Martin Armstrong Fears “We Are Being Prepared For World War?”

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

The choice for president has never been so bad. The latest polls show 63% of voters said Clinton is overly secretive, 55% said she was corrupt, and 52% said she was “extremely liberal.” This is very interesting since the only presidents since 1900 to be elected with greater than 60% of the popular vote were Lyndon Johnson in 1964  after the Kennedy Assassination,  61.05%,  Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 with 60.80%, Richard Nixon in 1972 with 60.67%, and Warren Harding in 1920 with 60.32%. Therefore, Hillary beats everyone with the highest rating of distrust.

The polls are being rigged as they were in Britain for BREXIT. But plan B is clearly being put into play already preparing the public for the accusation that should Trump win, the election will be called a fraud because of Russian hackers.

Hacker-1

The Washington Post, a big Democratic Party mouth piece, ran the story that Russian hackers target the Arizona primary. CNBC is carrying the story that Russia will hack the elections. Obama has outright accused Russia of targeting the Democratic National Party (DNC) claiming two Russian hackers were discovered. This is the story being carried even by the BBC, yet the specialist called in was Shawn Henry, the chief security officer at company called in Crowdstrike, who is himself a former executive assistant director of the FBI.  It was even bantered about in the second debate between Hillary and Trump. The New York Times is jumping in also carrying the story. Reuters is now reporting that there is no question that Russia was behind the hacker at the DNC.

Democrats are now warning foreign governments and hackers that cyber attacks against the U.S. will be treated like any other, even if it leads to war

DNS hijacking or DNS redirection is a common practice. This amounts to subverting the resolution of Domain Name System (DNS) queries. This can be achieved by malware that overrides a computer’s TCP/IP configuration to point at a rogue DNS server under the control of an attacker. It can even modify the behavior of a trusted DNS server so that it does not comply with internet standards. However, the hardest problem in finding the source of these attacks is really attribution. Each data packet sent over the Internet contains information about its source and its destination. Yet the source field can be changed [spoofed] by an attacker to make it appear as if  it is coming from someplace it’s not. This is standard operational procedure. Consequently, I serious doubt that a professional hacker would have left a trace.

I cannot stress strong enough that there is no way they will allow Trump to enter the White House. It appears that should he win, like BREXIT against the odds and the polls, Obama will not leave and the election will be declared a fraud. Obama will most likely step down and hand it to Joe Biden. Our models are showing November as a rather important turning point and this seems unusual insofar as that it would be limited to merely an election. Something else may be in the wind.

via http://ift.tt/2e02xHx Tyler Durden

NYT Responds To Donald Trump, Declines To Take Down Sexual Assault Story

With the latest scandal lobbed at Donald Trump coming last night from the NYT which published the complaints of two women who were allegedly assaulted by Trump as far back as 36 years ago, and seemingly intended to keep deflecting attention from the daily “Podesta Emails” releases by Wikileaks, which will likely continue every day until the election, moments ago the NYT’s assistant general councel David McCraw responded to the threat by Trump’s law firm, Kasowitz, and announced that the New York Times declines to take down the article.

Here’s the NYT’s reason why it “welcomes the opportunity to have a court” set Trump straight.

Dear Mr. Kasowitz,

 

I write in response to your letter of October 12, 2016 to Dean Baquet concerning your client Donald Trump, the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. You write concerning our article “Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately” and label the article as “libel per se.” You ask that we “remove it from [our] website, and issue a full and immediate retraction and apology.” We decline to do so.

 

The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one’s reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host’s request to discuss Mr. Trump’s own daughter as a “piece of ass.” Multiple women not mention. in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump’s unwanted advances. Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself.

 

But there is a larger and much more important point here. The women quoted in our story spoke out on an issue of national importance — indeed, an issue that Mr. Trump himself discussed with the whole nation watching during Sunday night’s presidential debate. Our reporters diligently worked to confirm the women’s accounts. They provided readers with Mr. Trump’s response, including his forceful denial of the women’s reports. It would have been a disservice not just to our readers but to democracy itself to silence their voices. We did what the law allows: We publish newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and  those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.

