Less than two days before Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States, Fed chair Janet Yellen takes to the stage at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco to explain (after all these years), what "the goals of monetary policy are… and how we pursue them." We can't wait to hear how increasing asset prices to untenable levels, depriving savers of income, and driving the largest wedge between rich and poor since the great depression have been part of the solution…

Headlins from her prepared remarks include:

• *YELLEN: U.S. NEAR MAX EMPLOYMENT, INFLATION MOVING TOWARD GOAL
• *YELLEN: FED CLOSE TO DUAL GOALS; CAN'T GIVE TIMING OF NEXT HIKE
• *YELLEN: SHE AND MOST COLLEAGUES EXPECT `A FEW' RATE HIKES A YR
• *YELLEN: NEXT RATE HIKE DEPENDS ON ECONOMY `OVER COMING MONTHS'
• *YELLEN: MAKES SENSE TO GRADUALLY REDUCE MONETARY POLICY SUPPORT
• *YELLEN SAYS SHE'S HEARING FROM BORROWERS WHO WANT LOWER RATES
• *YELLEN SAYS U.S. WAGE GROWTH REMAINS FAIRLY LOW
• *YELLEN: WANT TO ENSURE ECONOMY STRONG ENOUGH TO ABSORB SHOCKS

Live Feed (Yellen due to speak at 1500ET)…

Full speech here:

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to join all of you at the Commonwealth Club for lunch today, not the least because the club and the Federal Reserve have a few things in common. Both organizations, as it happens, have a board of governors and a chair. And both the club's and the Fed's histories extend back more than a century. The club, as many here know, was founded in 1903, and the Federal Reserve a decade later. Perhaps because of our shared origins in the Progressive Era, a period of reform in American life, we hold certain values in common. According to your website, the club is nonpartisan and dedicated to the impartial discussion of issues important to your community and the nation. At the Fed, we too are nonpartisan and focused squarely on the public interest. We strive to conduct our deliberations impartially and base our decisions on factual evidence and objective analysis. This afternoon I will discuss some challenges we've faced in our recent deliberations and may face in the next few years.

Perhaps, though, it is best to start by stepping back and asking, what is–and, importantly, what isn't–our job as the nation's central bank? And how do we go about trying to accomplish it? The Federal Reserve has an array of responsibilities. I'll mention our principal duties and then focus on one–monetary policy, the responsibility that gets the most public attention.

In addition to monetary policy, we–in collaboration with other regulatory agencies at both the federal and state levels–oversee banks and some other financial institutions to ensure they operate safely and soundly and treat their customers fairly. We monitor the financial system as a whole and promote its stability to help avoid financial crises that could choke off credit to consumers and businesses. We also reliably and safely process trillions of dollars of payments for the nation's banks and the federal government and ensure that banks have an ample supply of currency and coin to meet the demands of their depositors. And we work with communities, nonprofit organizations, lenders, educators, and others to encourage financial and economic literacy, promote equal access to credit, and advance economic and community development.

But, as I noted, monetary policy draws the most headlines. What is monetary policy, exactly? Simply put, it consists of central bank actions aimed at influencing interest rates and financial conditions more generally. Its purpose is to help foster a healthy economy. But monetary policy cannot, by itself, create a healthy economy. It cannot, for instance, educate young people, generate technological breakthroughs, make workers and businesses more productive, or address the root causes of inequality. Fundamentally, the energy, ingenuity, and know-how of American workers and entrepreneurs, along with our natural resources, create prosperity. Regulatory policy and fiscal policy–the decisions by the Administration and the Congress about how much and how the government spends, taxes, and borrows–can influence these more fundamental economic pillars.

I've said what monetary policy cannot do. But what can it do? It can lean against damaging fluctuations in the economy. Nearly 40 years ago, the Congress set two main guideposts for that task–maximum employment and price stability. We refer to these assigned goals as our dual mandate. When the economy is weak and unemployment is on the rise, we encourage spending and investing by pushing short-term interest rates lower. As you may know, the interest rate that we target is the federal funds rate, the rate banks charge each other for overnight loans. Lowering short-term rates in turn puts downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, making credit more affordable–for families, for instance, to buy a house or for businesses to expand. Similarly, when the economy is threatening to push inflation too high down the road, we increase interest rates to keep the economy on a sustainable path and lean against its tendency to boom and then bust.

