Jamie Dimon: “The Euro Zone May Not Survive”

According to some, it all started with Mario Draghi, who back in 2012 said that the ECB would prevent the collapse of the Eurozone “whatever it takes.” By saying that, he effectively took the impetus away from Europe’s politicians to engage in any real structural reform and promote difficult policy changes, and well, here we are five years later with a “populist” wave sweeping across Europe which is now ex the UK.

And while few are willing to discuss the topic of Europe’s viability in the current regime, JPM’s Jamie Dimon broke the tranquil setting of Davis where all remains well, to wanr that Europe needs to address disagreements spurring the rise of nationalist leaders or the region’s strong economic ties will break, warning that politicians must get to grips with the discontent that’s spurring support for populist leaders across the continent.

Dimon said he hoped European Union leaders would examine what caused the U.K. to vote to leave and then make changes. That hasn’t happened, and if nationalist politicians including France’s Marine Le Pen rise to power in elections across the region “the euro zone may not survive,” Dimon, 60, said in a Bloomberg Television interview with John Micklethwait.

Not mincing his words, Dimon warned that “what went wrong is going wrong for everybody, not just going wrong for Britain, but in some ways it looks like they’re kind of doubling down,” the JPM CEO said in the interview in Davos. He continued that unless leaders address underlying concerns, “you’re going to have the same political things about immigration, the laws of the country, how much power goes to Brussels.”

This reminds us of what Jeff Gundlach said during this weekend’s Barron’s roundtable: when asked “what will we be talking about this time next year” his answer was simple: “Trouble in the euro zone.”

As Bloomberg notes, “Dimon’s remarks on Europe were unusually pessimistic, coming in a wide-ranging interview in which he also criticized regulations that he said stunt economic growth. But he reiterated optimism for President-elect Donald Trump. Minutes later, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein also expressed concern about Europe, telling CNBC that leaders are facing a backlash in the midst of a long, complicated process to create an economic bloc.”

“That’s complicated, that’s very hard to do,” said Blankfein, 62. “It’s not done, and it’s not accomplished. We’re finding the pain of that.”

The bottom line is the region must become more competitive, Dimon said, which in simple economic terms means accept even lower wages. It also means major political overhauls: “I say this out of respect for the European people, but they’re going to have to change,” he said. “They may be forced by politics, they may be forced by new leadership.”

It is unclear how Europeans will adopt these major “changes” without anger at the establishment growing even more.

Yet while he was clearly concerned about Europe, Dimon said he isn’t as concerned about the future of the U.S. under Trump, whose own rise drew on a populist movement. The reason for that: Trump’s decision to surround himself with a “who’s who” list of former Wal Streeeters. 

The real estate mogul and reality TV star is enlisting “very serious people” for his administration, such as former Goldman Sachs alumni Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, who’ve been tapped to lead the Treasury Department and help oversee White House economic policy.

 

“The side that people are worried about a little bit, and I think is may be blown out of proportion, is trade,” Dimon said. “They’re listening to tweets and one-liners and statements” from Trump. But in his book, “The Art of the Deal,” the president-elect “will tell you he does that” as a tactic, Dimon said.

Asked about a concerns Trump may start a trade war with China, Dimon said he’s not worried. “I think these very rational people will be very thoughtful when they go about the actual policy,” he said.

Translated: Trump’s ex-Goldman advisers will never let him do anything that could hurt Goldman’s interests in the US or around the globe.

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

Not Mentioned In Davos: China Already Has Aggressive Import Tariffs On Nearly Every From Of Steel

In light of Xi Jinping’s spirited defense of free trade in Davos yestrday, which implicitly blamed rising protectionism on Donald Trump, here are some revelant facts courtesy of Axiom’s Gordon Johnson.

China has been hit with a number of steep, and at times draconian, steel import tariffs from the US in 2015 (when imports into the US from China fell -25.1% YoY) and 2016.

Exhibit 1: China Steel Imports into the US

In fact, underpinning this dynamic, in 2016, or the most recent year on record, steel imports into the US from China dropped -63.4% YoY, or the second largest annual decline ever, and the lowest percentage for China steel imports into the US as a percent of total US imports EVER (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: China Steel Imports into US as % of Total US Steel Imports – Lowest EVER in 2016

Thus, in our view, while there is a strong view that President Elec Trump’s “getting hard on China” stance will be a huge positive for the steel industry, BASED ON THE NUMBERS, we would argue that this was accomplished during Obama’s two-term presidency. Given the acute reversal higher in steel stocks today on comments on overcapacity in China from Mr. Trump’s incoming US Commerce Secretary Wilder Ross, we do not believe this dynamic is well understood by the lion’s share of market prognosticators at present.

