Category: zerohedge

Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

Despite the down day yesterday, one indicator from the equity options market recorded a massive spike in bullishness.

We like to track metrics from the various stock options exchanges as a measure of stock market sentiment. Generally, when too many calls are being bought versus puts, it is a warning of overheated bullishness, and when put volume becomes extreme relative to calls, it can be a sign of excessive fear. One particular indicator we used to track closely was the International Securities Exchange’s Call/Put Ratio on equity options (ISEE). For years, the ISEE was particularly helpful in signaling bullish or bearish extremes. We’re not sure what changed, however, in recent years the indicator has been of little to no value in that regard (in our assessment). We do still continue to monitor it, though, just in case it gives readings that raise our antennae. Yesterday’s reading did.

In the past, ISEE readings above 200, i.e., 2 calls bought per every put, have arguably been considered excessively bullish. There have not been nearly as many of these readings in recent years, so yesterday’s number was alarming to say the least. At a reading of 334, it was the highest ISEE recorded in 5 and a half years – and just the 10th ever above 300 since its 2006 inception.

Now, given the fact that we haven’t seen any ISEE readings close to this level in several years, it is possible that this figure was skewed irregularly by activity in a particular stock or stocks. If that’s the case, it may not be a true reflection of trader sentiment, in this case excessively bullish.

However, if we can take this ISEE figure at face value, there are a few potentially concerning aspects to it. First off, as the reading came on a solidly down day in the equity market, it would be concerning that traders are a little too comfortable B.T.D., aka, Buying The Dip. To us, that would be a telltale sign of complacency and a warning that more serious losses may be in store in the market to rid traders of said complacency.

The other concern, obviously, is the sheer magnitude of the reading and what has occurred following similar readings in the past. Again, there have been 9 other readings over 300, all occurring between 2010 and 2012. As the chart shows, a few readings occurred almost precisely at intermediate-term tops, e.g., prior to the Flash Crash in 2010, April 2011 and March 2012. The others occurred during the rally in late 2010 to early 2011, building to the 2011 top.

So, *if* this ISEE reading is to be taken at face value, it is not necessarily a death knell for the rally. But it would suggest that if an intermediate-term top was not at hand, then any further upside may be limited and temporary.

Then again, if the reading is a fluke, long live B.T.D.

*  *  *

If you’re interested in the “all-access” version of our charts and research, please check out The Lyons Share. Find out what we’re investing in, when we’re getting in – and when we’re getting out. Considering that we may well be entering an investment environment tailor made for our active, risk-managed approach, there has never been a better time to reap the benefits of this service. Thanks for reading!

via http://ift.tt/2ioBOY5 Tyler Durden

Just over a month ago, Kyle Bass discussed why he was long effectively "long Greece."

Bass penned a Bloomberg editorial in which the hedge fund founder and CIO called on the IMF to stop bullying Greece –  publicizing the fact that he is now effectively long Greece. Greek government bonds have performed reasonably well so far this year: They’re up about 16%, and if Bass is right, they could have another 20% to 30% over the next 18 months if the IMF abandons its insistence on austerity and acknowledges that debt relief will need to be part of the long-term alleviation of debt. Bass added that, in the near future, voters will elect a more business-friendly government that will help reestablish the country’s creditworthiness, much like the government of Mauricio Macri did for Argentina. 

I think you also have an interesting political situation in Greece where I think there's going to be a handoff from the current Syriza government to kind of a more slightly-center-right but very economically independent new leadership in the next, call it, 18 months.

 

And so, I think you asked why now? And I think you're starting to see green shoots. You're starting to see the banks do the right things finally in Greece and you are about to have new leadership.

 

So, I think that you're going to see – and if you remember Argentina as Kirschner was going to hand-off – hand the reins over to someone that was much more let's say focused on business and economics than being a kleptocrat, I think you're going to see something again slightly similar in Greece where you have leadership today that might not be the right leadership and the government-in-waiting, I believe, and I think you know Mr. (Mitsutakous) – I think you're going to see something great happen to Greece in the and next, kind of, two years.

