Virtue-Signaling Canadians Love Carbon Initiatives…Until They Have To Pay For Them

Canadians are super environmentally friendly – until they have to pay for it.

 

According to new data released by the Public Policy Forum’s Digital Democracy Project, Canadian voters rank the environment as their second greatest political concern – voicing widespread support for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

That support quickly melts, however, when voters are asked to personally pay more to combat climate change, according to The Star.

It’s a general human phenomenon that we don’t align personal sacrifice with personality priorities. I mean, that’s why people don’t exercise, right?,” said University of Toronto political science professor and survey lead for the Digital Democracy Project, Peter Loewen. 

“I think what’s happening here, frankly with the carbon tax, is the government has chosen an instrument that’s very visible, in which the cost can be expressed and the cost can be exaggerated, but the cost is very understandable to citizens.”

The environment and climate change are expected to be central issues in the upcoming federal election campaign. The Liberal government has brought in a carbon levy of $20 per tonne of emissions this year, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has attempted to walk a line between action on climate change and support for the country’s natural resources sector, notably through the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The Conservatives oppose the carbon levy and, while they promise to crack down on heavy industrial emitters, are offer no targets for emission reductions.

The good news for the Liberals is that not only is the environment a major political issues for Canadians — with 17 per cent of respondents saying it’s the most important issue to them — but there is strong support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. –The Star

While 74% of respondents said they are in favor of Canada reducing emissions – mostly through renewable energy subsidies (72%), just 36% said they would support increasing the carbon tax

What’s more, the survey revealed that Canadians are extremely sensitive to increases in the carbon price by breaking respondents up into three groups; “one group told a carbon tax would increase the cost of gasoline by five cents a litre, another group by 10 cents, and the final group by 15 cents.” 

At five cents, 42 per cent of respondents are estimated to oppose a carbon tax, but this rises to 51 per cent at 15 cents per litre,” the survey reveals. “This finding illustrates the political perils of using carbon taxes to secure emissions reductions needed to meet Canada’s international obligations.” 

Opposition to raising the carbon price was clearly split along partisan lines. A majority of Conservative voters opposed the carbon price at any cost, while supporters of the left-leaning Liberals, New Democrats, Greens and Bloc Québécois were unresponsive to a hike in the price. –The Star

 
“This lack of responsiveness to the price could possibly be because these respondents are more willing to accept sacrifices needed to reduce emissions,” the report reads. “(But) non-partisans appear to behave more like right-leaning partisans. At five cents, they share a similar level of opposition to the carbon tax as left-leaning partisans (41 per cent each). However, they move toward majority opposition at 15 cents (53 per cent).”

1,554 voting-aged Canadians were surveyed between Aug 17 and Aug 23 – and the results were weighted by region, age and gender. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30NcwqS Tyler Durden

Alabama’s ‘Three Strikes’ Law Sent Alvin Kennard to Prison for 36 Years. He Stole $50.

An Alabama man who served 36 years of a life sentence for stealing approximately $50 from a bakery when he was 22 years old will be released from prison within the next few days. The case is a stark reminder of how little mercy is permitted under “three strikes” laws, which have seen people sentenced to die in prison for petty crimes.

In 1983, Alvin Kennard robbed Highlands Bakery of $50.75. The following year, because Kennard had three previous offenses, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the state’s Habitual Felony Offender Act. (Though it is called a “three strikes” ordinance, the Alabama law actually kicks in on offense number 4.) The judge had no choice in the sentencing.

For those punished under the ordinance, Alabama’s statute now leaves room for parole. The change did not apply retroactively, though, so Kennard, now 58, was not automatically put before a review board. His attorney, Carla Crowder, tells ABC News that Jefferson County Bessemer Cutoff Circuit Judge David Carpenter did so on his own accord after becoming aware of the case and its disproportionate sentence.

“As incredible as this opportunity is for Mr. Kennard and as happy as we are for him, we know that there are hundreds of similarly situated incarcerated people in the state who don’t have attorneys, who don’t have a voice,” Crowder told the outlet, noting that 250 prisoners in the state met with a similar sentencing fate, but have not been granted mercy.

Different versions of “three strikes” laws exist in several states across the country, as well as federally, in what’s known as an 851 notice. The latter has seen about 800 inmates sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if they have three prior drug offenses. After prosecutors filed such a notice against Chris Young in 2014, the Tennessee man, then 26, was sentenced to a life in federal prison for a drug-related crime.

