Soros Agrees With Trump: China Is A “Mortal Danger” And US Must “Crack Down”

One year after bashing cryptocurrencies, and lashing out at Facebook and Google at the 2018 Davos conference, warning the two companies are a “menace” and “monopolistic” and predicting it’s “only a matter of time before the global dominance of the US IT monopolies is broken,” moments ago during his much-anticipated speech at this year’s Davos event, Soros took aim at an even greater adversary, one which even Donald Trump might agree with: China.

Soros started his prepared remarks by cautioned “the world about “an unprecedented danger that’s threatening the very survival of open societies”, before warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence in the hands of “authoritarian regimes such as China” and called President Xi Jinping “the most dangerous” opponent of open societies.

The instruments of control developed by artificial intelligence give an inherent advantage of totalitarian regimes over open societies,” the former hedge fund manager said on Thursday evening at Davos.

Reminding listeners that last year when he “spent most of my time analyzing the nefarious role of the IT monopolies” Soros said “an alliance is emerging between authoritarian states and the large data rich IT monopolies that bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developing system of state sponsored surveillance. This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even George Orwell could have imagined.”

While Soros’ ideological critics may have a chuckle at the irony that the billionaire supporter of Hillary Clinton is the one warning about Orwellian control, we would not be surprised if even president Trump found himself agreeing when Soros said today that he wants “to call attention to the mortal danger facing open societies from the instruments of control that machine learning and artificial intelligence can put in the hands of repressive regimes. I’ll focus on China, where Xi Jinping wants a one-party state to reign supreme.”

The focus of Soros’ criticism had to do with China’s social credit system, which we have discussed extensively in the past. As a reminder, in November, the “Beijing Further Optimization of the Business Environment Action Plan (2018-2020)” was distributed to all district committees, district governments, municipal party committees, local government ministries and commissions bureaus, various head offices, multiple people’s organizations, colleges, and universities. The report detailed Beijing’s ambitious plan to control each of its 22 million citizens based on a system of social scoring that punishes behavior it does not approve, with the full implementation of the program to be rolled out by 2020.  In short, people with great social credit will get “green channel” benefits while those who violate laws will be punished with restrictions and penalties.

China is doing the same at the national level as well, and it represents the development Soros is most worried about:

All the rapidly expanding information available about a person is going to be consolidated in a centralized database to create a “social credit system.” Based on that data, people will be evaluated by algorithms that will determine whether they pose a threat to the one-party state. People will then be treated accordingly.

The social credit system is not yet fully operational, but it’s clear where it’s heading. It will subordinate the fate of the individual to the interests of the one-party state in ways unprecedented in history.

While noting that China isn’t the only authoritarian regime in the world, Soros said it was “undoubtedly the wealthiest, strongest and most developed in machine learning and artificial intelligence. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society. But Xi isn’t alone. Authoritarian regimes are proliferating all over the world and if they succeed, they will become totalitarian.”

Soros said that what we found “particularly disturbing” is that the instruments of control developed by artificial intelligence give an inherent advantage to authoritarian regimes over open societies. “For them, instruments of control provide a useful tool; for open societies, they pose a mortal threat.”

I use “open society” as shorthand for a society in which the rule of law prevails as opposed to rule by a single individual and where the role of the state is to protect human rights and individual freedom. In my personal view, an open society should pay special attention to those who suffer from discrimination or social exclusion and those who can’t defend themselves.

By contrast, authoritarian regimes use whatever instruments of control they possess to maintain themselves in power at the expense of those whom they exploit and suppress.

Soros then goes on in great detail to explain why his previous efforts to establish an “Open Society” in China were met with abject failure.

In retrospect, it’s clear that I made a mistake in trying to establish a foundation which operated in ways that were alien to people in China. At that time, giving a grant created a sense of mutual obligation between the donor and recipient and obliged both of them to remain loyal to each other forever.

