Obamanomics’ Fatal Flaw: Minimum Wage-Hiking States Are Seeing Slower Job Growth

Who could have seen this coming? While facts are awkward things – especially in the face of populist policies – the data shows that retail trade employment growth since the start of the year is notably slower for ‘minimum-wage-hiking’ states than ‘non-minimum-wage-hiking’ states.

 

 

As ValueWalk’s Roger Thomas explains,

Seventeen states increased their minimum wages in 2014. Most of the changes happened early in the year.

 

 

It’s still quite early on evaluating how large the adverse employment effects will be, but it looks like the effects are starting to show up in the retail trade employment numbers. As a note on why retail trade, the effects would likely show up in retail trade before they show up in other industries because retail trade employs a large proportion of the minimum wage workers.

 

Here’s the early evidence.

The figure shows the growth in retail trade by state since the start of the calendar year according to whether or not a state imposed new higher minimum wage rates.

 

On the left hand side are states that left things as is, meaning these states did not impose any new minimum wage rates.

 

On the right had side are states that imposed new minimum wage rates.

 

The figure that matters here is the difference in the average employment growth rate. In states that left business as is, employment growth in the retail trade industry is up 0.72%.

 

In contrast, states that imposed higher minimum wage rates saw retail trade employment growth of only 0.43%.

 

Although it’s still too early to say the results are statistically valid, one could likely assume further analysis will find that some or most of the difference is due to higher minimum wage rates.

*  *  *
It seems Obamanomics has a problem… but when did factual reality ever stop policy-makers and politicians in the past?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wq9VxL Tyler Durden

CEOs Darken Outlook, Slash Hiring and Cap-Ex Plans – Hope Now Focused on Share Buybacks (which just Plunged)

Wolf Richter   www.wolfstreet.com   http://ift.tt/Wz5XCn

The word “gloomier” inconveniently showed up in a Reuters headline that described how the CEOs of the Business Roundtable – one of the thermometers into the brains of corporate America – felt about sales, employment, and capital expenditures. Yet, “gloomier” or not, these CEOs run companies that have been spending near record amounts, not on productive uses such as capital expenditures or hiring more people to push revenues to the next level, but on buying back their own shares.

The Business Roundtable is an association of CEOs of the largest corporations in the US that account for “more than a third of the total value of the US stock market,” according to its website. On its agenda: lower corporate taxes (tax credits!), more immigration of cheap labor, and trade – the big trade agreements currently being negotiated in all secrecy [my take from late last year, though resistance has grown since…. Coming Soon: Corporate Tools To Hollow Out National Sovereignty].

Or, as it says so eloquently, “working to promote sound public policy and a thriving US economy.”

But the BRT results didn’t speak of a thriving US economy. “CEO plans for investment, hiring and sales over the next six months decreased, with employment plans declining the most,” the survey stated. It wasn’t pretty:

  • The least bad was the sales index, which dropped 4.5 points to 116.4, with 20% of the CEOs expecting sales to stagnate and with 7% expecting sales declines.
  • Capital expenditures looked worse. They would increase at only 39% of the companies, down from 44% in the prior quarter; they’d stagnate at 51% of the companies, up from 41% in Q2; and they’d get slashed at 10% of the companies, up from 8%. It dragged the cap-ex index down by 6.8 points to 79.1.
  • And US employment? Only 34% expected to increase employment in the US, down sharply from 43% in Q2; but 20% would slash payrolls, up from 14% in Q2. And the sub-index plunged 15.7 points to 63.5.

What would it take to reverse the slide? At this point, BRT becomes a lobbying group. “We believe Congress and the Administration must focus on policies that drive economic growth, including tax reform, immigration reform, trade expansion, and long-term fiscal stability,” BRT Chairman and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said in the statement, directed straight at Washington.

But what are these CEOs doing instead of hiring and training people and investing in capital expenditures, crucial and sorely missing ingredients in the economy?

Turns out, 740 corporations have authorized share buyback programs through August, the most for this period since 2008, just before the whole construct collapsed. And according to research cited by the Wall Street Journal, they spent $338 billion during the first half on buying back shares, the most since 2007.