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

Dear Trump Advisors: Prop The Market Up & Lose In 2020, Or Let It Crash Now And Win In 2020

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The Everything Bubble has topped out, and trying to push it higher for the next 14 months is a sure way to increase the damage next year.

One of the more reliable truisms is that Americans vote their pocketbook: if their wallets are being thinned (by recession, stock market declines, high inflation/stagnant wages, etc.), they throw the incumbent out, even if they loved him the previous year when their wallets were getting fatter. (Think Bush I, who maintained high approval ratings but ended up losing the 1992 election due to a dismal economic mood.)

As a result, politicians try to time the economy to align with elections. Get any economic pain over with early in the election cycle, then prime the fiscal pump in Year 3 to boost the economy in Year 4 (election year).

The global economy and the credit cycle aren’t always so pliable or predictable. Oil can soar due to geopolitical tensions, or a speculative financial bubble can burst (subprime mortgages in 2008, dot-coms in 2000), torpedoing the economy.

The intuitive strategy is to prop up the economy and stock market by any means available heading into the election cycle: if we can just keep this over-valued pig of a market aloft until November of next year, so the thinking goes, we’ll likely win the election (or at least we won’t lose because stocks and the economy tanked).

But this strategy is a loser when the credit cycle has run past its expiration date: most credit-based expansions last at most seven years, and here we are in Year Ten. Credit exhaustion is setting in, speculative bets are maxxed out and the global economy is rolling over.

Trying to prop a speculative, over-valued market up for another 14 months is like shoveling sand against the tide. All that this will accomplish is the well-deserved market decline will be pushed forward so it will occur just before the election, destroying the incumbent’s chances to win re-election. In sum: gravity eventually wins and the pig falls to Earth.

At the end of the cycle, the counter-intuitive plan is the winning strategy: crash the market now so a recovery can be engineered going into the election season. The ideal moment to crush the stock market is now: push it over the cliff and let it wallow for a few months, then ride to the rescue with some hope-inspiring coups (a China Trade Deal, for example) that re-start “animal spirits” a few months before electioneering gets serious.

Trying to stop the financial tides at the end of the cycle is a guaranteed way to lose an election. Timing is everything in trading and politics, and the time to push the stock market over the cliff is now. Keeping this over-valued pig aloft much longer will guarantee there won’t be enough time to engineer a recovery before the election–even if the recovery is only of sentiment.

The Everything Bubble has topped out, and trying to push it higher for the next 14 months is a sure way to increase the damage next year. The winning move here is get the pain of a market crash over with now while there’s still time to let the conflagration burn all the dead wood and set up conditions for a reversal in sentiment from gloom-and-doom to hope for fatter wallets tomorrow.

Trump’s advisors would be wise to heed the lessons of history: when the economy and stock market tank in Year Four of the election cycle, the incumbent loses. If the pain is taken in Year Three and a “recovery” is cobbled together in Year Four, the incumbent usually wins re-election.

The Democratic candidate would be ideally served by the Everything Bubble hanging on by a thread into 2020 and then collapsing in a heap.

Again, the winning strategy is counter-intuitive: the Democrats should be pulling out all the stops to prop up the Everything Bubble and keep the economy from succumbing to gravity for another few quarters, so the whole shebang will collapse under its own weight at the point where there is no time left for the incumbent to engineer a recovery.

*  *  *

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format. My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF). My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format.  If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com. New benefit for subscribers/patrons: a monthly Q&A where I respond to your questions/topics.

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

Alabama’s ‘Three Strikes’ Law Sent Alvin Kennard to Prison for 36 Years. He Stole $50.

An Alabama man who served 36 years of a life sentence for stealing approximately $50 from a bakery when he was 22 years old will be released from prison within the next few days. The case is a stark reminder of how little mercy is permitted under “three strikes” laws, which have seen people sentenced to die in prison for petty crimes.

In 1983, Alvin Kennard robbed Highlands Bakery of $50.75. The following year, because Kennard had three previous offenses, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole under the state’s Habitual Felony Offender Act. (Though it is called a “three strikes” ordinance, the Alabama law actually kicks in on offense number 4.) The judge had no choice in the sentencing.