 

David E. McCraw

 

The ball is now in Trump’s court: will he sue as he has threatened, and if so, how will both sides provide discovery and evidence for an event that took place in the 1980s?

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

How The President Of The Philippines Just Snubbed The US While Embracing China

Submitted by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,

As Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte continues to distance himself from the West, moving instead toward regional powerhouse China, an official from China’s Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that the controversial leader of the Philippines will meet with the Chinese president next week in Beijing.

As Reuters reports:

“China confirmed on Wednesday that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will visit China next week, as the Southeast Asian leader’s relationship with traditional ally the United States frays.

 

“Under Duterte, Manila’s relations with Washington have come under strain and the recently elected president has opted to put aside years of hostility with China, especially over the disputed South China Sea, to form a new partnership.”

The Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, said Duterte would meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as well as Premier Li Keqiang, on a visit set to begin on October 18.

“China looks forward to increasing mutual trust between the two countries,” Geng said, “deepening practical cooperation and continuing the tradition of friendship via the visit of President Duterte.”

But Duterte won’t be alone. Joining him will be 250 Philippine business executives, all “eager to talk with Chinese business leaders and government officials about deals in a range of sectors, from rail, and construction to tourism, agribusiness, power and manufacturing,” according to Reuters.

This falls perfectly in line with statements made by Duterte in September, when the president told reporters the Philippines had reached a “point of no return” with the U.S. and expressed a desire to “open alliances with China.”

“I will open up the Philippines for them to do business, alliances of trade and commerce,” he said.

Since then, however, Duterte’s animosity toward the U.S. has grown considerably, with Anti-Media reporting last week that the Filipino president actually dared the CIA to attempt to oust him from power.

“Be my guest. I don’t give a shit,” he told the press while speaking in his hometown of Davao.

The whole situation — the U.S. possibly losing an ally to a nation it’s currently on the brink of naval warfare with — is complicated further when considering events taking place just north of the Philippines, off the eastern coast of China.

There, longtime U.S. ally Japan is squaring off against China over territorial rights to the East China Sea. Japan, which has already implemented plans to construct a missile defense system to protect what it purports to be its national interests, has also begun sending out coast guard patrols to hunt Chinese fishing vessels it says are operating illegally.

At the same time, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea recently conducted their first ever joint naval drills in a show of cooperation amid concerns over the much-hyped North Korean nuclear threat. This week, in fact, the navies of the U.S. and South Korea are conducting a series of exercises that simulate strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities.

China, however, has never bought the North Korea excuse. It’s stipulated all along the U.S. is using these drills as a pretext to prepare for a preemptive strike against Chinese interests, as China’s state-run People’s Daily wrote in early October:

“Like any other country, China can neither be vague nor indifferent on security matters that affect its core interests. If the United States and South Korea harm the strategic security interests of countries in the region including China, then they are destined to pay the price for this and receive a proper counter attack.”

via http://ift.tt/2dW6TjB Tyler Durden

Who’s Better For Gold? Donald Trump Or Hillary Clinton?

For this week, we charted and analyzed the performance of gold for each President and their respective party since Nixon began his term in 1969.

1

During the Nixon administration from January 1969 until August 1974, Nixon implemented a series of economic measures aptly named the Nixon Shock. The most significant of which was the cancellation of the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, or the Bretton Woods System. Gold, along with currencies, was finally free to float. The price of gold spiked accordingly.

Jimmy Carter came to power in 1977 and inherited an economy that would be mired in continual inflation and recession, as well as an energy crisis. He could thank President Nixon for that; the Nixon Shock was the root cause of the Great Inflation, and in 1979 inflation skyrocketed to 15%. Gold, the forever inflation hedge, acted in kind.

Up until this point, the presidency had succumbed to public demands for limitless monetary expansion. This would change with the appointment of the new Chair of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, who with an iron-fist, finally tamed inflation and threw the US into a much-needed recession. The recession began just prior to the Reagan administration.