But what exactly do the terms "maximum employment" and "price stability" mean? Does maximum employment mean that every single person who wants a job has a job? No. There are always a certain number of people who are temporarily between jobs after having recently lost a job or having left one voluntarily to pursue better opportunities. Others may have just graduated and have started looking for a job or have decided to return to working–for instance, when their child starts school. This so-called frictional unemployment is evident even in the healthiest of economies.

Then there is structural unemployment–a difficult problem both for the people affected and for policymakers trying to address it. Sometimes people are ready and willing to work, but their skills, perhaps because of technological advances, are not a good fit for the jobs that are available. Or suitable jobs may be available but are not close to where they and their families live. These are factors over which monetary policy has little influence. Other measures–such as job training and other workforce development programs–are better suited to address structural unemployment.

After taking account of both frictional and structural unemployment, what unemployment rate is roughly equivalent to the maximum level of employment that can be sustained in the longer run? The rate can change over time as the economy evolves, but, for now, many economists, including my colleagues at the Fed and me, judge that it is around 4-3/4 percent. It's important to try to estimate the unemployment rate that is equivalent to maximum employment because persistently operating below it pushes inflation higher, which brings me to our price stability mandate.

Does price stability mean having no inflation whatsoever? Again, the answer is no. By "price stability," we mean a level of inflation that is low and stable enough that it doesn't need to figure prominently into people's and businesses' economic decisions. Based on research and decades of experience, we define that level as 2 percent a year–an inflation objective similar to that adopted by most other major central banks.¹ Individual prices, of course, move up and down by more than 2 percent all the time. Such movements are essential to a well-functioning economy. They allow supply and demand to adjust for various goods and services. By "inflation," we mean price changes as a whole for all of the various goods and services that households consume.

No one likes high inflation, and it is easy to understand why. Although wages and prices tend to move in tandem over long periods, inflation erodes household purchasing power if it is not matched with similar increases in wages, and it eats away the value of households' savings. So, then, why don't we and other central banks aim for zero inflation? There are several technical reasons, but a more fundamental reason is to create a buffer against the opposite of inflation–that is, deflation. Deflation is a general and persistent decline in the level of prices, a phenomenon Americans last experienced during the Great Depression of the 1930s and one that Japan has confronted for most of the past two decades. Deflation can feed on itself, leading to economic stagnation or worse. It puts pressure on employers to either cut wages or cut jobs. And it can be very hard on borrowers, who find themselves repaying their loans with dollars that are worth more than the dollars they originally borrowed. I am sure we all remember learning in school about farm families in the Great Depression who couldn't pay their mortgages and lost their homes and their livelihoods when crop prices fell persistently.

Another important reason to maintain a modest inflation buffer is that too low inflation impairs the ability of monetary policy to counter economic downturns. When inflation is very low, interest rates tend to be very low also, even in good times. And when interest rates are generally very low, the Fed has only limited room to cut them to help the economy in bad times.

In a nutshell, the Fed's goal is to promote financial conditions conducive to maximum employment and price stability. And I have offered broad-brush definitions of each of those objectives. So where is the economy now, in relationship to them? The short answer is, we think it's close. The economy has come a long way since the financial crisis. As you know, the crisis marked the start of a very deep recession. It destroyed nearly 9 million jobs, and it's been a long, slow slog to recover from it. Unemployment peaked at 10 percent late in 2009, a level unseen for more than 25 years, and didn't move below 8 percent for nearly three years. Falling home prices put millions of homeowners "underwater," meaning they owed more on their mortgages than their homes were worth. And the stock market plunged, slashing the value of 401(k) retirement nest eggs.

