Wall Street Pay Shrank 5.6% In 2018; Layoffs Spiked In First Half Of 2019: Report

Wall Street Pay Shrank 5.6% In 2018; Layoffs Spiked In First Half Of 2019: Report

Continuing the trend of Wall Street salaries shrinking alongside the workforce of highly paid traders, analysts and others as automation takes hold, pay for employees working in the securities industry fell 5.6% in 2018, when the average salary dropped to $398,600, according to the New York State Comptroller’s Office. That’s down from $422,500 in 2017, which was the highest average pay for the industry since the financial crisis.

The salary drop was driven by a 17% decline in the average bonus. Bonuses are a critical component of pay for bankers – they can account for more than one-third of total compensation, for some.

Still, average pay for bankers working in the state (most of whom work in Manhattan, or elsewhere in the city) was five times higher than the average pay for other private-sector employees, which came in at $79,000. Though that pay gap has improved slightly since 2007, when securities-industry employees earned six times the average pay.

Here’s an interesting fact: Employment in the securities industry in NYC has increased during four of the past five years, though it’s still 4% – or 7,600 jobs – below its 2007 levels. Though a breakdown of those jobs isn’t given, we can tell from news reports and other studies that a growing number of those jobs are going to quants and coders, and fewer from the traditional banking channels.

As far as what’s driving the drop in pay, the Comptroller’s Office said market turbulence at the end of last year helped depress bonuses, while changes in federal law drove a transient increase in 2017.

New York counted 201,200 financial-industry jobs in 2018, more than any other state in the country, and in NYC, the industry accounts for 17% of the economy.  Interestingly enough (food for thought for those who insist that the industry doesn’t pay its fair share in taxes), Wall Street was also responsible for 17% ($13.2 billion) of State tax collections in State Fiscal Year 2018-2019.

Here’s an interesting stat: In 2017, the most recent year given, one-third of all finance jobs in the state were held by immigrants. Meanwhile, two-thirds of industry employees were White, 19%  were Asian, 8% were Hispanic and 6 % were African American, and men comprised two-thirds of the industry’s employees.

Though it might not seem that alarming in the grand scheme of things, there are some signs of more difficult times ahead: job gains in the early part of 2019 have been erased in recent months as investment banks slash headcounts in anticipation of an economic downturn. Early reports suggest bulge bracket banks like JPM didn’t hand out as many offers to interns. As of September 2019, the industry was on pace to lose almost 500 jobs in 2019. Last year, the industry added 4,700 jobs.

And that self-inflicted wound could still have an outsize impact. NYOSC estimates that 1 in 10 jobs in the city and 1 in 15 jobs in New York State are associated with Wall Street. The office also estimates that each job gained or lost in the industry leads to the creation or loss of three additional jobs in other industries in the State.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 14:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36jCllw Tyler Durden

Watch: Police Called Over Student’s “Friday The 13th ‘Jason'” Costume Prop

Watch: Police Called Over Student’s “Friday The 13th ‘Jason'” Costume Prop

Authored by Zachary Petrizzo via The College Fix,

Move over cultural appropriation – now one apparently can’t even walk across campus to a Halloween party dressed as Friday the 13th’s “Jason Voorhees” without having the cops called on them.

Two George Mason University students late Tuesday night were questioned by campus police after someone called to report one of the students for his fake machete prop accompanying his Friday the 13th Halloween costume.

The GMU police department dispatched a total of three officers to the scene to investigate the costume prop.

Jawad Nahian wore a costume inspired by “Jason Voorhees” from the popular Halloween movie series Friday the 13th and his friend Akshay Chitre wore a “Robin Hood” costume.

The two were questioned by police after someone on the northern Virginia campus called the Voorhees costume prop in as a possible safety threat as the two students headed to a Halloween party on campus.

It’s unclear if a student called it in, but the two students had been traversing an area of campus flanked by dorms on their way to the costume party, an annual event co-hosted by the university’s Housing and Residential Life department.

Chitre and Nahian were behind Research Hall headed to “Once Upon a Scream” at President’s Park when they were intercepted by the officers. The College Fix was also on scene as the two were asked for photo ID and questioned.

Chitre told The College Fix it’s just a “fake plastic sword.”

“I kinda just want to get to the party, and it’s a prop,” Nahian added.

But the duo, although appearing slightly frustrated, also appear to take it in stride.

“Some guy or girl decided to report us, for wearing halloween costumes. Who carries a real machete? … I mean, c’mon people,” Nahian said.

“Some people probably don’t even know what Halloween is.”

One of the responding officers, Sergeant Donald Daniels, asked the two after inspecting the prop machete: “Do you see why this might be a problem right now?”

The students replied that while some might think it’s real, the officer is now aware it is not.