As overall trading volume is getting more and more anemic, these buybacks make up an ever larger proportion of total trading.

IBM, the second most prolific buyback hero after Apple, spent $8.2 billion to buy back 45.2 million shares during the first quarter, or over 13% of IBM shares traded during that time. It had its reasons; it needed to prop up its stocks as it was wearing investors ragged with its declining revenues. And it worked. Share price during the quarter rose, despite the dark clouds hanging over IBM, by 2.5% while the S&P 500 rose a mere 1.3%.

The buyback program of Illinois Tool Works made up 18% of the volume of its shares in May and 15% in June. In late February and in March, Oplink Communications bought back enough shares to account for over 30% of the trading volume.

And it worked. According to an analysis by Barclays cited by the Wall Street Journal, companies that spent the most on buybacks outperformed the stock market by 20%.

And now we know who has been buying every tiny dip: companies! When their shares head south, “companies get more aggressive,” explained Chip Gibbs, head of the buyback business at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

In this environment, buybacks have outsized impact on volume, and therefore on price. Companies are blowing real cash on manipulating their own shares. Sure, stockholders might be happy in the short run. But unlike investments in productive assets and in people, the effect of this corporate “relentless bid” fades as soon as the buybacks fade. They’re a vicious treadmill, gobbling up ever larger amounts of real cash as stock prices rise.

A very capital-intensive way of financially engineering EPS, which is what every analyst on Wall Street is genetically programed to look at. But only part of the buybacks end up reducing share count. The rest are used to hide the dilution from executive stock compensation plans and stock-based acquisitions. Buybacks are a way to pull a bag over investors’ heads.

In the end, they accomplish nothing for the company’s operations – nor for the real economy. And when the cheap cash runs out to do these buybacks, a vacuum opens up under those shares, and under the market in general. That’s one of the things that happened in 2008 after all the craziness had peaked.

Oh, and FactSet just released its report on buybacks for Q2: share repurchases plunged 23% from Q1 to $124 billion, the worst such decline since Q4 2011. But it was still a lot of cash, and down only 1.1% year-over-year.  Given the surge in past quarters, for the trailing 12 months, buybacks still rose 29% to $539.3 billion. Alas, free cash flow declined 0.5%, and the ratio of buybacks to free cash flow continued to rise, hitting 82%, the highest level since, well, Q3 2008. But this time, of course, it will be different.

At this confluence of excess and exuberance on one side and the spreading sub-surface carnage in smaller stocks on the other side, even venture capital begins to fret. Read… “Excessive Amounts of Capital” Doom Startup Bubble




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wq9TpD testosteronepit

Vaccination Rates Higher In War-Torn South Sudan Than in Many Affluent Los Angeles Schools

vaccinationThe Hollywood Reporter notes that
California has seen
over 8,000 cases of whooping cough
so far this year, of which
267 required hospitalization, including 58 in intensive care. Three
infants under two months of age of died of the disease. Why?
Because rich, clueless idiots are refusing to get their kids
vaccinated.

The Hollywood Reporter checked filings for personal
belief exemptions in tony school districts and found:

The region stretching from Malibu south to Marina del Rey and
inland as far as La Cienega Boulevard (and including Santa Monica,
Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, West Hollywood and Beverly Hills)
averaged a 9.1 percent PBE level among preschoolers for the 2013-14
school year — a 26 percent jump from two years earlier. By
comparison, L.A. County at large measured 2.2 percent in that
period. Many preschools in this area spiked far higher, including
Kabbalah Children’s Academy in Beverly Hills (57 percent) and the
Waldorf Early Childhood Center in Santa Monica (68 percent).
According to World Health Organization data, such numbers are in
line with immunization rates in developing countries like Chad and
South Sudan.

Earlier this month the Los Angeles Times
investigated the falling vaccination rates
among children in
various Southern California school districts. The reporters
found:

California parents are deciding against vaccinating their
kindergarten-age children at twice the rate they did seven years
ago, a fact public health experts said is contributing to the
reemergence of measles across the state and may lead to outbreaks
of other serious diseases.

