Tag: news

Mainstream Media Escalates Attacks On Epstein “Conspiracy Theories”

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

In two different opinion pieces The Guardian has made its position on the alleged death of Jeffrey Epstein clear – he “probably” committed suicide.

The first, titled Epstein conspiracy theories are farfetched – but can you blame people?, takes the position that although “conspiracy theories” about Epstein’s apparent suicide are “understandable”, there’s no evidence to support them.

Rather, the author endorses the slowly coalescing official narrative. Namely that of complete, systemic incompetence:

The official explanation for Epstein’s death comes down to rank incompetence. And it’s probably true.

A short-sighted attitude to take, which totally ignores a cardinal rule when dealing with state agencies: They will only admit to incompetence if the truth is worse.

The author also attempts to undermine the “conspiracy theories” by pointing out that Epstein was a potential threat to important figures on both sides of the political divide:

Online, conspiracy theories now abound. Observers suggest Epstein was killed by one of the men who may have been implicated in his crimes – maybe Bill Clinton, according to the fringe right, or maybe Donald Trump, according to the fringe left.

An argument rather akin to saying “he can’t possibly have been murdered, because there were too many people who wanted him dead. There are SO MANY plausible suspects, that the only reasonable explanation is that…none of them did it.”

(Also, note the word “fringe”, a manipulative use of language designed to discredit an idea without engaging with it rationally)

However, this article – although laced through with traditional mainstream rhetoric about “conspiracy theories” – at least leaves them room to exist. 

The Guardian’s other Epstein piece is rather less understanding: Epstein’s death is a victory for misogyny: it denies accusers the justice they deserve

Blares the headline (further evidence that very few people at the Guardian seem to know what “misogyny” really means), before continuing by taking aim at conspiracy theories several times in the text.

Firstly, in an almost word-for-word quote from the previous column:

Commentators on the right speculated that he had been murdered by powerful liberals; those on the left speculated that he had been murdered by powerful conservatives. These theories were not responses to evidence, of which there is little

And then later claiming conspiracy theories not only “factually wrong” (something no one can know at this stage)…

The speculations may well be factually wrong – criminal justice experts have pointed out that inmate suicides are common, and that those detained in federal jails often face startling neglect

…but also attempting to Mrs Lovejoy the public by claiming “conspiracy theories” are actually harmful:

the positing of these conspiracy theories is unhelpful, distracting from the important injustice that has been done to Epstein’s victims.

Declaring seeking the truth to be somehow unfair to the victims is a classic trope, deployed most famously against 9/11 Truthers, but common after many such incidents.

There’s also this sentence…

The conspiracy theorists also risk undermining efforts to bring Epstein’s co-conspirators to account: their suggestions that the financier was killed to cover up the rapes and assaults of powerful men who would rather he be shut up could lend suspicion to anyone pointing out the breadth of his alleged pedophilia ring, giving those who want continued investigations of men such as Dershowitz, Pritzker and Dubin the aura of a maniac in a tinfoil hat.

Which, I’ll be honest, I simply don’t understand.

I think she’s arguing that “conspiracy theorists” talking about “conspiracy theories” might discredit the very real possibility there was an actual conspiracy.

If that’s what she means – because I honestly do not understand the words – well, that’s obviously just crazy. You can’t argue we shouldn’t talk about conspiracy theories, just in case there’s a conspiracy fact.

That’s the attitude of a person so brainwashed by the idea that “conspiracy theorist = crazy person” that they can no longer think in a straight line. Total cognitive dissonance.

The articles are different in tone, but they are united in purpose, and they each hit the same three key points:

  1. Epstein “probably” killed himself. After all, inmates commit suicide all the time.

  2. Conspiracy theories might look reasonable, but they are factually incorrect and morally harmful.

  3. The real tragedy here is the poor victims who will go unavenged. We should all focus on that, not investigating the potential murder.