The extraordinarily severe recession required an extraordinary response from monetary policy, both to support the job market and prevent deflation. We cut our short-term interest rate target to near zero at the end of 2008 and kept it there for seven years. To provide further support to American households and businesses, we pressed down on longer-term interest rates by purchasing large amounts of longer-term Treasury securities and government-guaranteed mortgage securities. And we communicated our intent to keep short-term interest rates low for a long time, thus increasing the downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, which are influenced by expectations about short-term rates.

Now, it's fair to say, the economy is near maximum employment and inflation is moving toward our goal. The unemployment rate is less than 5 percent, roughly back to where it was before the recession. And, over the past seven years, the economy has added about 15-1/2 million net new jobs. Although inflation has been running below our 2 percent objective for quite some time, we have seen it start inching back toward 2 percent last year as the job market continued to improve and as the effects of a big drop in oil prices faded. Last month, at our most recent meeting, we took account of the considerable progress the economy has made by modestly increasing our short-term interest rate target by 1/4 percentage point to a range of 1/2 to 3/4 percent. It was the second such step–the first came a year earlier–and reflects our confidence the economy will continue to improve.

Now, many of you would love to know exactly when the next rate increase is coming and how high rates will rise. The simple truth is, I can't tell you because it will depend on how the economy actually evolves over coming months. The economy is vast and vastly complex, and its path can take surprising twists and turns. What I can tell you is what we expect–along with a very large caveat that our interest rate expectations will change as our outlook for the economy changes. That said, as of last month, I and most of my colleagues–the other members of the Fed Board in Washington and the presidents of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks–were expecting to increase our federal funds rate target a few times a year until, by the end of 2019, it is close to our estimate of its longer-run neutral rate of 3 percent.

The term "neutral rate" requires some explaining. It is the rate that, once the economy has reached our objectives, will keep the economy on an even keel. It is neither pressing on the gas pedal to make the car go faster nor easing off so much that the car slows down. Right now our foot is still pressing on the gas pedal, though, as I noted, we have eased back a bit. Our foot remains on the pedal in part because we want to make sure the economic expansion remains strong enough to withstand an unexpected shock, given that we don't have much room to cut interest rates. In addition, inflation is still running below our 2 percent objective, and, by some measures, there may still be some room for progress in the job market. For instance, wage growth has only recently begun to pick up and remains fairly low. A broader measure of unemployment isn't quite back to its pre-recession level. It includes people who would like a job but have been too discouraged to look for one and people who are working part time but would rather work full time.

Nevertheless, as the economy approaches our objectives, it makes sense to gradually reduce the level of monetary policy support. Changes in monetary policy take time to work their way into the economy. Waiting too long to begin moving toward the neutral rate could risk a nasty surprise down the road–either too much inflation, financial instability, or both. In that scenario, we could be forced to raise interest rates rapidly, which in turn could push the economy into a new recession.

The factors I have just discussed are the usual sort that central bankers consider as economies move through a recovery. But a longer-term trend–slow productivity growth–helps explain why we don't think dramatic interest rate increases are required to move our federal funds rate target back to neutral. Labor productivity–that is, the output of goods and services per hour of work–has increased by only about 1/2 percent a year, on average, over the past six years or so and only 1-1/4 percent a year over the past decade. That contrasts with the previous 30 years when productivity grew a bit more than 2 percent a year. This productivity slowdown matters enormously because Americans' standard of living depends on productivity growth. With productivity growth of 2 percent a year, the average standard of living will double roughly every 35 years. That means our children can reasonably hope to be better off economically than we are now. But productivity growth of 1 percent a year means the average standard of living will double only every 70 years.

