Category: zerohedge

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

I’m sure all of you are aware of the dramatic power play pulled off over the weekend by China’s Communist Party to eliminate term limits for both the president and vice president.

Prior to the move, Chinese leaders have stuck to two five-year terms since the presidency of Jiang Zemin (1993-2003), but that’s about to change as wannabe emperor Xi Jinping positions himself as indefinite ruler of the increasingly totalitarian superstate.

While the weekend announcement was illuminating enough, I found the panicked reactions by Chinese authorities in the immediate aftermath far more telling. The country’s propagandists took censorship to such an embarrassing level in attempts to portray the decision as widely popular amongst the masses, it merely served to betray that opposite might be true.

China Digital Times compiled a fascinating list of words and terms banned from being posted or searched on Weibo. Here’s just a sample of some I found particularly interesting.

• The Emperor’s Dream (皇帝梦) — The title of a 1947 animated puppet film.

• Disney (迪士尼) — See also “Winnie the Pooh,” below.

• personality cult (个人崇拜) — Read more about the image-crafting campaign that has been steadily cultivated by state media over Xi’s first term.

• Brave New World (美丽新世界) — See also “1984,” below.

• my emperor (吾皇)

• Yuan Shikai (袁世凯) — Influential warlord during the late Qing Dynasty, Yuan became the first formal president of the newly established Republic of China in 1912. In 1915, he briefly re-established China as a Confucian monarchy.

• Hongxian (洪憲) — Reign title of the short-lived, re-established monarchy led by Yuan Shikai, who declared himself the Hongxian Emperor. After much popular disapproval and rebellion, Yuan formally abandoned the empire after 83 days as emperor.

• Animal Farm (动物庄园)

• N — While the letter “N” was temporarily blocked from being posted, as of 14:27 PST on February 26, it was no longer banned. At Language Log, Victor Mair speculates that this term was blocked “probably out of fear on the part of the government that “N” = “n terms in office”, where possibly n > 2.”

• emigrate (移民) — Following the news, Baidu searches for the word reportedly saw a massive spike.

• disagree (不同意)

• Xi Zedong (习泽东)

• incapable ruler (昏君)

• 1984

• Winnie the Pooh (小熊维尼) — Images of Winnie the Pooh have been used to mock Xi Jinpingsince as early as 2013. The animated bear continues to be sensitive in China. Weibo users shared a post from Disney’s official account that showed Pooh hugging a large pot of honey along with the caption “find the thing you love and stick with it.”

• I oppose (我反对)

• long live the emperor (吾皇万岁)

The full list is far more extensive and ridiculous, but the key point is that such a pathetic and panicked response from government censors highlights government insecurity, not strength.

I fully agree with a recent observation made by Charlie Smith, co-founder of GreatFire.org:

Smith said he believed Beijing had underestimated the outrage its decision would cause. “The response from Chinese netizens indicates that Xi may have miscalculated how this would be received by the general public. Hence, he has asked the censors to put in overtime and things like the letter ‘N’ end up as collateral damage.”

The internet response to the Communist Party’s move to abolish term limits was not what leadership expected or desired, which prompted a panicky and desperate attempt to immediately clean up internet discourse.

It’s pretty sad when a government in charge of the lives of over a billion people is terrified of Winnie the Pooh memes.

The huge tell that China was about to take a major totalitarian turn occurred last year with the draconian government response to Bitcoin and crypto currency exchanges generally. The people of China were embracing the technology as much as anyone else and were in a perfect position to be global leaders in this paradigm changing new ecosystem. Xi responded to this by shutting the whole thing down.

Not only did he dash the enthusiasm, drive and talent of some of his country’s smartest technologists and entrepreneurs, but he also made it clear to the world that the Chinese model will continue to be one of command and control, rigid hierarchy and centralization. This is a tragic and historic mistake, and I think the coming brain drain out of China could be massive. This provides an opportunity for more open nations to scoop up some serious talent as they look to leave. As noted previously, Chinese authorities banned the word “emigrate” earlier this week, which should certainly tell you something.

As someone who’s watched his own government turn increasingly opaque, corrupt, authoritarian and unconstitutional, I feel empathy for the tens, if not hundreds of millions, of Chinese horrified that their hopes of a more free society appear dashed for the foreseeable future. Making matters worse, the surveillance state that’s been installed across the country is science fiction level scary.

In case you missed the following video clip of the China’s all-seeing spy camera network, take a watch.

If that’s not wild enough, Chinese police are now starting to become equipped with fascial recognition eyeglasses.

From Verge:

China’s police have a new weapon in their surveillance arsenal: sunglasses with built-in facial recognition. According to reports from local media, the glasses are being tested at train stations in the “emerging megacity” of Zhengzhou, where they’ll be used to scan travelers during the upcoming Lunar New Year migration. This is a period of extremely busy holiday travel, often described as the largest human migration event on Earth, and police say the sunglasses have already been used to capture seven suspects wanted in major cases, as well as 26 individuals traveling under false identities.

The sunglasses are the latest component in China’s burgeoning tech-surveillance state. In recent years, the country has poured resources into various advanced tracking technologies, developing artificial intelligence to identify individuals and digitally tail them around cities. One estimate suggests the country will have more than 600 million CCTV cameras by 2020, with Chinese tech startups outfitting them with advanced features like gait recognition.

Let this be a lesson to U.S. citizens, as well as citizens across the world. Never, ever allow a massive, unaccountable surveillance system to be constructed and implemented in your society for any reason. It will always ultimately be abused by a power hungry despot to seize and then maintain power.

Finally, one major reason I’m so concerned about what’s happening in China is because it adds a huge element of geopolitical risk to the global equation and greatly increases the likelihood of worldwide conflict.

