finance – Page 18393

Netflix Folds; Agrees To Pay Comcast To End Streaming Congestion

There go the margins… For months, Netflix and Comcast have been ‘negotiating’ over whether the video streaming service should pay for the apparently excessive load it places on Comcast’s network, but now, as the WSJ reports, Netflix has agreed to pay to stop the network provider slowing its stream and impacting customers. According to Netflix data published in January, the average speeds of Netflix’s prime-time streams to Comcast subscribers had dropped 27% since October.

Percentage share of traffic on the web…

With Netflix accounting for almost 30% of web traffic at peak times, it is no surprise that Comcast’s squeeze finally paid off. There are no details yet on the multi-year “mutually beneficial” deal but it is clear that broadband providers are gaining leverage over content providers.

Via WSJ,

Netflix Inc. has agreed to pay Comcast Corp. to ensure Netflix movies and TV shows stream smoothly to Comcast customers, a landmark agreement that could set a precedent for Netflix’s dealings with other broadband providers, people familiar with the situation said.

In exchange for payment, Netflix will get direct access to Comcast’s broadband network, the people said.

…

For months Netflix and Comcast have been in a standoff over Netflix’s request that Comcast connect to Netflix’s video distribution network free of charge. But Comcast wanted to be paid for connecting to Netflix’s specialized servers due to the heavy load of traffic Netflix would send into the cable operator’s network.

…

Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings decided to strike the deal after Netflix saw a deterioration in streaming speeds for Comcast subscribers. According to Netflix data published in January, the average speeds of Netflix’s prime-time streams to Comcast subscribers had dropped 27% since October. Mr. Hastings didn’t want streaming speeds to deteriorate further and become a bigger issue for customers, the people said.

…

The deal could force Netflix’s hand in its standoff with other major U.S. broadband providers, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc.? all of whom have also refused to connect with Netflix’s servers without compensation. Netflix’s streams with Verizon in particular have gotten worse in recent months.

Netflix has little room to pay more to transmit its TV shows and movies. In a February regulatory filing, Netflix said that if providers don’t interconnect with its servers, its ability to deliver streaming video, its business and operating results could be “adversely affected” due to increased costs.

The deal is the latest sign that broadband providers are gaining leverage in their dealings with content companies.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/OquvOA Tyler Durden

BaRRoSo…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pdWNJS williambanzai7

The Constitution Failed

Submitted by Ryan McMaken via Mises Economic blog,

If you’re still wondering if the US Constitution of 1787 failed to protect liberty, then just look around you. That scrap of parchment is an obvious failure. The US government is the hugest government in the world and meddles in the lives of its citizens (and people worldwide) in every way imaginable. The government accepts no limits on its power whatsoever. The president rules by decree.

This isn’t done under some new constitution. This is all done under the 1787 one. Lots of liberty activists argue that the Supreme Court is just reading the document incorrectly, but one simply cannot deny that virtually everyone in government, as well as most of the general population, is perfectly fine with most of what government does today, and thinks it’s constitutional. If one can plausibly claim that the constitution authorizes most of what the US government does today, then the document’s language is obviously feeble, ineffective, and useless for the purposes of preserving liberty.

Even among those “constitutionalist” types, many of whom are militarists, you’ll find plenty of support for unconstitutional measures such as a standing army, drug prohibition, and other government programs beloved by conservatives, but which are obviously not authorized by the enumerated powers of the constitution.

Rothbard had this figured out a long time ago:

From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on man’s rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing.

At a recent meeting of Students for Liberty, John Stossel spoke to some students of Rothbard:

Kelly Kidwell, a sophomore from Tulane University, said, “Regardless of what its intent was, we still have the (big) government that we have now — so the Constitution has either provided for that government, or failed to prevent it.”

Stossel went on:

That’s an argument that libertarian economist Murray Rothbard used to make. He took the pessimistic view that the Constitution’s “limited government” was an experiment that had already failed, since 200 years later, government was barely limited at all. He concluded that libertarians should be not just constitutionalists, but anarchists — get rid of government completely.

That idea sounds extreme to me, and to some libertarians at the conference — not to mention the few pro-big-government speakers, like movie director Oliver Stone. But I’m happy that students ask those sorts of questions rather than wondering which regulations to pass, what to tax and whom to censor for “insensitive” speech.

