record stock prices will eventually "trickle down" into higher wages. Yes, it has not happened so far in the past 7 years of unorthodox monetary policies, but the Fed is absolutely confident it will eventually… just not yet.

But going back to the punchline, what is most amazing is that we now live in a day and age, when the world's biggest bond fund managers is telling the Fed to stop reacting to every downtick in the market, and actually regain some of its credibility. To wit:

The Fed’s periodic hinting at possible hikes followed by no hikes (with one exception) has many market observers believing the Fed has become myopically focused on the vagaries of the stock market, almost to the point where it ignores most other indicators of economic health. So with a strong payroll number today and the S&P 500 modestly higher on the year, people fear the Fed will once again start talking up the likelihood of a rate hike. Most bond market participants agree this would be a hawkish mistake; hence short-term Treasury yields have moved higher, while the 30-year is moving lower.

The good news for "market observers" is that they are allowed to do just that: observe. To everyone else who can participate in a centrally-planned economy in which the planner no longer knows how to communicate or has any idea if it is responding to the economy or the market, good luck.

Here is Pimco's full note:

Will The Fed Flip-Flop Again On Economic Data?

 

The U.S. Treasury yield curve had an interesting reaction to today’s blockbuster payrolls data. June saw 287,000 U.S. jobs created, more than making up for May’s dismal 38,000 number and leaving the six-month average at 172,000 jobs created per month. Normally one would expect data like today’s to steepen the yield curve with longer rates selling off more than shorter rates as inflation expectations rise and term premium comes back into a yield curve that is too flat by most historical measures. Instead two-year rates have moved higher and 30-year rates have moved lower! In addition to the oft-cited global factors, we feel there are two related reasons for this unusual price action:

  1. The yield curve is so flat in the first place because the market discounts the Federal Reserve’s desire to reach its inflation target of 2.0% for the PCE index. (Personal Consumption Expenditures is the Fed’s preferred inflation measure; 2.0% PCE corresponds to about 2.35% CPI (Consumer Price Index.)) U.S. inflation has been persistently below target, and yet, since 2013 and the quantitative easing “taper tantrum,” the Fed has been periodically threatening to raise rates, then backing away. As we have repeatedly argued regarding inflation targeting, the Fed needs to be credible in its desire to raise inflation and inflation expectations – otherwise we run the very real risk of the U.S. economy getting into a Japan-like situation in which the Fed tries to raise inflation expectations, even by raising its inflation target, and people just ignore it.
  2. The Fed’s periodic hinting at possible hikes followed by no hikes (with one exception) has many market observers believing the Fed has become myopically focused on the vagaries of the stock market, almost to the point where it ignores most other indicators of economic health. So with a strong payroll number today and the S&P 500 modestly higher on the year, people fear the Fed will once again start talking up the likelihood of a rate hike. Most bond market participants agree this would be a hawkish mistake; hence short-term Treasury yields have moved higher, while the 30-year is moving lower.

 

The Fed should measure U.S. economic success not in terms of a higher stock market, which benefits mostly the wealthy, but in rising wages. One market indicator of this would be a re-steepening of the yield curve as term premiums and inflation expectations move toward normal levels. The futures market anticipates overnight rates for this cycle peaking at 2% or even lower; a healthier environment would have rates peaking at 3% in line with the Fed’s own expectations. Similarly, 30-year inflation expectations (as signaled by the Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) market) above 2.0%, rather than the current 1.6%, would indicate the Fed is regaining its credibility in terms of reaching its target, despite being below that target for most of the last 10 years.

The Fed needs to be clear and consistent on its objectives (and its desire to meet both aspects of its dual job and price stability mandate), rather than reacting to every twist and turn of the stock markets and high frequency data.

And just to address Pimco's (rhetorical?) question, the answer is: yes.

via http://ift.tt/29MY4H1 Tyler Durden

Labor Market Continues To Deteriorate: Job Openings Tumble, Fewest Hires Since 2014

While many will be quick to ignore the May JOLTS report, due to its one-month delay behind the payrolls data and coinciding with an abysmal month when the US added only 11K seasonally-adjusted jobs, it does reveal several troubling points. First and foremost is that while Wall Street – which was already aware of the June payrolls number  – was expecting the number of job openings to decline modestly from 5.788MM, the drop was far steeper, albeit from an upward revised 5.845MM, sliding to 5.5MM, the lowest number of job openings since February, and the biggest monthly drop since October.

 

It wasn’t just job opening which disappointed in May: so did the far more important, in our opinion, number of hires. In May, the BLS reported that the number of total hires was only 5.036MM, the third month in a row of declines, and the lowest print since November 2014 as suddenly employers clamped down on new (seasonally-adjusted) hiring.

 

The Hires series is important because historically it has been a good concurrent indicator of the trend in cumulative annual total payroll changes, although in this cycle something has broken, as the char below shows. That something is the Beveridge curve, shown below. However, no matter the breach in correlation, the recent slide in hiring is hardly a favorable outcome for the US jobs market.

 

Naturally, the flipside to reduced hiring at a time when overall payrolls are still rising, is a reduction in separations, and indeed in May, the number of total separations dropped from 5.015MM to 4.952MM, which meant that the Net Turnover between additions and separations was +84K in May, well above the total payrolls increase reported in the month of May of only 11K.

And then there is the “quits” series, or as Nick Colas from Convergex puts it, the “take this job and shove it” indicator. This too showed a troubling decline, and at just 2.895MM in people quitting in May, this was the lowest monthly print since January, suggesting that workers had less confidence in their ability to find a job, and thus prompted them to quit in smaller numbers.

 

Finally we conclude with our favorite chart which encapsulates all the trends revealed in the JOLTS report, namely the Beveridge Curve, which sadly continues to be broken. This is the BLS’ explanation:

  • The graph plots the job openings rate against the unemployment rate. This graphical representation is known as the Beveridge Curve, named after the British economist William Henry Beveridge (1879-1963). The economy’s position on the downward sloping Beveridge Curve reflects the state of the business cycle.
  • During an expansion, the unemployment rate is low and the job openings rate is high. Conversely, during a contraction, the unemployment rate is high and the job openings rate is low. The position of the curve is determined by the efficiency of the labor market. For example, a greater mismatch between available jobs and the unemployed in terms of skills or location would cause the curve to shift outward (up and toward the right).
  • From the start of the most recent recession in December 2007 through the end of 2009, the series trended lower and further to the right as the job openings rate declined and the unemployment rate rose. From 2010 to the present, the series has been trending up and to the left as the job openings rate increased and the unemployment rate decreased.
  • I6, the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent and the job openings rate was 3.7 percent. This job openings rate corresponds to a higher unemployment rate than it did before the most recent recession.

Source: BLS

via http://ift.tt/2a5Q02K Tyler Durden