Tomorrow’s piece will focus on this angle.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

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

Earlier this month we reported that amid the brave new world of sexual harassment lawsuits, #MeToo, social justice warriors, consent forms and rage over the “patriarchy,” Formula 1 and its FAI ruling body has decided to ban the use of promotional models, known as “grid girls,” from its events because they don’t “resonate with [the] brand values [of F1] and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms.” 

Now, the allegedly “demeaning” practice of showcasing scantily-clad women at testosterone-filled events, is spilling out out from the race track and hitting your local auto show.

According to Bloomberg, whereas one year ago two blondes in skintight silver mini dresses and stiletto heels would greet onlookers at Ssangyong Motor’s display at the Geneva car show, when the annual event reopens this week, the South Korean manufacturer’s “booth babes” – as they are known in the industry – will be gone, replaced by male and female models dressed in boring sportswear to promote its line up of pick-ups and cars.

Eliminating women as display props isn’t new for some carmakers like French Peugeot maker PSA Group. “Visitors to the Geneva auto show will be welcomed on the PSA booth by male and female hosts whose mission will be to inform them,” spokesman Pierre-Oliver Salmon said in an email with a #nocarbabes hashtag attached.

“PSA Group won’t convey a degrading image of anyone, neither of women or men.”

Ah yes, the prudish French.

To almost everyone else, however, it’s a radical departure.

In bowing to the global #MeToo movement against sexual harassment, the suddenly prudish South Korean car maker is not alone: larger automakers including Toyota and Nissan Motor Co. have also said they will cut back on the coquetry in Geneva, marking a potential sea change for an industry that has long pandered to male customers by using attractive women to sell cars.

“Times have changed,” Sara Jenkins, a Switzerland-based spokeswoman for Nissan which stopped hiring fashion models for shows last year, told Bloomberg. “It makes more sense to use product specialists because we’re selling cars.”

Some carmakers such as Lexus, fearing a backlash, said it’s dropping models altogether at the Swiss event, while Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV is said to have canceled contracts with several female models over concern about being criticized on #MeToo. The maker of the Maserati, Jeep and Alfa Romeos will instead feature men as well as women in less flesh-exposing garb than in previous years.

This is in sharp contrast with 2017, when Alfa Romeo’s display had women in little black dresses hovering around its Stelvio crossover.

Nearby, a brunette with a beehive hairdo and a bottom-grazing sixties-style dress kicked up her red heels next to a Fiat 500. At Lexus, a woman in an off-the-shoulder burgundy gown was stationed beside one of its sedans.

In other words, video lsuch as this one, will never be made again.

Why this dramatic change in what been decades of conventional auto show marketing strategy?

According to Bloomberg, the transformation by the biggest players shows the ripple effect the #MeToo movement is having on industries far from its Hollywood roots.

The growing backlash has also prompted several European sports events to ditch hostesses working on the sidelines of male-dominated competitions.

Indeed, as we reported previously, Formula One said it was dropping the hiring of “grid girls,” branding the women in skimpy clothes at odds with modern society.

In the auto industry, the changing customer base is also feeding the trend. The number of women owning cars in the U.K. jumped 66% in the decade through 2016, official figures show, almost triple the rise in for men. In Germany, Europe’s biggest car market, women buy about a third of all new vehicles and in France 37 percent.

Meanwhile, the blowback against yet another formerly male-dominated industry means dramatic changes are afoot.

Lamborghini, the sports car brand owned by Volkswagen AG, said it quit draping women around its Huracans about two years ago and is busy training male and female hosts to explain the vehicle’s features at this year’s Geneva event

Even Pirelli & C. Spa, the Italian tire-maker famed for its sexy calendars, has modified its approach. Its 2018 stand will have models in black pant suits during press days, rather than the skimpy dresses of 2016, a spokeswoman said.

So, for the memories, a catalog of the 80 sexiest Pirelli calendar girls can be found after clicking on the image below.

 

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

Authored by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist blog,

First of all, sorry for the lack of posts lately. Long story, but rest assured, I am back on track and the old ‘tourist regular postings have resumed.

Next up, today I will write about Canadian real estate.

I know, many of you find that about as exciting as watching Winter Olympic curling, but give me a chance – after all, we Canadians have a way to make even curling entertaining.

The Canadian real estate bubble

As most everyone knows, over the past decade, Canada has experienced a massive real estate boom.

And for the past half dozen years, we have had to endure all the proclamations from hedge fund managers about the coming great Canadian housing market crash. Although there has also been some Canadian skeptics, the majority of these doomsdayers have been American managers who, after experiencing their own real estate crisis, can only imagine the next “big short” occurring in Canada.

These managers often simply took the US playbook and applied it to Canada, never considering that the US situation might be different. Nor did they factor in the possibility that Central Bank reaction functions might have changed since the Great Financial Crisis.

Don’t mistake me for some sort of unapologetic delusional Canadian housing bull. I think prices are nuts. But what I think is even more insane is the amount of balance sheet expansion from global Central Banks. We must always remember – the Canadian real estate bears are fighting against the authority that has the power to dictate the quantity of the asset in which we price all these other assets in.

Whether it be US or Canadian dollars, or Euros, or Yuan, do you really believe the supply of money will be suddenly throttled back? Or is it more likely that, given that 2008 is still relatively fresh in their minds, Central Banks will err on providing too much liquidity in the coming years? So yeah, maybe Canadian housing is stupidly overpriced, but so is almost every asset under the sun. Whether it is US equities, European bonds or crypto currencies, these are merely reflections of the absurd monetary policies that envelope the global financial system.

Finally the Canadian bears’ day in the sun?

Yet that doesn’t mean there aren’t assets that are relatively more expensive, and maybe after years of crying wolf, the Canadian real estate bears will one day prove correct. And maybe that day is today.