UPDATE: A reader points out this statement from Lysander Spooner:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pdWKxF Tyler Durden

Meanwhile In Non-Pro-Europe Ukraine

The bad feelings concerning Russia run deep in the Western parts of Ukraine (as they topple statues of Lenin in growing numbers) while in the East they see themselves much more as Russians. These feelings run very deep in the region and memories do not fade so easily as the mayor and police chief of Kerch vigorously defend the Ukrainian flag in the clip below – deep in the eastern Crimea region (that Russia has already suggested it is willing to go to war over). Russian President Vladimir Putin has now been placed in a very difficult position, as Martin Armstrong notes, the entire set of circumstances creates the image of events in Ukraine that have diminished the power of Russia, which is a matter of pride and the only stable resolution remains a split along the language faultline. The critical question then is – will Putin let it go?

In the west they are toppling Lenin statues en masse

But in the East, the mayor and city officials in Kerch, Crimea defend the Ukrainian flag…

The big question- of course – will Putin let it go? (via Martin Armstrong),

Russian President Vladimir Putin has now been placed in a very difficult position. As the protesters in Ukraine gathered the support of the police against the mercenaries, they turned the tide of politics for the moment. Putin’s Sochi Olympic moment has been overshadowed by the bloody mess in neighboring Ukraine thanks to the insanity of Yanukovich trying to oppress the people as in the old days. Yanukovich has demonstrated that ultimate power always corrupts ultimately. There must be checks and balances.

The entire set of circumstances creates the image of events in Ukraine that have diminished the power of Russia, which is a matter of pride. The situation may appear that it is slipping out of control and Russia will just walk away. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that Putin will just walk away and leave Ukraine to its own devices. There is political pride that is at stake here and Putin said in 2005 that the fall of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. Putin’s view of this is not economic, but only political. From that perspective, we must understand that if the USA split apart as was the case with the Civil War, there is a sense that a loss of prestige and power will engulf the nation unless the lost portion is regained.

There are lessons from history on this point to demonstrate this is not my personal opinion. Take the Roman Emperor Aurelian (270–275 AD) who fought to regain the European portion that separated from Rome known as the Gallic Empire and in the East defeated Zenobia who established the Empire of Palmyra. Putin’s desire to retake the former nations that were part of the Soviet Union is in accordance with history and would be an exception if it were not true. Therefore, to allow Ukraine to slip out of Russia’s orbit would make Putin no better than Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over the Soviet empire’s dissolution in 1991 and allowed the very thing he sees as a great geopolitical catastrophe.

There can be no question that Putin wants Ukraine to join Russia’s economic attempt to create the offset to the EU with his Customs Union that includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, and soon, Armenia. The Customs Union is his counter economic response to the European Union’s much larger trading bloc. On this score, economics is the battleground.

It is true that only after Yanukovych broke off with the EU moving away from a European Union integration accord last November and chose Russia instead that the protests began in Ukraine. Putin applied pressure and Yanukovych responded taking the nation toward the Customs Union rather than the EU that would have no doubt curtailed trade to a large extent and reduced the prospect for greater entrepreneurship in Ukraine. The emergence of small business in Ukraine does not match the oligarchy monopolies inside the Russian economic model. However, this was more the straw that broke the camel’s back than the spark that ignited the revolution.

I have explained in the Cycles of War that Russia and Ukraine have deep historical links dating back to the Kievan Rus, from whom the very word “Russia” emerges. They were the days of the 11th and 12th centuries and they are traditionally seen as the beginning of Russia and the ancestor of Belarus and Ukraine. Kiev was the first real capital of Russia before Moscow. Therefore, we have a mother-country complex involved as well.

According to the Russian business daily Kommersant, they cited a source in a NATO country’s delegation back in 2008 that reported Putin had told President George W. Bush: “You understand, George, that Ukraine isn’t even a state.” Indeed, Ukraine has been the real mother-country to Russia for most of the last 900 years prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Certainly, parts of what is now called Ukraine have been controlled by many various countries as the borders have constantly change including Poland, Lithuania, the Khanate of Crimea, Austria-Hungary, Germany, in addition to Russia. Putin has often referred to Ukraine as “little Russia.” So clearly, there are serious issues here that warn that the immediate result in Ukraine may not yet be permanent independence. I have suggested that Ukraine split along the language faultline BECAUSE history warns that Russia is not likely to simply fade into the night. This is the ONLY solution that may allow Ukrainian independence and Russia to maintain its pride.