Then, just yesterday, the founder and chief investment officer of Hayman Capital Management, which manages an estimated $815 million in assets under management, told CNBC that he's been invested in Greek bank stocks that are trading at a quarter of book value.

According to Bass, foreign investors are waiting on the sidelines for a tectonic political shift to take place in 2018. The country is now preparing to end its international bailout program next year, with more than €320 billion (US$372 billion) in national debt. On Monday, Greece announced it will distribute 1.4 billion euros ($1.63 billion) as a social dividend to pensioners and others hit hard by the country's austerity program.

"My best guess is a snap election for prime minister will be called between April and September of next year and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras will lose power.

 

"When that happens, there will be a massive move into the Greek stock market. Big money will flow in as investors feel more confident with a more moderate administration.

 

"It's going to take Kyriakos Mitsotakis, president of New Democracy, the Greek conservative party, to be voted in as prime minister to reform the culture and rekindle investor confidence," said Bass.

 

"I have no doubt €15 billion in bank deposits will come back to Greek banks if he's elected. The stock and bond markets will also jump following the election."

All of which brings us to today.

Greek bank stocks crashed over 8% today – plunging to the lowest since July 2016…

And in context, that's not good…

However, Bass is not pertrubed. As he explains, economic activity will get reenergized with the right leadership. The sectors global investors are eyeing right now are real estate, energy and tourism.

"There is so much potential," he said. "Pimco, Lonestar, KKR are all looking to buy commercial properties in Greece."

He also noted that the country will have marquee privatizations over the next two years.

"From my perspective, we have to fix two things in Greece for the market to take off," Bass said. "First, Greeks have to stop evading taxes. Second, they have to start repaying their loans."

Well if you believe him – you just got an 8% discount on your entry.

via http://ift.tt/2z7ICUD Tyler Durden

Via LPLResearch.com,

One of the oldest market sayings is: “markets climb a wall of worry” – needless to say, it is sometimes good to be cautious.

We listed some of our worries recently in What Might Scare Markets, but the action in the S&P 500 Index over the past year—and so far in November—has that list growing.

Here are 10 reasons to worry (in no particular order):

1. On a total return basis, the S&P 500 has been up 12 months in a row.
2. The S&P 500 has only pulled back (from peak to trough) 2.8% over the past year.
3. Junk bonds have weakened relative to equities over the past few weeks, and historically this has been a warning for equities.
4. The yield curve is the flattest it has been since 2007.
5. The S&P 500 hasn’t closed lower by 0.5% or more for 50 consecutive trading days, the longest streak since 1968.
6. The S&P 500 hasn’t finished red three days in a row for more than three months, the longest streak in seven years.
7. The S&P 500 hasn’t corrected 3% from its all-time high for over a year, the longest streak ever.
8. The average daily change (absolute value) for the S&P 500 in 2017 is only 0.30%, the second smallest range on record behind 1964.
9. Transports have been very weak recently, a historical indicator of weakness under the surface.
10. November is historically one of the strongest months going back to 1950, but over the past 10 years the second half of the month has been weak.

Per Ryan Detrick, Senior Market Strategist,

“It has been a long time since we’ve seen some volatility. Many small cracks are starting to form, and we wouldn’t be surprised if this opens the door for a modest correction. The good news is that with the global economy as strong as it is, this would likely be a nice chance to add to positions.”

For more of our thoughts on why next year could see a continuation of the bull market, be on the lookout for LPL Research Outlook 2018: Return of the Business Cycle in late November.

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

One week ago, on November 9 something snapped in the Nikkei, which in the span of just over an one hour (from 13:20 to 14:30) crashed more than 800 points (before closing almost unchanged) at the same time as it was revealed that foreigners had just bought a record amount of Japanese stocks the previous month.