For the first time, I am legitimately scared for certain parts of the Canadian real estate market. Last week, the west coast provincial British Columbia government passed a series of new regulations that boggles the mind. You see, during this last cycle, B.C. has “suffered” with the hottest segment of the Canadian real estate market. Unfortunately, Vancouver’s popularity amongst Chinese investors and immigrants has mistakenly created a situation where many frustrated younger Canadians, who are getting priced out of the real estate market, are blaming foreign investment for the astronomical price increases. Last year, the B.C. government introduced a 15% foreign buyer tax, but when that didn’t slow down the rise enough, this budget, not only did they raise the 15% foreign buyers tax to 20%, they took other draconian measures.

From the Globe and Mail:

On Tuesday, one of the primary measures in the B.C. budget was the introduction of what the government is calling a speculation tax. It is aimed at foreign and domestic property owners who are parking capital in real estate and driving up prices in the province. It would apply to owners who do not pay income tax in British Columbia. Principal residences are exempt, as are properties with long-term renters.

The tax in 2018 will be 0.5 per cent of a property’s assessed value, a rate that rises to 2 per cent for 2019 and thereafter. It will be charged annually, separate from regular property taxes. B.C. predicts it will generate $200-million in revenue a year.

Here is my prediction. It won’t generate anywhere near $200 million a year in revenue because foreigners are going to dump their real estate faster than Lindsay Lohan downs pomegranate vodka martinis at the Oscars pre-party.

This has to be one of the stupidest decisions I have ever seen a government make (and that’s saying a lot). Think about it. It would be like Colorado imposing a 2% tax on NYC residents who own Aspen chalets. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s 2% each and every year that is only paid by non-residents. It’s not a 2% transfer fee, it’s an extra yearly 2% shake-down (on top of all the regular taxes that the homeowner pays).

I don’t own any B.C. real estate, so this isn’t a case of sour grapes, but I can tell you one thing for sure – if I did, I would be hitting the bid. Capital goes where it is treated best, and it is obvious the B.C. government is not interested in treating investors with any sort of respect. About the only positive thing about this development is that at least they treated Torontonians with the same sort of contempt as the other foreigners so no one can describe the B.C. government as discriminatory.

Be careful what you ask for

The Canadian economy has become increasingly dependent on real estate. That’s what happens when you go through a decade long bull market- resources are diverted to where demand is greatest.

So this next graph from Canadian housing expert Ben Rabidoux should be of no surprise.

The Canadian economy, and B.C. especially, is dangerously balanced with an over reliance on housing. The B.C. government should be very concerned about the possibility of a hard landing as they try to stick handle a price dampening.

This isn’t just a slight turning of the screws on housing credit, but more of an attack on real estate. Have a look at this slide of the B.C. government’s policy changes (again from Ben):

I doubt that the market’s reaction to these policies will be to simply yawn. No, I suspect this policy will be successful at cooling house prices – too successful.

Now, I am not sure if it will spread to the rest of Canada, but I am certainly a bear on British Columbia economic prospects. Although some of these measures are probably too long in coming, dumping all of these at once will not prove wise.

The risks of the Canadian housing bears finally being correct has risen immensely. Maybe after six years of leaning on the sell button, they will finally be given a chance to write a blue ticket in the coming quarters.

What this means for the global economy

I understand that many readers are probably uninterested in the intricacies of the Canadian real estate market. Who cares if Canadian real estate finally collapses? It’s not going to affect anyone but Canadians.

Yes, that’s correct, but the way the Canadian government has gone about dealing with this problem gives important clues about how financial asset bubbles will be dealt with in the future throughout the globe.

Before 2008, what would have been the most likely response to the runaway Canadian housing prices? The Bank of Canada would have previously raised rates more aggressively. But in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, Central Banks are loath to tighten monetary policy. Too many still have the taste of the last tightening cycle debacle in their mouth. So instead of getting out ahead of asset bubbles, Central Banks are more worried about the repercussions of pricking one.

This means that financial bubbles will not be burst by Central Banks. Let me repeat that again. Central Banks will not be bold enough to get out ahead of financial bubbles. Canada is a perfect example. Instead of putting interest rates to levels that would cool the overheating housing market, governments are forced to address the bubbles at a micro-level. As these financial bubbles morph into real problems, governments will try desperate solutions like the B.C. government’s aggressive program.

Whereas in the past the heavy lifting in stopping bubbles was born by the Central Banks, in the future they will not only shun that responsibility, but will increasingly be the source of keeping the bubbles going even as governments deal with the negative effects.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2HSFv3y Tyler Durden

Just hours after Dick’s announced it would end sales of all assault rifles and no longer sell any guns to people under 21, moments ago Walmart – or Warmart, as Bloomberg briefly dubbed it in a rather amusing Freudian slip moments ago…

… joined the bandwagon announcing late on Wednesday that “in light of recent events” America’s largest retailer is “raising the age restriction for purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21 years of age.”

Of course, Walmart could not fully replicate Dick’s “taking a stand”, because it had already stopped selling assault-style rifles back in 2015 due to sluggish demand for guns rather than politics according to the company.

“It was done purely based on customer demand,” Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, told The New York Times in August 2015. The rifles, he said, were not “something customers were looking for and buying when they came into our stores.”

That however did not stop the angry public to demand that Walmart, which remains the country’s largest gun seller, to follow suit.

“Walmart — PLEASE match the pledge made by Dick’s Sporting goods for the sake of our children,” a Facebook user wrote on Wednesday.

But just to appease the public in a clear attempt at PR crisis management, Walmart said that it was also “removing items from our website resembling assault-style rifles, including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys.”

Nonetheless, Walmart still sells rifles and hand guns: “Our heritage as a company has always been in serving sportsmen and hunters, and we will continue to do so in a responsible way.”

Full statement below:

In light of recent events, we’ve taken an opportunity to review our policy on firearm sales. Going forward, we are raising the age restriction for purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21 years of age. We will update our processes as quickly as possible to implement this change.