Ronald Reagan was the benefactor of Volcker’s aggressive anti-inflation push, commencing his presidency in 1981 and implementing a brand of supply-side economics, called “Reaganomics”. This included tax rate reductions, deregulation, reduced public spending, and controlling the money supply to curb inflation. During his two term tenure, inflation declined from 12.5% to 4.4%, and real GDP grew by 3.4% on average annually. As a result, gold prices dropped 30% during Reagan’s term.

Due to “Reaganomics”, George H.W. Bush inherited a sizeable annual government deficit of $220 billion – a deficit which had grown almost threefold during Reagan’s tenure. To curb the burgeoning deficit and regain some respect in the international arena, Bush made a push to cut government spending. He was rebuffed by the Democratic congressional majority, which eventually forced him to raise taxes instead – a move that would prove to be immensely costly in his 1992 re-election effort. Many fellow Republicans viewed Bush’s capitulation as a betrayal and never forgave him for it.

After seeing Bush’s approval ratings briefly skyrocket in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, the US entered into a mild recession. While interest rates and inflation remained very low, unemployment reached 7.8% in the latter part of 1992 – the highest rate since 1984. Gold finished George H.W. Bush’s one term in office down 19%.

Gold’s performance was also lackluster during the Clinton administration, partially due to his appointment of two advocates of tight money – Alice Rivlin, Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve System, and Laurence Meyer, a Federal Reserve System governor. President Clinton oversaw a period of significant growth and economic expansion in the US, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing over 250% from January 1993 to the early 2000s. Inflation also remained in check due to sky-high labor productivity. The asset bubbles that would come to significantly define Alan Greenspan’s tenure as Fed Chairman had not yet popped before President Clinton left office in 2001. The price of gold stagnated during Clinton’s eight years in office, ending down 19%.

George W. Bush’s presidency was roiled by turmoil in both the economic and foreign policy spheres. Problems began with the bursting of the dot-com bubble, continued with missteps in Iraq and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and concluding with the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Depending on your perspective, much of the blame for the economic woes from 2001 to 2008 can be either assigned to President Bush or Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. The financial crisis was borne substantially out of the easy money policies of the Federal Reserve in the late 1990s and 2000s, which inflated real estate value and other asset pries. What cannot be denied, however, is the massive growth in the national debt during Bush’s two terms. The national debt grew from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to $10 trillion in 2008. Gold finished with a massive 213% gain during Bush’s presidency!

With the 2008 failure of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and many other entities, followed by a huge stock market crash, the government moved to enact a massive $787 billion stimulus package. A combination of tax rebates and spending measures were implemented; meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman, Helicopter Ben Bernanke, emerged and quantitative easing became the policy du jour at the Federal Reserve.

The current President, Barack Obama, is still printing money, and similar to Bush, is also utilizing expansionary fiscal policy to stimulate economic growth. The national debt during Obama’s tenure has grown from $10.6 trillion to over $19 trillion. Much of that increase is from the burgeoning costs of mandatory domestic programs like Social Security and Medicare, but the stimulus package, education spending, and Obama’s signature healthcare reform bill, the Affordable Care Act, have also added significantly to the annual federal budget deficit. The combination of loose monetary policy and Obama’s spendthrift ways has helped gold to return 54% so far during his presidency.

As the chart above shows, there is no clear connection between the performance of the gold price and which political party is in power. There is a much clearer relationship between the gold price, monetary policy, and the economy. Whenever a President has inherited an economic situation where monetary expansion has been prevailing, rampant inflation and even stagflation have been hallmarks of that presidency. Jimmy Carter’s tenure is a prime example – besides confronting the new reality of the abandonment of the Gold Standard, Carter also had to deal with accommodative monetary policy. Richard Nixon had earlier pressured Fed Chairman, Arthur Burns, to engage in expansionary monetary policy in the run-up to the 1972 election.

It now appears that Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations are a lost cause; however, it does not really matter who wins the election. Gold is poised for over a 325% gain in the years ahead because of the mess that both political parties and the Federal Reserve have created in the past and accelerated since the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Good luck to Hillary (or Trump)… Whoever wins is screwed.