Economists do not fully understand the causes of the productivity slowdown. Some emphasize that technological progress and its diffusion throughout the economy seem to be slower over the past decade or so. Others look at college graduation rates, which have flattened out after rising rapidly in previous generations. And still others focus on a dramatic slowing in the creation of new businesses, which are often more innovative than established firms. While each of these factors has likely played a role in slowing productivity growth, the extent to which they will continue to do so is an open question.²

Why does slow productivity growth, if it persists, imply a lower neutral interest rate? First, it implies that the economy's usual rate of output growth, when employment is at its maximum and prices are stable, will be significantly slower than the post-World War II average. Slower economic growth, in turn, implies businesses will see less need to invest in expansion. And it implies families and individuals will feel the need to save more and spend less. Because interest rates are the mechanism that brings the supply of savings and the demand for investment funds into balance, more saving and less investment imply a lower neutral interest rate. Although we can't directly measure the neutral interest rate, it is something that can be estimated in retrospect. And, as we have increasingly realized, it has probably been trending down for a while now. Our current 3 percent estimate of the longer-run neutral rate, for instance, is a full percentage point lower than our estimate just three years ago.

You might be thinking, what does this discussion of rather esoteric concepts such as the neutral rate mean to me? If you are a borrower, it means that, although the interest rates you pay on, say, your auto loan or mortgage or credit card likely will creep higher, they probably will not increase dramatically. Likewise, if you are a saver, the rates you earn could inch higher after a while, but probably not by a lot. For some years, I've heard from savers who want higher rates, and now I'm beginning to hear from borrowers who want lower rates. I can't emphasize strongly enough, though, that we are not trying to help one of those groups at the expense of the other. We're focused very much on that dual mandate I keep mentioning. At the end of the day, we all benefit from plentiful jobs and stable prices, whether we are savers or borrowers–and many of us, of course, are both.

Economics and monetary policy are, at best, inexact sciences. Figuring out what the neutral interest rate is and setting the right path toward it is not like setting the thermostat in a house: You can't just set the temperature at 68 degrees and walk away. And, because changes in monetary policy affect the economy with long lags sometimes, we must base our decisions on our best forecasts of an uncertain future. Thus, we must continually reassess and adjust our policies based on what we learn.

That point leads me to repeat what I said when I began: Like the Commonwealth Club, the Federal Reserve was created more than a century ago during an era of government reform to serve the public interest. The structure established for the Federal Reserve back then intentionally insulates us from short-term political pressures so we can focus on what's best for the American economy in the longer run. I promise you, with the sometimes imperfect information and evidence we have available, we will do just that by making the best decisions we can, as objectively as we can.

Thank you. I welcome your questions.

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

Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

In the sappiest of sappy interviews, outgoing vice president Joe Biden looks back, and forward. ‘I Wish to Hell I’d Just Kept Saying the Exact Same Thing’ says Biden in a New York Times interview.

The title is cryptic but it pertains to a speech Biden gave in July that he wishes he repeated more often instead of attacking Trump.

Biden is afflicted with guilt and worry.

1. About not talking about what Hillary would do, instead of blasting Trump.
2. About not running for president himself. He thinks he would have won.
3. About affordable health care. “I’m not prepared to bet my granddaughter’s college tuition, but it’s less likely to be undone than frayed on the edges,” moans Biden.
4. About the nonsensical prospect of Vladimir Putin fulfilling his dream of re-establishing Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.
5. About Syria.
6. About the glass ceiling and the failure of the first black president to pass the baton to the first female president.

If that’s is not enough sap for you, Biden says “I’ll run”  in 2020 “if I can walk.”

Biden did offer this tidbit on Trump ‘It’s like a rubik’s cube trying to figure this guy out. We have no freakin’ idea what he’s gonna do.’

The sap concluded …

After Air Force Two touched down on the tarmac in Wilmington, I asked him about a line he liked to use before the election. “So do you still believe what your grandfather said, that God looks out for drunken Irishmen and the United States of America?” Biden said he wasn’t sure about the Irishmen, but he was about the country. “I have to believe that,” he said. “There’s no sense being in this business unless you’re an optimist.

Unknown vs. Known

Although we do not know what Trump will do, we likely do know what Hillary would have done, and nearly all of it bad, especially on the warmongering front.

I would rather deal with the unknown. Trump is likely to get at least some things right, and Russia appears to be one of them.