To wit, unless more tariffs on Chinese imports are going to drive them into negative territory (at risk of stating the obvious, this is impossible), we see the market’s reaction today as misplaced.

via http://ift.tt/2jxD7Ww Tyler Durden

More Davos Elites Suggest Banning Cash…

A central theme for the Davos World Economic Forum is a push to ban cash.

Yesterday we outlined how Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz was urging the US to do away with physical cash.

Today, Paypal CEO Dan Schulman is doing much the same thing although in this case he claims that getting rid of cash will end “leakage” (Stiglitz and most elites usually suggest a cash ban will end money laundering or crime).

The digital revolution is making transactions cheaper and easier for millions of people worldwide and will eventually push out traditional forms of payment, like cash, PayPal's Dan Schulman told CNBC on Wednesday…

"I think what we came to the realization of is that the war is really against cash and against waste," Schulman said, speaking from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "There's tremendous leakage in the system."

Source: CNBC

These arguments are getting tiresome. If you want to see the real reason everyone at the top of the economic food chain wants to ban cash, take a look at what the Godfather of cash bans, former Chief Economist for the IMF, Ken Rogoff, stated in his research on the subject in 2014:

http://ift.tt/1qPSNln

Rogoff has been calling for cash bans for years. He’s even written a book entitled “The Curse of Cash.”

Does Rogoff want to ban cash to end money laundering/corruption or reduce “leakage” in the system?

Nope.

His primary concern… the #1 reason he wants to ban cash… is to permit Central Banks to cut rates BELOW zero.

This is what it’s all about… closing a loophole that permits you to save your cash from NIRP… even though there is no evidence ANYWHERE that NIRP is a successful policy.

After all, as long as you can take you money out of the bank in physical cash, you can escape NIRP.

This is why the elites, particularly economists, want to ban cash… it has NOTHING to do with cutting down on crime and EVERYTHING to do with increasing Central Bank control of the financial system.

Indeed, we've uncovered a secret document outlining how the Fed plans to ban physical cash and incinerate savings in the coming months.

We detail this paper and outline three investment strategies you can implement

right now to protect your capital from the Fed's sinister plan in our Special Report

Survive the Fed's War on Cash.

We are making 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.

To pick up yours, swing by….

http://ift.tt/2hvMItg

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2jojqxT Phoenix Capital Research

Russia Snaps, Accuses UK, Germany And France Of “Grossly Interfering” In The US Election

Having listened stoically for the past two months to accusations without evidence that Moscow “hacked the US election”, and that Hillary’s loss was indirectly due to Putin’s alleged meddling, which resulted in Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats, on Wednesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov finally snapped, and lashed out at the ongoing US election scapegoating fiasco, saying that leaders and top officials from the UK, Germany, and France have “grossly interfered” in US internal affairs, “campaigned” for Hillary Clinton, and openly “demonized” Donald Trump.

Unlike US accusations of Russian interference, at least Lavrov’s claim can be substantiated with a simple google search of news event in mid to late 2016.

Speaking during a press conference following a meeting with his Austrian counterpart Sebastian Kurz, Lavrov said his angry outburst was because Moscow “is tired” of accusations it meddled in the US election. In fact, Lavrov said, it is time to “acknowledge the fact” that it was the other way around.

“US allies have grossly interfered in America’s internal affairs, in the election campaign,” Lavrov said, quoted by RT.

“We noticed that Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, Theresa May, and other European leaders” did so. He added that official representatives of some of the European countries did not mince words, and essentially “demonized” Donald Trump during the election campaign.

Among the more vivid examples, last August German Foreign Minister Frank Walther Steinmeier called Trump a “hate preacher.” Reacting to Trump’s statement that parts of London are ‘no-go areas,’ UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said in December that Trump is “unfit” to be US president. Later on, however, Johnson said that Trump’s presidency might be a “moment of opportunity.”

On the other hand, the Russian government has expressed its willingness to work with the US under Donald Trump, Lavrov said. “Trump says that if the promotion of US national interests would lead to a chance of working with Russia, it would be foolish not to do that.”

“Our approach is the same: where our interests coincide, we should be and are ready to work together with the US as well as the EU and NATO,” the minister stressed.

Over the past year, Russia has been repeatedly accused by Washington of meddling in the US election. In January, the US Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued a report allegedly proving Moscow had its fingers in the US election campaign. The public was only provided, however, with a declassified part of the paper, which contained no solid evidence. Trump’s advisor on foreign policy during the campaign, Carter Page said that the paper was “speculative” and served “certain political theories.” The US media, citing CIA sources and unverified reports, even alleged that Moscow tried to aid Trump directly to secure his victory.  Trump has rebuffed the allegations, saying it was simply another “excuse” by the Democrats to explain the defeat of Hillary Clinton.