——

Palisade is giving away silver! For more information and a free guide to silver investing, visit:

http://ift.tt/2bn1OC3

via http://ift.tt/2ewcyii Palisade Research

Treasuries Extend Gains After 30 Year Auction Sees Solid Demand, Stops Through

With the long-end of not only the US Treasury Curve but across the globe, the key topic for discussion among rates strategists at a time when we have seen some brisk curve steepening on expectations that central banks around the globe have decided to tighten modestly at the longer maturity bucket, attention was glued to today’s sale, and this week’s final auction, a reopening of $12 billion in 29-year 10-month paper (Cusip RT7), and contrary to whisper expectations that the auction would disappoint, there was virtually no problem in placing the ultra long dated paper amid willing buyers.

The high yield printed at 2.470%, 0.6bps through the When Issued at 1pm, while the Bid to Cover rebounded from last month’s deplorable 2.129, which was the lowest since February, rising to a far more respectable 2.439, the highest since July.

The internals also were a solid improvement with Indirects jumping from September’s 57.9% to 65.4%, above the 61.5% 12MMA, as Directs showed some more appetite for the long end, taking down 6.1%, vs last month’s 4.6%, if still well below the 9.9% 12 month average, leaving Dealers holding 28.5% of the auction, suggesting foreign central banker appetite for US paper has returned even with concerns that the Fed may hike as soon as next month, or perhaps due to such concerns, because the thinking among the rate community is that the one thing that would guarantee a far flatter yield curve is for the Fed to hike and unleash even more flows into the long end, where the market refuses to five Yellen any credibility that she can boost inflation expectations materially higher.

via http://ift.tt/2e0J0Zn Tyler Durden

Equity Convexity Is Back “In Play” – A Reminder Of How We Got Here

Some observations on the deteriorating state of the market from RBC’s Charlie McElligott, Head of US Cross-Asset Desk Strategy

A Reminder on “How We Got Here”

The market continues to “buy into” growing long-term narrative that CBs are shifting from notional “flow” of QE purchases to yield targeting / curve steepening goals and desire for more fiscal policy. 

To anybody being intellectually honest, this should be interpreted in the long-term as “a path to tightening.”  Long-end weakens, curves steepen.

You have a Fed pushing rhetoric for another Dec rate hike causing dangerous Dollar strength on “policy divergence” theme reawakening, which triggers “risk off” / “financial tightening.” 

Simultaneously and idiosyncratically, you see the PBoC more willing to allow ‘mkt forces’ to weaken Yuan now that it is included in the IMF’s SDR (more Dollar strength).  New 6 yr lows vs USD.

EM hiccups (ZAR and KRW situations) further contributes to USD strength.

GBP hard Brexit rhetoric / narrative building.  GBP coming unglued = more USD strength.

With core inflation metrics showing a pulse (and 10y US BE rates “breakout” of 2.5 yr range), along-side the OPEC +++ implications on crude (which in turn drive inflation expectations higher)—you scare a world “long duration” (aforementioned ‘long duration ETF’ performance wobble).

Rates “re-pricing” against this backdrop = cross-asset vol, due to ‘short convexity leveraged allocation strategies,’ and a macro trade dictated by the direction of one price input (USD) due to the central bank QE regime of NIRP, mega-asset purchases and vol suppression.  As such, we see increasingly frequent “vol spasms” (SPX 5 day realized vol +100% in 3 sessions, which is pretty LOL-able).

Easy right?

EQUITY CONVEXITY BACK “IN PLAY” AS “VOL OF VOL” TO VIX RATIO ROLLS OVER:

 

DOLLAR STRENGTH AS A MACRO FUND PERFORMANCE DRAG: Long cyclicality it seems…

UST 5Y POSITIONING SHOWS SCALE OF “REAL MONEY” LONG AGAINST HEDGE FUND SHORT:

 

EEM EXPOSED FOR DOWNSIDE IN LIGHT OF DOLLAR STRENGTHENING (orange, inverted)

via http://ift.tt/2d9VLkX Tyler Durden

Obama To Decide Friday On Military Action In Syria

Two weeks ago when the US broke off bilateral relations with Russia over the ongoing Syrian proxy war, we reported that as part of America’s “next steps” would be a discussion on military options. As Reuters reported then, the “discussions were being held at “staff level,” and have yet to produce any recommendations to President Barack Obama, who has resisted ordering military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country’s multi-sided civil war. “The president has asked all of the agencies to put forward options, some familiar, some new, that we are very actively reviewing,” Blinken said. “When we are able to work through these in the days ahead we’ll have an opportunity to come back and talk about them in detail.”