Strategically, Crimea, the southern part of Ukraine on the Black Sea, was part of Russia until 1954. At that time, Crimea was given to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, supposedly to strengthen brotherly ties. However, the majority of the population were Russian – not Ukrainian! Therein lies part of the problem. This “gift” of Crimea to Ukraine would be like the USA giving Texas to Mexico and Texans would suddenly all be Mexican. Would they “feel” Mexican or American?

There is also Russia’s Black Sea Fleet that is headquartered in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, which is less than 200 miles northwest of Sochi where the Olympic Games are being held. It is hard to imagine that the Ukrainian government could even end that lease without major consequences. Russia would no doubt be forced to move its headquarters east to Novorossiysk, yet this will have a serious geopolitical loss of face. Just last December, Russia proposed a deal of providing cheaper natural gas to Ukraine in exchange for better terms on its lease in Sevastopol. This is another reason there should be serious consideration of a split handing back the Crimea to Russia.

With the crisis over Syria that is the Saudi attempt to get a pipeline through Syria to compete with Russia on natural gas sales to Europe, Ukraine also presents a very serious problem for Russia. Natural gas sales to Europe are a key source of foreign exchange for Russia, yet a large portion of that gas actually passes through Ukraine. An independent Ukraine may present an economic threat to Russia if those pipelines were to be shut off. Nevertheless, Gazprom is also hedging its bets by building a new South Stream pipeline that crosses the Black Sea on the seabed from Russia to Bulgaria, bypassing Ukraine. This could relieve that geopolitical-economic threat, but it is not immediate. Clearly, this comes at a time that is serious in light of what the USA and Saudi’s are trying to pull off with the overthrow of Syria pretending they care about human rights when in fact it is all about that pipeline.

The Ukrainians really do not “feel“ that they are Russian and they have toppled statues of Lenin everywhere. Why? Historically, Josef Stalin brutally subjugated Ukraine back in the 1930s. He confiscated all the wealth liquidating the farmers that were known as kulaks. The bad feelings concerning Russia run deep in the Western parts while in the East they see themselves as Russians. These feelings run very deep in the region and memories do not fade so easily. We still have the word “vandalize” that comes from the North African Vandals sacking Rome back in 455AD. China still hates Japan for their brutal invasion. These feelings and memories do not really exist in the USA most likely because of the very diverse ethnic backgrounds creating a melting pot rather than one group that remembers another.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1e6Yu7F Tyler Durden

Beeronomics Ousts Burgernomics

Click here to follow ZeroHedge in Real-time on FinancialJuice

Everybody knows of the light-heartened Big Mac index that the boys at The Economist thought up in 1986 in an idle moment as a yard stick for comparisons between countries around the world. But now, Burgernomics has just turned into Beeronomics today and Ronald McDonald would probably end up much rather having a cold beer (or warm beer if it’s in the UK, or is that just a myth?). Ronald was getting too much or a porker anyhow. It’s better to drink these days too; there are enough around the world that need to drown their sorrows.

Robert A. Ferdman and Ritchie King of the Quartz have brought us into the age of Beeronomics by inventing the Beer Index. They used the yardstick of a 0.5L of draft beer on sale at a bar or a restaurant around the world. Well, they didn’t actually do anything apart from combine a list of prices of beers around the world that are available from Numbeo (a crowd-source database) and the monthly minimum wage data that is published by the International Labor Organization (ILO). They did a few calculations and came up with the Beer Index. Sobering a story if ever you have heard one.

Divide the price of the beer that any local in any country in the world has to pay by the hourly minimum wage and hey presto as quick as the froth on your beer disappears in the frosted glass, you get the average number of hours you would have to work for you to get to buy a local beer down the boozer. The idea came from The Economist once again that produced the same index in September 2012 in time for the Oktoberfest Beer Festival in Munich. But, The Economist only used a limited number of countries (27) and decided to use the median wage rather than the average monthly wage. Quartz’s study uses 91 countries.

So, the best place to work and where you can drink yourself to the ground quickly and effectively on local beer? Puerto Rico. You can get a beer after just 12 minutes of work, which is frightening since that means that there are some that could get a beer after just a couple of minutes or even seconds of sitting at their desks.