Sgt. Daniels, sounding sympathetic, advises the students that “in this day and age the best thing to do would be to like put this stuff in a bag … and then put it on when you get to the party, so you are not just walking around. … I understand it’s Halloween, guys. But we live in a society now where stuff like this …”

The officer told the students they could unveil the prop when they get to the party, but to keep it covered in a bag of some sort when they head to and from the party.

In an interview with The College Fix, Daniels explained “we live in a day and age where this stuff gets called in and we have to take it seriously because it could be real. And that is why we are here, to protect the public.”

“Do I find it ridiculous? Yeah, kind of. But I still have to come out and believe that it’s real until I determine that it’s not.”

He said he’s also compelled to do something, even if the sword is plastic, or some community members may still keep calling it in.

“I understand that it’s Halloween, I like Halloween,” he said. “… But in today’s society we have to treat everything like it’s real until we decide that it’s not real. And we try to make as many accommodations as we can.”

Eric Fowler, a spokesman for the university, told The College Fix “police responded to an incident, they had to check it out, and that’s it.”

He directed The College Fix to a Virginia state law, which prohibits people over the age of 16 from wearing of masks. Notably the law has a provision which states “the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes.”

When asked about the provisions, Fowler stated that it’s up for “debate.”


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 14:39

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34gh36v Tyler Durden

Twitter’s Ban on Political Ads Will Help Incumbent Politicians Maintain Power

On Wednesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced a pending worldwide ban on paid advertisements from and about political candidates and issues.

The company is still hammering out the details, but the goal is clear: Twitter is going to deal with the growing outrage and calls for some sort of impossible system of “fact-checking” political advertisements by bowing out entirely.

Dorsey explained yesterday afternoon in a lengthy Twitter thread that starts with this one:

He argues that political figures and issue groups “earn” their reach when people voluntarily decide to share or follow an account on Twitter: “Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.” He says that allowing campaigns to target individuals with paid political advertising “brings significant risks to politics” and can be “used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”

Let’s get the most obvious response out of the way first: Twitter is a private platform and should be permitted to set up whatever rules it wants to run political ads or to ban them entirely. If Twitter wants to deal with all this controversy by bowing out, that’s their right. They have no ethical or moral obligation to serve as a platform for political advertisements. This decision was preceded by Twitter’s similar choice in France—when the country attempted to force the social media platform to report information about political ads, they refused to run them altogether.

That said, this hand-wringing about some sort of distorting impact of political advertisement is ignorant claptrap oblivious to America’s long history of freewheeling (and often misleading) campaign advertisements in every communication form that existed prior to social media. Furthermore, the decision will make it harder for less connected candidates and political organizations to reach people in the first place.

Nobody really likes political ads. But they do serve important purposes to advance democracy, particularly for those challenging the status quo. Incumbent politicians have a massive advantage not just in money raised but the fact that they have years of “earned media” over the work they do. Incumbents are operating with a much higher level of name recognition among their constituencies. With very few exceptions (almost always very rich citizens), anybody who seeks to challenge incumbents or our more powerful political organizations starts off at a huge disadvantage.

For Dorsey to treat the reach of these politicians as something that just happened organically is to deliberately ignore that their power and control over government strongly incentivizes voters to be aware of what decisions their elected officials are making.

The ability to spend money to improve the reach of a candidate’s message is not a corrupting influence on democracy—it’s a powerful balancing tool that allows a challenger to let people know he or she exists in the first place. Democracy is improved when challengers to power have avenues to reach voters that aren’t under the control of the government.

While it’s true that advertising gives richer people (and incumbent politicians) a louder voice, it also serves as a megaphone for new challengers. And to be clear, to whatever extent that mass sharing of social media messages is contributing to the spread of “fake news,” political advertisements are not really the problem. Twitter itself notes that the company made less than $3 million from political ads in 2018 (out of total revenue of more than $3 billion that year).

Twitter representatives insist that this is all about the “principles,” even though the beneficiaries of this decision are incumbent and entrenched political players who have massive amounts of reach precisely because of how much power they wield.

And, of course, we cannot ignore the political context of this decision. Politicians on the left and the right want to push around social media platforms, treat them as public utilities, and either force them to ban messages the politicians disapprove of or force them to carry messages that the politicians support. While it may be Twitter’s “choice” to self-censor political advertisements, we cannot ignore the politicians who are using their power to influence this decision.

Don’t expect too much opposition to Twitter’s decision from the movers and shakers of the political world. A spokesman for presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden praised Twitter’s decision over at CNN, saying “When faced with a choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that, for once, revenue did not win out.” That this decision will make it slightly harder for people with less recognition and access to media to maybe publicize some of Biden’s failings? Well, that’s just gravy.