As expected, numerous theories emerged shortly after the wild plunge, with explanation from the mundane, i.e., foreigners dumping as the upward momentum abruptly ended, to the “Greek”, as gamma and vega stops were hit by various vol-targeting (CTAs, systemic, variable annutities and risk parity) funds. One such explanation came from Deutsche Bank, which attributed the move to a volatility shock,  as “heightened volatility appears to have triggered program trades to reduce risk”, and catalyzed by a rare swoon in both stocks and bonds, which led to a surge in Nikkei volatility…

… and forced highly leveraged risk parity funds and their peers to quickly delever. As DB’s Masao Muraki explained at the time:

[the] increase in stock (or stock and bond) volatility might trigger position cutbacks when hedge funds, CTAs, and others engage in trading with higher leverage. In fact, stocks and bonds weakened from about 13:20 in the Japanese market on 9 November

The involvement of risk-parity funds in the Nikkrash was hardly a surprise, because as we noted in “Global Stock, Bond Selloff Accelerates Amid Risk-Parity Rumblings” risk parity proxies had just suffered their worst day since July:

Risk Parity not having a good day http://pic.twitter.com/GRdpB4NUOj

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 10, 2017

In good news for “market stability targeting” central banks around the globe, that moment of sheer risk-parity turmoil was confined to that day, and in a follow up note released today Muraki writes that Japanese equities “have broadly returned to our model as of the 15th (there was a small volatility shock on that day as well).”

This is also confirmed by the performance of risk parity funds, which have rapidly “normalized” in the past few days.

There were some not so good news too, and as the Deutsche strategist wrote, “we will be closely monitoring whether the Japanese stock market returns to moving in tune with US equities, interest rates, and forex, or again diverges.” Why? Because with volatility already at or near record lows across most asset classes, vol spikes – recall the beta of spot VIX is now over 19 – will become increasingly greater, leading to even more aggressive “buy the dip” reversals, largely as a result of retail investors entering the vol-selling space:

We have noted a historical pattern of moderate volatility decline followed by sudden dramatic increase (normalization) in volatility. There is possibility of greater volatility amplitude than in the past because of the participation of less experienced retail investors along with hedge funds as the traditional sellers of volatility.

And the punchline:

Funds with volatility targeting strategy are growing to the largest ever. If the influence of such funds expands, the buying pressure on risk assets would increase in low volatility phase, and the selling pressure would increase in high volatility phase.

The conditional framing of that statement was redundant, because as DB also shows both Var. Annuity and CTA funds have been growing by leaps and bounds in recent years, and while there is no definitive size for the risk parity universe, we do know that roughly half of the world’s biggest hedge fund is one giant risk-parity strategy. It is not alone.  In other words, the “influence” of vol-targeting funds has never been greater, and it continues to grow with every passing day.

Meanwhile, even more troubling, the leverage of an indicative vol-targeting fund (with a 12% vol target) likewise continues to grow, meaning that any vol spike could have devastating consequences for the fund, and the market, as it would be virtually impossible to deleverage in time.

Which means that as the DB thesis plays out, the swings in the market will continue to get increasingly bigger.

And while in the good old days one would be able to at least hedge partially by buying VIX futs or calls, now it is the vol complex itself that is suppressed, making hedging not only impossible but assuring that future vol surge episodes will be even sharper, faster and more acute.

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

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

My personal Facebook account, which has the maximum 5,000 friends and an additional 5,000+ followers, has been blocked from posting for three days.

My page hasn’t been blocked yet, but we’ll see; I shared the article there, too.

The reason given for this ban by the little pop-up boxes when I logged on just now was that a couple months ago I had shared an article about admitted false flag operations perpetrated by governments around the world.

I don’t know what happened that made Facebook’s system decide to crack down on me now all of a sudden, but I do know I’ve been a bit naughtier than usual in my last couple of articles.

The article I got the banhammer for sharing is titled For Those Who Don’t ‘Believe’ In ‘Conspiracies’ Here Are 58 Admitted False Flag Attacks.