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

In the very definition of ‘irony’, The FTC is preparing to file charges against Irish drug maker Mallinckrodt for allegedly using its monopoly to jack up the price of a drug used to treat lupus and multiple sclerosis by 2165%, after none other than Martin Shkreli filed suit.

As The New York Post reports, The FTC has been investigating Mallinckrodt and its Questcor unit for several years — shortly after Shkreli, then the chief executive of drugmaker Retrophin, filed suit in 2014 against the California company accusing it of acquiring the drug, Synacthen, from Novartis — and then shutting it down to protect its profitable rival drug.

Shkreli, as the chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals in 2015, drew national derision when he acquired the rights to Daraprim, a 50-year old-plus drug used to treat parasitic infections, and promptly increased the price to $750 from $13.50.

 

The 33-year old was indicted in December 2015 on securities law fraud — for allegedly cheating investors in a hedge fund he was running.

 

The FTC has been investigating whether the deal to acquire Synacthen gave Questcor a monopoly. Mallinckrodt bought Questcor in 2014 for $5.8 billion.

 

President Obama’s FTC, in its waning days, is likely to file a suit against Mallinckrodt for monopolizing the market for Acthar Gel, also used to control spasms in infants, a Washington source not directly involved in the case said.

 

Acthar Gel costs $28,000 for a vial, an increase from $1,235 a vial in 2005, according to published reports.

MNK is halted, limit down at its lowest price since Nov 2013…

Mallinckrodt warned its investors in June of the FTC probe, saying it “could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.”

via http://ift.tt/2iS1mh2 Tyler Durden

With the Inauguration just days away, “PizzaGate” has been thrust back into the spotlight for the first time since the election thanks to reporter Ben Swann of CBS46 in Atlanta – only this time, it’s not a puff piece labeling it a conspiracy theory, or another New York Times article going out of it’s way to defend Comet Ping Pong. Swann lays out the players, including Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis (who was in a relationship with CTR-mastermind David Brock), as well as pedophile terminology, logos, and even some of the pedo-friendly musical acts featured at the restaurant. Swann even mentions John Podesta’s close relationship with convicted pedophile Dennis Hastert, as well as the creepy Podesta art.

Take a look :

Within hours of it’s airing, Wikileaks tweeted a link to the broadcast, along with the FBI’s 2007 “pedphile symbols” guide.

CBS Reality Check covers Pizzagate. https://t.co/KNaKp1XONR

More: https://t.co/Sc1nFTAFgV

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) January 18, 2017

Is this the opening salvo in the next phase of #PizzaGate from emboldened journalists who no longer fear John Podesta’s wrath? The answer is anyone’s guess, however, even if Ben Swann isn’t taken out with a Polonium pellet – he will forever be encumbered by his gigantic balls.

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

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

The Fed’s latest beige book, perhaps the most boring report released by the Federal Reserve, found 10 of the 12 Fed districts growing at the now ubiquitous “modest or moderate pace” with Cleveland growing only slightly and New York reporting little change for the fourth period in a row.  However, despite stagnant growth, margin pressures are building as input prices are rising faster than final goods prices.

The good news for US workers is that according to the Fed, labor market conditions remained tight in the majority of the districts. Employment growth ranged from slight to moderate and most Districts indicated that wages increased modestly. A couple of Districts mentioned layoffs, but even in those Districts, as in other regions, most responding firms were said to have added employment, on net. District reports cited widespread difficulties in finding workers for skilled positions; several also noted problems recruiting for less-killed jobs. Wages in some Districts were pushed up a bit by increases in the states’ minimum wages and most Districts said wage pressures had increased. The Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Atlanta Fed districts reported further tightening in their labor markets over the period, with wage pressures likely to rise and the pace of hiring to hold steady or increase.

Manufacturing activity appeared to be robust at the end of 2016  into the new year.

“Manufacturers in most Districts reported increased sales with several citing turnaround versus earlier in 2016,” the Beige Book said. However, manufacturing activity in Cleveland remained steady due to a seasonal decline in new orders. On the other hand, manufacturers in Cleveland reported a break in layoffs.”