Below, Reason TV on how dirty political ads are as old as American elections:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2BYUmI3
via IFTTT

Molson Coors Goes Flat, Even Beermakers Are Laying Off People

Molson Coors Goes Flat, Even Beermakers Are Laying Off People

The downward trajectory in the employment cycle has now affected one of America’s largest beermakers, that is, Molson Coors Brewing Co., the producer of Coors Light and Miller Lite, who is expected to lay off 500 employees across its international offices.

The bulk of the job cuts will be concentrated in the company’s international offices in North America.

As of 2018, the company had 17,500 employees, which means about 3% of its entire workforce will be laid off in the near term.

The restructuring plan will cost Molson Coors about $180 million through 2021. During the process, hundreds of employees will be laid off, and that number could increase during a recession.

Molson Coors, also announced it had begun a transitional phase of relocating its Denver headquarters to Chicago, but will keep its brewery open in Golden, Colorado.

“Our business is at an inflection point. We can continue down the path we’ve been on for several years now, or we can make significant and difficult changes necessary to get back on the right track,” CEO and president Gavin Hattersley said in a press release.

Beermakers, as a whole, are suffering from declining demand in North America in the last several years. Industry tracker IWSR said alcohol sales volumes have dropped since 2017.

Shares of Molson Coors dropped 2% by 1:00 pm est., but have fallen nearly 13% in the last four trading sessions. Wall Street’s earnings expectations for 3Q missed on Wednesday morning as revenue and profits dropped.

Anheuser-Busch InBev has also lowered its guidance for the next several quarters as sales volumes slump across the world.

Molson Coors, attempting to stop further hemorrhaging of sales, recently acquired a portfolio of “brewed beverages,” including tea, coffee, and beer.

In 1Q19, the brewer also started selling alcoholic coffee and canned wine.

With marijuana sales up across the US and alcohol sales moving lower, the consumer, with insurmountable debts, in the next recession, will be smoking their financial woes away, opposed to drinking themselves to sleep seen in prior economic downturns. Every bear market is different.

 


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 14:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2pwsw2Z Tyler Durden

Halloween: Visualizing America’s Hair-Raising Spending Levels

Halloween: Visualizing America’s Hair-Raising Spending Levels

This year, 68 percent of people in the U.S. are planning to celebrate and as well as having a headache on Friday morning, most revellers will have a lighter wallet.

As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, on average, each American participating in Halloween will spend $83.26, according to the National Retail Federation with men ($96.13) spending more than women ($76.92).

Infographic: Halloween: America's Hair-Raising Spending Levels  | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Halloween is a major occasion for the American economy and this year, total spending is expected to reach $8.8 billion. That’s quite a contrast to a decade ago when people collectively spent $4.8 billion amid the financial crisis.

When it comes to how Americans plan to celebrate this year, the NRF found that 69 percent will hand out candy while 47 percent plan to wear a costume.

The most popular adult costumes this year are the witch, vampire and superhero.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 14:09

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36nVHpy Tyler Durden

Twitter’s Ban on Political Ads Will Help Incumbent Politicians Maintain Power

On Wednesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced a pending worldwide ban on paid advertisements from and about political candidates and issues.

The company is still hammering out the details, but the goal is clear: Twitter is going to deal with the growing outrage and calls for some sort of impossible system of “fact-checking” political advertisements by bowing out entirely.

Dorsey explained yesterday afternoon in a lengthy Twitter thread that starts with this one:

He argues that political figures and issue groups “earn” their reach when people voluntarily decide to share or follow an account on Twitter: “Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.” He says that allowing campaigns to target individuals with paid political advertising “brings significant risks to politics” and can be “used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.”

Let’s get the most obvious response out of the way first: Twitter is a private platform and should be permitted to set up whatever rules it wants to run political ads or to ban them entirely. If Twitter wants to deal with all this controversy by bowing out, that’s their right. They have no ethical or moral obligation to serve as a platform for political advertisements. This decision was preceded by Twitter’s similar choice in France—when the country attempted to force the social media platform to report information about political ads, they refused to run them altogether.

That said, this hand-wringing about some sort of distorting impact of political advertisement is ignorant claptrap oblivious to America’s long history of freewheeling (and often misleading) campaign advertisements in every communication form that existed prior to social media. Furthermore, the decision will make it harder for less connected candidates and political organizations to reach people in the first place.

Nobody really likes political ads. But they do serve important purposes to advance democracy, particularly for those challenging the status quo. Incumbent politicians have a massive advantage not just in money raised but the fact that they have years of “earned media” over the work they do. Incumbents are operating with a much higher level of name recognition among their constituencies. With very few exceptions (almost always very rich citizens), anybody who seeks to challenge incumbents or our more powerful political organizations starts off at a huge disadvantage.

For Dorsey to treat the reach of these politicians as something that just happened organically is to deliberately ignore that their power and control over government strongly incentivizes voters to be aware of what decisions their elected officials are making.