• In the USA you would need to work double that and only end up with one after 24 minutes.
• In the UK, the land of pubs, you would have to work 30 minutes.
• Georgia would be the worst place to go for a drink with your colleagues after work as you would have to put in more than 15 hours to get 0.5L of the amber nectar.
• The Chinese have to work 72 minutes.

Whatever next will we have that will be able to be downed by economists around the world? We shall end up with 20 academic papers now on the viability of using such Beeronomis today and it might not become a global standard, but there will be others that start up the Champagne Index or the Whatever-You-Like Index.

Purchasing-Power Parity serves at least to tell us that a currency is undervalued and that can be important, especially when January 2014 saw that a Big Mac in the USA cost $4.62 while in China it was only $2.74, meaning that the Chinese currency was undervalued by 41%. But, there’s nothing new in that. Are these indexes really worth the time they take for bored economists to think up and work them out?

What these indexes prove is that we live in the age of the scientific researcher that needs a number or a statistic to prove his point and to become believable. We have world clocks for everything; we check the rise and fall of this and that day in and day out. Mark Twain once said that “facts are stubborn, but statistics are pliable”. We all know that statistics are as pliable as anyone wishes, especially in today’s digital, fast-paced world.

We can show anything we wish with statistics, but perhaps economists might be looking at other things that are more than in need of attention, rather than playing d(r)aft-beer games.

It doesn’t say a lot for our percepetion of the world if we have reduced oureconomies to burgers and beer, does it?

That’s fast, fattening, addictive, too sugary, too sweet

Originally posted: Beeronomics Ousts Burgernomics

Click to solve todays trader Puzzle

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/OqapE3 Pivotfarm

G-20 Agrees To Grow Global Economy By $2 Trillion, Has No Idea How To Actually Achieve It

Apparently all it takes to kick the world out of a secular recession and back into growth mode, is for several dozen finance ministers and central bankers to sit down and sign on the dotted line, agreeing it has to be done. That is the take home message from the just concluded latest G-20 meeting in Syndey, where said leaders agreed that it is time to finally grow the world economy by 2% over the next 5 years.

The final G-20 communiqué announced its member nations would take concrete action to increase investment and employment, among other reforms. “We will develop ambitious but realistic policies with the aim to lift our collective GDP by more than 2 percent above the trajectory implied by current policies over the coming 5 years,” the G20 statement said.

Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, who hosted the meeting, sold the plan as a new day for cooperation in the G20.

“We are putting a number to it for the first time — putting a real number to what we are trying to achieve,” Hockey told a news conference. “We want to add over $2 trillion more in economic activity and tens of millions of new jobs.“

And to think all it took was several dozen of politicians sitting down for 2 days in balny Syndey and agreeing. So over five years after the start of the second great depression the G-20 has finally agreed and decided it is time to grow the economy: supposedly the reason there was no such growth previously is because the G-20 never willed it…

There is only one problem: the G-20 has absolutely no idea how to actually achieve its goal of boosting global output by more than the world’s eighth largest economy Russia produces in a year. Nor does it have any measures to prod and punish any laggards from this most grand of central planning schemes. From Reuters:

There was no road map on how nations intend to get there or repercussions if they never arrive. The aim was to come up with the goal now, then have each country develop an action plan and a growth strategy for delivery at a November summit of G20 leaders in Brisbane.

“Each country will bring its own plan for economic growth,” said Hockey. “Each country has to do the heavy lifting.”

Agreeing on any goal is a step forward for the group that has failed in the past to agree on fiscal and current account targets. And it was a sea change from recent meetings where the debate was still on where their focus should lie: on growth or budget austerity.

So who is the mastermind behind this grand plan? Why the IMF of course: “The growth plan borrows wholesale from an IMF paper prepared for the Sydney meeting, which estimated that structural reforms would raise world economic output by about 0.5 percent per year over the next five years, boosting global output by $2.25 trillion.”

The same IMF whose “forecasts” can best be summarized in the following chart (which will be revised lower shortly to account for all the snow in the Northeast US):

Aside from this idiocy, the other topic under boondoggle discussion was the fate of the taper, and specifically how emerging markets will (continue to) suffer should the Fed continue to withdraw liquidity. Here, once again, the developed nations won out, leaving the EMs, and particularly India’s Raghuram Rajan – who has been pleading for far more coordination between central banks in a time of globla tightening – high and dry.