In 2015, Walmart ended sales of modern sporting rifles, including the AR-15. We also do not sell handguns, except in Alaska where we feel we should continue to offer them to our customers. Additionally, we do not sell bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories. We have a process to monitor our eCommerce marketplace and ensure our policies are applied.

We take seriously our obligation to be a responsible seller of firearms and go beyond Federal law by requiring customers to pass a background check before purchasing any firearm. The law would allow the sale of a firearm if no response to a background check request has been received within three business days, but our policy prohibits the sale until an approval is given.

We are also removing items from our website resembling assault-style rifles, including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys. Our heritage as a company has always been in serving sportsmen and hunters, and we will continue to do so in a responsible way.

 

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2HVX1nC Tyler Durden

For a long time, Martin Shkreli approached reality the way a drunk alcoholic approaches, well, reality: his arrest, his court appearances, his house detention, to him it all seemed like a surreal, vast, elaborate joke. However, as time went by, as the judge found Shkreli personally responsible for $10.4 million in losses, and the prospect of spending years in a higher-security prison, it finally dawned on the scrawny 34-year-old that his near-to-mid term future is suddenly disastrously bleak.

As a result, the remorseful former hedge fund manager and pharmacist wrote a letter to the judge who will sentence him next Friday, begging for forgiveness and promising that he’ll be “more careful, open and honest” if she doesn’t impose a long prison term, admitting the he “was a fool” and “should have known better.”

“I assure you that any mercy shown at sentencing will be met with a strict adherence to this oath and I hope to make your honor proud of me in the years ahead,” Shkreli said in a letter he wrote on Feb. 26 from the Brooklyn detention center where he’s been holed up since September.

It wasn’t always like that: Shkreli, who in the summer of 2015 was dubbed “the most-hated-man in America” after raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000%, mocked and blasted members of a congressional panel who had quizzed him about the price hike, calling them “imbeciles” on Twitter.

Things got weirder last September when Shkreli issued a bounty for a sample of Hillary Clinton’s hair, an act which prompted Judge Kiyo Matsumoto to revoke his house arrest and send him to prison.

And now, with Shkreli’s sentencing just days away on March 9, the infamous hedge funder and former biopharma exec is suddenly begging if not for forgiveness then understanding. The reason? As we reported two days ago, Judge Matsumoto found that Shkreli caused investors to lose more than $10.4 million, rejecting his claim he made them money. 

Shkreli’s blockbuster legal team led by Ben Brafman, said that decision means Shkreli could face a sentence of more than 30 years in prison, arguing it’s a term he doesn’t deserve. “He is a caring intellectual” who’s helped find cures for diseases that afflict kids, Brafman said of Shkreli. But he’s is plagued by “personal demons hell bent on self-destruction,” the lawyer added according to Bloomberg.

It gets worse: according to prison consultant Joel Sickler while Shkreli would ordinarily be eligible to serve his time in a minimum-security federal camp that resembles “an austere college campus,” officials will instead place him in a higher-security facility because of his threat against Clinton.

That will mean Shkreli will be housed in a crowded prison filled with felons who’ve been convicted of violent crimes ranging from racketeers, drug cartel leaders and sex offenders, all posing a threat to what Sickler called Shkreli’s “fragile mental state.”

Which again brings us to the letter, where in Shkreli’s first direct communication with the judge, he called his five-week trial a “frightening wake-up call” and blamed his actions on insecurity, saying, “I wanted to be more than I was. I exaggerated.”

He admitted that he’d “dodged” questions posed by his investors or gave answers “that were only correct if put in a certain assumed context.” He described himself as a “irreverent and free-wheeling individual” whose comments and actions didn’t reflect his true nature.

“I regret where my temper can take me when I get angry or feel betrayed,” he pleaded.

His verbal contrition may not be enough.

Prosecutors are scheduled to make their sentencing recommendation on March 5.

Shkreli’s full letter is below:

* * *

Your Honor,

I hope my trial gave the Court sufficient insight into the case, and also to me as a person. I hope Your Honor will treat me as an individual. I acknowledge and respect the Jury’s verdict, but the verdict is not who I am.

Despite the Jury’s verdict, I maintain that I never intended to actually harm anyone. I am not trying to be defiant or obstinate. I accept the fact that I made serious mistakes, but I still believe that I am a good person with much potential.

I have watched this process unfold, from indictment to verdict and although Mr. Brafman and his colleagues are peerless defenders, they cannot fully reproduce my own perspective, only I can try. I understand it, I am very far from blameless. I caused this entire mess to happen. I lost the trust of my investors who now have questioned my motives and integrity. This is a painful realization that I will never forget. I had pride in the final results of MSMB, but after hearing the investor testimony, the concept of “all’s well that ends well” is clearly a poor attempt to excuse my many preventable mistakes.

Investors deserve truth. Investors deserve transparency. Any loss of trust in the sacred relationship between investor and manager is the manager’s fault and could have been avoided. At times, I dodged answering questions at other times I provided answers that were only correct if put in a certain assumed context. These choices are now seen as attempts by me to deceive and manipulate, and it is my fault.

The truth is somewhere in between. I wanted to be more than I was. I exaggerated if I felt I had any basis to make the claim. I am now, however, a more self confident and secure person. The demons that haunted me — the root cause of my insecurity in my life — no longer all exist. I have learned a very painful lesson. Never again will I prevaricate or omit or mislead-intentionally or not. There are ways to communicate which eliminate the possibility of doubt and alternative interpretations of fact. I take responsibility for the fact that I used to behave and communicate in this way. It was wrong. I was a fool. I should have known better. Watching my trial was a very scary experience. For the first time in my fife I saw me from other people’s perspective and realized that most people don’t share my perspective.