This being Soros, of course, he did not waste an opportunity to take a jab at Russia – where he is just as unwelcome as he is in China:

I’ve been concentrating on China, but open societies have many more enemies, Putin’s Russia foremost among them. And the most dangerous scenario is when these enemies conspire with, and learn from, each other on how to better oppress their people.

Soros then went on the next part of his speech: “what can we do to stop them“, and by “we” Soros arguably means all those who believe that Soros’ approach to enforcing an “open society” style democracy anywhere in the world is the right one.

His answer:

The first step is to recognize the danger. That’s why I’m speaking out tonight. But now comes the difficult part. Those of us who want to preserve the open society must work together and form an effective alliance. We have a task that can’t be left to governments.

So admitting that his own foundation is hopeless to infiltrate China, Soros then poses what he considers the most important question for open societies: “what will happen in China?”

The question can be answered only by the Chinese people. All we can do is to draw a sharp distinction between them and Xi Jinping. Since Xi has declared his hostility to open society, the Chinese people remain our main source of hope.

Here Soros sees “ground for hope”, suggesting that all China’s population needs to revolt against its authoritarian society is a gentle push:

As some China experts have explained to me, there is a Confucian tradition, according to which advisors of the emperor are expected to speak out when they strongly disagree with one of his actions or decrees, even if that it may result in exile or execution.

This came as a great relief to me when I had been on the verge of despair. The committed defenders of open society in China, who are around my age, have mostly retired and their places have been taken by younger people who are dependent on Xi Jinping for promotion. But a new political elite has emerged that is willing to uphold the Confucian tradition. This means that Xi will continue to have a political opposition at home.

And while Soros highlights China’s setbacks with implementing its Belt and Road plan, including recent pushback in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Malaysia, Soros, ironically, find an ideological supported in none other than his own arch enemy in the US, Donald Trump:

Most importantly, the US government has now identified China as a “strategic rival.” President Trump is notoriously unpredictable, but this decision was the result of a carefully prepared plan. Since then, the idiosyncratic behavior of Trump has been largely superseded by a China policy adopted by the agencies of the administration and overseen by Asian affairs advisor of the National Security Council Matt Pottinger and others. The policy was outlined in a seminal speech by Vice President Mike Pence on October 4th.

Of course, Soros finds Trump’s “brute force” response not sophisticated enough, and adds that “simply declaring China a strategic rival is too simplistic. China is an important global actor. An effective policy towards China can’t be reduced to a slogan.”

It needs to be far more sophisticated, detailed and practical; and it must include an American economic response to the Belt and Road Initiative. The Pottinger plan doesn’t answer the question whether its ultimate goal is to level the playing field or to disengage from China altogether.

Soros also notes that China is clearly aware, and Xi Jinping fully understood “the threat that the new US policy posed for his leadership. He gambled on a personal meeting with President Trump at the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires. In the meantime, the danger of global trade war escalated and the stock market embarked on a serious sell-off in December. This created problems for Trump who had concentrated all his efforts on the 2018 midterm elections. When Trump and Xi met, both sides were eager for a deal. No wonder that they reached one, but it’s very inconclusive: a ninety-day truce.”

In the meantime, there are clear indications that a broad based economic decline is in the making in China, which is affecting the rest of the world. A global slowdown is the last thing the market wants to see.

So what is Soros’ recommendation? Why apply the Open Society framework to China the same way it has been applied to every other nation in the past: crash their stock market, sink their economy with the hope of eventually destabilizing the ruling regime while discretely endorsing a different political system.

The unspoken social contract in China is built on steadily rising living standards. If the decline in the Chinese economy and stock market is severe enough, this social contract may be undermined and even the business community may turn against Xi Jinping. Such a downturn could also sound the death knell of the Belt and Road Initiative, because Xi may run out of resources to continue financing so many lossmaking investments.

While we are confident that Soros would find particular delight in China’s ongoing economic slowdown and its market troubles, what we found especially interesting is that Trump’s ongoing crackdown on Chinese tech companies appears to be straight out of the Open Society playbook, to wit:

On the question of global internet governance, there’s an undeclared struggle between the West and China. China wants to dictate rules and procedures that govern the digital economy by dominating the developing world with its new platforms and technologies. This is a threat to the freedom of the Internet and indirectly open society itself.