For those punished under the ordinance, Alabama’s statute now leaves room for parole. The change did not apply retroactively, though, so Kennard, now 58, was not automatically put before a review board. His attorney, Carla Crowder, tells ABC News that Jefferson County Bessemer Cutoff Circuit Judge David Carpenter did so on his own accord after becoming aware of the case and its disproportionate sentence.

“As incredible as this opportunity is for Mr. Kennard and as happy as we are for him, we know that there are hundreds of similarly situated incarcerated people in the state who don’t have attorneys, who don’t have a voice,” Crowder told the outlet, noting that 250 prisoners in the state met with a similar sentencing fate, but have not been granted mercy.

Different versions of “three strikes” laws exist in several states across the country, as well as federally, in what’s known as an 851 notice. The latter has seen about 800 inmates sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if they have three prior drug offenses. After prosecutors filed such a notice against Chris Young in 2014, the Tennessee man, then 26, was sentenced to a life in federal prison for a drug-related crime.

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

Federal Investigators Think Black-Market Vaping Products, Not Legal E-Cigarettes, Are to Blame for Respiratory Illnesses

Despite attempts to blame recent reports of respiratory illnesses among vapers on legal e-cigarettes, investigators are increasingly inclined to think the real problem is hazardous chemicals in black-market THC and nicotine products. The Washington Post reports that “state and federal health authorities are focusing on the role of contaminants or counterfeit substances as a likely cause of vaping-related lung illnesses.” They “are narrowing the possible culprits to adulterants in vaping products purported to have THC…as well as adulterants in nicotine vaping products.”

That is consistent with the view of Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who this week said “these tragedies point to illegal vapes and THC.” It is inconsistent with the take of anti-vaping scaremongers, who have seized on these cases as evidence against legal, commercially produced e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine.

“We strongly urge people to avoid vaping products and e-cigarettes,” the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said after the first outbreak was reported. During a press briefing last week, Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that “e-cigarettes do not emit a harmless aerosol” and “can include a variety of potential[ly] harmful ingredients.” Although “we haven’t specifically linked any of those specific ingredients to the current cases,” he said, “we know that e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless.” Journalists were likewise quick to draw a connection between the recent hospitalizations and legal e-cigarettes.

In a joint statement issued today, the FDA and the CDC offer more-relevant advice: “Anyone who does use e-cigarette products should not buy these products off the street (e.g., e-cigarette products with THC or other cannabinoids) and should not modify e-cigarette products or add any substances to these products that are not intended by the manufacturer.” Possible culprits in the lung disease cases include contaminants in counterfeit cartridges, mislabeled solvents used to produce e-liquids, and synthetic cannabinoids or other substances advertised as THC. The FDA is analyzing 80 samples of substances vaped by the patients, and it is asking state officials to specify “the brand and types of e-cigarette products, whether any of them are products that would fall within the FDA’s regulatory authority, [and] where they were obtained.”

As of Tuesday, the FDA says, “215 possible cases have been reported from 25 states, and additional reports of pulmonary illness are under investigation.” The specific causes remain unclear:

While some cases in each of the states are similar and appear to be linked to e-cigarette product use, more information is needed to determine what is causing the respiratory illnesses. In many cases, patients reported a gradual start of symptoms, including breathing difficulty, shortness of breath, and/or chest pain before hospitalization. Some cases reported mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness including vomiting and diarrhea, or other symptoms such as fevers or fatigue. In many cases, patients have also acknowledged recent use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette products while speaking to healthcare personnel, or in follow-up interviews by health department staff.

Even though cases appear similar, it is not clear if these cases have a common cause or if they are different diseases with similar presentations, which is why our ongoing investigation is critical.

As Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel notes, attributing these cases to “vaping” or “e-cigarettes” in general is unhelpful, misleading, and potentially dangerous, to the extent that it encourages vapers to start smoking again or deters current smokers from switching to nicotine products that are far less hazardous than conventional cigarettes. “It was immediately clear to me that these cases are not being caused by vaping products generally because these products have been on the market for years without any significant problems and because the reports are clustered in specific geographic areas,” Siegel writes. Furthermore, it was clear early on that many of the patients had used black-market products, including purported cannabis extracts.

As I noted last week, blaming these respiratory illnesses on “vaping” is like blaming food poisoning on eating. It is encouraging that federal health officials are getting more specific.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HyKxn8
via IFTTT

Trump 2020 Website Error Page Trolls “President Hillary”

President Trump’s official 2020 reelection campaign website has a fun easter-egg, not so carefully hidden.