The percentage of kindergartens in which at least 8% of students
are not fully vaccinated because of personal beliefs has more than
doubled as well, according to data on file with the state. That
threshold is significant because communities must be immunized at a
high rate to avoid widespread disease outbreaks. It is a concept
known as herd immunity, and for measles and whooping cough at least
92% of kids need to be immune, experts say. …

Exemption rates vary greatly by area and school. Los Angeles
Unified kindergartens, for example, had an overall exemption rate
of just 1.6%, although there are several in the district where more
than 8% of students have belief exemptions. At Santa Monica-Malibu
Unified, the overall exemption rate was 14.8% and at Capistrano
Unified in south Orange County, it was 9.5%. At nearby Santa Ana
Unified only 0.2% of kindergartners had exemptions on file.

In Los Angeles County, the rise in personal belief exemptions is
most prominent in wealthy coastal and mountain communities, The
Times analysis shows. The more than 150 schools with exemption
rates of 8% or higher for at least one vaccine were located in
census tracts where the incomes averaged $94,500 — nearly 60%
higher than the county median.

The article also reports in the Montecito District in Santa
Barbara that the exemption rate is 27.5 percent; Santa Cruz
Montessori it’s 22.6 percent.

While some might write off vaccine refusniks as voluntarily
engaging in Darwinian selection, the problem is that they are
putting others involuntarily at risk. As I explained elsewhere:

Vaccines do not always produce immunity, so a percentage of
those who took the responsibility to be vaccinated remain
vulnerable. Other defenseless people include infants who are too
young to be vaccinated and individuals whose immune systems are
compromised. In America today, it is estimated that about 10
million people are immuno-compromised through no fault of their
own.

This brings us to the important issue of “herd immunity.” Herd
immunity works when most people in a community are immunized
against an illness, greatly reducing the chances that an infected
person can pass his microbes along to other susceptible people.

People who refuse vaccination for themselves and their children
are free riding off of herd immunity. Even while receiving this
benefit, the unvaccinated inflict the negative externality of being
possible vectors of disease, threatening those 10 million most
vulnerable to contagion.

Vaccines are like fences. Fences keep your neighbor’s livestock
out of your pastures and yours out of his. Similarly, vaccines
separate people’s microbes. Anti-vaccination folks are taking
advantage of the fact that most people around them have chosen
differently, thus acting as a firewall protecting them from
disease. But if enough people refuse, that firewall comes down, and
innocent people get hurt.

Oliver Wendell Holmes articulated a good libertarian principle
when he said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other
man’s nose begins.” Holmes’ observation is particularly salient in
the case of whooping cough shots.

Infants cannot be vaccinated against whooping cough (pertussis),
so their protection against this dangerous disease depends upon the
fact that most of the rest of us are immunized. Unfortunately, as
immunization refusals have increased in recent years, so have
whooping cough infections. The annual number of pertussis cases
fell from 200,000 pre-vaccine to a low of 1,010 in 1976. Last year,
the number of reported cases rose to 48,277, the highest since
1955. Eighteen infants died of the disease in 2012, up from just
four in 1976.

For alternative opinions about vaccine refusal see
Reason’s debate, “Should
Vaccines Be Mandatory?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1soUBNY
via IFTTT

Citizens Group Emails VA Governor Demanding Independent Review of Police Shootings; Local Rescue Chaplain Calls Them Marxists

Christian SierraSeventeen year old Christian Sierra was fatally
shot by police in Purceville, Virginia, after the teen allegedly
lunged at cops with a knife. Police were responding to a call
asking for help with the suicidal teen.

Authorities are expected to rule on whether the shooting was
justified this moon. “We’re shooting for the end of next week if we
can coordinate with Virginia State Police and get an opportunity to
reach out to the family,” said the city’s attorney, Jim Plowman,

according to the Loudoun Times
, which also reports
that an anonymous citizen’s group called “Your Citizens of Loudoun
County” sent several emails to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) calling for
independent investigations of police shootings and mandatory crisis
training for cops.