The ability to spend money to improve the reach of a candidate’s message is not a corrupting influence on democracy—it’s a powerful balancing tool that allows a challenger to let people know he or she exists in the first place. Democracy is improved when challengers to power have avenues to reach voters that aren’t under the control of the government.

While it’s true that advertising gives richer people (and incumbent politicians) a louder voice, it also serves as a megaphone for new challengers. And to be clear, to whatever extent that mass sharing of social media messages is contributing to the spread of “fake news,” political advertisements are not really the problem. Twitter itself notes that the company made less than $3 million from political ads in 2018 (out of total revenue of more than $3 billion that year).

Twitter representatives insist that this is all about the “principles,” even though the beneficiaries of this decision are incumbent and entrenched political players who have massive amounts of reach precisely because of how much power they wield.

And, of course, we cannot ignore the political context of this decision. Politicians on the left and the right want to push around social media platforms, treat them as public utilities, and either force them to ban messages the politicians disapprove of or force them to carry messages that the politicians support. While it may be Twitter’s “choice” to self-censor political advertisements, we cannot ignore the politicians who are using their power to influence this decision.

Don’t expect too much opposition to Twitter’s decision from the movers and shakers of the political world. A spokesman for presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden praised Twitter’s decision over at CNN, saying “When faced with a choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that, for once, revenue did not win out.” That this decision will make it slightly harder for people with less recognition and access to media to maybe publicize some of Biden’s failings? Well, that’s just gravy.

Below, Reason TV on how dirty political ads are as old as American elections:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2BYUmI3
via IFTTT

‘Nothing Illegal In Trump-Zelensky Call’: NSC Official Tells Impeachment Inquiry

‘Nothing Illegal In Trump-Zelensky Call’: NSC Official Tells Impeachment Inquiry

A top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodomyr Zelensky, Tim Morrison, told House investigators on Thursday that he does not believe anything illegal was discussed, according to The Federalist.

Tim Morrison

I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.

Morrison also testified that the transcript of the phone call which was declassified and released by the White House “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.”

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up. –The Federalist

Notably, Morrison quit the day before his testimony.

Last week, Morrison was named during testimony earlier this month by William Taylor, Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine, according to Politico.

William Taylor

As we reported earlier today of Morrison, following the call, Morrison informed Taylor that it “could have gone better,” and that Trump suggested Zelensky and his staff meet with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

Morrison’s hawkish views align with those of Bolton and he has been described as a creature of process by some close to him.

Bolton always told those who worked for him that process was their protector and sometimes you have to listen to the person elected — advice Morrison adopted, sources said.

Morrison is a lifelong Republican described as a Reaganite and is referred to as “‘Bolton’s Bolton, he is really hard right,” according to one source familiar with Morrison. –CNN

“The NSC process does not allow anything that isn’t legal. It just, it would never get to the President. Certainly not any process that Tim was ever a part of,” said one source close to Morrison. “A piece of paper does not get to the national security adviser without first going through the lawyers, much less to the President.”

Taylor also said that Morrison witnessed Trump Ally Gordon Sondland convey a quid pro quo arrangement;

Taylor also described a conversation in which Morrison relayed word from Sondland that Trump had told Sondland directly that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky should publicly announce the investigations.

House impeachment investigators are exploring whether Trump conditioned nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine — and a White House visit for Zelensky — on Ukraine’s willingness to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as a debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections.

Taylor told lawmakers that Morrison relayed concerns about Trump’s posture toward Ukraine to then-national security adviser John Bolton and to NSC lawyers. –Politico

According to Morrison, the national security process worked as designed.

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he said, adding “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish.”

Earlier Thursday, House Democrats (all but two) approved impeachment procedures against President Trump. No Republicans voted for the measure.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2putbSG Tyler Durden

Will OPEC+ Declare War On U.S. Shale?

Will OPEC+ Declare War On U.S. Shale?

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

It’s that time of the year again, the final OPEC+ meeting of 2019 has been scheduled and is ready to take place in December. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are running high and so are worries about the balance between supply and demand. The top concern, however, is whether the production cuts agreed last December will be extended or deepened once again.

Russia is, of course, in the spotlight. The world’s second-largest oil producer has made it a habit of demonstrating reluctance about any final commitment until the last moment when it agrees to cut. This time is no exception.

Russia’s Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin this week told TASS in an interview it was too early to discuss deeper cuts. The news immediately ignited the not-too-dormant worry of traders that Russia could play OPEC and leave the cuts altogether—a not too far-fetched scenario given Russian oil companies’ general negative attitude towards the cuts. If the OPEC+ events from the last three years are any indication, Russia will not leave the cuts but may well use the meeting to politically maneuver.

But it’s not just Russia. Nigeria earlier this month struck a deal with OPEC that will allow it to produce more oil even under a production cut regime. Reuters reported the news citing unnamed OPEC officials and noting that the decision was not made public. This development raises one important question: how long before other OPEC members ask for similar special treatment?