RBI’S RAJAN: POLICY TIGHTENING MUSTN’T UPSET GLOBAL ECONOMY
RAJAN SAYS INFLATION IS HURTING GROWTH
INDIA’S RAJAN SAYS BRINGING DOWN INFLATION BIGGEST CHALLENGE
RAJAN: DEVELOPED, EM NATIONS AGREE ON NEED TO CALIBRATE POLICY

What inflation? As for coordination, here is what the G-20 did agree on: whatever Yellen says, goes:

Financial markets had been wary of the possibility of friction between advanced and emerging economies, but nothing suggested the meeting would cause ripples on Monday. “The text of the communiqué indicates that the standard U.S. line that what is good for the core of the world economy is good for all seems to have won out,” said Huw McKay, a senior economist at Westpac, noting there was nothing that could be taken as “inflammatory” about recent volatility in markets.

There was a nod to concerns by emerging nations that the Federal Reserve consider the impact of its policy tapering, which has led to bouts of capital flight from some of the more vulnerable markets.

“All our central banks maintain their commitment that monetary policy settings will continue to be carefully calibrated and clearly communicated, in the context of ongoing exchange of information and being mindful of impacts on the global economy,” the communiqué read. There was never much expectation the Fed would consider actually slowing the pace of tapering, but its emerging peers had at least hoped for more cooperation on policy.

Hockey said there had been honest discussions among members on the impact of tapering and that newly installed Fed Chair Janet Yellen was “hugely impressive” when dealing with them.

Indeed, in the three weeks that Yellen has been Chairmanwoman, she has been truly hugely impressive. It’s the next three years that may be more problematic.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1el9vh3 Tyler Durden

China Is Not 1914 Germany

Submitted by Robert Dujarric via The Diplomat,

Current events are frequently viewed through the prism of analogies. Words become shorthand for a particular type of situation. “Munich” equals the danger of appeasing bloodthirsty dictators, “Vietnam,” and now “Iraq/Afghanistan” means the folly of getting involved in (or, in the case of Iraq, starting) civil wars in countries whose societies the outsiders neither understand nor can effectively influence. In some cases, acting on these parallels turns out to be wise. The fear of repeating “Munich” helps explain the forceful and successful American response to Soviet expansionism at the start of the Cold War (Berlin, Korea, etc.). In other cases, they are misguided, as was the case in the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, where Nasser was no Hitler and giving up the Suez canal would not have equated to throwing Czechoslovakia to the wolves.

The analogy that is currently in vogue in Asia is “1914.” This is a particularly complex one, as there are two distinct narratives of that fateful year. The one that was prevalent in the U.K. and the U.S. for many decades after the conflict that ensued perceived the war through the “Sarajevo” lens as a giant cataclysm in which all the players bore a share of the blame for the destruction of Western civilization. Another interpretation, which is more dominant today, is best illustrated by the late German historian Fritz Fischer’s Germany’s Aims in the First World War (1961), which assigns most of the responsibility to Berlin.

The “2014 as 1914” discussion covers both theses. Those who dread that a minor maritime collision could escalate into Armageddon subscribe to the “Sarajevo” theory, where an assassin’s bullet set off a chain reaction which even men and women of good intention could not stop. Others think that Beijing is bent on regional, if not world, domination. They see China’s hypertrophied ambitions as an early 21st century of the German Empire’s quest for power described in Fischer’s works. Many officials and analysts who refer to “1914” fall in between. They often know little about European history but see an ominous danger of war that reminds them of what they think “1914” was.

The one common threat in the “1914” warnings is that the People’s Republic is perceived as the Asian counterpart of Wilhelmine Germany. A rising continental autocracy with territorial ambitions on land and dreams of overseas expansion confronting a potential coalition of onshore (India, Vietnam, ROK, maybe even Russia) and offshore (Japan, Taiwan, parts of ASEAN, U.S.) powers. For some, Beijing’s expansionist aims are obvious; others see them as moderate and blame Washington and its allies for not accepting China’s rise, reflecting the same differences of interpretation that existed in Europe before (and after) World War 1 regarding German goals.

The critical error in this comparison is that China today bears little resemblance to Germany a century ago.

