iftttwall

We know the ten “people” that run the world, that 25 cities represent over half the world’s GDP, and that the world’s billionaires control a stunning $33 trillion in net worth… but who controls what the average joe-sixpack on Main Street buys? As PolicyMic notes, these ten mega corporations control the output of almost everything we buy – from household products to pet food and from jeans to jello. The so-called “Illusion of Choice,” that these corporations (and their nepotistic inter-relationships) create is remarkable…

(click image for gigantic legible version)

(Note: The chart shows a mix of networks. Parent companies may own, own shares of, or may simply partner with their branch networks. For example, Coca-Cola does not own Monster, but distributes the energy drink. Another note: We are not sure how up-to-date the chart is. For example, it has not been updated to reflect P&G’s sale of Pringles to Kellogg’s in February.)

 

Via PolicyMic,

Here are just a few examples: Yum Brands owns KFC and Taco Bell. The company was a spin-off of Pepsi. All Yum Brands restaurants sell only Pepsi products because of a special partnership with the soda-maker.

 

$84 billion-company Proctor & Gamble — the largest advertiser in the U.S. — is paired with a number of diverse brands that produce everything from medicine to toothpaste to high-end fashion. All tallied, P&G reportedly serves a whopping 4.8 billion people around the world through this network.

 

$200 billion-corporation Nestle — famous for chocolate, but which is the biggest food company in the world — owns nearly 8,000 different brands worldwide, and takes stake in or is partnered with a swath of others. Included in this network is shampoo company L’Oreal, baby food giant Gerber, clothing brand Diesel, and pet food makers Purina and Friskies.

 

Unilever, of soap fame, reportedly serves 2 billion people around the world, controlling a network that produces everything from Q-tips to Skippy peanut butter.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/slbk6-ZzctQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

And they’re back:

• 2,277 sq.ft. – Median new-home size in 2007
• 2,306 sq. ft. – Median new-home size in 2012

Just as that crowning achievement of the last housing bubble, the McMansions, have once again returned with the second and final return of the Fed-blown housing bubble, the Bluths picked a perfect time to also come bac on the scene.

But back to the triumphal return of McMansions.

Readers will recall that one of the prevailing themes in the early post-depression years, was a return to thrift – in spending and in housing size – and after the median home size hit a record high of 2,277 square feet in 2007, it declined progressively in the following two years according to Census Bureau figures (we can only assume these were not manipulated unlike the jobs numbers). As David Rosenberg at the time, and as the NYT pointed out a day ago, “It seemed that after more than a decade of swelling domiciles, the McMansion era was over. But that conclusion may have been premature.”

Because as data from 2010 and onward shows, now only is American fascination with size, in this case of one’s home, back but it has never been more acute:

In 2010, homes starting growing again. By last year, the size of the median new single-family home hit a record high of 2,306 square feet, surpassing the peak of 2007. And new homes have been getting more expensive, too. The median price reached $279,300 in April this year, or about 6 percent higher than the pre-recession peak of $262,600, set in March 2007. The numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

However, since we have already covered the return of the housing (and all other) bubbles previously, we will not comment on how the Fed is once again doing everything in its power to bring about the biggest credit and housing bubble crash in history. The NYT has done a rather good and concise job of that:

 Yet the economy remains weak. How can Americans keep buying bigger and more expensive homes? It turns out, of course, that not everyone can.

 

“It’s all about access to credit,” said Rose Quint, an economist at the National Association of Home Builders. “People who are less affluent and have less robust employment histories have been shut out of the new home market. As a result, the characteristics of new homes are being skewed to people who can obtain credit and put down large down payments, typically wealthier buyers.”

 

It’s another sign that in today’s economy, prosperity is not universally shared.

Much more can be added here, although at the end of the day all signs point, as usual, to the Fed and its “reflate everything” panacea.

So instead of analyzing the prevailing Keynesian lunacy in which one needs asset bubbles to fix the aftermath of prior asset bubbles, we will simply constrain ourselves to discussing… interior decoration.

The infographic below from BusinessWeek shows how times, and tastes, how to decorate one’s McMansion have changed in the past few years.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7dC0YYCusGI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

And they’re back:

• 2,277 sq.ft. – Median new-home size in 2007
• 2,306 sq. ft. – Median new-home size in 2012

Just as that crowning achievement of the last housing bubble, the McMansions, have once again returned with the second and final return of the Fed-blown housing bubble, the Bluths picked a perfect time to also come bac on the scene.

But back to the triumphal return of McMansions.

Readers will recall that one of the prevailing themes in the early post-depression years, was a return to thrift – in spending and in housing size – and after the median home size hit a record high of 2,277 square feet in 2007, it declined progressively in the following two years according to Census Bureau figures (we can only assume these were not manipulated unlike the jobs numbers). As David Rosenberg at the time, and as the NYT pointed out a day ago, “It seemed that after more than a decade of swelling domiciles, the McMansion era was over. But that conclusion may have been premature.”