The emails do not appear to be online—a Google search for “Your
Citizens of Loudoun County” brings up only the Times
story—but it did yield a response from Purceville’s volunteer
rescue squad chaplain, Tim Simmons, who called the emails Marxist.
The Times
reports
:

In a response to the group and the Rev. Dr. Jack Stagman,
president of the nonprofit America Restored, [Simmons] called the
correspondence to the governor “the same kind of agitprop that
stoked the fires of rioting and looting, mob violence and the
tearing of the social fabric in Ferguson so recently.”

“I’m astonished you [Stagman] would associate yourself, and the
people who stand with you in local Christian leadership, with this
kind of Marxist propaganda waged against our local law enforcement
and civil structures,” Simmons said in the email, forwarded to the
Times-Mirror earlier this week. 

Sierra’s family says the officers who shot Christian did not
have crisis intervention training. Loudoun County Sheriff Mike
Chapman says the training program is voluntary, and that some cops
consider it a waste of time. While the sheriff says the training is
costly, he argues it also saves taxpayer money by reducing the
necessity of medical interventions and associated costs.

Related:
Four issues to focus on when considering police reform
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BMK71K
via IFTTT

Alarm About a 'Heroin Epidemic' Skyrockets As Heroin Use Falls

Yesterday the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) released the
results
of the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH). As I
noted
a couple of weeks ago, when SAMHSA gave us a preview of
those data, the number of respondents who reported using heroin in
the previous month fell by 14 percent last year, despite
ever-rising concern about a new “heroin epidemic.” While NSDUH
probably
misses
a substantial number of heavy users (exactly how many is
unclear), the trends identified by the survey still should indicate
whether heroin consumption is on the rise or on the wane (as both
government officials and journalists tend to assume). Hence
it is instructive to compare past-month heroin use measured by
NSDUH (in thousands of users) with mentions of a “heroin
epidemic” in the newspaper and wire service articles collected by
Nexis:

On the face of it, there is no obvious relationship between the
level of heroin use and the level of press attention to it. Notice
that the spike in 2006, when the number of past-month users was
higher than it has been in any year since then, seems to have
prompted no journalistic response whatsoever. The more gradual
increase seen after 2009, by comparison, coincided with an initial
drop in “heroin epidemic” mentions, followed by a slight increase.
Then the number of mentions skyrocketed, rising from 82 in 2011 to
273 in 2012 and 633 in 2013. So far this year there have been
nearly 2,300 references to a “heroin epidemic” in these
news sources, reflecting the tremendous attention attracted by the
actor Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death
on February 2 (which was
caused
by “mixed drug intoxication” but generally attributed to
heroin alone). That single incident seems to have generated more
talk of a “heroin epidemic” than everything else that happened in
the previous 12 years. In any case, coverage of the putative
epidemic really took off around the time when heroin use started to
fall.

This disconnect between drug use and public alarm about it is a
pretty familiar phenomenon by now. Ronald Reagan ramped up the war
on drugs at a time when drug use was already declining. His
successor, George H.W. Bush, gave his
“bag of crack” speech
years after cocaine consumption peaked
(as measured by NSDUH’s predecessor, the National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse). Just as Hoffman’s death seems to be the single most
important factor driving the recent explosion in press coverage of
heroin, the 1986 death of basketball player Len Bias, at a time
when cocaine use was falling, drove the political panic that gave
us insanely disproportionate
federal crack sentences
 (even though Bias
snorted cocaine
rather than smoking it).

As the sociologist Nicholas Parsons
points out
in his recent book
Meth Mania
, press panics about speed likewise have been
only tenuously related to the number of people consuming it.
Parsons found that coverage of methamphetamine
in Time and The New York
Times
 shot up in 1967, driven largely by a single
incident: the rape and murder of Linda Fitzpatrick, the 18-year-old
daughter of a wealthy Greenwich, Connecticut, couple who dropped
out of an exclusive private school and reportedly got hooked on
Mephedrine. In that respect, Linda Fitzpatrick was the Philip
Seymour Hoffman (or Len Bias) of her day.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BMK5Hn
via IFTTT