Last year I still believed that China ought to be more deeply embedded in the institutions of global governance, but since then Xi Jinping’s behavior has changed my opinion.  My present view is that instead of waging a trade war with practically the whole world, the US should focus on China. Instead of letting  ZTE and Huawei off lightly, it needs to crack down on them. If these companies came to dominate the 5G market, they would present an unacceptable security risk for the rest of the world.

And here, something fascinating: instead of praising Trump for being the one leader who has dared to challenge the US-China status quo more than any other president in history, Soros attacks Trump, saying that “regrettably” the US President “seems to be following a different course: make concessions to China and declare victory while renewing his attacks on US allies. This is liable to undermine the US policy objective of curbing China’s abuses and excesses.”

In other words, according to Soros, Trump is not doing enough to prevent Chinese technological dominance!

Who would have though that of all people, it was Soros who thought that Trump is not doing enough to crack down on China…

Which brings us to Soros’ conclusion:

My key point is that the combination of repressive regimes with IT monopolies endows those regimes with a built-in advantage over open societies. The instruments of control are useful tools in the hands of authoritarian regimes, but they pose a mortal threat to open societies.

China is not the only authoritarian regime in the world but it is the wealthiest, strongest and technologically most advance. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of open societies. That’s why it’s so important to distinguish Xi Jinping’s policies from the aspirations of the Chinese people. The social credit system, if it became operational, would give Xi total control over the people. Since Xi is the most dangerous enemy of the open society, we must pin our hopes on the Chinese people, and especially on the business community and a political elite willing to uphold the Confucian tradition.

And yet before anyone declares Trump and Soros BFFs, the billionaire democrat donor makes it quite clear that in addition to seeking the replacement of Xi, he would be even more happy if Trump were also gone, because since “we are in a Cold War that threatens to turn into a hot one” if “Xi and Trump were no longer in power, an opportunity would present itself to develop greater cooperation between the two cyber-superpowers.”

Cooperation… which would only be made possible and dominated by “something similar to the United Nations Treaty that arose out of the Second World War.

In other words an organization modeled after Soros’ very own Open Society.

Soros’ complete remarks delivered to the World Economic Forum can be found here.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2BcLAGr Tyler Durden

Minimum Wage Hikes in New York City Cause Restaurants to Eliminate Jobs, Cut Hours, Raise Prices

New York is known for its incredible food scene, but legislators in the Big Apple may have bitten off more than they can chew with the newest minimum wage hike.

The city’s mandated increase, which took effect on December 31, requires businesses that employ 11 or more people to boost wages from $13 to $15 per hour. But most restaurants operate with the tipped wage, offering servers and bartenders a lower hourly base pay and the opportunity to rake in the rest in tips, which often yields better pay. If workers can’t earn enough this way, the minimum wage forces employers to make up the difference.

That tipped minimum just rose from $8.65 to $10 an hour. A 16 percent jump is fairly punishing, considering the industry operates on razor-thin profit margins.

A new study conducted by the New York City Hospitality Alliance lends credence to the idea that substantial increases made to the tipped wage are far costlier than they are beneficial. After surveying 574 restaurants, they found that 2019 looks bleak: 75 percent of full-service establishments plan to cut employee hours, and 47 percent will eliminate jobs entirely in response to the forced minimum wage hikes. That follows closely on the heels of a dreary 2018, when 77 percent of full-service restaurants reduced employee hours and 36 percent cut jobs, both of which were also in response to the mandated wage increases.

Susannah Koteen, who runs Lido Restaurant in Harlem, has already had to make do with less by getting rid of her busboys, the lowest employees on the restaurant totem pole. Customer-facing but non-tipped, these workers now reap the full benefits of a $15 minimum wage, but only if they’re lucky enough to stay employed.

“A server can bus their own table, but you can’t ask a busboy to open a bottle of wine and talk about what it can be paired with,” Koteen told CBS News.