Besides Nigeria, there are at least two OPEC members that want to boost their oil production: Iraq and Libya.

  • Libya has been exempted from all production cut agreements so far and, as its National Oil Corporation chairman Mustafa Sanalla said in July, it must remain exempt from any future cuts as well. Libya plans to increase its oil output to 1.6 million bpd from the current 1.3 million bpd.

  • Iraq is taking part in the cuts, but grudgingly, and it shows: OPEC’s number-two exporter has consistently failed to stay within its production quota. Yet overall compliance continues to excel because of the forced production declines in sanction-stricken Venezuela and Iran.

So, the obvious question is how long and how much OPEC+ will decide to cut. But there’s a less obvious one that was put forward by Bloomberg’s Julian Lee: why cut at all instead of turning the taps all the way back to maximum production?

Lee argued in a recent commentary that Saudi Arabia, for one, would benefit a lot more from a maximum-production approach than an extension of the cuts. U.S. shale oil growth is already slowing down because of international prices. If Saudi Arabia and its allies decide to reverse their price control approach, it will crash and burn.

Of course, as prices crash so will the Saudi dream of a $2-trillion valuation for Aramco, whose IPO is reportedly scheduled for a couple of days after the OPEC+ meeting. This means the otherwise perfectly reasonable scenario put forth by Lee and others is unlikely to play out. What is most likely to happen is either a preservation of the status quo or an agreement to extend the current cuts further into 2020.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NsQbt5 Tyler Durden

Anti-Trump CIA Whistleblower Invited ‘Meddling’ DNC Operative To Obama White House In 2015

Anti-Trump CIA Whistleblower Invited ‘Meddling’ DNC Operative To Obama White House In 2015

A partisan CIA officer who secretly worked with Rep. Adam Schiff’s Democratic staff before submitting a second-hand whistleblower complaint has been revealed as Eric Ciaramella – who previously worked in the Obama administration with former VP Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Eric Ciaramella as a Connecticut prep student in 2004

While his attorneys have declined to confirm that the 33-year-old Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) is the whistleblower, RealClearInvestigations Paul Sperry on Wednesday reported that his name has been “raised privately in impeachment depositions,” and is an “open secret inside the Beltway.”

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said former CIA analyst and Trump national security adviser Fred Fleitz, who added “They’re hiding him because of his political bias.” 

He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said one former NSC official on condition of anonymity.

Sperry’s revelations:

  • Ciaramella, a registered Democrat and Obama White House holdover, helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”
  • Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.
  • He worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa – inviting her to the White House. Chalupa, “a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government,” writes Sperry (which has been documented by Politico and journalist Lee Stranahan). “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Michael Avenatti, Alexandra Chalupa

  • Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
  • Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October, 2016 state luncheon hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. “Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

The Federalist‘s Sean Davis adds: “Eric Ciaramella also needs to testify under oath why he invited a rep for Ukrainian oligarch and Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk to the White House the same day that oligarch’s representative met with Steele dossier leaker David Kramer.”

In October, the Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) four Pinocchios for lying when he said “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when in fact Ciaramella consulted with Schiff’s panel – which directed him to a Democrat attorney to file a second-hand complaint that President Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and other matters.

Notably, Schiff hired two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC – also Obama holdovers.

Ciaramella, held over into the Trump administration, headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC – transferring into the West Wing in June 2017.

He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything,” according to Sperry’s report.

The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier. –RealClearInvestigations

No wonder Democrats are holding their impeachment proceedings in secret!

Read the rest of Sperry’s report here.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:56

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WtLAeo Tyler Durden

How QE Has Radically Changed The Nature Of The West’s Financial System

How QE Has Radically Changed The Nature Of The West’s Financial System

Authored by Ramin Mazaheri via The Saker blog,

Because they are so ensconsed in their little bubble and because they profit so much from maintaining the status quo, Western mainstream media pundits don’t – or perhaps can’t – admit how Quantitative Easing policies have so quickly and so radically changed the financial system of the West and their satellites.

I imagine that most everyone reading this is already aware of what has transpired economically across the West over the last decade:

  • Elite-class asset (stuff rich people own – stocks, real estate, financial derivatives, luxury goods, etc.) prices have ballooned to pre-2008 levels.

  • Debt (which is, of course, another elite-owned asset), mainly to pay for banker bailouts and their usurious interest levels, has ballooned national accounts to incredible levels.

  • The “real” economy has only weakened, as proven by endemic low economic growth across the West and Japan.

As a pro-socialist who has no faith that capitalism seeks anything but inequality, I believe that creating and compounding these issues has been the unstated goal of Western policy over the last decade. But that’s not the main point: what cannot be denied is that those ARE the economic results of the West’s “easy money” policies – i.e., QE and ZIRP (Zero percent interest rate policy) for the 1%, and austerity for the 99% (all coins have two sides).