First, their domestic situation is vastly different. The Hohenzollern dynasty did face discontent at home, in particular a powerful Social-Democratic movement. But the socio-political fabric of Germany was vastly stronger than that of the People’s Republic. In comparative perspective, Prussia-Germany had enjoyed a stable and productive century prior to 1914, something that does not apply to China in 2014. Prussia-Germany was autocratic but had developed a more effective system to partially include citizens in the political process than China has. Frequent violent protests, and the massive export of capital by rich Communist Party members to overseas accounts, illustrate this point about China’s fragility. It is interesting to note German society, as in existed prior to World War I, was so solidly anchored that much of its establishment survived relatively unscathed four years of total war, defeat and revolution.

Second, we know that Germany in 1914 had an outstanding army. Estimating the worth of the PLA is harder since it has not fought a major campaign since Vietnam defeated China 35 years ago. As a military historian noted “A day’s trial by battle often reveals more of the essential nature of an army than a generation of peace.” (in Russell F. Weigley, Eisenhower’s Lieutenants, 1990) so discussions of the abilities of the PLA are hard to validate. But one thing is clear. In Imperial Germany, especially in its Prussian core, the ruling classes took military service very seriously. Young men of privilege served in the officer corps, one’s rank in the reserves of prestigious units was a source of great pride and social standing. From what we know about the sons (and daughters) of China’s elite, we are more likely to see them studying in Ivy League campuses, eating in Wall Street cafés, and living in Hong Kong flats than leading platoons and companies of soldiers in the frozen hills of Manchuria or the scorching deserts of Xinjiang.

Third, Germany was not the world’s largest economy on the eve of World War I, the United States was. But in many fields, Germany was the most advanced country on the planet. A German doctorate was the gold standard of academia until Adolf Hitler destroyed the universities. Germans led in countless disciplines, be it physics, archeology, or medicine. Germany was ahead in many industrial technologies as well. China has progressed, but its relative position lags well behind that of Germany a century ago.

Fourth, the geopolitics are different. Germany had two continental associates, the Habsburg and Ottoman empires. It took several years before the United States joined the Allies. Today, China is essentially bereft of allies and is confronting what is a de facto U.S.-Japan-Australia coalition, potentially augmented by several Asian states and under certain circumstances most of NATO Europe and Canada.

Fifth, Germany in 1914 was a demographically dynamic country. China, due to the twin consequences of the one-child policy and economic development, is aging at a rapid rate. This is not unique in Asia, but compared to its major global competitor, the United States, China is in demographic decline.

What are the implications of these facts? For China’s foes, namely the United States, Japan, and others, they mean that the situation is not as dire as it was in 1914 for Germany’s opponents (whom we should remember came close to being dealt a terminal blow in the opening stages of World War I). For the Chinese Communist Party, they imply that it would be even riskier for it to initiate a conflict than it was for the Central Powers in 1914.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1dhifoE Tyler Durden

Here’s What Happened The Last Time “Unemployment”, “Taxes”, & “Inequality” Were So Correlated

While social unrest has been a thing that occurs “over there”, the increasing visualization of people taking to the streets in the face of desperate economic situations amid an elite class of politicians, dictators, and tyrants is becoming clearer by the day. As the following chart shows, across 500 billion words in over 5.2 million books, the words “unemployment, “taxes”, and “inequality” tend to correlate highly with “war”. The 18th century saw these terms the most correlated and as the following chronology suggests, that is not a time to reflect gladly upon…

The last time the words were so correlated was the 18th Century… Let’s hope it’s different this time…

That was not a ‘great’ century for mankind…

February 1700 – Great Northern War: Fighting begins between Sweden, Russia, Demark, and Saxony

1701 – War of the Spanish Succession: Fighting begins as an alliance of Britain, the Holy Roman Empire, Dutch Republic, Prussia, Portugal, and Denmark declare war to prevent a French succession to the Spanish throne

February 29, 1704 – Queen Anne’s War: French and Native American forces conduct the Raid on Deerfield

August 13, 1704 – War of the Spanish Succession: The Duke of Marlborough wins the Battle of Blenheim

May 23, 1706 – War of the Spanish Succession: Grand Alliance forces under Marlborough win the Battle of Ramillies

1707 – War of 27 Years: The Mughals are defeated ending the war

July 8, 1709 – Great Northern War: Swedish forces are crushed at the Battle of Poltava

March/April 1713 – War of the Spanish Succession: The Treaty of Utrecht ends the war