Such policies not only disadvantage the most vulnerable in the short-term, but they also close a pathway to the middle class in the long-term. “Our current general manager started as a busser the day we opened. English is not his first language, he has his GED. He is smart, hardworking and cares about customer service,” said Koteen. Those success stories—of the “American Dream” ilk—grow fewer and farther between as higher labor costs block avenues to success.

Consumers can expect to pay the price as well—quite literally. According to the NYC Hospitality Alliance Survey study, 87 percent of restaurants will increase prices in 2019, and 90 percent said they already did so last year. Both Per Se and Eleven Madison Park can count themselves among that cohort, as their menu prices rose in January 2018 and again at the start of the new year, directly after the annual wage increases set in. The Grill, another Manhattan establishment, started charging $38 for a mushroom omelet in 2018—a 52 percent jump from the $24 price tag in 2017. (That better be a really, really good omelet.)

All three are decidedly on the ritzier side, so it’s feasible that their clientele have deep enough pockets to keep up with the stratospheric food and drink prices. But for lower-end restaurants, price increases can be prohibitive for their patrons.

That is, if they’re fortunate enough to stay above water. Two researchers at Harvard Business School found that a median rated restaurant—one with about 3.5 stars on Yelp—has an additional 14 percent chance of closing for every dollar added to the tipped wage. The kneejerk reaction is that such restaurants must be mediocre at best and therefore deserve to close. But many of those establishments operate in underserved communities where money is tight and restaurant-goers have few affordable options. Business owners should be able to enter the marketplace without a boatload of cash, and customers shouldn’t be stripped of their access to inexpensive dining.

To add insult to injury, Mayor Bill de Blasio recently unveiled a new policy which would require all businesses with five or more employees to guarantee two weeks of paid time off. That includes restaurants.

“This is an extraordinary step forward, especially because 35 percent of restaurant workers are parents who have already had to skip too many of their children’s plays, recitals and games because of lack of paid time off,” said Sekou Siby, executive director of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, an organization that wants to abolish the tipped wage in favor of a higher minimum.

Siby isn’t completely wrong. If these laws continue to rack up expenses for restaurant owners at top speed, then it’s true that many workers may find themselves with more time on their hands. But it won’t be because of paid time off. It will be because they’re unemployed.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2TbpZoD
via IFTTT

Intel Tumbles After Earnings & Revenue Miss, Cuts Outlook

Intel is trading down over 6% in the after-hours after missing earnings and revenues (below the lowest estimate) and slashing its Q1 earnings and revenue expectations.

Just how big a miss? Big…

  • 4Q revenue $18.66 billion, estimate $19.01 billion (range $18.77 billion to $19.28 billion)

  • 4Q earnings per share: $1.12, estimate $1.17.

But Q1 is ugly:

  • Sees 1Q revenue about $16 billion, estimate $17.34 billion (range $16.37 billion to $18 billion)

  • Sees 1Q adjusted EPS about 87c, estimate $1.02 (range 89c to $1.13)

and the full year’s revenue guidance was cut to $71 billion (from a prior estimate of $73 billion).

And the immediate reaction is not pretty…

The report comes as Intel is still searching for a permanent CEO. The company’s former head, Brian Krzanich, resigned in June after Intel discovered that he’d had a relationship with a company employee, in violation of its policies. Since Krzanich’s resignation, Bob Swan, the company’s chief financial officer, has been serving as its interim CEO.

Trade seems to have been the scapegoat…

 

 

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FN5Wdg Tyler Durden

Bonds & Dollar Bid And Kudlow Rescues Stocks From Ross Rout

Plunging PMIs, “miles and miles” to go on US-China trade talks, and no end in sight for the shutdown… so wheel Larry Kudlow out on TV to talk up everything and rescue stocks…

 

Chinese markets bounced back to unch on the week overnight…

 

UK’s FTSE continues to tumble as Spain outperformed despite ugly PMIs across eurozone…

 

US markets were a rollercoaster of trade and shutdown headlines – Wilbur Ross admitted “miles and miles” to go until we have a trade deal with China and stocks puked. Algos ramped us into the US open, then dipped on weak PMIs, then The White House unleashed Larry Kudlow to save the world and he did briefly but we retested lows after that before the machines went back to work to rescue stocks from their 50-day moving averages…

 

And here’s the fun-durr-mental reason they’re buying stocks…

 

While stocks bounced back, bonds were bid all day..