According to the site’s ticker it has 50,667 shares as of this writing. It’s laden with hyperlinks for further reading, and lists only instances of false flag operations that insiders are on the record as having admitted to themselves. It’s a good compilation of important information. People should be allowed to share it.

The notifications say I can be permanently banned if I continue posting that sort of material. I’ve had that account since 2007.

So. Who wants to see my Barbra Streisand impression?

In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there’s no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn’t make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Sessions. America most definitely has such a system.

If they’re going to get us locked down and propagandized into their vapid brain boxes, this will be how they’ll do it. Not by government censorship, but by corporate censorship. Government can’t make an overt attempt to stop a dissenting voice from speaking, but the corporations who own the venue of their speech can.

In a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, plutocrat-sponsored senators spoke with top legal and security officials for Facebook, Twitter and Google in a very disturbing way about the need to silence dissenting voices.

Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded that the companies adopt a “mission statement” declaring their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.”

A former FBI agent Clint Watts kicked it up even further, saying,

“Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

 

“Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced?—?silence the guns and the barrage will end,” he added.

This was on the Senate floor. Officials were speaking about the need to censor social media to prevent people from sharing dissenting ideas on the Senate floor.

World Socialist Web Site said of the hearing,

That such a statement could be made in a congressional hearing, entirely without objection, is an expression of the terminal decay of American democracy. There is no faction of the ruling class that maintains any commitment to basic democratic rights.

None of the Democrats in the committee raised any of the constitutional issues involved in asking massive technology companies to censor political speech on the Internet. Only one Republican raised concerns over censorship, but only to allege that Google had a liberal bias.

I’ll admit right now that this really scares me. Ever the optimist, I’ve been reassuring my readers that the corporatocracy would never risk taking off the black hole sun mask of corporate cheerfulness and move into regular, overt totalitarianism. I’ve contended that they must remain covert in order to keep successfully manufacture consent.

But, here we are. Through a studious application of psy-ops they have their censorship and they have their consent. Remember, in the book “Fahrenheit 451” the public wasn’t unhappy about the book burnings. They cheered them on, and that’s what we have now. The herd is mindlessly clapping their approval at censorship and even volunteering to report naughty behavior like good little hall monitors for the oligarchy. I’m sure that even some of my close friends and family will silently approve of my banning and will meet my distress with the pursed lips of a church lady secretly pleased at my comeuppance.

I tried joining Gab when I saw this coming, but it’s really alt-righty there and the energy there is just gross. Finding a new social media outlet might not even matter anyway, since these creeps just target any place people gather in large numbers.

I don’t know. I always freak out a bit when the eye of corporate censorship focuses on me. I’ve recently been told by a number of people that they’ve been banned for sharing my articles, and now it’s hitting me.

I’m babbling. This is weird. I just really, really don’t want humanity to become what these people are trying to turn it into, you know? Help me make some noise about this stuff, please. Manipulators can’t do their job when there’s a big spotlight pointed at them.

*  *  *

Hey you, thanks for reading! My work is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, and maybe throwing some money into my hat on Patreon.

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

Democratic New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez will be able to hang on to his job and his freedom – for now, at least – after jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked on corruption charges against the lawmaker – fulfilling the prediction of a juror who was excused last week and decided to share details of her experience with the media.

Menendez was indicted back in 2015 on bribery and corruption charges stemming from his relationship with a Florida ophthamologist.

Federal prosecutors say Menendez accepted $1 million in political donations along with free flights and vacations in exchange for intervening to help doctor and businessman Salomon Melgen with an $8.9 million Medicare billing dispute, a Dominican Republic port contract and also helping Melgen secure visas for three of his girlfriends.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court blocked what legal experts described as a “hail mary” motion by Menendez’s legal team to help their client avoid standing trial.

“We cannot reach a unanimous decision," the jury said in a note just before lunch on Thursday. “Nor are we willing to move away from our strong convictions,” the Washington Post reported.