Fast forward to today, when as Reuters once again reports, the time has come for the US to make a decision: on Friday President Barack Obama and his top foreign policy advisers are expected to meet to consider their military and other options in Syria as Syrian and Russian aircraft continue to pummel Aleppo and other targets.

The tensions here are well known: some of the more hawkish “top officials” told Reuters that the United States must act more forcefully in Syria or “risk losing what influence it still has over moderate rebels and its Arab, Kurdish and Turkish allies in the fight against Islamic State.” Naturally, this means that one set of options includes direct U.S. military action such as air strikes on Syrian military bases, munitions depots or radar and anti-aircraft bases.

That is also the scenario which General Joseph Dunford warned may lead to war with Russia. Indeed, the quoted said one danger of such action is that Russian and Syrian forces are often co-mingled, “raising the possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia that Obama has been at pains to avoid.” This is also known as the “world war” scenario.

Luckily, there are options.

One alternative, U.S. officials said, is allowing allies to provide U.S.-vetted rebels with more sophisticated weapons, although not shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, “which Washington fears could be used against Western airliners.” Like, for example, what happened above the Donestk region during the peak of the Ukraine proxy war in 2014.

As Reuters adds, Friday’s planned meeting is the latest in a long series of internal debates – which have so far achieved nothing but escalate the situation which fast approaches a point of no return – about what, if anything, to do to end a 5-1/2 year civil war that has killed at least 300,000 people and displaced half the country’s population. According to insiders, the ultimate aim of any new action could be to “bolster the battered moderate rebels so they can weather what is now widely seen as the inevitable fall of rebel-held eastern Aleppo to the forces of Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” The question is whether it was also “bolster” al-Qaeda linked jihadists whom the US has been supporting for the past several months as a result of the perverse merger of “moderate” rebel forces in Syria.

Apparently, there is also an element of pride:

It also might temper a sense of betrayal among moderate rebels who feel Obama encouraged their uprising by calling for Assad to go but then abandoned them, failing even to enforce his own “red line” against Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

 

This, in turn, might deter them from migrating to Islamist groups such as the Nusra Front, which the United States regards as Syria’s al Qaeda branch. The group in July said it had cut ties to al Qaeda and changed its name to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.

In other words, having started the proxy war in Syria, with every passing day that Obama fails to resolve it – while ideally avoid a world war with Russia – is a day that more and more “moderate rebels” are likely to openly “migrate” to jihadist extremists, with all of the latest US military equipment so generously provided to them by the administration.

There is also hope that just like in 2013, Kerry and Lavrov will somehow cobble together another last minute peace agreement. The U.S. and Russian foreign ministers will meet in Lausanne, Switzerland on Saturday to resume their failed effort to find a diplomatic solution, possibly joined by their counterparts from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran, but U.S. officials were said to have voiced little hope for success.

Complicating matters, however, is that as we reported this morning, the US is now officially engaged in another regional conflict, after US warships fired ballistic missiles targeting Yemen radar stations in proximity to the critical Bab al-Mandab Straight.

Earlier Thursday the United States launched cruise missiles at three coastal radar sites in areas of Yemen controlled by Iran-aligned Houthi forces, retaliating after failed missile attacks this week on a U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S. officials said.

There is also the question of what to do in Iraq, where officials are debating whether government forces will need more U.S. support both during and after their campaign to retake Mosul, Islamic State’s de facto capital in the country. Some officials argue the Iraqis now cannot retake the city without significant help from Kurdish peshmerga forces, as well as Sunni and Shi’ite militias, and that their participation could trigger religious and ethnic conflict in the city.