Similarly, I imagine that everyone reading this is generally aware of what will happen should the West stop easy money: obviously, once artificial demand is no longer being fabricated then these assets will plummet in value, with huge ripple effects in the “real” economy. The West will be right back to dealing with most of the same toxic assets they had back in 2007, but now compounded by a decade of more debt, more interest payments, and a “real” economy which was made weaker via austerity.

None of that is really “news” to a smart reader… but it is “news” to many dumb journalists.

This 10-part series uses as its jumping-off point the 2018 book Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World by Nomi Prins, a former Wall Street executive who saw the light and is now informing on the crimes of Western imperialism-capitalism. Prins gives a thorough and chronological account of central banker doings in key areas – Mexico, China, Brazil, Japan and Europe – ever since US banker crimes set off the Great Recession in 2007. The essence of her thesis is that the US orchestrated collusion among the central bankers of many of the G20 economies and the Eurozone primarily in order to save busted US banks, and then also to maintain the 1%-enriching neoliberal policies of QE, ZIRP and no-strings attached bailouts.

What Prins keenly demonstrates is that since 2007 Western nations have continuously handed off the baton of QE and ZIRP between each other.

By coordinating on that policy, central bankers have effectively kept the 1% so awash in easy money and inflating assets that the 1% no longer cares that central bankers in a foreign country are manipulating the government where they live. This is what “globalisation” truly means in capitalism; it is very different from the socialist concept of internationalism.

It’s very simple for Prins to prove the G20 central banker collusion via the one thing the Japanese didn’t think of first (they created both QE and ZIRP) – temporary bilateral liquidity swap lines. It sounds complicated but it is easy to explain, and easy to understand their impact:

At the start of the crisis the US pushed the G7 banks, Switzerland and Scandinavia, and then other G20 banks, to create lines of credit with each other which allow them to move money to any place/nation where there is the mere potential of a volatile event which could create a negative impact on the stock or currency markets. This represents hundreds of billions of (taxpayer) dollars which essentially ensures that stock & currency markets never have to feel pain again: whether it is bad concrete economic data, or Fukushima, or Brexit – any major dip is now met with artificially created money which will fortify the position of the 1%.

These can be thought of as the junior versions of QE, and are no longer “temporary” – bilateral liquidity swaps are now a permanent feature of the Western banking system. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where new money is printed, only that it IS printed – it will go to prop up the 1%’s markets anywhere the West has its tentacles.

Thus, there is no real “market force” anymore – “just central banker force”. Their only goal is to perpetuate the status quo, not to improve the status quo, which is of course the essence of right-wing/anti-socialist/conservative ideologies.

There are no debt swaps for when you or I lose our job, but the 1% are “too big to fail”. However, what is even bigger than debt swaps are governments.

It’s not the inflated numbers but the source of the credit which is scary: the bond market

Prins quotes Bank of England leader Mark Carney in 2015 to illustrate this point:

As I wrote to G20 Leaders, the structure of (the) financial system has changed significantly since the crisis. Virtually all of the net credit since the crisis has been from the bond markets and the size of assets under management has increased by 60% to $74 trillion.

Those numbers are staggering. The 2017 estimate for worldwide total GDP was around $75 trillion. Global QE had reached $12 trillion in 2016.

These numbers are so significant that basically every single human should grasp what QE means, and yet how very little media ink is spilled explaining the scope, reach and everyday impact of easy money policies?

Carney pointed out that the West’s financial system has been dramatically deformed, and that the most urgent issue is the bond markets, and for obvious reasons:

The biggest actor in any system is not the “invisible hand”, nor the most talented CEO, nor the richest family – it is the government.

Just as the Pentagon is the world’s largest employer, just as the government employees’ union is always any nation’s largest union, just as the Chinese Communist Party (which is inextricable from their government) is running their economy, just as the Iranian government controls a greater percentage of their economy than even Cuba’s government – I could point to any nation and show that the government is the primary economic actor (with the exception of tiny tax haven nations). This is based on the answer to the questions: what is done by the government with money received by taxation and produced via printing?

This acknowledgment that – as long as there are taxes and printed money – the government must always, inescapably be the biggest actor is actually the very foundation of socialism, which posits that these two government powers can be used as tool of liberation for the average person and not as a tool used by the 1% to oppress. That is what makes socialist systems inherently different from aristocratic (or bourgeois/liberal/West European) and other oligarchical systems.

Far-right neoliberalism is a modern ideology – give credit where it is due – and thus they acknowledge this hugely positive role government can play… which is expressly why their dogma also insists on gutting government powers in order to prevent interference with the whims and happiness of the 1%.