Software and IT services firms in Boston reported watching the resurging dollar to see if it affects their clients’ interests in the manufacturing sector. Dallas, St. Louis and San Francisco manufacturing sectors echoed these concerns, though the Boston Fed reported foreign investment in commercial real estate in the district unaffected by an appreciating dollar.

The bad news is that any increase in wages is being offset by rising prices as pricing pressures intensified somewhat since the last report. Eight out of twelve Districts saw modest price increases and the remainder experienced slight increases, or flat prices in the case of the Atlanta District. Increases in input costs were more widespread than increases in final goods prices. Cost increases were reported for coal, natural gas, and selected building and manufacturing materials. Retailers’ selling prices were mixed, but on balance were flat or down amidst competitive discounting. Prices of most agricultural commodities stayed flat at very low levels. Home prices were stable or up modestly. Businesses in several districts reportedly expect further modest increases in input costs and selling prices in 2017.

And while the number of mentions of “uncertain” declined from 15 in November, to only 6 in Januar, concerns remains over policy changes in the incoming administration.

The Fed also said most districts said non-auto retail sales expanded, but that several districts noted holiday sales were disappointing. New York, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Dallas reported disappointing or slugglish consumer spending or retail spending through November and December.

But the most troubling news revolves around the threat to corporate margins because despite the “modest, moderate” growth, margin pressures were said to be building as input prices rose faster than final goods prices. Cost increases were reported for coal, natural gas, and selected building and manufacturing materials. At the same time, retailers’ selling prices were mixed, but on balance were flat or down amidst competitive discounting.

We wonder how long before the Trumpflation rally has some variant of “stag” before it?

via http://ift.tt/2iS1Of6 Tyler Durden

Hold your real assets outside of the banking system in one of many private international facilities  –>    http://ift.tt/2cyFwvQ;

Questioning The Generally Accepted Narrative

Posted with permission and written by Craig Hemke (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

One of the primary themes that we’ve been repeating is that 2017 is going to be a wildly unpredictable year. To that end, today we begin what might be a wildly unpredictable week. Buckle up.

So, let’s see. What are some of the primary tenets of the heavily-promoted “Generally Accepted Narrative”?

1. Major US deficit spending will promote economic growth
2. This economic growth will allow The Fed to hike the Fed Funds rate 3-4 times
3. Rates on the long end will rise, too, as “the bond bubble bursts”
4. All of this growth and higher rates will prompt a huge rally in the dollar
5. And the US stock market will charge toward 25,000 on the Dow.

Let’s check in on these as we’ve now reached the second half of January.

“Major US deficit spending will promote economic growth. This economic growth will allow The Fed to hike the Fed Funds rate 3-4 times.” — Well, we’ll see about this. There have not been any specific proposals put forth yet by Trump and some of the economic and confidence numbers are already beginning to roll over. Here’s today’s economic datapoint for your consideration: http://ift.tt/2j4A2d2 And, regarding The Fed, let’s not forget these two charts:

“Rates on the long end will rise, too, as “the bond bubble bursts”. Well, this isn’t working out so well for the Narrative Pushers. As we’ve been observing, long rates are moving lower as bonds are bought, not sold, and the so-called “bond bubble” is alive and well. As you can see below, since the first of the year, the rate of the 30-year Long Bond has fallen from 3.11% to 2.93% and now threatens a complete reversal back to where it was before the US election. Yes, we will continue to watch this very closely in the weeks ahead.

“All of this growth and higher rates will prompt a huge rally in the dollar.” And here is where The Narrative Pushers are really failing. The conventional wisdom holds that the POSX is going to 110+ as the euro and yen both fade under the weight of their own issues. Well, not so fast my friend. As you can see below, The Pig has already fallen rather dramatically in January and, if it falls back under 100, the Pig bulls are really going to have to start questioning themselves.

“And the US stock market will charge toward 25,000 on the Dow.” Hmmm. Not so much. Maybe Bob Pissonme and the rest of the CNBS cheerleaders should concentrate on getting to 20,000 before focusing upon 25,000? As you can see below, the “stock market” has been stuck now for over a month.