* * *

For now, the best news is that according to Reuters, US officials said they consider it unlikely that Obama will order U.S. air strikes on Syrian government targets, and they stressed that he may not make any decisions at the planned meeting of his National Security Council. However, that will only be the case should the US not be further humiliated in Syria, and – of course – all bets are off if and when Obama is replaced, especially if his successor is a well-known warmonger, directly and indirectly responsible for much of the unstable geopolitical situation across most of the region.
 

via http://ift.tt/2e0CFNI Tyler Durden

Glenn Greenwald: In The Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Become Putin Plots

Authored by Glenn Greenwald, originally posted at The Intercept,

Donald Trump, for reasons I’ve repeatedly pointed out, is an extremist, despicable, and dangerous candidate, and his almost-certain humiliating defeat is less than a month away. So I realize there is little appetite in certain circles for critiques of any of the tawdry and sometimes fraudulent journalistic claims and tactics being deployed to further that goal. In the face of an abusive, misogynistic, bigoted, scary, lawless authoritarian, what’s a little journalistic fraud or constant fearmongering about subversive Kremlin agents between friends if it helps to stop him?

But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days — led by party-loyal journalists — have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes:

As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this “Official Warning.” That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profile Clinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton’s campaign officials spent the day fueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.

Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

But it did signal to Clinton’s most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to “articles” like this one.

 

That article was shared almost 22,000 times on Facebook alone. In Nance’s defense, it is true that some unknown, random person posted a doctored email on the internet and claimed it was real, but that did not come from the WikiLeaks archive and has nothing to do with assessing the reliability of the archive (any more than fake NYT stories on the internet impugn the reliability of articles in that paper). Not one person has identified even a single email or document released by WikiLeaks of questionable authenticity — that includes all of the Clinton officials whose names are listed as their authors and recipients — yet these journalists and “experts” deliberately convinced who knows how many people to believe a fairy tale: that WikiLeaks’ archive is pervaded with forgeries.

More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.

Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.

That’s all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn’t. It was just Sputnik misreporting the email. Once Sputnik realized that its article misattributed the text to Blumenthal, it took it down. It’s not hard to imagine how a rushed, careless Sputnik staffer could glance at that email and fail to realize that Blumenthal was forwarding Eichenwald’s article rather than writing it himself. And while nobody knows how this erroneous Sputnik story made its way to Trump for him to reference in his speech, it’s very easy to imagine how a Trump staffer on a shoddy, inept campaign — which has previously cited InfoWars and white supremacist sites, among others — would have stumbled into a widely shared Sputnik story that had been published hours earlier on the internet and then passed it along to Trump for him to highlight, without realizing the reasons to be skeptical.

In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it’s worth noting. But that’s not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal.

In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It’s all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald’s increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was — a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated — into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center.

By itself, this is not so notable: All journalists are tempted to hype their stories. But Eichenwald went way, way beyond that, including — as demonstrated below — demonstrable lies. But what makes it so significant is how many reasoned, perfectly smart journalists — just as they did with Nance’s “Official Warning” — started falling prey to the dual hysteria of Twitter group dynamics and election blinders, to the point where CNN featured Eichenwald this morning to highlight his major scoop linking Putin, Trump, and WikiLeaks in the plot to feed Americans heaps of Russian disinformation.

Just watch how this warped narrative played out in a very short period of time, with nobody wanting to get in the way of the speeding train for fear of being castigated as a Trump supporter or Putin stooge (accusations that are — yet again — inevitably on their way as a result of this article):

 

To call all this overwrought deceit is to understate the case. In particular, the repeated claim that his story has anything to do with, let alone demonstrates, that “wikileaks is working w/Putin” or “wikileaks is compromised” is an outright fraud. The assertion in the second tweet — that “only those two [Trump and Russia] knew” about the article — is an outright lie, since by the time Trump cited it, it had been published hours earlier on the internet and shared widely on social media. Moreover, none of the documents released by WikiLeaks have yet to be identified as anything but completely authentic.