However, QE does not represent anyone’s “government policy” – it represents the apex of “anti-government policy”. Nobody voted for QE, and it would never survive a popular and free vote. Western central banks are all independent from their government (in socialist dogma, there is a big fat “LOL” to that notion), and many governments rail against the policy of their own central banks!

Clearly, QE is a policy which has been undertaken via entities which are not at all subject to (Western, bourgeois, liberal, already-quite limited) governmental oversight. QE in Europe, for example, has the ECB ostensibly acting as the banker of the Eurozone’s citizens yet its client has not at all been national governments or the national taxpayer – it’s only client is multinational private banks. Thus, the ECB has not been working to protect national governments, but instead clearly subverts those interests to those of the 1%.

Nice system y’all got in the West….

No central banker will ever be tried for collusion, much less blamed in the Western press no matter how bad their results are, just as no incoming US Fed chief has ever lost their rubber stamp legislative vote. The penultimate paragraph of Prins’ book gives the key reality:

Yet in the inevitable financial crash – these conjurers (of so much newly-printed money) will not be blamed. Or monitored. They are simply doing their jobs, even if those jobs have shifting definitions and nebulous goals.”

Back to the key point: We cannot forget that over the past decade these suddenly-arriving monies have been instrumental in propping up the government bond market, especially in the Eurozone. Governments cannot operate without paying salaries, and to do that they need to borrow money or print it. Insanely, QE has taken printed money and given it to banks so that banks could give it back to central banks in the form of buying national bonds: no value was created, yet so much was lost for the People.

Socialist or capitalist, we cannot argue what ARE the results: QE thus represents the ultimate economic victory of the “rentier” – he or she who adds no value, but only parasitically extracts value. Western economic-political ideology truly means giving private, self-interested bankers the ability to extract an endless flow of parasitic interest payments, and all because Western neoliberalism refuses to allow the government to play their logically dominant role in directly shepherding the economy.

Everybody should have known that European Central Bank QE was a fraud at least by 2015, when Greek banks were excluded from the bond buying party.

That was incredibly comic-tragic, because it showed how there was absolutely no solidarity in the Eurozone and the pan-European project, nor any common sense, nor any desire to really improve things – only the desire to make the rich even richer.

The simple math is: Central bankers resorted to QE because private banks had lost faith in each other, thus they roped in central banks to accept all the risk and losses. But the question which no one can answer is: So what happens when private banks lose faith in central banks?

The answer is: necessarily even more chaos than 2008, because even if Western central banks are “independent” from the government in neoliberal practice, they still have the full credit and powers apportioned to the government.

Thus, we no longer just have a “subprime bank” or a “subprime loan” crisis – the West has added a “subprime central bank” crisis for themselves as well, which is essentially the same as saying a “subprime government” crisis.

That’s why I wrote a 7-part series on QE back in September 2017, when I was sure they could not extend it more than one time. Little did I guess that QE could become permanent policy. The thesis of that series remains valid and the same in 2019:

Capitalism assures us that profit will be found at any cost by the 1% class – there is no sense of morality, only greed, backstabbing, bloodsucking, treason, laziness, covetousness, etc. National governments and the local banks and industries they support, and even partially own, are all risky bets which have only gotten riskier – do you think bond investors want to lose their money on them? When the government intervention of QE and ZIRP stop (i.e., free profit for banks) then banks will have to risk their own money to buy national bonds. This means no more playing nice: they will go back to doing what they began doing in 2011 – squeezing their profit out of the national bond markets, because globalised capital means no nation matters anymore.

Prins’ book gives us the chronological doings and details in Western countries which further supports this thesis.

Thus, the paradoxical non-conflict between government and bank in neoliberalism will eventually come to an even greater head than it did in 2012, when the Eurozone was about to split up and the true seed of Brexit was clearly set. The West’s refusal to cut out the middleman, the rentier, the parasite – which is what socialism does – means they will get bloodsucked to death.

The death of a corporation or a bank is not fatal to a nation, but the death of a government – a government which cannot borrow or print money, as in the Eurozone – will be fatal. Or maybe you believe QE really can be permanent?

When did QE go wrong?

“The FED didn’t just ‘save’ the US financial system, it altered the flow of capital everywhere,” writes Prins.

The problem – or rather the failure – of QE became evident with the internationally-condemned 3rd round of QE by the US.

In the US QE 1 was money to buy bad mortgage assets in November 2008. What I call “QE 1.5” came 4 months later, to buy debt securities in the credit markets. QE 2 was in November 2009 – $600 billion of longer-term US Treasury securities. QE 4 only arrived this month – the delay is explained by Prins’ title: collusion in easy money policies among many G20 nations.