When users are unable to reach a page, the default 404 error page mocks 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton by showing her as the commander in chief:

“Oops! This is awkward,” the error page reads.

“You’re looking for something that doesn’t exist…”

Awkward indeed, or perhaps a moment of levity amid the nastiness of DC politics in recent years.

We are sure many on the left will be ‘triggered’ by this and demand whoever provides hosting services take the site down, blaming sexism or racism, or some other ism… Happy Labor Day Weekend!

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HydYG8 Tyler Durden

Federal Investigators Think Black-Market Vaping Products, Not Legal E-Cigarettes, Are to Blame for Respiratory Illnesses

Despite attempts to blame recent reports of respiratory illnesses among vapers on legal e-cigarettes, investigators are increasingly inclined to think the real problem is hazardous chemicals in black-market THC and nicotine products. The Washington Post reports that “state and federal health authorities are focusing on the role of contaminants or counterfeit substances as a likely cause of vaping-related lung illnesses.” They “are narrowing the possible culprits to adulterants in vaping products purported to have THC…as well as adulterants in nicotine vaping products.”

That is consistent with the view of Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who this week said “these tragedies point to illegal vapes and THC.” It is inconsistent with the take of anti-vaping scaremongers, who have seized on these cases as evidence against legal, commercially produced e-cigarettes that deliver nicotine.

“We strongly urge people to avoid vaping products and e-cigarettes,” the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said after the first outbreak was reported. During a press briefing last week, Brian King of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that “e-cigarettes do not emit a harmless aerosol” and “can include a variety of potential[ly] harmful ingredients.” Although “we haven’t specifically linked any of those specific ingredients to the current cases,” he said, “we know that e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless.” Journalists were likewise quick to draw a connection between the recent hospitalizations and legal e-cigarettes.

In a joint statement issued today, the FDA and the CDC offer more-relevant advice: “Anyone who does use e-cigarette products should not buy these products off the street (e.g., e-cigarette products with THC or other cannabinoids) and should not modify e-cigarette products or add any substances to these products that are not intended by the manufacturer.” Possible culprits in the lung disease cases include contaminants in counterfeit cartridges, mislabeled solvents used to produce e-liquids, and synthetic cannabinoids or other substances advertised as THC. The FDA is analyzing 80 samples of substances vaped by the patients, and it is asking state officials to specify “the brand and types of e-cigarette products, whether any of them are products that would fall within the FDA’s regulatory authority, [and] where they were obtained.”

As of Tuesday, the FDA says, “215 possible cases have been reported from 25 states, and additional reports of pulmonary illness are under investigation.” The specific causes remain unclear:

While some cases in each of the states are similar and appear to be linked to e-cigarette product use, more information is needed to determine what is causing the respiratory illnesses. In many cases, patients reported a gradual start of symptoms, including breathing difficulty, shortness of breath, and/or chest pain before hospitalization. Some cases reported mild to moderate gastrointestinal illness including vomiting and diarrhea, or other symptoms such as fevers or fatigue. In many cases, patients have also acknowledged recent use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing e-cigarette products while speaking to healthcare personnel, or in follow-up interviews by health department staff.

Even though cases appear similar, it is not clear if these cases have a common cause or if they are different diseases with similar presentations, which is why our ongoing investigation is critical.

As Boston University public health professor Michael Siegel notes, attributing these cases to “vaping” or “e-cigarettes” in general is unhelpful, misleading, and potentially dangerous, to the extent that it encourages vapers to start smoking again or deters current smokers from switching to nicotine products that are far less hazardous than conventional cigarettes. “It was immediately clear to me that these cases are not being caused by vaping products generally because these products have been on the market for years without any significant problems and because the reports are clustered in specific geographic areas,” Siegel writes. Furthermore, it was clear early on that many of the patients had used black-market products, including purported cannabis extracts.

As I noted last week, blaming these respiratory illnesses on “vaping” is like blaming food poisoning on eating. It is encouraging that federal health officials are getting more specific.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HyKxn8
via IFTTT

Congress Must Roll Back Trump’s Tariff Authority

After a roller coaster month, it seems clearer than ever that President Donald Trump has lost control of the trade war—and as Congress returns to session, it seems more obvious than ever that it should take action to limit his ability to wage it.