It breaks my heart that good and honest people were dragged into this mess because of me. Some of my investors who took a chance on me; my colleagues, many of whom now regret having partnered with me; my family and friends, whose worry is more painful to me than anything else; patients and charitable organizations, whose fives and activities have been upended in some cases; and the huge loss of economic resources and productivity that this case represents. It wouldn’t have happened if I was more careful, more honest, more reasonable and far wiser.

Today I am the majority owner of businesses worth many millions of dollars, but more importantly, I employ over a hundred people globally, in high-paying jobs who have critical roles and responsibilities. They are counting on me, and I let them down. I have learned a harsh lesson. The trial and six months in a maximum security prison has been a frightening wake-up call. I now understand how I need to change.

I feel I should try to explain my personality. I am an irreverent and free-wheeling individual, who has never been shy about speaking my mind. I am an individual who prizes equal rights, scholastic achievement and individuality. Please understand that when I get into a public war of words with someone, my comments do not always reflect my true nature. Sadly, when I get dragged into mud fight, I often dive in, head first. I pray Your Honor doesn’t hold this behavior against me or mistake it for my regular approach to life. At times, I have been characterized totally incorrectly at trial by some who are biased, as litigation opponents for example do not make fair critics. I regret where my temper can take me when I get angry or feel betrayed. I have worked on this bad habit for some months now and will try to find equanimity in the future.

Prison has been both the most frightening experience in my life but also an opportunity for me to see a side of the world seldom seen or discussed. I have tried my best to make a positive impact on many of the people I encounter here. If I have something to teach my fellow inmates, I implored them to listen and learn. I have comforted the forlorn and forgotten men facing long sentences, many are severely depressed, and sadly, suicidal. I try my best to set a good example for these individuals too, knowing my fame and achievements were something they might know of, and I try my best to explain that in order to have a chance to succeed, they had to make a serious commitment to lifelong education and move far away from poisonous surroundings and attitudes that lead to a temptation to cut corners and commit crimes.

My own advice has not gone unheeded by me. I have also been lucky in my life to be surrounded by some wonderful people who have been better to me than I deserve. I owe them a life built on honesty, integrity and achievement that advances humanity. I assure you that any mercy shown at sentencing will be met with a strict adherence to this oath and I hope to make Your Honor proud of me in the years ahead. I promise to be more careful, open and honest in my business dealings so that I never again have to hear people who once had faith in me and trusted me testify or complain that I misled them or let them down terribly. Just as important, however, is my pledge to Your Honor that if you find it appropriate to impose a sentence that does not include an extended period of incarceration, I will do my absolute best to use my skills and whatever talents I have been blessed with for the betterment of humanity. I honestly believe that I can contribute and really make a difference if Your Honor gives me a chance.

 

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

Authored by Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,

” … it is wise to be skeptical about Israeli claims regarding Iranian intentions to build bases and construct missiles in Syria.

Those claims made by Israel’s Mossad have not been confirmed by any western intelligence service, not even by America’s totally corrupted and subservient CIA.“

The original title of this article is “Blundering Into Iran”

The deluge of recent reporting regarding possible conflict with nuclear armed North Korea has somewhat obscured consideration of the much higher probability that Israel or even Saudi Arabia will take steps that will lead to a war with Iran that will inevitably draw the United States in.

This has gone way too far

Israel is particularly inclined to move aggressively, with potentially serious consequences for the U.S., in the wake of the recent incident involving an alleged Iranian drone and the shooting down of an Israeli aircraft. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been repeatedly warning about the alleged threat along his northern border and has pledged that Israel will not be in any way restrained if there are any hostile moves directed against it. The Israeli Transportation Minister Ysrael Katz has warned that Lebanon will be blasted back into the “stone age.”

There is also considerable anti-Iran rhetoric currently coming from sources in the United States, which might well be designed to prepare the American people for a transition from a cold war type situation to a new hot war involving U.S. forces. The growing hostility towards Iran is coming out of both the Donald Trump Administration and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster is warning that the “time to act is now” to thwart Iran’s allegedly aggressive regional ambitions while U.S. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley sees a “wake-up” call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel. The hostility emanating from Washington is increasing in spite of the fact that the developments in the region have little or no impact on vital U.S. national interests, nor is Iran anything like an existential threat to the United States that would mandate sustained military action.

Houston, we have a problem

Iran’s alleged desire to stitch together a sphere of influence consisting of an arc of allied nations and proxy forces running from its western borders to the Mediterranean Sea has been frequently cited as justification for a more assertive policy against Tehran, but that concern is certainly greatly exaggerated. Iran, with a population of more than 80 million, is, to be sure, a major regional power but militarily, economically and politically it is highly vulnerable. Its economy is struggling and there is a small but growing protest movement regarding the choices being made for government spending.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is well armed and trained, but much of its “boots on the ground” force consists of militiamen of variable quality. Its Air Force is a “shadow”of what existed under the Shah and is significantly outgunned by its rivals in the Persian Gulf, not to mention Israel. Its navy is only “green water” capable in that it consists largely of smaller vessels responsible for coastal defense supplemented by swarms of Revolutionary Guard speedboats.

When Napoleon had conquered much of continental Europe and was contemplating invading Britain in 1804 it was widely believed that England was helpless before him. But Admiral Earl St Vincent was nonplussed. He said at the time: “I do not say the French can’t come, I only say they can’t come by sea.” In a similar fashion, Iran’s apparent threat to its neighbors is in reality decisively limited by its inability to project power across the water or through the air against other states in the region that have marked superiority in both respects.

And the concern over a possibly developing “Shi’ite land bridge,” also referred to as an “arc” or “crescent,” is likewise overstated for political reasons to make the threat more credible. It ignores the reality that Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all have strong national identities and religiously mixed populations. They are influenced and sometimes more than that by Iran, but they are not puppet states and never will be. Even Lebanon’s Hezbollah, often cited as Iran’s fifth column in that country, is not considered a reliable proxy.