QE was obviously misdirected to the wrong classes from the very start, but in 2012 QE 3 generated a lot of international anger from developing countries. I will explain their reasons shortly, but the primary reason is one which gets at the heart of the fact that capitalism can never evolve positively – the emperor has no clothes… (probably because “emperor-ship” is unmodern and immoral, and whoever heard of a “socialist emperor?”):

“None of the core central bankers knew what else to do. They believed or wanted to believe in their own hype and power – that they could save economies through the right combination of QE, intervention, and lending money cheaply to big banks and corporations, and that somehow this would trickle down into the real economy people live in day to day. They could not admit that their economies had been crippled by the US financial crisis and that the collusion of the Fed with allied central banks perpetuated risk in a grand conjured-money scheme.”

It is no coincidence that 2012 was the year of the European Sovereign Debt crisis. That was when it became clear to money managers that problems: were huge and getting huger; were already proven to dramatically exist, but were now additionally being proven that the decisions of 2007-12 had not fixed them; that these problems could not be resolved in a neoliberal system of economics; were merely being money-papered over; and that governments were going to go bust from all the debt, printing and interest charges.

Prins is correct, but she also lets the 1%ers off the hook – QE 3 is when the 1% fully usurped governments (and their inherent duty to serve the People) in order to keep funding their lifestyle and to indebt others. This is a failure inherent in capitalism – and not just the neoliberal variant – simply writ on a 21st century, multinational, digital scale.

Again, neoliberalism is a modern ideology – hats off to them for not living in the past. German Nazism was also a modern creation – clearly, “modernity” is not the highest virtue….

But Prins is correct that – because they reject socialist regulations, planning and ideals – the central bankers simply would not, could not, do anything else.

With QE 3 in 2012 the savvy observers in the developing world saw what QE and ZIRP also served as: a way to create easy money for Western bankers to buy up foreign assets and to entrap developing countries with unsustainable loans. That is something I imagine you have never read even a single time in a Western media – anti-Western accusations of “collusion” is merely called “business sense” in the West, after all. The unexplored, negative consequences which QE has wreaked on the non-QE world are detailed in Parts 3 and 4.

QE3 was when QE showed its true colors: several years of it had not fixed anyone’s economy. And because the QE system cannot be stopped without revealing that fact, the US decided it will get their allies to print as much as they can while they can in order to enrich their 1% chums and to ensnare foreigners via the free capital flows required in globalisation.

In 2012 (and at other times, as well) we assumed that a government’s bankruptcy – Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. – would end the QE game. However, QE has gone on so long that many predict that Germany’s private Deutsche Bank will be the bankruptcy which restarts economic chaos. And why not? Major private banks are still just as rotted out with un-shed-able assets as they were 10 years ago. Non-austerity policies likely could have saved some of these failed investments and improved the state of these stupid loans, but….

What is certain is that when government bond rates go back to floating on market rates instead of on the air of QE, that’s when chaos is sure to hit… and that’s why governments cannot end QE. 2019 is no different from 2017.

Conclusion: QE can’t end, and it could have been so much better

The amazing thing is not the idea of QE, but how stupid the West has been about it: if they had been smarter, then they could have purchased a golden future for their societies – instead they bought fancy paintings you can find images of for free online.

QE could have been a chance to smash neoliberalism forever by proving what we all know: the government must have a major role in the economy – why empower the parasitical middleman? That is a question asked by every hard-working farmer for quite some time…

The good news is: not everyone takes part of the West’s financial system. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and even – though many are loath to admit it – China. All these nations may trade with foreign nations, but that doesn’t mean their own domestic economies are based upon the exact same neoliberal capitalist principles as the US and Eurozone.

It is the goal of neoliberal/globalisation propaganda to deny that reality.

QE has changed the Western economic system because their central banks have become the toxic asset-owner which has become “too big to fail”:

“Even if fabricated money wasn’t achieving its stated purpose of real economic growth, taking it away would invoke chaos on the financial system. That was a possibility that central bank leaders did not want to risk, not on their watch.”

The reason we have had QE Infinity is because no central banker will be the one to end to QE. To do so would be to say: “I have been a fool – a capitalist banker. Let’s switch to socialism.”

What about journalists? Asking them to successfully campaign against 1%-er easy money/99%er austerity seems very difficult in the West, where the vast majority of the media has been foolishly privatised. I have never seen any honest series in The New York Times or any other top media regarding the obvious failure of QE and far-right economics. The best they can do is to blame an individual politician for cutting this government service or raising that single tax on the 99% – mostly they prefer to blame people who rail against capitalist globalisation, like the Yellow Vests. Of course, the monthlong tactic has been to ignore the Yellow Vests entirely….

That leaves us with only citizens: “Citizens were caught in a vortex between unpopular and ineffective policies. Governments seemed to forget they existed, while central bankers did not even pretend to be concerned.”

Perhaps Western citizens are, in their own mind, truly painfully living in a vortex created by right-wing forces? I feel certain that the source of this would not be primarily caused by their culture, history or religion, but in their current West European/liberal/bourgeois political systems.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:43

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2oyBGvr Tyler Durden