 

And yields ended near the lows of the day…

 

Big dump (Ross) and Pump (Kudlow) in the dollar today…

 

Noisy day in yuan today…

 

Litecoin jumped on the day and Bitcoin drifted modestly higher but remains down on the week…

 

Another chaotic day in crude markets but copper continues to trade lower (despite a bounce in china stocks)…

 

WTI dropped immediately after the DOE data (as it should) but then was panic-bid higher…

 

Finally, “hope” hits its lowest since Trump was elected…

And spot the difference – Fed Rate change expectations for 2019 and the S&P 500…

“Data Dependence” at its best!

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2sJ568D Tyler Durden

Elon’s “Musk Foundation” Under Scrutiny For Donating Close To Home

Between a volatile (to say the least) 2018 and a start to 2019 that included laying off even more of his Tesla workforce and one of his spaceships being blown over by the wind, Elon Musk looks slated for another year mired in controversy. The latest of Musk’s ventures being scrutinized is now his charitable foundation, which was the subject of a Guardian longform write-up this week.

The article states that Musk’s charitable foundation has gone to enrich causes close to, or directly tied to, Musk and his immediate family. The charity has given more money to artificial intelligence causes than to any of the traditional charities that it supports, according to the article. The charity’s website, MuskFoundation.org, states that grants are made in support of:

  • Renewable energy research and advocacy

  • Human space exploration research and advocacy

  • Pediatric research

  • Science and engineering education

  • Development of safe artificial intelligence to benefit humanity

We all know that Musk likes to be the center of attention when it comes to charitable causes, whether it is embarrassing himself trying to unprovokedly thrust his services into the Thai cave rescue or claiming that he’s going to fix the water crisis in Michigan.

But some of the $54 million that Musk has disbursed from his charity over the last 15 years has gone to places “close to home”, including a school attended by his children, a charity managed by his brother Kimbal and, even better, a group fighting gridlock on the specific highway Musk uses to travel to SpaceX.

Musk launched his foundation in 2001 with his brother Kimbal, who served as a secretary and treasurer. Musk initially gifted the foundation 30,000 eBay shares worth $2.1 million. Back in those days, the fund was making donations to places like Musk’s alma mater in South Africa, space societies and children’s hospitals. In the seven years preceding 2014, Musk moved over a little more than $3.1 million in cash to the foundation and it was at that time that its recipients started to feature more organizations that were linked to Musk’s family and his interests.

For instance, the foundation funded systems that helped communities affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the Fukushima earthquake. Some of that money made its way to SolarCity, who participated in both of the installations for the systems. In 2010, the foundation also spent $183,000 to help launch a charity headed up by Kimbal Musk, now called Big Green. That charity got about $500,000 over four years and Kimbal reportedly received nearly $85,000 in payments by Big Green between 2010 and 2016.

Between 2011 and 2013, Musk’s foundation also made two $50,000 donations to a school for gifted children in Los Angeles that his kids were attending.

The foundation also made three $25,000 payments to a group called Angelenos Against Gridlock, which was lobbying for improvements to Interstate 405 – the road that Musk himself used regularly to commute from his Bel Air home to SpaceX. Angelenos Against Gridlock is now defunct.

In 2012 Musk also donated $10,000 to the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which is a nonprofit developing medical therapies using marijuana and the psychedelic substance MDMA. The donation, in part, helped fund a large wooden structure that went up in smoke at the end of the 2013 Burning Man festival in Nevada.