All this serves to demonstrate – for about the millionth time – the entire purpose of outrage culture and identity politics. Fear of being offensive used to control a conversation and dictate narrative: Don’t talk about Epstein being murdered, don’t even think about it. If you do, you’re a misogynist.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31IOoFX Tyler Durden

How To Understand Trump’s Immigration Raids

Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign by warning that America had become a “dumping ground” for immigrants, and that Mexico in particular was sending criminals and people with “lots of problems.” His presidency has been marked by anti-immigrant rhetoric. 

In the summer of 2019, President Trump previewed sweeping immigration raids, tweeting that “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States.” 

The Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, had already conducted raids targeting undocumented immigrants, but Trump was promising a series of actions that were intended to at least create the impression of a step-up in immigration enforcement around the country. 

That culminated in early August, when Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents conducted one of the largest worksite immigration raids in U.S. history, arresting nearly 700 chicken plant workers in Mississippi on suspicion of working illegally. The raids, which were conducted jointly with the Department of Justice, left young children separated from their parents.

The Trump administration has defended the raids, saying they had been in the works for over a year—and arguing that the workplaces were exploiting undocumented workers.

Are these raids just for show? Does Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric actually encourage asylum seekers? And what’s the connection between the Obama-era raids and Trumps? Reason‘s Peter Suderman sat down with ProPublica reporter Dara Lind to discuss these questions and more.

Interview by Peter Suderman. Intro and Graphics by Mark McDaniel. Edited by Ian Keyser. Cameras by McDaniel and Regan Taylor.

‘Bottom Feeders’ by Audiobinger is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0

Photo Credits:

Ice/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Charles Reed/ZUMA Press/Newscom
Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom
NATALIE KREBS/UPI/Newscom
Yin Bogu Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

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

Hero Pilot Lands Plane In Field Near Moscow After Destructive ‘Bird Strike’

It’s the Russian version of “the Miracle on the Hudson.” Maybe Hollywood could make a movie about it (with Steve Mnuchin producing, of course).

In a harrowing incident that nearly resulted in dozens of deaths, a narrow-body jet flown by Russia’s Ural Airlines landed with its wheels up in the Russian countryside not far from Moscow after suffering a bird strike. The plane had taken off from Moscow’s Zhukovsky Airport only shortly before.

Those who saw the movie “Sully” (or who are simply old enough to remember the incident when it happened), will remember that bird strikes were what took out the engines on US Airways Flight 1549, which then lost thrust and was emergency landed by hero pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger in the middle of the Hudson River on Jan. 15, 2009. A decade later, Hollywood made a movie about the accident, which was produced by Mnuchin, who produced films before joining the Trump Administration.

During Thursday’s accident, the Airbus A321 bound for Simferopol, Crimea, was unexpectedly struck by “numerous” seagulls or crows shortly after departing from Moscow’s Zhukovsky Airport. With no time to make it back or dump fuel, the jet, which was heavy loaded, made the belly landing in a cornfield 1k from the runway.

Almost miraculously, nobody on board died (though 74 of the 226 passengers reported injuries).

Stunning footage from inside the cabin later surfaced online, according to RT.

Media footage also showed the aftermath of the crash.

People later described the traumatic experience they went through.

“The engine clapped several times, they tried to re-activate it but we started going down,” one passenger said. “Now I believe in God, for sure.”

“This is my second birthday,” another woman can be heard saying in a video taken by the survivors.

The airline praised the pilot’s skill and heroism in successfully landing the plane. He even knew enough to switch off the malfunctioning engines just before impact to avoid the possibility of a fire on board. The crew received praise for executing a “well-organized evacuation.”

“It is quite rare, it happens maybe once in 50 years,” Ural Airlines CEO Sergey Skuratov said the scale of the birdstrike

Russia’s Rosaviatsiya state aviation agency chief Alexander Neradko said the crew “made the only right decisions,” and that the captain, 41-year old Damir Yusupov, is a highly experienced pilot who has logged over 3,000 flight hours, the Washington Post reported.

One aviation expert said the landing was “quite a feat.”

“It was quite a feat to keep the plane from stalling and quickly find a place to land,” Viktor Zabolotsky, a former test pilot, said in televised remarks.