But look at his tweets: Each has been re-tweeted by close to 1,000 people, and in the case of the most sensationalistic ones, many more. And they were quickly hyped by people who should know better because anyone supporting Hillary Clinton wants to believe that this is true:

 

 
 

 

Literally none of that happened. Or at least there is zero evidence that it did. These are smart, rational people falling for a scam. Why? It’s in part because Twitter fosters this group-think and lack of critical thought — you just click a button and, with little effort, you’ve spread whatever you want people to believe — but it’s also because they’re so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

But while Donald Trump’s candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton — casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America — is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they’re under attack.

For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the “reality-based community” and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of “epistemic closure.” The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

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

Explain This!

The death cross of economic textbooks just got death-ier…

US economic growth expectations plumb new post-crisis lows… as initial jobless claims crash to their lowest (best) since 1973!!

 

Because it’s not the “manufacturing” economy that’s helping…

 

And it’s not the “Services” economy either…

 

So… Explain that!

via http://ift.tt/2dZH9lN Tyler Durden

“Recession Fatigue”-Fatigue Strongly Suggests It Was Never Just A ‘Recession’

Submitted by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investment Partners,

Four years ago, recession fatigue had set in as by then it was already several years into recovery even though it just didn’t seem that way. Historical experience had been uniform in business cycle symmetry; the economy comes back with same intensity and pace by which it had been knocked down. From that expectation alone the economy of 2012 should have been roaring in every way imaginable. That view was only amplified by so much “stimulus” including two QE’s, more than three years of ZIRP by then, and a completed ARRA.

Yet, there were only constant interruptions. Though they seemed to be more European or “overseas” in nature, there was the nagging feeling that “something” was off. Economists were quick to claim that anything holding back great relief was but temporary, a belief they thought would be greatly strengthened later in the year (2012) with a third (then a fourth) QE. Weakness, then, could not have been weakness, it was always something else.

From that point on the litany of excuses has been at times entertaining, while at other times downright absurd. In December 2012, for example, CNBC reported that though Christmas sales in 2011 were marginally healthy, in 2012 they weren’t even close. The reasons provided at the time may have seemed plausible if only because it was guided (biased) by orthodox economic “analysis”:

Shoppers were buffeted this year by a string of events that made them less likely to spend: Superstorm Sandy and other bad weather, the distraction of the presidential election and grief about the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut.

This is recession fatigue in action, blaming otherwise social constructs for economic results because nobody (in the mainstream) was willing to suggest Ben Bernanke was wrong not just about “stimulus” but that the Great “Recession” might actually deserve the quotation marks. And so in the years since, it is always, always something else.

Most infamous was the Polar Vortex of winter 2014. In what I think is a clear example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (Latin for “after this, therefore resulting from it”; meaning confusing correlation for cause), the media and even economists were quick to jump on unusually cold weather to blame for what was very obvious and alarmingly widespread economic feebleness. It had to be the sharply freezing Canadian air invading the Continental US because to acknowledge even the possibility that the events of 2013 (including the MBS meltdown) completely contradicted the purported successes of QE at that moment requiring tapering. Better, it seemed, to spew cold air then to contradict the “maestro’s” heir.

Later in that year, of course, while every economist and policymaker was setting everyone up for the great letdown in 2015 by strongly overemphasizing dubious statistical acceleration while intentionally downplaying the clear unevenness exhibited almost everywhere else, recession fatigue struck yet again.

After blaming the Polar Vortex’s chill for sluggish results last winter, U.S. retailers now say warm temperatures in October hurt sales of boots and sweaters. ..

In earnings calls this week, J.C. Penney Co., Macy’s Inc. and Kohl’s Corp. all blamed warmer temperatures in October for disappointing sales. The average temperature across the U.S. was 56.2 degrees Fahrenheit last month (13 degrees Celsius), up from 53.5 in 2013, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence.