Musk donated 1.2 million Tesla shares to his foundation in mid 2015, valued at $255 million. In 2015, Musk also pledged $1 billion to help set up a research company called OpenAI that was supposed to help develop artificial intelligence in a safe way that would “benefit humanity as a whole”.

When, in 2016, the IRS was still processing OpenAI’s nonprofit status, making it impossible for it to receive donations, the Musk Foundation instead gave $10 million to YC.org, which was found to be a charity without a website or social media presence that was run by Sam Altman, a director of OpenAI.

The Musk Foundation’s grant accounted for the majority of YC.org‘s revenue and almost all of its funding when it then passed along $10 million to OpenAI later that year. OpenAI’s top researcher was paid $1.9 million in 2016. This number is more than the Musk Foundation handed out to all charitable causes during its first eight years of operation.

In 2016, the foundation dispersed $37.2 million to Vanguard Charitable, which is a donor advised fund that offers tax breaks and distributes donations over time under the cloak of being a managed fund. It is a structure that makes it difficult for the public to figure out which client is making which awards, and to whom. 

Recall, in 2016, we published a piece highlighting the relationship between Musk’s entities and some of their shared personalities. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WgDEg8 Tyler Durden

Senate Rejects White House-Backed Bill To End Shutdown

The U.S. Senate has blocked legislation that incorporates President Trump’s proposal to fully open the government and includes his demand for $5.7 billion to help build a border wall.

While Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) joined Republicans to advance the measure, it failed by a margin of 50-47, far short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster. 

GOP Senators Mike Lee (Utah) and Tom Cotton (Arkansas) surprisingly voted against Trump’s plan. Lee is considered a fiscal hawk, while Cotton is considered one of the Senate’s most conservative members when it comes to immigraiton. 

Senate Republicans also blocked a stopgap measure to end the partial shjutdown, voting 52-44 on the legislation, also short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster.

GOP Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner(Colo.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney(Nev.) broke rank and voted to advance the stopgap bill, which would have reopened the quarter of the government currently shuttered and funded it through Feb. 8.

The vote came after the Senate also rejected a White House-backed proposal on Thursday that would have exchanged reopening the government for $5.7 billion for the wall. It would have allowed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and some Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders to apply for a three-year extension of some legal protections, but included new restrictions on asylum seekers. –The Hill

The two failed votes in the Senate all but guarantees that the partial government shutdown will stretch into next week, while more than 800,000 federal workers will miss their second paycheck on Friday. 

Last month the Senate passed a continuing resolution (CR) that would have prevented the partial shutdown and funded operations until February 8, however it was ill fated after President Trump said that he would not sign any legislation that did not include $5.7 billion for his border wall. 

Developing…

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2RSogIo Tyler Durden

The FBI Stays Silent After Detaining an American News Anchor for a Week

|||YURI GRIPAS/REUTERS/NewscomAn American anchorwoman for Iran state television was recently arrested, and later released, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI has remained silent on the details surrounding Marzieh Hashemi’s arrest.

Born Melanie Franklin in New Orleans, Hashemi has been employed with Iran state television’s English-language service for 25 years. Hashemi now lives in Tehran and returns to the United States about once a year for personal trips to see family. During her most recent visit, Hashemi visited family in New Orleans. She then made her way to St. Louis. On January 13, the FBI arrested Hashemi and took her as a material witness to a detention center in Washington, D.C.

Hashemi’s family, her son included, was kept in the dark about her detention. Milton Leroy Franklin, Hashemi’s brother, said that her son was kept in a hotel at the time by the FBI after being arrested alongside his mother. He also expressed that the family was unable to contact Hashemi.

While detained, Hashemi was reportedly denied Halal food and her hijab was forcibly removed. She also appeared before a federal grand jury at least twice. Because of the alleged treatment and the lack of criminal charges, supporters believe that her First Amendment freedom of religion and press were violated. Supporters have also taken issue with the decision to arrest her in exchange for her testimony in an unspecified case. However, federal judges currently reserve the right to detain witnesses if a testimony is highly valuable and the person is suspected to be a flight risk.