Yusupov, a son of a helicopter pilot, worked as a lawyer before he changed course and joined a flight school when he was 32. A father of four, he has flown with the Ural Airlines since his graduation in 2013 and became the captain last year.

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

Will Brexiters Bring Free Trade Back to Britain?

For supporters of Brexit and free trade, this week appeared to bring good news. On a visit to London, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton promised to move Britain to the front of the line for a trade deal with the United States. Bolton flipped President Barack Obama’s pre-referendum warning about the consequences of leaving the European Union and restated the Trump administration’s desire to help the United Kingdom make Brexit work.

However, there are many reasons to remain skeptical about the chances of a U.S.–U.K. deal—whether it’s a comprehensive agreement or the series of accelerated sector-by-sector pacts proposed by Bolton. Democratic House Majority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) reiterated on Wednesday her determination to block any deal in Congress if Brexit undermines the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. If Brexit means imposing a strict border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland, a sovereign country and E.U. member, Pelosi is a hard no. That means the U.K. can’t strike a deal with the U.S. unless and until the U.K. settles the terms of its separation from the European Union. 

Meanwhile, Bolton’s side deals appear to breach the World Trade Organization rule that countries cannot be treated differently other than under a fully-fledged trade deal. 

But there is a deeper problem that advocates of a U.K.–U.S. trade deal in London must reckon with. It is a problem that goes to the heart of what Brexit will mean for Britain, and whether the country really wants to make good on the opportunities presented by the decision to leave the E.U.  

Seventeen-and-a-half million people are unlikely to agree on very much, and so it is with those who voted to leave the European Union. They painted wildly different futures on the blank canvas that is Britain after Brexit. One of the most striking contradictions within this uneasy coalition has been on trade. 

For Euroskeptic politicians and thinkers, E.U. protectionism has always been high on the list of reasons for getting out. As an E.U. member, Britain’s trade policy was outsourced to the E.U. bureaucrats in Brussels, who have been sluggish in striking deals with the rest of the world. Foreign suppliers aren’t just up against the E.U.’s punishing tariffs, but in many cases their European competitors also have support from Brussels. The most notorious of these schemes has long been the Common Agricultural Policy, a subsidy for E.U. farmers that eats up more than 40 percent of the bloc’s budget and often involves a cash transfer from European taxpayers to some of the continent’s wealthiest landowners. The Queen receives around $850,000 a year for her Sandringham estate alone. 

Brexit, voters were told, was a chance to do things differently. Under the banner of “global Britain,” politicians made the case that, free from European constraints, a nimble U.K. could swiftly strike deals where the E.U. had been dragging its feet. 

The same commitment to free trade cannot be found among Brexit-supporting voters. In fact, polling commissioned by CapX last year found that the single best predictor of someone supporting protectionist policies was voting for Brexit in the E.U. referendum. 

Ever since the Brexit vote in 2016, the government has continued to whistle the free trade tune but failed to level with the British people about the tradeoffs involved. Instead, it has indulged in round after round of “cakeism”—a word that has entered British politics in recent years to describe politicians’ preference for having one’s cake and eating it on all things Brexit. On a potential U.S.-U.K. deal, that has meant talking up the benefits of such an agreement while indulging interest groups who have practiced industrial-scale fearmongering about nasty American capitalists getting their grubby hands on the U.K. economy. For example, rather than rebutting unfounded concerns about chlorine-washed chicken (which has become a symbol for lower regulatory food standards in the United States) and making the case for consumer choice, British ministers have pandered to the scare stories and committed to upholding E.U. food standards after Brexit. Elsewhere, Brits are told that a trade deal with the U.S. would somehow lead to the privatization of Britain’s National Health Service. A lack of any reasonable way in which that might happen hasn’t stopped the panic. 