Alarm About a ‘Heroin Epidemic’ Skyrockets As Heroin Use Falls

Yesterday the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) released the
results
of the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH). As I
noted
a couple of weeks ago, when SAMHSA gave us a preview of
those data, the number of respondents who reported using heroin in
the previous month fell by 14 percent last year, despite
ever-rising concern about a new “heroin epidemic.” While NSDUH
probably
misses
a substantial number of heavy users (exactly how many is
unclear), the trends identified by the survey still should indicate
whether heroin consumption is on the rise or on the wane (as both
government officials and journalists tend to assume). Hence
it is instructive to compare past-month heroin use measured by
NSDUH (in thousands of users) with mentions of a “heroin
epidemic” in the newspaper and wire service articles collected by
Nexis:

On the face of it, there is no obvious relationship between the
level of heroin use and the level of press attention to it. Notice
that the spike in 2006, when the number of past-month users was
higher than it has been in any year since then, seems to have
prompted no journalistic response whatsoever. The more gradual
increase seen after 2009, by comparison, coincided with an initial
drop in “heroin epidemic” mentions, followed by a slight increase.
Then the number of mentions skyrocketed, rising from 82 in 2011 to
273 in 2012 and 633 in 2013. So far this year there have been
nearly 2,300 references to a “heroin epidemic” in these
news sources, reflecting the tremendous attention attracted by the
actor Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death
on February 2 (which was
caused
by “mixed drug intoxication” but generally attributed to
heroin alone). That single incident seems to have generated more
talk of a “heroin epidemic” than everything else that happened in
the previous 12 years. In any case, coverage of the putative
epidemic really took off around the time when heroin use started to
fall.

This disconnect between drug use and public alarm about it is a
pretty familiar phenomenon by now. Ronald Reagan ramped up the war
on drugs at a time when drug use was already declining. His
successor, George H.W. Bush, gave his
“bag of crack” speech
years after cocaine consumption peaked
(as measured by NSDUH’s predecessor, the National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse). Just as Hoffman’s death seems to be the single most
important factor driving the recent explosion in press coverage of
heroin, the 1986 death of basketball player Len Bias, at a time
when cocaine use was falling, drove the political panic that gave
us insanely disproportionate
federal crack sentences
 (even though Bias
snorted cocaine
rather than smoking it).

As the sociologist Nicholas Parsons
points out
in his recent book
Meth Mania
, press panics about speed likewise have been
only tenuously related to the number of people consuming it.
Parsons found that coverage of methamphetamine
in Time and The New York
Times
 shot up in 1967, driven largely by a single
incident: the rape and murder of Linda Fitzpatrick, the 18-year-old
daughter of a wealthy Greenwich, Connecticut, couple who dropped
out of an exclusive private school and reportedly got hooked on
Mephedrine. In that respect, Linda Fitzpatrick was the Philip
Seymour Hoffman (or Len Bias) of her day.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BMK5Hn
via IFTTT

Abenomics Crushes Sony: Electronics Giant Forced To Cancel Dividend For First Time Ever

It was over a year ago, when contrary to the propganda spewed on a daily basis by the Japanese government hell bent on destroying the domestic economy, now suffering its Keynesian death rattle, just to push stocks to highs which nobody except for a few thousand people will be able to monetize on, that the CEO of Sony explicitly warned that “the preconception is that a weaker Yen is good overall. Unfortunately for us, versus the USD, it goes the other way… we are actually at a disadvantage.” He wasn’t kidding and just under a year later, back in May, Sony shocked everyone when the electonics giant not only posted a massive net loss of $1.3 billion, far worse than previously expected, but also slashed its profit outlook by 70%.

Fast forward to today, when minutes ago the Yen hit another multi-year low against the dollar, which sure enough, is great for the nominal value of Japanese stocks, if horrible for the actual Japanese companies, the Japanese middle class, and pretty much everyone except for a few superrich people. Such as Sony. Because the (now former) electronic giant, which once upon a time was the target of an activist campaign by none other than Dan Loeb who mysteriouly saw value in the company, once again stunned everyone when it reported overnight that it expects its annual loss to swell to $2 billion, but, far worse, canceled the payment of its dividend for the first time ever after writing down the value of its troubled smartphone business.

 Needless to say, Sony’s stock which doubled in 2013 for the completely wrong reasons, is now crashing.