Hashemi was released from prison on Wednesday evening. Multiple outlets have reported that the FBI did not respond to inquiries for further details.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2BcJFld
via IFTTT

Beware The ‘Recession-Deniers’

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Complacency

Complacency is back and comes in the form of recession denial in the face of global slowing data. We didn’t see the slowdown coming but we are confident it will not produce a recession so the narrative goes. Not even a risk of a recession. You’re hearing it from the Fed, the White House, the IMF and every Wall Street firm, the ECB and the BOJ, the chorus is sung with uniformity. No recession.

Not only is there no recession the slowdown creates a bullish paradox is the message. Because of the slowdown central banks will remain accommodative and hence the global debt construct will not be further burdened by higher rates and the party can keep on going. So fear not, buy stocks.

But how can anyone be sure that the slowdown in data will not produce a recession? After all recessions come not only on inversions of yield curves, but historically they are coming at the end of business cycles with low unemployment rates and waning confidence.

The moment when optimism gets replaced by rising pessimism, which is exactly what we are seeing now:

I don’t know when a recession hits, but someone has to explain to me how you can keep positive earnings growth going with a marked global slowdown in everything everywhere.

And I mean everything and everywhere. See the global examples below.

France:

Germany:

US:

Korea:

Singapore:

Japan:

China:

US government shutdown impacting Q1 GDP? No worries, it’s just temporary right?

Yesterday White House economic advisor Hassett acknowledged Q1 GDP may hit zero on an extended shutdown. How does one maintain positive earnings growth if Q1 GDP growth goes to zero? We’re not there yet, but there’s also no obvious sign as of yet as to when the shutdown ends.

Europe is slowing before our very eyes with the ECB on negative rates still and with a balance sheet that has ballooned to 42% of Eurozone GDP.

Imagine a recession actually does unfold into all this. A recession with negative rates still in place? That’s never happened before. But that’s what you risk if 10 years after an economic expansion you still run negative rates. A colossal and historical mistake by the ECB if indeed a recession unfolds.

No wonder everybody wants to be in recession denial. To warn of a recession is to reduce confidence risking bringing a recession about. To publicly deny risk of a recession is an effort to keep confidence propped up.

But it’s not an effort borne out of knowledge or confidence, because nobody can know the when.

Remember in 2018 all the talk was of global synchronized growth. The data above tells a story of global synchronized slowing. Those that expressed confidence in global synchronized growth are now trying to project confidence in a soft landing.

Maybe. But for that to happen there needs to be evidence of recent slowing trends to turn around. So far they haven’t. And to simply assume that they will may be an exercise in complacency. After all the underlying signal of all of these charts: Earnings estimates may be way too high.

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FMEJqS Tyler Durden

Air Safety Is Important. We Shouldn’t Let Politics Put It at Risk: New at Reason

|||Wang Ying Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

Employees of the American aviation industry warned this week that the government shutdown poses “unprecedented” risks for air travel in the United States. In a joint statement released Wednesday by unions representing air traffic controllers, pilots, and flight attendants, employees said that “staffing in our air traffic control facilities is already at a 30-year low and controllers are only able to maintain the system’s efficiency and capacity by working overtime, including 10-hour days and 6-day workweeks at many of our nation’s busiest facilities.” Transportation Security Agency (TSA) employees are also working overtime without pay, and many have called in sick during the shutdown so that they can work other jobs.

Aviation unions are right to call attention to possibly increased risks to aviation safety (air traffic control) and security (checkpoint screening) due to controllers and screeners going for long periods without pay, writes Robert W. Poole, Jr. in his latest for Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Ue5w2I
via IFTTT

PG&E Shares Halted After Company Cleared In Tubbs Fire Probe

In a surprising development that could trigger a rebound in the badly battered shares of America’s largest utility, California investigators have cleared utility PG&E of involvement in the 2017 Tubbs fire, the most destructive fire in California history.

Shares were halted on the news that investigators found that the catalyst for the fire was a private electrical system.

PG&E shares were halted on the news.

PGE

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2G2Q9Gz Tyler Durden