The lesson for U.K. politicians who want the country to live up to the “Global Britain” slogan is that they cannot underestimate the work there is to be done, not just in negotiating rooms with future trading partners, but with the British people. That means decisively siding with the consumer—and against the vested interests that will always push for barriers to protect them from competition. It means restating from first principles the win-win benefits of free trade and eschewing the mercantilist rhetoric that comes with the give-and-take of trade negotiations. 

It has been almost half a century since Britain ceded control of its trade policy to the E.U. As a result of Brexit, we are learning the politics of trade all over again. The evidence is on the side of the free-traders, but they should not assume that the people of Britain understand that such openness will give them more choice and make the country better off.

How this story ends is of global significance. As the Chinese-American trade war grinds on, making both sides poorer than they otherwise would have been, the world is crying out for a good news story on trade. Brexiteers have long dreamed that Britain could be exactly that: proof positive that trade liberalization need not mean surrendering sovereignty to a supra-national organization, and proving that, in leaving the E.U., the U.K. was opening up to the rest of the world, not shutting itself off. 

But three years on from the referendum, those remain open questions. Britain is hardly any closer to deciding what kind of country it wants to be. If free trade advocates want to find themselves on the right side of history, they should not underestimate how much work is left to do.

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

Hong Kong Activist Leader Calls For A Run On Chinese Banks Tomorrow

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Prominent Hong Kong pro-independence political activist Chen Haotian has called for a run on Chinese banks, asking that everyone withdraw their money on the same day.

Haotian is a founding member and the convenor of the Hong Kong National Party.

Arguing that large scale protests have only led to injuries and escalating police brutality, Haotian believes another method could be used to severely undermine China’s influence – a good old fashioned run on the bank.

He suggested that another method could be used, namely, impacting the financial system,” reports China Press.

“He called on Friday (August 16) that Hong Kong citizens take out all bank deposits. The primary goal is Chinese banks, but he said other banks should also be targeted, otherwise Chinese banks can borrow money from other banks to solve problems.”

Hong Kong has been rocked by weeks of violent protests by pro-independence campaigners. Earlier this week, riot police stormed Hong Kong International Airport to clear them out.

As we reported on Tuesday, while China is unlikely to invade using PLA troops, experts have suggested that soldiers could be disguised as Hong Kong police.

*  *  *

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

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

Will Brexiters Bring Free Trade Back to Britain?

For supporters of Brexit and free trade, this week appeared to bring good news. On a visit to London, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton promised to move Britain to the front of the line for a trade deal with the United States. Bolton flipped President Barack Obama’s pre-referendum warning about the consequences of leaving the European Union and restated the Trump administration’s desire to help the United Kingdom make Brexit work.

However, there are many reasons to remain skeptical about the chances of a U.S.–U.K. deal—whether it’s a comprehensive agreement or the series of accelerated sector-by-sector pacts proposed by Bolton. Democratic House Majority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) reiterated on Wednesday her determination to block any deal in Congress if Brexit undermines the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. If Brexit means imposing a strict border between Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland, a sovereign country and E.U. member, Pelosi is a hard no. That means the U.K. can’t strike a deal with the U.S. unless and until the U.K. settles the terms of its separation from the European Union. 

Meanwhile, Bolton’s side deals appear to breach the World Trade Organization rule that countries cannot be treated differently other than under a fully-fledged trade deal. 

But there is a deeper problem that advocates of a U.K.–U.S. trade deal in London must reckon with. It is a problem that goes to the heart of what Brexit will mean for Britain, and whether the country really wants to make good on the opportunities presented by the decision to leave the E.U.  

Seventeen-and-a-half million people are unlikely to agree on very much, and so it is with those who voted to leave the European Union. They painted wildly different futures on the blank canvas that is Britain after Brexit. One of the most striking contradictions within this uneasy coalition has been on trade. 