There is such little self-awareness in these situations under normal circumstances, but in November 2014 to blame warm weather (of 2.7 degrees F) after the uniform tide of “unusually cold winter” unveiled by mostly the same retailers just months before bordered on absurd. This is not to say that there haven’t been some truly outside-the-box excuses. My personal favorite was Douglas Ewert the CEO of Men’s Wearhouse who in his company’s September 2013 conference call actually blamed in part triskaidekaphobia. I’m not kidding:

We are aware of widespread negative results impacting the wedding industry this year. We believe this is mostly a timing shift. Historically, we’ve seen numeric anomalies in the calendar effect when brides choose their wedding date, and we believe that the number 13 in 2013 is causing a small but meaningful number of brides to avoid getting married this year. It’s reassuring to see a significant increase in advanced reservation for 2014 weddings though.

Apparently it wasn’t superstitious brides who were temporarily slicing revenue off the margins of growth for the retailer, as in 2014 the company bought rival Jos. A Bank to try to stave off further decline (and takeover) and has been in trouble ever since. Earlier this year, the combined company Tailored Brands announced plans to close 250 stores, including as many as 90 of the acquired Jos. A Bank outlets.

It never ends because the “recession” never ended. Consumers quite literally never recovered, and the belief, once pervasive in the mainstream, that they did was predicated on but one narrow construct – the unemployment rate. It has been the single most important factor in misleading mainstream analysis, to give comfort to all these excuses as if they were valid because a sharply falling unemployment rate had always meant rising economic fortunes in the past. It seemed to validate the QE view that demanded any coincidental weakness give way over time to the power and genius of scientifically determined, expertly applied “money printing.”

The problem with statistics is something of an original mathematical sin; they all assume, indeed they cannot assume otherwise, that the present and immediate future will at least resemble the past.

Four years after the first bout of recession fatigue , however, there may be rising a new phenomenon to replace it; recession fatigue fatigue. It may just be coincidence that there seems to be more skepticism now after the August Jackson Hole gathering of central bankers that could have been easily titled as “what now?”, but for whatever reason there is almost resistance to the constant need to blame anything but economic factors for continuing struggles year after year after year. Last Friday, Bloomberg brought recession fatigue full circle, back to another election that we are supposed to believe has once more intruded upon the attention span of US consumers. This time, however, they aren’t buying it.

It’s usually the weather. Now there’s a new excuse that U.S. retailers and restaurants are floating to explain their lackluster results.

It’s the election, stupid.

To hear retail executives tell it, the battle for the presidency between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton is causing Americans to put off buying everything from romance novels at Barnes & Noble and jeans from the Gap to burritos at Yum! Brand Inc.’s Taco Bell. They might even be delaying wedding engagements, not good news for companies like Signet Jewelers Ltd.

Where prospective brides were afraid of the year “13” it makes perfect sense that they would avoid marrying under the auspices of Trump vs. Clinton. Such absurdity, however, that in the real world was once mildly amusing is now just pathetic; even some of the media sees that much. Maybe the election has had an effect at least given that it is a widely accepted marker of the passage of significant time. In other words, if retailers were making somewhat ridiculous excuses at the last one and are still making many of the same now at the next one, then it really is time enough to re-evaluate what “we” thought this economy was and therefore what it will never be.

abook-oct-2016-us-trade-exports-china

Before the Great “Recession”, Americans were thought quite universally as almost disgustingly gluttonous especially for what retailers had (and still have) to offer. There wasn’t any small trinket or especially electronic gadget imported from China that we wouldn’t buy. In 2016, imports from China have consistently contracted and retailers have to recycle excuses as to why what has been a clear shift in behavior is nothing to be concerned about. “Something” happened starting in later 2007, cemented by another “something” around the second half of 2011.

 

abook-oct-2016-payrolls-missing

It’s as if the economy got knocked down, hard, started to get up only get knocked down again. The second blow may have been the knock out and if it wasn’t for the myth of QE and “stimulus” coupled with an unemployment rate not designed for these circumstances maybe “we” would have seen it sooner. Then “we” might not have wasted so much time on central bankers and their dreams of technocracy. Maybe it’s not now recession fatigue fatigue but rather technocratic fatigue.

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