WaPo described the mistrial as a “major victory” for a senator who had to fight 18 counts of alleged corruption, and a setback for the Justice Department, whose efforts to combat public corruption have been curtailed by a recent Supreme Court decision that help exonerate former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

After receiving Thursday’s note, U.S. District Court Judge William Walls decided to interview the foreman and at least one other juror in chambers, in the presence of the lawyers on the case.

Prosecutors had asked the judge to issue a clarifying instruction to the panel, telling jurors they could reach verdicts on individual counts in the indictment, even if they can’t find agreement on all the counts. Judge Walls rejected that suggestion, saying to do so would be “going down the slippery slope of coercion.’"

He added: “There’s no point doing something just to say you’ve done it."

Menendez defense lawyer Abbe Lowell told the judge, “I think we have to declare a mistrial."

“They are telling us in the clearest terms possible that they have done their job as diligent jurors. I think we have a real hung jury,’’ said Lowell.

 

After nine weeks of testimony, the jury has struggled to reach a consensus on any of the charges against Menendez and Melgen, his co-defendent.

The jury of seven women and five men began deliberating last week, and, according to the Post, it quickly became clear there were sharp divisions.

As WaPo notes, the DOJ will likely put Menendez on trial again because of the precedent they’d risk setting by letting him go.

While mistrials are generally considered wins for defense lawyers and losses for prosecutors, the Justice Department will likely feel significant internal pressure to put the senator on trial again, because recent Supreme Court decisions have raised questions about how much legal authority prosecutors still have in pursuing corruption charges involving payments not explicitly and directly linked to official acts.

 

Some legal experts have warned that a defeat for the government in the Menendez case could make prosecutors more reluctant to pursue public corruption cases in the future.

Of course, a guilty verdict could have had major ramifications in the Senate, where Republicans currently hold a narrow majority. If Menendez had been convicted, there would likely have been pressure on him to resign, or for fellow senators to expel him. If his seat had become vacant before mid-January, New Jersey governor Chris Christie would have been able to appoint his successor, likely turning a Democratic seat Republican until a November 2018 midterm election. But it was not clear that even if he had been convicted, whether Democrats would go along with expelling one of their own, even as Republican leaders have threatened to expel Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore if he wins.

However, aside from a blip following his indictment, there is no political pressure for Menendez to step down, and for now the case is treated as irrelevant by both journalists and politicians.

Melgen is already awaiting sentencing for a previous conviction for defrauding Medicare. The two men were on trial for bribery, and Menendez was also accused of lying on government disclosure forms about his finances when he did not report gifts of flights paid for by Melgen — an omission the senator calls an accidental oversight, not a criminal lie.

In closing arguments Menendez’s attorney Lowell said his client’s “deep and abiding friendship’’ with Melgen “destroys every single one of the charges’’ against them.

“Not one document, not one email hints at a corrupt agreement,’’ Lowell told the jury.
 

via http://ift.tt/2zFRNe9 Tyler Durden

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Fox News viewers are demanding the network fire resident liberal Shep Smith after the host embarrassed himself in a wildly inaccurate and poorly researched “fact check” of the Uranium One scandal on Tuesday, following reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions was exploring a special counsel to investigate the sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to state-owned Russian energy giant Rosatom. 

Did anyone watch Shep Smith , just explain how Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Uranium deal?? What a joke Fox News!!! Send him to CNN

— Michael A (@Michael8326023) November 14, 2017

The nuclear deal, which ultimately resulted in the transfer of 20 percent of American Uranium to Russia so they could sell it back to US nuclear plants at an enormous profit, was approved by the Obama administration after significant donations in excess of $140 million were made to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One affiliates.

Unlike Sean Hannity – Ol’ Shep clearly hadn’t done his homework – consistently mispronouncing the names of people involved in the case, telling viewers that Canada-based Uranium One is a South African company, and spewing inaccurate and misleading facts regarding the CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) which approved the deal.

Shep’s selective timeline

While Smith claimed that the majority of donations to the Clinton Foundation were from Frank Giustra – a mining financier who sold his stake in Uranium One before it was acquired by Russia, and before Clinton was Secretary of State – he fails to mention the history between Giustra and the Clintons.