For Euroskeptic politicians and thinkers, E.U. protectionism has always been high on the list of reasons for getting out. As an E.U. member, Britain’s trade policy was outsourced to the E.U. bureaucrats in Brussels, who have been sluggish in striking deals with the rest of the world. Foreign suppliers aren’t just up against the E.U.’s punishing tariffs, but in many cases their European competitors also have support from Brussels. The most notorious of these schemes has long been the Common Agricultural Policy, a subsidy for E.U. farmers that eats up more than 40 percent of the bloc’s budget and often involves a cash transfer from European taxpayers to some of the continent’s wealthiest landowners. The Queen receives around $850,000 a year for her Sandringham estate alone. 

Brexit, voters were told, was a chance to do things differently. Under the banner of “global Britain,” politicians made the case that, free from European constraints, a nimble U.K. could swiftly strike deals where the E.U. had been dragging its feet. 

The same commitment to free trade cannot be found among Brexit-supporting voters. In fact, polling commissioned by CapX last year found that the single best predictor of someone supporting protectionist policies was voting for Brexit in the E.U. referendum. 

Ever since the Brexit vote in 2016, the government has continued to whistle the free trade tune but failed to level with the British people about the tradeoffs involved. Instead, it has indulged in round after round of “cakeism”—a word that has entered British politics in recent years to describe politicians’ preference for having one’s cake and eating it on all things Brexit. On a potential U.S.-U.K. deal, that has meant talking up the benefits of such an agreement while indulging interest groups who have practiced industrial-scale fearmongering about nasty American capitalists getting their grubby hands on the U.K. economy. For example, rather than rebutting unfounded concerns about chlorine-washed chicken (which has become a symbol for lower regulatory food standards in the United States) and making the case for consumer choice, British ministers have pandered to the scare stories and committed to upholding E.U. food standards after Brexit. Elsewhere, Brits are told that a trade deal with the U.S. would somehow lead to the privatization of Britain’s National Health Service. A lack of any reasonable way in which that might happen hasn’t stopped the panic. 

The lesson for U.K. politicians who want the country to live up to the “Global Britain” slogan is that they cannot underestimate the work there is to be done, not just in negotiating rooms with future trading partners, but with the British people. That means decisively siding with the consumer—and against the vested interests that will always push for barriers to protect them from competition. It means restating from first principles the win-win benefits of free trade and eschewing the mercantilist rhetoric that comes with the give-and-take of trade negotiations. 

It has been almost half a century since Britain ceded control of its trade policy to the E.U. As a result of Brexit, we are learning the politics of trade all over again. The evidence is on the side of the free-traders, but they should not assume that the people of Britain understand that such openness will give them more choice and make the country better off.

How this story ends is of global significance. As the Chinese-American trade war grinds on, making both sides poorer than they otherwise would have been, the world is crying out for a good news story on trade. Brexiteers have long dreamed that Britain could be exactly that: proof positive that trade liberalization need not mean surrendering sovereignty to a supra-national organization, and proving that, in leaving the E.U., the U.K. was opening up to the rest of the world, not shutting itself off. 

But three years on from the referendum, those remain open questions. Britain is hardly any closer to deciding what kind of country it wants to be. If free trade advocates want to find themselves on the right side of history, they should not underestimate how much work is left to do.

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

PIMCO’s Argentina Bond Bet Hits Major Roadblock As The Peso Collapses

PIMCO’s big bet to buy almost 33% of the world’s top paying government bond had the rug pulled out from underneath it this week as Argentina’s currency collapsed, according to Bloomberg.

The bonds have now fallen to 71 cents on the dollar from 104 cents last Friday and the debt matures next June. The notes have a floating coupon which is tied to the benchmark interest rate, which is now at an all-time high of 75%.

But the astronomical yield on the debt was counteracted by a swift fall in the peso after President Macri suffered defeat in the country’s primaries.

PIMCO owns about 30% of the USD $2.4 billion worth of the 2020 bonds on issue. They had raised their stake in the bond earlier this year before Argentina reopened the bond sale.

PIMCO now says that it has diversified itself and added downside protection in the event of an “extreme market event”. The company has also said that it has avoided larger exposures with greater losses that other major investors have run into.

And while nominal returns for the notes have been impressive of late, the country’s currency collapse – to the tune of 37% this year – has curbed real gains. A number of analysts still speculate that the peso has a long way to fall.