We see The Generally Accepted Narrative failing as it pertains to Comex Digital Gold and Silver, too. How many forecasts did you read in December that called for sub-$1000 gold? How many supposed analysts and wave-counters were projecting $12 or $8 silver? Instead, that ain’t working out so well. And why? Because the analysts and technicians all fail to understand that there is no “market” for “gold”. Instead, we have HFT driving funds into and out of Comex Digital Gold exposure, primarily following changes to the USDJPY. Who cares of we’re in subcycle F of major downwave 3? None of that mumbo-jumbo makes a rat’s ass bit of difference if the USDJPY is indeed headed back toward 100.

So be of good cheer but expect a wildly unpredictable 2017. As we’ve seen so far, the predicted market moves of The Generally Accepted Narrative for 2017 are far from being a fait accompli.

Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

Questioning The Generally Accepted Narrative

Posted with permission and written by Craig Hemke (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

via http://ift.tt/2jxY7wf Sprott Money

Scaramucci Contradicts Trump at Davos

Via Soren K. at MarketSlant| We noticed yesterday that Anthony Scaramucci's Davos behavior was that of a child new to getting attention. Prior to Trump he was quick to lead with his humble Long-Island "regular guy" story when among evil elitists. So yesterday we were confused. Is Scaramucci (nicknamed Mooch) just being a bit too euphoric in his spotlight moment? Or was he really just itching to be a member of the club and dying to drop the "normal guy" schtick? We don't know, but he does seem to be harming the populist image on which Trump ran.

But Mooch does not seem to be a good fit for Trump.

As Matt Levine noted today: Anthony Scaramucci is a fund-of-funds marketer who has achieved some public notoriety for complaining that Barack Obama was "whacking at the Wall Street piñata" and and for comparing the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule to slavery. So of course he has a new job doing public relations for Donald Trump at Davos, which I think might be the absolute worst job/employer/location combination I can imagine? He seems happy though: “This is my 10th year here, but my first year here with a food taster,” Mr. Scaramucci quipped at the beginning of a conference session Tuesday afternoon nominally on the “Outlook for the United States” but really about President-elect Trump—and a little bit about Anthony Scaramucci. Full editorial here

  For example, Scaramucci made a very non-populist statement while with his new tasting pals.

(FT) Donald Trump is committed to globalisation. "Elite in Europe and US have misunderstood trade stance"

So we agree with Matt Levine on the surface of it. And that probably means Scaramucci is a red herring for Trump policy ideas. Mooch is Trump's cognitive dissonance outsourced. If people like what he says? Trump takes credit. They don't, he's fired.

#WEF17 http://pic.twitter.com/uE3NvRSJdp

— Rudolf E. Havenstein (@RudyHavenstein) January 18, 2017

Mooch the Davos Shill and Potential Fall Guy?

Our guess is Scaramucci is first to go if Trump loses his balance between public face and private bettors.  And that makes Scarmucci, who is no dummy, adept in the ways of the financial/ political the revolving door. His exit strategy was cemented at Davos we'd bet.

We see Mooch as a guy who may be Trump's opposite in some ways but shares that quality of having a secret need to be liked by the elites. Trump rails at those who would not acknowledge his skills or accept him into their white-shoe club. Scaramucci put his head down and did all he could to be included, but always careful to lead with the "local guy makes good" schtick. The outsider who desires acceptance and status above all.

Overheard at Davos

• Davos Waiter: Mr. Scaramucci, Bono wants to share a creme brulee with you in the kitchen.
• Scaramucci: Wow, I'm so excited!! I'll be right there
• Hey Mooch, remember us?

2 Days to Trump-ageddon. Good Luck

Vbl

Twitter: @VlanciPictures

via http://ift.tt/2jom7iR Vince Lanci

In what is certain to be an epic lovefest that would put even Hollywood’s mushiest romantic comedy to shame, President Obama will take questions from the press in the White House briefing room for the last time at 2:15 EST today…or whenever he decides to show up. 