The demonization campaign culminated with last week’s release of a dossier, according to which Russia had “compromising” materials on Trump, suggesting the president-elect is a puppet for the Kremlin.

In response, yesterday Putin warned that he sees attempts in the United States to “delegitimize” Trump using “Maidan-style” methods previously used in Ukraine, and slammed the creators of the Trump report, saying “people who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect, who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don’t have any moral boundaries at all.”

via http://ift.tt/2j9r4LM Tyler Durden

Chris Christie Turns Down Trump Post, Blames Wife

On Monday, president-elect Donald Trump told The Wall Street Journal, "at some point, we're going to do something with Chris," and now, after months of court cases and controversy (over Bridgegate), New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has broken his silence saying that he turned down several jobs in the Trump administration because his wife refused to move to Washington.

Speaking on New York radio station WFAN's "Boomer and Carton" program, AP reports that Christie said that influenced his decision on accepting any of the positions offered by Republican President-elect Donald Trump.

"He didn't offer me a job that I thought was exciting enough for me to leave the governorship and my family," Christie said.

 

"Because Mary Pat made really clear she wasn't coming to D.C."

The Republican governor said he would have made at least a two-year commitment to be there. Two of the couple's four children live at home and are in high school. Christie is in the final full year of his second and last term as governor.

Notably, Federal prosecutors said today that the corruption convictions of two former aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the George Washington Bridge lane-closing scandal should stand.

They wrote in a filing late Tuesday in response to motions by Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni that the evidence was overwhelming.

 

 

Christie wasn’t charged. Kelly and Baroni are scheduled to be sentenced next month.

Finally, Christie did nothing to befriend the people of Philadelphia…

“I understand why people are interested if you are a public figure, as to who you root for,” Christie said.

 

“They’re interested. But the hostility, I will tell you that I take for being a Cowboys fan — and this is what I say to Giants fans all the time, and Eagles fans. Now Eagles fans I can understand it from a little more because the Eagles do suck and they’ve sucked for a long time. And their fans are generally angry, awful people.”

 

via http://ift.tt/2k0zOUg Tyler Durden

These Are The Top 10 US Infrastructure Projects Trump Will Focus On

With Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilber Ross, currently speaking in his confirmation hearing, it is convenient that overnight Barclays released a report looking at steel demand in the US as a result of Trump’s proposed stimulus projects, an area that will be of substantial focus by Ross as he seeks to revitalize the moribund US steel sector.

That said, Barclays notes that while the potential demand from US infrastructure is there, it notes that it is skeptical on implementation for two main reasons. One is the rising risk of protectionism:

we think that hopes for a large infrastructure boost are premature, and the risks from potentially increased US protectionism are a significant headwind to higher global consumption. The potential for a large rise in commodity demand is certainly there, but we think that the market is “trumping up” the likely effects of Trump’s policies, as additional infrastructure spending requires rapid execution to yield the full metals’ demand boost.

Second is the still overarching lack of clarity about Trump’s plan:

Given the unknowns about Trump’s infrastructure plan – lack of clarity on total spend, past ineffectiveness of stimulus efforts, timing of implementation, pushback from Congress – we currently model no additional metals demand from supplemental infrastructure investment during 2017-18 into our baseline forecast. As greater visibility becomes available, we will adjust our consumption forecasts to take into account the latest spending plans. The key issue we think is facing the metals sector is that even if infrastructure spending is approved at the headline level ($1trn over 10 years, or $100bn a year) and implementation is effective, the project schedule does not allow for an immediate effect on metals consumption, particularly over the next two to three years.

And while Trump’s plans may or may not materialize as rapidly as home hope – or may be hindered entirely due to the rise of protectionism –  Barclays has compiled this handy list of the top 10 infrastructure projects currently under planning or development in the US. As it notes, of the top 10, 7 are in the planning or conceptual phase. According to Cg-LA, an infrastructure consulting firm, and the average time to complete an infrastructure project currently stands at 9.5 years, meaning that many of the identified projects will not be completed during 2017-18.

The projects have a combined cost of $132.6 billion, and have the potential to materially boost demand for both copper and steel, not to mention create tens of thousands of jobs.

As for the final, and rhetorical, question – whether California really needs a high-speed rail system at a cost of $68 billion – it remains open for debate.

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

Oil Market Discussion (Video)

By EconMatters


We discuss the Macro and Micro outlook for the Oil Market, and everything in between in this latest market video. Oil is being propped up on forward looking fundamentals right now, it very easily could be much lower based upon current inventory levels.