As Breitbart reports:  “it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra.Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra. Smith never mentions any of this.”

Smith also misled viewers over the fact that while while nine agencies which comprise the CFIUS, the decision to approve the Uranium One deal was ultimately Obama’s. This is incorrect, as any one of the nine agencies involved had the power to veto the deal.

Another key fact omitted by Smith was the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons – including the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank which issued a “buy” rating to Uranium One during the CFIUS review process.

Notably, Bill Clinton was at Vladimir Putin’s HOUSE the same day he gave the speech. Maybe he was checking out Vlad’s Russian tie collection?

Shep’s lies continue

Smith, in his crappy debunking, declared that “no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country.”

FALSE

Reports from both the New York Times and The Hill reveal that yes – uranium left the US on multiple occasions. In fact, the Obama administration approved its export through a Uranium trucking firm based in Canada.

Shep fails to mention the FBI’s involvement

An October 17 article in The Hill reveals that Obama’s FBI, headed by Robert Mueller, discovered that “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow”

No mention by Smith, of course.

The Hill also reported that an FBI mole embedded in the Russian nuclear industry gathered extensive evidence that Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – a scheme of bribes and kickbacks to the company which would ostensibly transport the U.S. uranium sold in the ’20 percent’ deal.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –The Hill

Smith also leaves out a new report that the FBI scrambled to issue records-retention requests to all 9 member agencies of the CFIUS weeks after they cracked into Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.

No mention of the Podesta Group

Shep also fails to mention that the Podesta Group received $180,000 to lobby for Uranium One during the same period that the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions from U1 interests, and after Russia took majority ownership in the “20 percent” deal (source – you have to add up the years).

Moreover, a former executive of the Podesta Group told Fox’s Tucker Carlson that Tony Podesta regularly met with the Clinton Foundation to coordinate the Uranium One deal, and was “basically part of the Clinton Foundation.” Moreover, the former exec claims that John Podesta – Clinton’s Campaign manager and long time DNC operative, recommended  David Adams, Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser at the State Department, giving them a “direct liaison” between the group’s Russian clients and Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Let’s review the timeline:

Between 2008 – 2010, parties involved with Uranium One donated $145 Million to the Clinton Foundation. You can read more about the parties here.

June 2009, Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom (through a subsidiary) takes a 17% stake in Uranium One.

June 2010, Rosatom takes majority (51%) ownership of Uranium One, granting the Kremlin control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium – which Hillary Clinton’s State Department signed off on. The FBI uncovers massive bribery scheme before CFIUS approves deal.

June 29th, 2010, Bill Clinton meets with Vladimir Putin at his home in Russia. Later that day Clinton earns $500,000 for a speech in Moscow to Kremlin-linked investment bank Renaissance Capital, which assigned a “buy” rating to Uranium One stock.

January 2013,  Rosatom State Nuclear Agency acquires the remainder of Uranium one and takes it private.

Watch Shep Smith fumble the ball and cover for Hillary Clinton, horribly

 

Sitting down with Mother Jones, Hillary Clinton called any investigation into the Uranium One deal “an abuse of power” – of course.

  

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

via http://ift.tt/2imNj2k ZeroPointNow

Earlier this morning we noted that the anti-sexual harassment backlash that started with Harvey Weinstein claimed its latest victim when news anchor, former Playboy Playmate and sports broadcaster Leeann Tweeden accused Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Al Franken of “kissing and groping” her without her consent in 2006 (details here:  Former Playboy Model Accuses Senator Al Franken Of “Kissing And Groping” Her Without Consent).

I’ve decided it’s time to tell my story. #MeToohttps://t.co/TqTgfvzkZg

— Leeann Tweeden (@LeeannTweeden) November 16, 2017

Now, in a rather bizarre twist, Senator Franken has released a new statement calling for an ethics investigation of…drum roll please…himself. 