PIMCO’s profit and loss is ultimately going to hinge on how the company has hedged itself. The company offered no comment to Bloomberg about its hedge.

The nation’s benchmark rate was 26% when the debt was issued two years ago as the country was optimistic that its economy would be able to be resuscitated.

PIMCO was not alone in getting crushed by Argentina’s sudden collapse. As we noted yesterday, Franklin Templeton’s Global Bond Fund manager, Michael Hasenstab – the man who may have bought every single sovereign bond dip in history in hopes of being bailed out by central banks – was on Epsteinwatch, for the simple reason that this time a bailout was not forthcoming, resulting in unprecedented losses.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31FyZpH Tyler Durden

Whalen To The Fed: “Stand Down, Do Nothing” Or Else

Authored by Christopher Whalen via AmericanConservative.com,

Is the U.S. economy headed for another recession? The short answer is no.

After a decade of aggressive market manipulation by the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee, most of the indicators we use to assess economic growth and job creation have been distorted beyond recognition.

The good news is that the economy has recovered from the depression of 2008 despite the actions taken by the Fed, Congress, and Washington agencies. The bad news is that it may not survive the after-effects of some of these actions.

First and foremost, investors point to the fact that the Treasury yield curve is inverted – short-term interest rates are higher than longer-term bond yields – as evidence of an approaching recession. The investment firm Sandler O’Neill sets the stage:

Over the past week, fresh salvos in the U.S.-China trade war have renewed concerns about slowing global growth and triggered a flight to safe haven assets. The S&P 500 has fallen 4.4% over the past week while the 10-year U.S. Treasury has rallied to yield 1.63%, its lowest level in nearly three years. The 3-month/10-year Treasury yield spread, a closely-watched recession indicator, has become even more inverted, which, in turn, has rekindled speculation about an imminent slowdown.

So is the yield curve being inverted a sign that America is sliding into recession? No. In fact, the U.S. economy is actually the strongest part of the global economy. Europe and Asia are far weaker, even leaving aside the question of trade tensions. That’s why nearly $14 trillion in debt around the world is trading at negative rates of return: investors in Japan, India, and Europe are desperate to buy safe long-term assets such as Treasury securities.

The increased global demand for Treasury debt, combined with the large stock of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities siphoned off the private market by the Fed during “quantitative easing,” may also be forcing the yield curve negative.

A second, related reason why the yield curve is negative is the dollar. Global investors have been hesitant to purchase Treasury securities, private bonds, and other assets in the U.S. out of fear that a strong dollar would wipe out their returns. Now with the dollar starting to weaken, large investors such as central banks and giant institutions such as Japan’s Norinchukin are back into the market, buying U.S. securities and driving down yields on Treasury bonds, and then selling the dollar foreign exchange risk to lock in safe returns.

So the two chief reasons for an inverted yield curve—low or negative interest rates and a huge demand for safe assets—have nothing to do with the direction of the U.S. economy. Indeed, the economy continues to grow strongly, albeit at slower rates than from 2016 to 2018. Brian Wesbury, chief economist at First Trust Advisors, argues that we’re doing just fine:

The rate of growth in the service sector continued to decelerate in July, with the headline index falling to the lowest level in nearly three years. However, it still showed growth and we anticipate a re-acceleration in the service side of the economy in the second half of the year. It’s important to recognize that thirteen of eighteen service sub-sectors reported growth in July, while only five reported contraction. And, if survey respondent comments are any indication, direct impacts from the China tariff dispute remain minor, with only the construction and management/support services sectors claiming increased costs.

The third reason for the inverted yield curve has nothing to do with the performance of the economy and everything to do with the dismal job that the FOMC has done managing monetary policy. Since 2008, the Fed has managed to inflate asset prices for stocks, bonds, and real estate, but has created serious problems along the way.