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

via http://ift.tt/2j9q4qY EconMatters

Lagarde Urges Wealth Redistribution To Fight Populism

As we scoffed oveernight, who better than a handful of semi, and not so semi, billionaires – perplexed by the populist backlash of the past year – to sit down and discuss among each other how a "squeezed and Angry" middle-class should be fixed. And so it was this morning as IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Italian Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan and Founder, Chairman and Co-CIO of Bridgewater Associates, Ray Dalio, espoused on what's needed to restore growth in the middle class and confidence in the future.

The conclusions of the discussion are as farcical as the entire Davos debacle, as three people completely disconnected from the real world, sat down and provided these "answers"…

As Bloomberg reports, while International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde urged a list of policies from programs to retrain workers to more social spending...

Lagarde said policy makers “really have to think it through and see what can be done” given the feedback from voters who say "No.” Among measures that could be implemented are fiscal and structural reforms, she added.

 

“But it needs to be granular, it needs to be regional, it needs to be focused on what will people get out of it and it probably means more redistribution than we have in place at the moment,” Lagarde told the panel.

 

The establishment academics also had plenty of textbook declarations and jabs to make…

“We need to go to a system where we are protecting workers, not jobs, and society will help people retrain or reorient,” Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said in an interview in Davos. “There may just be a need to man up. We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”

 

The panel saw former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers attacking Donald Trump saying populism is “invariably counter-productive” for those it claims to help.

 

“Our President-elect has made four or five phone calls to four or five companies, largely suspending the rule of law, and extorting them into relocating dozens or perhaps even a few hundred jobs into plants in the United States,” Summers said.

 

Summers’s recipe for dealing with populism twisted Trump’s campaign slogan. “Our broad objective should be to make America greater than ever before,” Summers said. “That’s very different from making it great again.”

 

He suggested three major steps. First, “public investment on an adequate scale starting from infrastructure” also embracing technology and education; second, “making global integration work for ordinary people” and third, “enabling the dreams of every young American” including education, finding work and home purchasing.

And ironically, the wealthiest of all the panel members was perhaps the clearest…

Hedge Fund billionaire Ray Dalio warned on a panel chaired by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua that “we may be at a point where globalization is ending, and provincialization and nationalization is taking hold.”

 

“I want to be loud and clear: populism scares me,” Dalio said. “The No. 1 issue economically as a market participant is how populism manifests itself over the next year or two.”

So, to sum up – a bunch of rich, disconnected elites in Switzerland believe the world's "middle class" will be better off if policy-makers "man-up" and increase taxes on the "wealthy" in order to redistribute wealth to the masses to "pay for social cohesion." Yeah, that will work… we suspect echoes of "Four more years" will be heard in 2020 if they follow that path.

Full discussion available here.

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

Trump To Take “Four Or Five” Executive Actions On Day One

Trump is not planning to waste any time.

According to the spokesman Sean Spicer, cited by Reuters, president-elect Donald Trump may take four or five executive actions on Friday, the day he is sworn into office.

"He's got a few of them probably in the area of four or five that we're looking at for Friday," some of them logistical, Spicer said Wednesday at a news briefing. "Then there are some other ones that I expect him to sign with respect to a couple of issues that have been high on his priority list."

Spicer did not elaborate. Trump had promised to take executive actions immediately after taking office to counter some of the policies of Democratic President Barack Obama.

And while it is unclear what actions Trump will take, Forbes has compiled a list of Obama's own Executive Orders which will likely be target by Trump as soon as he steps into office:

Executive Orders: 

Most executive orders are not regulatory. But when they are, the complexity of overturning them grows as Washington administers more private, local or state concerns, all without Congress passing a law. President Obama has issued executive orders on (for example) a minimum wage for federal contractors, a Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation Information decree, an order on paid sick leave for federal contractors, and controversial orders on cybersecurity information sharing and sanctions on individuals allegedly engaged in malicious cyber activity. There is even an order to better regulate us with behavioral sciencegovernment as helicopter parent, one might say.

Notable recently was Obama’s regulatory pro-antitrust “Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy.” This action proposed interventionist policies and attempted to cast most blame for anti-competitive business practices on private actors like the telecommunications sector, rather than the regulatory state's overreach, cronyism, public/private partnerships and government favors.

On the environmental side, we have“Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species”; a “Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade” directive to federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third; and controversial proclamations designating numerous national monuments.

As of today, President Obama has issued 292 executive orders, fewer actually than Bush or Clinton. While observers of executive action point to executive orders, these are not the source of most major decrees. Instead, unilateral memoranda, agency guidance and other dark matter dominate.

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