According to comments from current White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Obama will use his last press conference to, once again, blast the incoming Trump administration’s “restrictions on the media” while encouraging the triggered snowflakes of America’s leftist networks to “rise to the occasion and adapt to the changing environment.”  Per Politico:

In an interview with POLITICO, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Obama will use his final news conference to highlight his concerns about the restrictions on the media that the president-elect put in place during his campaign and transition, and what it might mean for his administration.

 

“The media environment is challenging, and the news media and the journalists who cover the White House will be challenged to rise to the occasion and adapt to the changing environment,” said Earnest, in an interview ahead of Wednesday. “I know the president is interested in showing his support for their efforts to do that.”

Of course, this closing message from Obama is particularly rich in light of his relentless war against whistleblowers over the past 8 years and repeated attempts to subpoena journalists’ phone records.  Even CNN’s Jake Tapper was forced to admit that Obama’s pursuit of journalists was unprecedented…

“The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists…more than all previous administrations combined.”

…while the Washington Post, back in 2013 called the Obama administration’s “efforts to control information” the most aggressive “since the Nixon administration.”

 “The [Obama] administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.”

And while Obama will undoubtedly cite the recent tussle between Trump and CNN’s Jim Acosta as a sign of an aggressive stance that will be taken toward the media by the Trump administration, we would have loved to have seen how Obama would have reacted to a “journalist” calling him “inappropriate” during a press conference.

Of course, in the end, Obama’s parting coziness with the press will only serve to further boost Trump’s approval ratings.

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

While we noted earlier today that George H.W Bush had been admitted to a hospital over the weekend due to breathing problems, it appears that his condition may have deteriorated, and as AP reports, the former President has been moved to the intensive care unit of a Houston hospital, while former First Lady Barbara Bush is now also in the hospital, ABC News reports. George Bush was taken to the hospital over the weekend for shortness of breath. McGrath said earlier Wednesday that the 92 -year-old Bush was responding well to treatments.

A statement from his office issued Wednesday said the former president was treated for an acute respiratory problem stemming from pneumonia.

“Doctors performed a procedure to protect and clear his airway that required sedation,” the statement reads. His office said Bush is stable and “resting comfortably.”

“Doctors and everyone are very pleased, and we hope to have him out soon,” McGrath added, Bush’s chief of staff, Jean Becker, told the Houston Chronicle and KHOU-TV that Bush was expected to go home in a couple of days.

Barbara Bush was admitted as a precaution Wednesday for fatigue and coughing.

Former President Bush was admitted to the hospital over the weekend for shortness of breath. Bush, who served as U.S. president from 1989 to 1993, has a form of Parkinson’s disease and uses a motorized scooter or a wheelchair for mobility. 

He was hospitalized in Maine in 2015 after falling at his summer home and breaking a bone in his neck, and was hospitalized in Houston the previous December for about a week for shortness of breath. He spent Christmas 2012 in intensive care for a bronchitis-related cough and other issues. Despite the loss of mobility, Bush celebrated his 90th birthday by making a tandem parachute jump in Kennebunkport, Maine. Last summer, Bush led a group of 40 wounded warriors on a fishing trip at the helm of his speedboat, three days after his 92nd birthday celebration.

Last summer, Bush led a group of 40 wounded warriors on a fishing trip at the helm of his speedboat, three days after his 92nd birthday celebration.

Earlier, the elder Bush wrote a note to President-elect Donald Trump explaining why he won’t attend the inauguration on Friday, saying that his doctor told him that sitting outside in January “will likely put me six feet under.”

The letter was posted by Bush’s spokesman, Jim McGrath, on Twitter on Wednesday morning. It’s dated January 10.

“Barbara and I are so sorry we can’t be there for your inauguration on January 20,” Bush wrote. “My doctor says if I sit outside in January, it likely will put me six feet under. Same for Barbara. So I guess we’re stuck in Texas.” The former president wished Trump “the very best,” and said he’d be with Trump and the country “in spirit.”

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