Consider all that’s happened since August 1, when Trump announced plans to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports. That announcement—the first major escalation of the trade war since last year—was made via Twitter and without first alerting Chinese trade officials. China retaliated. The stock market dropped, and fears of a recession grew. Trump decided to postpone some of the new tariffs to avoid socking consumers during the holiday shopping season, even as top White House advisors deny the obvious fact that tariffs are taxes on Americans. Trump suggested he might have to bail out Apple due to losses created by the trade war. Trump “hereby ordered” American companies to stop doing business in China. And, most recently, Trump lied about Chinese officials calling him to make a deal.

And now we’re just two days away from what amounts to an $11.5 billion tax increase, when the 15 percent tariffs planned for September 1 take effect.

It’s not hard to figure out why businesses are cutting back on investments amid the rollicking uncertainty created by the trade war. We’re way past “good, and easy to win.”

“When it comes to trade policy, the Trump administration is in a hole that it keeps digging deeper,” says Bryan Riley, director of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s free trade initiative.

For a little while about two weeks ago, it looked like Trump might stop digging. In the wake of bad news from the stock and bond markets, the president seemed to be reconsidering his long-held belief in the power of tariffs to get what he wants. But it didn’t last. Now he seems to have settled on blaming the Federal Reserve for the large-scale issues like slowing growth, while bizarrely blaming the very businesses struggling under the weight of his tariffs for the problems he’s caused.

Trump is who he is. There’s little reason to expect him to change course or admit he was wrong. That’s why the task must fall to Congress. Even if it has only limited ability to roll back the tariffs Trump has already imposed, it could take important steps this fall to reduce his capacity to do more damage.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) will be the key player. His staff has alerted committee members to be prepared for a mark-up process, one of the first steps in approving legislation, shortly after the Senate returns from summer recess on September 9.

That process will seek to reconcile two competing bipartisan bills that share the goal of restricting the executive’s authority to impose tariffs. One of those bills is the Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act, sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R–Penn.) and Mark Warner (D–Va.). It would give Congress the ability to block future tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the law Trump invoked to impose trade barriers on steel and aluminum imports last year and which he has threatened to use against imported automobiles.

As currently written, the law effectively gives presidents carte blanche to impose tariffs for reasons of “national security”—even if the security angle is extremely tenuous. It’s a loophole Trump has exploited, and some Republicans are privately worried that a future Democratic administration could follow in his footsteps and declare that tariffs are necessary to combat, say, global warming.

Toomey’s bill would limit the definition of “national security” in the law, and it would require the Pentagon to sign off on the declaration—as opposed to the Commerce Department, which handles it now. Congress would have 60 days to review and vote on any proposed Section 232 tariffs.

The other bill is Trade Security Act, sponsored by Sens. Rob Portman (R–Ohio) and Doug Jones (D–Ala.). It too would transfer the Section 232 process from the Commerce Department to the Pentagon, and it would add a mechanism to allow Congress to block presidential tariff declarations. The Portman/Jones bill would require Congress to pass a resolution disapproving of a tariff in order to revoke it, while Toomey’s bill would require congressional assent before tariffs could be imposed—essentially forcing Congress to be part of the discussion, and removing the possibility that a do-nothing Congress would allow a president to act unilaterally.

While the specifics differ, the fact that both bills will be up for debate in the Finance Committee next month is a signal that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle distrust Trump’s ability to use his tariff powers prudently.

Another important aspect of the debate will involve the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Trump administration’s rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress must approve the new trade deal before it becomes official, and any action to limit presidential tariff authority could be linked—either implicitly or explicitly—to the USMCA as a way to prevent Trump from vetoing the Section 232 reforms.

Neither of the two bills likely to be considered by the Finance Committee would have an impact on the tariffs that will hit on September 1. Those new import taxes, like the earlier tariffs on Chinese goods, are authorized under a different law: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. That law requires approval by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, rather than the “national security” rationalization, but it is part of the same decadeslong trend of Congress handing over trade authority to the presidency.