December 17, 1718 – War of the Quadruple Alliance: The French, British, and Austrians declare war on Spain after Spanish troops land on Sardinia and Sicily

June 10, 1719 – Jacobite Risings: Jacobite forces are beaten at the Battle of Glen Shiel

February 17, 1720 – War of the Quadruple Alliance: The Treaty of The Hague ends the fighting

August 20, 1721 – Great Northern War: The Treaty of Nystad ends the Great Northern War

July 1722 – Russo-Persian War: Russian troops embark for an invasion of Iran

September 12, 1723 – Russo-Persian War: The Russians compel Tahmasp II to sign a peace treaty

February 1, 1733 – War of the Polish Succession: Augustus II dies creating the succession crisis that leads to war

November 18, 1738 – War of the Polish Succession: The Treaty of Vienna settles the succession crisis

December 16, 1740 – War of the Austrian Succession: Frederick the Great of Prussia invades Silesia opening the conflict

April 10, 1741 – War of the Austrian Succession: Prussian forces win the Battle of Mollwitz

June 27, 1743 – War of the Austrian Succession: The Pragmatic Army under King George II wins the Battle of Dettingen

May 11, 1745 – War of the Austrian Succession: French troops win the Battle of Fontenoy

June 28, 1754 – War of the Austrian Succession: Colonial forces complete the Siege of Louisbourg

September 21, 1745 – Jacobite Uprising: Prince Charles’ forces win the Battle of Prestonpans

April 16, 1746 – Jacobite Uprising: Jacobite forces are defeated by the Duke of Cumberland at the Battle of Culloden

October 18, 1748 – War of the Austrian Succession: The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ends the conflict

July 4, 1754 – French & Indian War: Lt. Colonel George Washington surrenders Fort Necessity to the French

July 9, 1755 – French & Indian War: Major General Edward Braddock is routed at the Battle of the Monongahela

September 8, 1755 – French & Indian War: British and colonial forces defeat the French at the Battle of Lake George

June 23, 1757 – Seven Years’ War: Colonel Robert Clive wins the Battle of Plassey in India

November 5, 1757 – Seven Years’ War: Frederick the Great wins the Battle of Rossbach

December 5, 1757 – Seven Years’ War: Frederick the Great triumphs at the Battle of Leuthen

June 8-July 26, 1758 – French & Indian War: British forces conduct the successful Siege of Louisbourg

June 20, 1758 – Seven Years’ War: Austria troops defeat the Prussians at the Battle of Domstadtl

July 8, 1758 – French & Indian War: British forces are beaten at the Battle of Carillon

August 1, 1759 – Seven Years’ War: Allied forces defeat the French at the Battle of Minden

September 13, 1759 – French & Indian War: Major General James Wolfe wins the Battle of Quebec but is killed in the fighting

November 20, 1759 – Seven Years’ War: Admiral Sir Edward Hawke wins the Battle of Quiberon Bay

February 10, 1763 – Seven Years’ War: The Treaty of Paris ends the war in a victory for Britain and its allies

August 5-6, 1763 – Pontiac’s Rebellion: The British win the Battle of Bushy Run

September 25, 1768 – Russo-Turkish War: The Ottoman Empire declares war on Russia following a border incident at Balta

March 5, 1770 – Prelude to the American Revolution: British troops fire into a crowd at the Boston Massacre

July 21, 1774 – Russo-Turkish War: The Treaty of Kuçuk Kainarji ends the war in a Russian victory

April 19, 1775 – American Revolution: The war begins with the Battles of Lexington & Concord

April 19, 1775-March 17, 1776 – American Revolutin: American troops conduct the Siege of Boston

May 10, 1775 – American Revolution: American forces capture Fort Ticonderoga

June 11-12, 1775 – American Revolution: American naval forces win the Battle of Machias

June 17, 1775 – American Revolution: The British win a bloody victory at the Battle of Bunker Hill

September 17-November 3, 1775 – American Revolution: American forces win the Siege of Fort St. Jean

December 9, 1775 – American Revolution: Patriot forces win the Battle of Great Bridge

December 31, 1775 – American Revolution: American forces are turned back at the Battle of Quebec

February 27, 1776 – American Revolution: Patriot forces win the Battle of Moore’s Creek Bridge in North Carolian