Majority Shi’a Iraq, for example, is generally considered to be very friendly to Iran but it has to deal with considerable Kurdish and Sunni minorities in its governance and in the direction of its foreign policy. It will not do Iran’s bidding on a number of key issues, including its relationship with Washington, and would be unwilling to become a proxy in Tehran’s conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia as such a move would be extremely unpopular. Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi, the highest-ranking Sunni in the Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi government, has, for example, recently called for the demobilization of the Shi’ite Popular Mobilization Forces or militias that have been fighting ISIS because they “have their own political aspirations, their own [political] agendas. … They are very dangerous to the future of Iraq.”

A seemingly legitimate major concern driving much of the perception of an Iranian threat is the possibility that Tehran will develop a nuclear weapon somewhere down the road. Such a development is quite plausible if only from a defensive point of view as Iran has been repeatedly threatened by nuclear armed Israel and the United States, but the current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action provides the best response to the possible proliferation problem. The U.N. inspections regime is rigorous and Iran is reported to be in compliance with the agreement. If the plan survives the attacks by the White House, there is every reason to believe that Iran will be unable to take the necessary precursor steps leading to a nuclear weapons program while the inspections continue. And it will be further limited in its options after the agreement expires in nine years because it will not be able to accumulate the necessary highly enriched uranium stocks to proceed if it should ever make the political and economic decisions to go ahead with such a program.

The recent incident involving the shoot-down of a drone alleged to be of Iranian provenance followed by the downing of an Israeli fighter by a Syrian air defense missile resulted in a sharp response from Tel Aviv, though reportedly mitigated by a warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin that anything more provocative might inadvertently involve Russia in the conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accordingly moderated his response but his government is clearly contemplating a more robust intervention to counter what he calls a developing Iranian presence in Syria. It is important to recall that Netanyahu’s prime objective in Syria and Lebanon is to have both nations in turmoil so they cannot threaten Israel. With that in mind, it is wise to be skeptical about Israeli claims regarding Iranian intentions to build bases and construct missiles in Syria. Those claims made by Israel’s Mossad have not been confirmed by any western intelligence service, not even by America’s totally corrupted and subservient CIA.

Netanyahu is also facing a trial on corruption charges and it would not be wildly off target to suggest that he might welcome a small war to change the narrative, just as Bill Clinton did when he launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan and Sudan to deflect congressional and media criticism of his involvement with Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, if Netanyahu does wind up being charged and going to prison his successor will likely be even more hardline.

It must be understood that the mounting Iran hysteria evident in the U.S. media and as reflected in Beltway groupthink has largely been generated by allies in the region, most notably Saudi Arabia and Israel, who nurture their own aspirations for regional political and military supremacy. There are no actual American vital interests at stake and it is past time to pause and take a step backwards to consider what those interests actually are in a region that has seen nothing but U.S. missteps since 2003.

Countering an assumed Iranian threat that is no threat at all and triggering a catastrophic war would be a major mistake that would lead to a breakdown in the current political alignment of the entire Middle East. And it would be costly for the United States. Iran is not militarily formidable, but its ability to fight on the defensive against U.S. Naval and air forces is likely to be considerable, producing high casualty levels on both sides. How would the U.S. public respond if an aircraft carrier were to be sunk by a barrage of Iranian shore-to-ship missiles? And Tehran would also be able to unleash terrorist resources throughout the region, particularly endangering U.S. military and diplomats based there as well as American travelers and businesses. The terror threat might easily extend beyond the Middle East, into Europe and also within the United States while the dollar costs of a major new conflict and its aftermath could also break the bank, literally.

Promoting a robust U.S. role in “regime change” for Iran as a viable military option to support objectives largely fabricated by allies would be a phony war fought for bad reasons. It is not commensurate with the threat that the Mullahs actually pose, which is minimal, and is just not worth the price either in dollars or lives.

*  *  *

[This article is an edited and expanded version of a memorandum that I prepared for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity which has been released separately on Consortium News].

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2FFWuW5 Tyler Durden

Media companies have been waiting for the other shoe to drop since Facebook announced changes to its all-important newsfeed algorithm that (at least on paper) were designed to stop posts from businesses, brands and media from “crowding out” personalized content.

Now, barely six weeks after the changes were first announced, Facebook’s decision to deprive publishers from a crucial stream of user traffic has claimed its first casualty: A four-year-old publisher called LittleThings.

The change, according to LittleThings’ COO Gretchen Tibbits, had a “material” impact on the site’s traffic, killing 75% of its organic reach, according to DigiDay. 

LittleThings’ comScore traffic declined to 40 million this month from 58 million last May. The closure will leave the company’s 100 employees without jobs.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg unveiled the changes in a blog post published early last month, claiming that Facebook’s internal research had determined that its users are happier when their feeds are filled with personalized content – like photos from their neice’s graduation – while news and paid advertising typically lead to feelings of malaise.

Of course, anybody who’s been following the monthslong battle between Facebook and Democratic lawmakers over its “failure” to stop a Russian troll farm that has since been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller from distributing $100,000 worth of paid political content on Facebook’s platform.

Unfortunately for the media industry, the fallout from this decision has only just begun to be felt.

Facebook’s algorithm change will probably do lasting harm to dozens – if not hundreds – of publishers who depend on the company’s algorithm to drive traffic to their content. But LittleThings’ aversion to taking outside money (the site was self-funded) meant there was little in the bank to tide the company over during a downturn. The site was in the middle of a pivot away from programmatic advertising toward more lucrative direct sales, as giant American consumer brands felt LittleThings’ inspirational content would be an important counterpoint to the often dreary news cycle.

Because it will also de-prioritize paid ads, the decision is expected to harm the company’s bottom line. Unsurprisingly, its shares tanked after Zuckerberg announced the changes.