The FOMC’s attempt to artificially raise short-term interest rates when there was no compelling reason to do so gave us the inverted yield curve. Now, under Jerome Powell, the FOMC must figure out a way to back out of this mistake without completely destroying what remains of the Fed’s credibility. In fact, the FOMC is probably the single biggest threat to the U.S. economy.

For literally years now, the FOMC has stated repeatedly that getting inflation up to a 2 percent level is the target of U.S. monetary policy, including quantitative easing and low rates. Yet none of the Ph.D. economists that populate the committee have taken notice of the fact that the apparent link between interest rates and inflation expectations has been broken for nearly half a century.

After the FOMC failed to reach its inflation target, the committee decided that it needed to raise short-term interest rates in order to have “dry powder” to use in the event of a recession. If you follow the tortured logic of the Fed, the central bank wanted to raise short-term interest rates so as to be able to lower them in the event of a recession. The result of this bizarre thinking has been the extreme market volatility seen since the end of June.

The good news is that the U.S. economy is actually doing just fine and, if left to its own devices, will continue to outperform the rest of the world despite the threat of trade wars and other maladies. The one note of caution, however, is that the FOMC is truly lost when it comes to forming monetary policy and the narrative the markets desperately need in order to make decisions about investments and risk. Were it possible to address the members of the FOMC, the message would be: “stand down, do nothing.” The economy will thank

The good news is that the U.S. economy is actually doing just fine and, if left to its own devices, will continue to outperform the rest of the world despite the threat of trade wars and other maladies. The one note of caution, however, is that the FOMC is truly lost when it comes to forming monetary policy and the narrative the markets desperately need in order to make decisions about investments and risk.

Were it possible to address the members of the FOMC, the message would be: “stand down, do nothing.” The economy will thank you.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Z95YRE Tyler Durden

Tech CEO Denies Epstein’s Alleged Madam Living At His Oceanfront Mansion

Tech CEO and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member Scott Borgerson has refuted a Daily Mail report that Jeffrey Epstein’s former “best friend” and alleged madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, is living at his “secluded oceanfront property” in New England, according to Axios. 

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 1995  (photo: Patrick McMullan)

“I’m in Europe right now and there isn’t anyone in my house but my cat,” Borgerson told Axios, adding that he’s asked the local police to check the house for any signs of the 57-year-old Maxwell. He also said that while he knows Maxwell, the two are not dating. 

And as Bloomberg reports, “there were no signs of Maxwell at the grand home perched above the Atlantic, if indeed she ever was here. Beyond the long, tree-lined drive, the white colonial, known as Tidewood, appeared to be empty.” 

Of course, she also could have left the residence when the Daily Mail piece hit. 

Epstein, meanwhile, may have been murdered in a Manhattan jail cell last Saturday after his autopsy revealed that he had suffered multiple breaks to his neck bones. 

After Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell on Aug. 10, apparently of suicide, new scrutiny turned to Maxwell, the one-time British socialite accused in civil lawsuits of procuring high-school age women for the wealthy financier. She has never been charged with any crime, and has continued to deny wrongdoing.

The circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death –- two guards supposed to check on him had reportedly fallen asleep and falsified records to cover up the mistake while an autopsy found Epstein had sustained a broken neck bone often found in the victims of homicide by strangulation — only intensified questions swirling around the case, and around Maxwell. –Bloomberg

Maxwell – whom Epstein once described as his “best friend,” has been accused of recruiting and training young women to perform massage and sexual acts on Epstein and his associates, including Britain’s Prince Andrew (who recently ‘retired from public life‘), Bill Clinton, and attorney Alan Dershowitz. All have denied the claims. 

Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell and Virginia Roberts – who claims to have seen Bill Clinton on Epstein’s infamous island while she was being sex-trafficked.

Via The Telegraph

So where is Maxwell?

If she’s not at Borgerson’s estate, where could Maxwell be? According to Bloomberg, “In London’s Belgravia neighborhood, cobwebs hang in the windowsills of the three-story mews home that records show Maxwell owns. She sold her townhouse on East 65th Street in Manhattan in 2016. Lawyers representing her in a civil suit told a U.S. court in 2017 that they didn’t believe that she had a permanent residence.”