As the trade war ramps up again, there’s a least a faint hope that Congress will try to stand up to stop it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34c8xGr
via IFTTT

Yuan Crashes Most In 25 Years As August Ends With Bonds & Bullion Bid

Well that was quite a month…

High(Low)lights…

  • China’s Renminbi suffered its biggest monthly loss since 1994

  • EM FX tumbled to a record low, worst month in a year

  • US Treasury yields plunged in August by most since Sept 2011 (to record low yields at the long-end)

  • US Yield Curve flattened most in August since Jan 2016 (to its flattest since 2007)

  • Bund yields tumbled 26bps to record lows – the biggest monthly drop since June 2016 (Brexit vote)

  • Treasury ‘VIX’ spiked most in August since May 2009

  • Iron Ore Futures (Singapore) suffered their worst month ever…

  • Gold has the best August dollar gains since Feb 2016

  • Silver had best August percentage gain since June 2016 (Brexit vote)

 

Stocks

US and Chinese stocks are surprisingly aligned YTD (both up around 16/17%) with Europe lagging (+13%)…

Source: Bloomberg

But on the month, all major regions saw stocks lose a similar 1.5 to 2.0%…

Source: Bloomberg

 

US equities ended the month lower with Trannies and Small Caps worst, Dow and S&P the least worst…

Source: Bloomberg

 

Only The Dow Industrials and Transports are green from last week’s Trump tantrum (S&P unch)…

NOTE – last minute panic-buying

 

Defensives dominated the month…

Source: Bloomberg

The Dow managed to get back above its 100DMA but faded into it at the close today…

 

Buybacks saved stocks numerous times this month…

Source: Bloomberg

And while short-squeezes were used to keep stocks afloat, their surges were weaker and weaker…

Source: Bloomberg

And… as @TaviCosta notes, another one bites the dust. This beauty was the #2 performer in the S&P 500 since March of ’09! Just broke down from multi-year support line as well.

Source: Bloomberg

 

Bonds

Treasury yields utterly collapsed in August (30Y was down over 60bps at its lowest)… The biggest monthly drop in the long-bond’s yields since Sept 2011

Source: Bloomberg

30Y ended the week below 2.00% for the first time ever…

Source: Bloomberg

A bloodbath for bond bears…

Source: Bloomberg

And the yield curve collapsed (3m10Y) holding its inversion for

Source: Bloomberg

And 2s10s closed the week inverted (biggest 2-month flattening since Jan 2015)…

Source: Bloomberg

And before we leave bondland, we note that 30% of global IG corporate debt is now trading at a negative yield!!

Source: Bloomberg

FX

The Dollar rallied in August helped by Yuan weakness slightly offset by Yen strength…

Source: Bloomberg

The broad trade-weighted dollar is at an all-time record high…

Source: Bloomberg

EURUSD tumbled back below 1.10 for the first time since May 2017

Source: Bloomberg

Emerging Market FX tumbled to record lows…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos ended in the red for the month after yesterday’s plunge (Litecoin the biggest loser)…

Source: Bloomberg

With Bitcoin back below $10k…

Source: Bloomberg

 

Commodities

Silver’s best month since the Brexit vote (June 2016) and Gold rallied but crude and copper were clubbed like baby seals…

Source: Bloomberg

Cotton fell for a fifth straight month in August, the worst such run in more than 14 years, as slowing demand feeds expectations for a global surplus.

Iron Ore Futures (Singapore) suffered their worst month ever…

Source: Bloomberg

Silver led the precious metals but Platinum had a big month (up most since Jan 2017)

Source: Bloomberg

Gold ended the week unchanged but well up from Trump’s tantrum…

 

But Silver dramatically outperformed (up for the 7th week of the last 8)…

Source: Bloomberg

With Silver at its highest since April 2017

Source: Bloomberg

Gold continues to track the surge in negative-yielding debt volumes almost perfectly…

Source: Bloomberg

 

Finally, bonds and stocks had a very different month, you decide which you trust more…

Source: Bloomberg

Will it be 1998 or 2013?

Source: Bloomberg

While August saw a flood into safe-havens like bond and bullion, volatilities are notably divergent in Treasuries and Gold relative to other asset classes…

Source: Bloomberg

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

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s Twitter Account Hacked

It is probably not a good look for a company that claims it has its countless privacy issues under control, to have the twitter account of its CEO, Jack Dorsey, hacked as appears to have been the case this afternoon.

At 3:44pm ET, the @Jack account inexplicably tweeted “Shoutout Debug, Corey, NuBLoM, Joe, Owen, & Aqua #ChucklingHella”, which would suggest that either @Jack lost it, or, perhaps just as bad, the account of Twitter’s CEO was hacked.

Twitter has yet to comment on this embarrassing situation.

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