LittleThings had other factors working against it. Unlike a lot of distributed media upstarts that chased audiences on platforms using VC money, LittleThings was self-funded, which meant there wasn’t a big cushion when things went south. It largely built its business on programmatic advertising, but then pivoted to more lucrative direct sales.

LittleThings’ inspirational stories were a safe haven for advertisers that were increasingly getting spooked by the contentious news climate, but there was a downside there, too. “The brand safety was a huge selling point for us, but the flip is, our audience is women over 30 in middle America, and they’re not sexy,” Tibbits said. The company made some inroads, getting buys from blue-chip advertisers including Procter & Gamble and eBay, but it wasn’t enough, and the first quarter of the year is typically slow for advertising.

Other publishers are looking to Google and Twitter to make up for what they’re losing from Facebook, but for LittleThings, there was nowhere else to go. LittleThings’ comScore traffic had declined to 40 million from 58 million last May, according to Tibbits.

“For our audience, there’s not another platform right now,” she said. “There are 100 great, talented people who were here and doing content that resonated with an audience that’s just harder to find right now.”

As LittleThings crumbles, other publishers are hoping Google and Twitter will help them compensate for Facebook’s retrenchment.

But whether these strategies will ultimately pan out remains to be seen.

Though perhaps an even more important question would be: Is this also Putin’s fault?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2CQ84L6 Tyler Durden

Authored by Nikita Vladimirov via Campus Reform,

Arizona colleges and universities are implementing new academic programs designed to broaden intellectual diversity by examining the importance of Western culture and America’s founding.

According to The New York Times, the new initiatives, referred to by some as “freedom schools,” are backed by Arizona’s GOP lawmakers and funded by the state.

Arizona State University describes its School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership as a “new kind of program” that “looks beyond time and borders to explore the fundamental questions of life, freedom, and governance.”

The school explains that the new initiative “looks inward to the guiding principles of America’s founders and the leaders who have inspired us,” while also seeking to combine “classic works and altruistic statesmanship to develop a new kind of leader: trained in critical thought, humble about human imperfection, and ready for anything.”

Last weekend, ASU’s newly-funded school hosted a conference that welcomed students and faculty to discuss “the meaning of the First Amendment on college campuses and free inquiry and intellectual diversity in higher education.”

The conference included lectures by various experts from across the country and panels on free expression, diversity, and challenges in higher education. Other events addressed topics on “Negotiating Controversial Speakers on Campus,” “Freedom of Speech and Thought on Campus: What Role for the First Amendment?” and “State Legislative Remedies to Free Speech Challenges on Campus: Are They Consistent with Academic Freedom?”

Alongside ASU’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, The University of Arizona has also launched a new academic project called the “Department of Political Economy and Moral Science.” 

According to the school’s website, the new department was approved last October and will teach a variety of courses relating to Political Science, Philosophy, Economics, and Law.

“We also are part of the team of scholars at Arizona that for the past six years has been peer-ranked as the world’s #1 graduate program in political philosophy,” the department boasts. “That astounding ranking seems to be based largely on our distinctively empirical approach to theorizing about principles of morality and justice, and about how people have to live in order to make sure that their world is better off with them than without them.”

Republican State Representative Jay Lawrence, one of the lawmakers who backed the initiatives, told the Times that there is “too much revisionism being taught in universities today,” adding that “it’s a big deal to those of us who feel very strongly about a more conservative education.”

According to the newspaper, Arizona State University President Michael Crow has also welcomed the new program, but admitted that he would have liked to see the legislature also pay for other programs.

“They were interested in having a broader set of curricular offerings than the one we presently have, particularly as it related to economic thought or political theory, philosophy,” he explained.

“The fact that someone from the state came along and gave us money for it, O.K., good. The fact that they weren’t giving us money for other things, bad.”

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2oy7Kwp Tyler Durden

The knives are out for Jared Kushner.

After losing his top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller’s probe, the New York Department of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner companies and his family, according to Bloomberg. 

Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week, said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo.

The requested information is broad, and include the banks’ processes for approving loans.

Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.

The most detailed information about the Kushners’ finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to a late December filing. 

Deutsche Bank’s line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to the disclosure. –Bloomberg

A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said “We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services,” adding “Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons.”

Kushner’s family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, “the most expensive building ever purchased”, in New York City.

After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion – with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado. 

The Kushner companies are also reportedly negotiating with Vornado to buy their stake back. 

While Jared has separated himself from his family’s business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China’s insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang’s chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times. 

Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner’s dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere, similar to the Anbang deal.

Kushner in the crosshairs

Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner’s meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries – China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his “complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience.” The story cited current and former US intelligence officials – and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. 

Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law’s security clearance was downgraded from “Top Secret/SCI-level” to “secret” this week, walling him off from the most sensitive information. 

Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let Chief of Staff John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner’s security clearance wouldn’t impact his ability to do his job:

“As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico,” Kelly said in the statement.

At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass the president’s son-in-law over his troubled 666 property. 

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

We’ve all seen the headlines: the cost of university education in the United States has become completely debilitating. And student debt keeps rising to record high levels.

It’s almost commonplace now for a 22-year old to graduate from university with $50,000+ in student debt.

According to data from the Federal Reserve, the total amount of student debt in the United States is now $1.5 trillion.

As SovereignMan.com’s Simon Black notes, that’s more than the estimated $1.3 trillion in direct costs that the government spent fighting the War in Iraq.

What’s probably even more bizarre is that the US government actually owns about 70% of those student loans– a total of $1.06 trillion.

I discovered this over the weekend when I was reviewing the federal government’s recently published financial statements for fiscal year 2017.

Student loans actually constitute the #1 asset of the US federal government, comprising about 30% of its balance sheet.