Over the past few weeks, Maxwell hasn’t responded to emails, phone calls and letters seeking comment. Jeffrey Pagliuca, a lawyer representing Maxwell in various civil suits, didn’t respond to a request for comment. London-based Malcolm Grumbridge, a longtime lawyer for the Maxwell family, has declined to comment. –Bloomberg

Meanwhile, speculation has swirled that Maxwell is an unindicted co-conspirator in Epstein’s crimes. According to Attorney General Bill Barr, “…this case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein. Any co-conspirators should not rest easy,” adding “The victims deserve justice and they will get it.” 

“People who should be nervous are the circle of potential individuals who enabled and facilitated this behavior,” said former federal prosecutor Duncan Levin. 

High society

Maxwell is the daughter of disgraced publishing tycoon Robert Maxwell – who named the superyacht he died on after her. Following his death, it was revealed that Maxwell had pilfered 350 million pounds ($600 million) from the pension funds of Mirror Group Newspapers. 

Ghislaine Maxwell and her father Robert, 1984

At 29, Ghislaine was left with an 80,000 pound annual stipend from her trust fund – which would hardly sustain the lifestyle she had grown accustomed to, providing the perfect opportunity to attach herself to Epstein. 

After arriving in New York, she fell in with Epstein in the 1990s. Initially romantically involved, they remained close even after they split, with Epstein describing Maxwell as his “best friend” in a 2003 Vanity Fair article.

For years, Maxwell remained a fixture at events, including Chelsea Clinton’s wedding in 2010 and Vanity Fair’s Oscar party, where she was photographed next to Elon Musk. In 2014, she gave speeches about the oceanic conservation work of her TerraMar Project at the United Nations and a TedX conference in Charlottesville, Virginia. –Bloomberg

Meanwhile the question remains; where in the world is Ghislaine Maxwell? 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ky6k06 Tyler Durden

US Moves To Seize Iranian Tanker Just As Gibraltar Set To Release

Update (1020ET): As expected a Gibraltar judge has agreed to release the seized Iranian oil tanker, Grace 1 (which was allegedly shipping 2.1m barrels of crude to Syria, breaching EU sanctions).

As Gibraltar Chronicle reports, the decision to release the ship was taken hours after the US launched a separate last-minute legal move to detain the vessel. But Chief Justice Anthony Dudley said that there was no US application currently before the court.

“That’s not before me,” he said.

“There are no applications in relation to the US letters of request [for mutual legal assistance].”

The court heard that the Gibraltar authorities had lifted the detention of the Grace 1, but it was not immediately clear why that decision had been taken.

*  *  *

A Gibraltar court decision expected Thursday on whether to release the Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 has been delayed over a last minute push by the United States to take custody.

The Gibraltar Chronicle reported that the court was set to release the Panamanian-flagged tanker, which had been boarded by Royal Marines in early July and caught carrying 2 million barrels of Iranian oil bound for Syria, but that US intervention has prevented a ruling. 

    “The US Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered,” a government of Gibraltar statement said.

    Image source: Getty

    US intervention also comes at a crucial moment when negotiations between Britain and Iran were said to be making progress toward a tanker swap. It is expected that as soon as the Grace 1 is released British-flagged vessel Stena Impero – which had been seized in the Strait of Hormuz as retaliation – will also in turn be released by the Iranians.

    British overseas territory Gibraltar has also said the Grace 1’s captain and three officers will also soon go free, who have been detained since the July 4 incident which Tehran condemned as “piracy” on the part of the west.

    The UK for its part claimed to have upheld EU sanctions on Syria, with Iran countering that it had taken the unprecedented action merely at the behest of the US. Given Thursday’s Washington intervention in the Grace 1’s release, Tehran’s argument appears to have been validated. 

    A further Gibraltar court decision is expected later in the day Thursday, and it will be interesting if there is push back against the US from the UK, given the Stena Impero’s fate hangs in the balance. 

    developing…

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