“While I don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.”

 

“I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.”

 

“And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.”

NEW FRANKEN STATEMENT http://pic.twitter.com/c3puSkK9Ts

— Sam Stein (@samstein) November 16, 2017

Of course, asking taxpayers to spend what we’re sure will amount to
thousands of dollars to investigate illegal and disgusting actions
perpetrated by yourself can only make sense to people who spend too much
time in Washington D.C.

With that, here is the full statement from Franken:

[11/16/17]—Today, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) released the following statement:

 

“The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There’s more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it’s the only thing you care to hear, that’s fine—is: I’m sorry.

 

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.

 

“But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.

 

“For instance, that picture. I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse. 1 look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn’t funny. It’s completely inappropriate. It’s obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what’s more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.

 

“Coming from the world of comedy, I’ve told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren’t the point at all. It’s the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to come to terms with that.

 

“While I don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.

 

“I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.

 

“And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.”

via http://ift.tt/2yMZ8Fh Tyler Durden

Following a pep talk by President Donald Trump that went swimmingly according to media accounts, House Republicans are preparing to vote on their version of a tax-reform package that will slash the corporate tax rate, cut taxes for individuals and reduce the number of tax brackets.

House Republican leaders say they have the 217 votes needed to pass the bill – but seeing as the Trump era has seen its fair share of legislative upsets, the vote isn't over until it's over.

Watch live here:

The vote is slated for 1:30 pm ET….

via http://ift.tt/2zIo1pm Tyler Durden

Via The Daily Bell

Why are governments so interested in breaking up monopolies? To protect the biggest monopoly of all, the government.

The American people are skilled mental gymnasts. They can totally agree that monopolies in the private sector are bad. But monopolies on defense, law enforcement, courts, education, roads, and so on are perfectly fine, even necessary!

This comes down to the myth of the process. People have been convinced that since companies are motivated by profit, they are untrustworthy. Governments are allegedly altruistic, working in the best interests of the people. In reality, the people in government take their profits in power.

We pay businesses voluntarily and use their services if we like them. We are taxed whether we like it or not when it comes to government. Yet everyone goes crazy over alleged private monopolies, and doesn’t bat an eye at the worst coercive monopoly of all!

Democracy is the buzzword meant to convince us that governments are not truly monopolies. After all, we get to participate! We choose the leaders, and they represent us.

An opinion piece in the New York Times by Jonathan Taplin is titled, Is It Time to Break Up Google?

He says:

We are going to have to decide fairly soon whether Google, Facebook and Amazon are the kinds of natural monopolies that need to be regulated, or whether we allow the status quo to continue, pretending that unfettered monoliths don’t inflict damage on our privacy and democracy.

He assumes democracy is something worth protecting. At the same time, he ignores the damage that can occur from unfettered monoliths like government. You know, the type of government who has the arbitrary power to break up companies.

“We” are going to decide whether a business should be allowed to exist. Democracy is mob rule, so “we” can simply destroy a business by force. Nevermind that we could actually peacefully stop Google’s monopoly by not using Google!

The fact that this question is being asked seriously proves how much worse government monopolies are than economic monopolies.

Governments have such a vast monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force, that they can openly discuss whether or not they will violently destroy a business. I say violently because ultimately all their power is exercised through actual violence, or the threat of violence.

Just look at how the government used anti-trust laws to break up “monopolies” in the past.

In an attempt to follow antitrust laws, General Electric charged the same prices as its smaller competitors. GE and about 25 other electric companies were taken to court in 1961 for this “conspiracy to set prices.”

The truth was the companies competed for the lowest prices. But the government just couldn’t understand how this would lead to identical prices. It must be a conspiracy, they thought.

Turns out a government agency had legally fixed these prices during WWII. When that government agency was ended after the war these companies continued to engage in the same activity, unsuccessfully.

But regardless of their failure to set and abide by prices within the industry, now it was illegal just to attempt to set prices. Legal when the government did it, illegal when an industry did the same. Businessmen got jail time, and one killed himself on the way to prison.