In other words, young people of America owe more money to the federal government than the value of every tank, every bullet, every aircraft carrier, every acre of land in the national parks.

That’s a pretty sad statement to make.

And remember that student debt in America is a very special kind of debt: it chases you around forever.

Thanks to a piece of legislation signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1998, student debt is almost impossible to ‘discharge’.

So unlike just about every other type of debt like a home mortgage or medical debt, student debt is extremely difficult to wipe away through bankruptcy procedures.

It’s more a form of indentured servitude than it is debt. There’s no escape.

To me, this really calls into question the long-term value of a university education.

Now, there’s a lot of data on this topic, and it’s all over the board.

A 2016 study in the United Kingdom by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, for example, showed that median salaries for graduates at several dozen universities were lower than non-university graduates.

On the other hand, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have argued that university graduates will earn, on average, $1 million more over their lifetimes than people who do not graduate from university.

This is what they call the ‘wage premium’ of a university degree.

But even their own data shows that this wage premium is falling.

Another study from the UK’s Warwick University in 2012 calculated that a university graduate’s wage premium had fallen 22% in a decade.

Factoring in the steep cost (and stress) of student loans, university is not an obvious choice anymore.

More importantly, student debt can really limit a young person’s options.

When you’re staring down the barrel of $50,000 owed to the federal government, you don’t have the luxury to take a year off, travel the world, and learn a foreign language.

Or to NOT take a job and start a business.

Or to take a lower paying job where you’ll learn more.

You’re relegated to the first available option that pays down the most debt.

And that certainly has a long-term impact.

And as Mauldin Economics’ Patrick Watson notes, this might be okay if the debt enhanced the student’s financial security, but for millions of Americans, that’s not what has happened.

Borrowers don’t achieve the desired results but remain stuck with the debt anyway.

An Explosion of Delinquent Student Loans

While delinquency rates for other forms of debt fell after the recession, student loans didn’t. As of year-end 2017, about 11% of nearly $1.4 trillion in student debt was at least 90 days delinquent.

It’s actually worse than that.

Roughly half of student debt is held by borrowers who aren’t required to make payments yet. That’s because they are still in school, unemployed, or otherwise excused. Much of that debt would likely be delinquent too.

Also important: The delinquent loans tend to be small (less than $10,000) and held by borrowers who never earned degrees.

These borrowers probably thought they were doing the right thing. They wanted decent jobs and saw that having a college degree was necessary to get one.

So why is college the key to gainful employment? It hasn’t always been so.

It’s because employers require a degree as a job qualification… and that’s partly the fault of IQ tests.

As SovereignMan’s Simon Back concludes, it’s not to say that a university education is a waste of time and money (though an electrical engineering degree is probably a better investment than majoring in ‘18th century lesbian studies’).

The point is that going to university and racking up $50,000 in debt solely for the sake of obtaining a piece of paper is bad idea.

Any investment– especially the one you make in yourself and your education– requires careful thought and planning, you can learn more at www.sovereignacademy.org.

So how did we get here? Patrick Watson explains it all began with so-called ‘unreasonable tests’…

In 1971, the US Supreme Court decided a case called Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. The subject was employment requirements.

Duke’s practice – and many other companies at the time – was to give job applicants an IQ test. Supposedly, this let them hire qualified people, but some companies also used tests to discriminate by race. The 1964 Civil Rights Act banned pre-employment tests that were not “a reasonable measure of job performance.”

The court ruled that Duke’s tests were too broad and not directly related to the jobs performed, which made them illegal.

That left a problem, though. How were employers supposed to evaluate job applicants without illegally discriminating?

Soft Skills

Employers really want to know two different things about prospective workers:

• First, can this person perform the specific tasks that go with this job? That means operating a machine correctly, carrying boxes of a certain size and weight, writing computer code, etc. You might call these the “hard skills.”

• Second, there are soft skills. Is this person willing to stick with unpleasant assignments to the end? Will he show up on time? Can she work with others?

Those soft skills are harder to judge but critically important. They’re also what the Supreme Court made hard to test.

College sort of requires those same soft skills. A degree may not give you much useful knowledge, but it shows you have some basic intelligence and literacy. It also shows you will jump through hoops if your organization tells you to. Employers value those qualities.

The Griggs case said nothing about educational requirements. Employers remained free to require high school diplomas or college degrees… and the ruling gave them a big incentive to.

College degrees are convenient, legal substitutes for the kind of testing employers haven’t been able to use since the 1970s. So apart from whatever you learn in college, merely having the credential became necessary to career success.

As a result, everyone in the equation made certain choices.

• Employers: demand a college degree even for jobs that don’t require college-level skills.

• Workers: get a college degree even if you must take on debt.

• Colleges: Raise prices since so many students are begging for degrees.

This made college more expensive, forcing students to borrow more and more money.

Politicians jumped in to promote and guarantee those loans. And here we are. 

College Monopoly

In the Griggs case, the US Supreme Court effectively granted colleges a monopoly. They can discriminate based on a long series of tests that lead to a degree. Employers can’t.

Like most monopolies, this one is inefficient. It creates unpayable debt that burdens students. Some of it eventually falls on taxpayers. Not ideal.

Methods exist to evaluate prospective workers without requiring college degrees, and without racial or other illegal discrimination. But there’s no incentive to try them when you can just screen out the non-college graduates and accomplish the same thing.

Resolving this impasse would help our debt problem and probably our employment problem as well. But the losers would be colleges and educational lenders, so don’t expect them to cooperate, unless someone forces them to.

*  *  *

We live in an era of rapid change… and only those who see and understand the shifting market, economic, and political trends can make wise investment decisions. Macroeconomic forecaster Patrick Watson spots the trends and spells what they mean every week in the free e-letter, Connecting the Dots. Subscribe now for his seasoned insight into the surprising forces driving global markets.

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