Because as data from 2010 and onward shows, now only is American fascination with size, in this case of one’s home, back but it has never been more acute:

In 2010, homes starting growing again. By last year, the size of the median new single-family home hit a record high of 2,306 square feet, surpassing the peak of 2007. And new homes have been getting more expensive, too. The median price reached $279,300 in April this year, or about 6 percent higher than the pre-recession peak of $262,600, set in March 2007. The numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

However, since we have already covered the return of the housing (and all other) bubbles previously, we will not comment on how the Fed is once again doing everything in its power to bring about the biggest credit and housing bubble crash in history. The NYT has done a rather good and concise job of that:

 Yet the economy remains weak. How can Americans keep buying bigger and more expensive homes? It turns out, of course, that not everyone can.

 

“It’s all about access to credit,” said Rose Quint, an economist at the National Association of Home Builders. “People who are less affluent and have less robust employment histories have been shut out of the new home market. As a result, the characteristics of new homes are being skewed to people who can obtain credit and put down large down payments, typically wealthier buyers.”

 

It’s another sign that in today’s economy, prosperity is not universally shared.

Much more can be added here, although at the end of the day all signs point, as usual, to the Fed and its “reflate everything” panacea.

So instead of analyzing the prevailing Keynesian lunacy in which one needs asset bubbles to fix the aftermath of prior asset bubbles, we will simply constrain ourselves to discussing… interior decoration.

The infographic below from BusinessWeek shows how times, and tastes, how to decorate one’s McMansion have changed in the past few years.

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7dC0YYCusGI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Submitted by mickeyman via The World Complex blog,

Interpretation of scaling laws for US income

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/yRQgOT6Jawc/story01.htm Tyler Durden

 

The primary theme driving US stock markets, is that of whether the Fed will taper or not.

The mere fact that this is the single most important theme for the markets goes a long way towards explaining how busted our financial system has become. Before 2007, the talk concerned whether the Fed would change interest rates. Today we talk about whether scaling back from $85 billion in asset purchases per month represents tightening.”

 

At the end of the day, the fact is that the Fed can never exit its strategies. I realize there are a lot of smart people with smart explanations for why the Fed can exit, but they are missing a critical component: human nature.

 

We saw this in real-time back in May 2013 when the Fed first floated the idea of tapering its QE programs. The Fed had hoped it could float this idea and let the markets get used to it, instead interest rates spiked with rates on the 10-year moving up from 1.5% to nearly 3% in a matter of weeks.

 

 

At the time, the financial media began to write articles about the market’s “taper tantrum” as though metaphorically aligning the capital markets with s spoiled brat explained the reaction.

 

The Fed then did a 180 despite all but promising it would taper QE. Bernanke even went so far as to negate the call for a taper in his July Q&A.

 

Why did he do this? It’s simple. He like the rest of the Fed saw in simple terms that there is no such thing as a smooth exit. The market rebelled at the mere hint of tapering at a time when the Fed is buying $85 billion per month. If the Fed were to actually go ahead and taper what would rates do?

 

Moreover, with the financial system now even more leveraged than it was going into 2007… what would happen if interest rates moved back to their historical averages of 4% on the ten year Treasury?

 

Ka-Boom.

 

So now, there is talk of the Fed tapering in December. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. I have no idea. No one does. If we were going to try to analyze the Fed’s moves via logic or economic fundamentals, we would have tapered months if not years ago.

 

Instead we’ll get more of the same: talk of taper to talk the markets down, then a surprise decision to not taper so market take off again. The Fed is now managing expectations more than anything. The Fed has acted in 90+% of the months since the Crisis began. This tells us precisely what the game plan is going forward.

 

At some point, and I cannot say when, this whole mess will come unhinged. When it does 2008 will look like a joke.

 

If you have not taken steps to prepare for a market collapse, we have a FREE Special Report that outlines how to prepare your portfolio. To pick up a copy, swing by:

http://phoenixcapitalmarketing.com/special-reports.html

 

 

Best Regards

 

Phoenix Capital Research

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/9tBBOMMZk1E/story01.htm Phoenix Capital Research

An Iran deal that is kinda sorta a deal but really is not a deal is all we need in the new normal to justify adding another few fractions onto the equity multiple valuation tree of hope. The S&P is up 9 points, Dow up 70 points, and WTI Crude is down around 1% on the news. Interestingly, stocks have no support from the almost ubiquitous carry traders as this appears more like a rip through the stop order stack more than another greater fool adding to their position.

 

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/40OdFTkF1TI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

“Fixed…?”

 

 

 

(h/t Sunday Funnies at The Burning Platform blog)

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ek2Xn32mhl4/story01.htm Tyler Durden

“Fixed…?”

 

 

 

(h/t Sunday Funnies at The Burning Platform blog)

via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ek2Xn32mhl4/story01.htm Tyler Durden