Ironically, the prices and profits of the companies were lower during the times of “collusion” than during the previous period. This supports the fact that prices were set low by competition, not collusion.

(Some of this information came from Ayn Rand’s collection of articles, Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal.)

This also shows that the electrical industry was not truly a monopoly. Nor is, for example, Amazon.

Amazon and Walmart regularly compete with each other on prices. A few years ago, a $50 video game quickly fell to $13 when the companies went back and forth taking cents off their online price.

The Big Dogs Change

Taplin seems to miss the lesson from the very first sentence of his article.

In just 10 years, the world’s five largest companies by market capitalization have all changed, save for one: Microsoft. Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Citigroup and Shell Oil are out and Apple, Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon and Facebook have taken their place.

So then what’s the big deal? In the marketplace, the top dogs are always changing. They compete with each other. And each one has an interest in taking a bit of the other’s market share. That is the case with Amazon and Walmart.

The truth is, the government wants to bust monopolies in order to protect its own. Google has more influence over what you see than the FCC. Facebook knows more about you than the NSA. Amazon would be delivering goods to your doorstep by drone if the government wasn’t stopping them.

Amazon is also introducing a program that allows deliveries inside the home. They are doing this by providing the equipment to monitor your front door from their headquarters, and unlock it remotely. Sounds creepy for sure. But the real story is what this service could become.

The police only come after a crime is committed, and they are not great at solving it. Imagine if Amazon handled your home’s personal security? They would finally be offering a viable alternative to publicly funded protection. They would be threatening the government’s monopoly by competing.

I can choose not to use Google, Facebook, and Amazon. Each has 88%, 77%, and 74% market shares respectively. Yes, that is a lot, but there are still alternatives. I’m not saying it would be easy or convenient to completely divorce yourself from these companies. But you could do it without landing in a jail cell.

So yes, these companies are gigantic monoliths. You might say they are almost starting to resemble governments. Competitive governments. Governments that have to earn their market share. Governments that have to serve the customer, and entice them to use their services.

They may think they are untouchable by market pressures for now, but just look who was on top of the industry in 2006: not them.

And don’t take this as a wholesale endorsement of these companies business practices. I have criticized Facebook and Zuckerberg plenty in the past. That doesn’t mean the government has the right to break up his company.

Google can be very manipulative, and is joining the fight against “fake news.” This means they will censor whatever they want, including content on Youtube. Their current 88% market share sounds pretty insurmountable. But as soon as their algorithms stop delivering what the consumer wants, someone from the other 12% will step up and fill the void.

The only problem is when these companies collude with the biggest monopoly of all–government–to protect their market share by force.

Then they can use the government’s monopoly on force to bludgeon their competition to death or get special legal advantages.

That is what Peter Thiel is doing by donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to any state Attorney Generals who open anti-trust investigations into Google. This supposed libertarian is using the government as a tool to undermine the market.

And perhaps one reason is Thiel’s own technology company called Palantir. Palantir is named after the crystal ball used by the evil Lord Sauron in Tolkien’s classic Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Through this ball, the evil ruler can see all that goes on in Middle Earth.

It is a fitting name for a company that specializes in big data analysis technology. Even more fitting is that they sell this technology to the U.S. government and law enforcement. It is the ultimate software in spying, conglomerating every piece of data available, analyzing social connections, buying habits, and travel patterns of anyone in the U.S. government’s crosshairs.

It seems Thiel is working on behalf of the biggest monopoly out there in order to destroy through force his data competitors at Google and Facebook.

Who Cares About Democracy?

Taplin thinks Google, Facebook, and Amazon are undermining democracy. Well, democracy sucks. It is mob rule. It is a false choice between the colluding Republicans and Democrats.

It is time to break up the only true monopoly in the United States, the federal government. There are 50 subsidiary states ready to compete with each other for business, rather than being cajoled into servitude by the feds.

via http://ift.tt/2A4e9GK TDB