March 3-4, 1776 – American Revolution: American forces win the Battle of Nassau in the Bahama

June 28, 1776 – American Revolution: The British at defeated near Charleston, SC at the Battle of Sullivan’s Island

August 27, 1776 – American Revolution: Gen. George Washington is defeated at the Battle of Long Island

September 16, 1776 – American Revolution: American troops win the Battle of Harlem Heights

October 11, 1776 – American Revolution: Naval forces on Lake Champlain fight the Battle of Valcour Island

October 28, 1776 – American Revolution: The British force the Americans to retreat at the Battle of White Plains

November 16, 1776 – American Revolution: British troops win the Battle of Fort Washington

December 26, 1776 – American Revolution: American troops win a daring victory at the Battle of Trenton

January 2, 1777 – American Revolution: American troops hold at the Battle of the Assunpink Creek near Trenton, NJ

January 3, 1777 – American Revolution: American forces win the Battle of Princeton

April 27, 1777 – American Revolution: British forces win the Battle of Ridgefield

July 7, 1777 – American Revolution: Colonel Seth Warner fights a determined rearguard action at the Battle of Hubbardton

August 6, 1777 – American Revolution: American forces are beaten at the Battle of Oriskany

September 26-November 16, 1777 – American Revolution: American forces fight the Siege of Fort Mifflin

October 4, 1777 – American Revolution: British forces win the Battle of Germantown

September 19 & October 7, 1777 – American Revolution: Continental forces win the Battle of Saratoga

Decebmer 19, 1777-June 19, 1778 – American Revolution: The Continental Army winters at Valley Forge

June 28, 1778 – American Revolution: American troops engage the British at the Battle of Monmouth

August 29, 1778 – American Revolution: The Battle of Rhode Island is fought north of Newport

February 14, 1779 – American Revolution: American forces win the Battle of Kettle Creek

July 16, 1779 – American Revolution: Brigadier General Anthony Wayne wins the Battle of Stony Point

September 16-October 18, 1779 – American Revolution: French & American troops conduct the failed Siege of Savannah

September 23, 1779 – American Revolution: John Paul Jones captures HMS Serapis

March 29-May 12 – American Revolution: British forces win the Siege of Charleston

May 29, 1780 – American Revolution: American forces are defeated at the Battle of Waxhaws

October 7, 1780 – American Revolution: American militia wins the Battle of Kings Mountain in South Carolina

January 17, 1781 – American Revolution: Brig. Gen. Daniel Morgan wins the Battle of Cowpens

March 15, 1781 – American Revolution: American troops bleed the British at the Battle of Guilford Court House

April 25, 1781 – American Revolution: British troops win the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill in South Carolina

September 5, 1781 – American Revolution: French naval forces win the Battle of the Chesapeake

September 8, 1781 – American Revolution: British and American forces clash at the Battle of Eutaw Springs

October 19, 1781 – American Revolution: General Lord Charles Cornwallis surrenders to Gen. George Washington ending the Siege of Yorktown

April 9-12, 1782 – The British win the Battle of the Saintes

September 3, 1783 – American Revolution: American independence is granted and the war concluded by the Treaty of Paris

April 28, 1789 – Royal Navy: Acting Lieutenant Fletcher Christian deposes Lieutenant William Bligh during the Mutiny on the Bounty

July 9-10, 1790 – Russo-Swedish War: Swedish naval forces triumph in the Battle of Svensksund

April 20, 1792 – Wars of the French Revolution: The French Assembly votes to declare war on Austria beginning a series of conflicts in Europe

September 20, 1792 – Wars of the French Revolution: French forces win a victory over Prussia at the Battle of Valmy

June 1, 1794 – Wars of the French Revolution: Admiral Lord Howe defeats the French fleet at the Glorious First of June

August 20, 1794 – Northwest Indian War: General Anthony Wayne defeats the Western Confederacy at the Battle of Fallen Timbers

July 7, 1798 – Quasi-War: The US Congress rescinds all treaties with France beginning an undeclared naval war

August 1/2, 1798 – Wars of the French Revolution: Rear Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson destroys a French fleet at the Battle of the Nile

+++++++++++++

So perhaps it’s time to think of someone aside from the 1% when undertaking monetary policy…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1hG2csd Tyler Durden

Here's What Happened The Last Time "Unemployment", "Taxes", & "Inequality" Were So Correlated