And while guiding lower is a staple of virtually all companies in the New Normal, halting dividends can mean only one thing: the end of the road may finally be in sight.

From AP:

For the first time since going public in 1958, the Japanese electronics and entertainment conglomerate canceled dividend payments for the half- and full-year. “This is the very first time we ever eliminated a dividend,” said Sony’s president Kazuo Hirai. “For more than 50 years we always paid a dividend. The entire management takes this very seriously.

 

The company plans to cut staff in its mobile communications business by about 15 percent, or roughly 1,000 people, Hirai said. Details of that plan are to be announced later.

But… Abenomics is an economy-boosting miracle. Oh wait, there we go again confusing the economy with a stock market priced in devalued currency terms.

Sony has been trying to reshape its business after years of red ink and has repeatedly promised turnarounds without delivering. It said the bigger loss for the current fiscal year stems from a lower valuation of its mobile phone business due to weaker than expected sales. The company is recording an “impairment charge” of 180 billion yen ($1.7 billion) in the July-September quarter.

 

The charge is purely an adjustment to the company’s balance sheet, involving no cash, but it reflects that the mobile business is far less valuable and will generate lower profits than previously thought.

 

The smartphone business has proven particularly tough for Sony. Apple and Samsung dominate at the top end while Chinese and other Asian manufacturers are hogging the market for cheaper phones that are most likely to appeal in fast-growing developing countries. Hirai said Sony had not managed to stay ahead of sea changes in the industry.

 

“The Chinese smartphone manufacturers have made great strides and are expanding outside their own market, and this has caused a shift in the pricing,” he said. “Meanwhile, Apple and other manufacturers are launching strong, innovative products. The changes are very rapid and dramatic.” Hirai said Sony expects a loss in its mobile business this year, but would return to profit by cutting costs and focusing on higher end devices. It is also positioning itself for future growth in smartphones and mobile technology.

 

“We have to be in the competitive landscape in the next stage and be ready for that evolution,” he said. Sony intends to leverage its vast archive of music and movies, network services and technology to compete.

But… we thought all it took to boost trade, sends exports soaring and raise your GDP, was to crush your currency, while obliviously keeping everything else unchanged and telling corporate CFOs to just hang tight and that any minute now EPS nirvane would be upon them.

It there really more to being competitive in today’s world than selling products at a low, low FX-adjusted price. Oh, forgot to mention: products which nobody wants regardless of the price?

Could it be that finally Japan is waking up to what we said in January of 2013, namely that just crushing your currency will do nothing for the underlying economy, and as Sony has shown, actually lead to ongoing corporate devastation and soon, widespread bankruptcies?

In a parallel note, Bloomberg reports something else we warned in January of 2013, namely that “business leaders in Western Japan warned central bank chief Haruhiko Kuroda that the yen’s slide to a six-year low is boosting costs of imported raw materials and fuel and may spell trouble for the economy.”

Companies in the industrial city of Osaka report that their profit margins are deteriorating as they can’t pass along the higher costs even as sales rise, Osaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chairman Shigetaka Sato told Kuroda at a gathering yesterday. Kansai Economic Federation Chairman Shosuke Mori said the rise in fuel costs warrants close monitoring.

 

“It is a source of concern, that given the recent rapid yen weakness, the negative aspects such as rising import costs will become more prominent,” said Sato, who is also chairman of Keihan Electric Railway Co.

 

The comments underscore the burden that the cheaper yen is putting on the world’s third-biggest economy even as it gives a tailwind to the Bank of Japan’s effort to spur inflation. Kuroda said the currency moves don’t pose a problem for Japan and that it’s natural for the dollar to rise against the yen as the U.S. economy improves.

Golfclap. Now we just wonder how long it will take Japan to figure out the last thing we said in January 2013, namely that Abenomics was never meant to boost the Japanese economy, and was entirely geared to boosting the global, and mostly the US stock market, courtesy of some $75 billion in fungible liquidity thanks to the BOJ every month. Of course, if and when Japan does figure out what was painfully obvious to anyone who is not an idiot, Abe may need something far stronger than diarrhea to escape the rightful vengeance that the people will demand upon his head and other parts of his body.

Sadly for Sony, it will probably be too late.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1ra7XBE Tyler Durden

Janet Yellen Trolls America's Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich

Remember when over the weekend we reported, that “America’s Poor Have Never Been Deeper In Debt“, showing how this tragic development took place over the past few years, accelerating almost exponentially into the New Normal…

 

… and in its proper context, using one of our favorite charts, showing that while the rich hold assets, the poor are merely drowning in ever more debt:

 

Well, Janet Yellen has a message for America’s poor.

The day after tomorrow’s much anticipated FOMC meeting which will surely make the richest 1% in the nation even richer, the Fed chairman will address everyone else, as follows:

Speech–Chair Janet L. Yellen

The Importance of Asset Building for Low and Middle Income Households

At the Corporation for Enterprise Development’s 2014 Assets Learning Conference, Washington, D.C. (via prerecorded video)

8:45 a.m. ET

Not surprisingly “everyone else”, namely America’s low and middle income households, aren’t even worth a live appearance, hence the “prerecorded video.”

But the punchline is the actual message, in which Janet Yellen tells those mired in debt to build more assets.

In other words, the Fed Chairman has some words of encouragement for the tens of millions of Americans who live at or below the poverty level, including that threatened with extinction class, affectionately known as “the middle.”

Her message? It is important to build assets, or said otherwise…  get rich.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mba3jQ Tyler Durden

Janet Yellen Trolls America’s Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich

Remember when over the weekend we reported, that “America’s Poor Have Never Been Deeper In Debt“, showing how this tragic development took place over the past few years, accelerating almost exponentially into the New Normal…

 

… and in its proper context, using one of our favorite charts, showing that while the rich hold assets, the poor are merely drowning in ever more debt:

 

Well, Janet Yellen has a message for America’s poor.

The day after tomorrow’s much anticipated FOMC meeting which will surely make the richest 1% in the nation even richer, the Fed chairman will address everyone else, as follows:

Speech–Chair Janet L. Yellen

The Importance of Asset Building for Low and Middle Income Households

At the Corporation for Enterprise Development’s 2014 Assets Learning Conference, Washington, D.C. (via prerecorded video)

8:45 a.m. ET

Not surprisingly “everyone else”, namely America’s low and middle income households, aren’t even worth a live appearance, hence the “prerecorded video.”

But the punchline is the actual message, in which Janet Yellen tells those mired in debt to build more assets.

In other words, the Fed Chairman has some words of encouragement for the tens of millions of Americans who live at or below the poverty level, including that threatened with extinction class, affectionately known as “the middle.”

Her message? It is important to build assets, or said otherwise…  get rich.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mba3jQ Tyler Durden

Justin Amash: I Will Vote Against Arming Syrian Rebels

AmashThe libertarian-leaning Congressman from Michigan
isn’t buying the Obama administration’s rationale for arming the
Syrian rebels and plans to vote against the measure
sponsored
by House Republican leadership.

The House of Representatives is expected to take up the bill
later today. Rep. Justin Amash
explained on Facebook
 why he opposes it:

As we should have learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
we must plan for multiple satisfactory ends to military conflicts
before we commence them.

If the Syrian groups that are “appropriately vetted” (the
amendment’s language) succeed and oust Assad, what would result?
Would the groups assemble a coalition government of anti-Assad
fighters, and would that coalition include ISIS? What would happen
to the Alawites and Christians who stood with Assad? To what extent
would the U.S. government be obligated to occupy Syria to rebuild
the government? If each of the groups went its own way, would
Syria’s territory be broken apart, and if so, would ISIS control
one of the resulting countries?

If the Syrian groups that we support begin to lose, would we let
them be defeated? If not, is there any limit to American
involvement in the war?

Perhaps some in the administration or Congress have answers to
these questions. But the amendment we’ll vote on today contains
none of them.

As evidenced by his Facebook post, Amash shares some of the
concerns
raised by Sen. Rand Paul and others
regarding the reliability
of the rebel forces. There have been
accusations of collusion
between the rebels and ISIS, as well
as fears that the Free Syrian Army is by far the weakest force in
the region.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1BMEQHz
via IFTTT