Guest Post: The End Of Pretend

Submitted by James H. Kunstler of Kunstler.com,

If being wealthy was the same as pretending to be wealthy then people who care about reality would have a little less to complain about. But pretending is a poor way for a society to negotiate its way through history. It makes for accumulating distortions which eventually undermine the society’s ability to function, especially when the pretending is about money, which is society’s operating system.

The distortion that even simple people care about is that the gap between the rich and the poor is as plain, vast, and grotesque as at any time in our history — except perhaps during slavery times in Dixieland, when many of the poor did not even own their existence. We’ve had plenty of reminders of that in pop culture the last couple of years, including Quentin Tarantino’s fiercely stupid movie Django Unchained and the more recent melodrama 12 Years a Slave. But you have to wonder what young adults weighed down by unpayable college debt think when they go to see them, because without a rebellion that millennial generation will not own their own lives either. They must know it, but they must not know what to do about it.

The pretense and distortions start at the top of American life with a President who broadcasts the message that some kind of “recovery” has occurred in the economic affairs of the country. Either he just wants the public feel better, or he is misled by the people and agencies in his own government, or perhaps he just lies to keep the lid on. To truly recover from the dislocations of 2008, we would have to make a consensual decision to start behaving differently in the process of adapting to the new circumstances that the arc of history is presenting to us. We’d have to decide to leave behind the economy of financialization, suburban sprawl, car dependency, Wal-Mart consumerism, and prepare for a different way of inhabiting North America.

The dislocations of 2008 when the banking system nearly imploded were Nature’s way of telling us that dishonesty has consequences. The immediate dishonesty of that day was the racket in securitizing worthless mortgages ­— promises to pay large sums of money over long periods of time. The promises were false and the collateral was janky.  It got so bad and ran so far and deep that it essentially destroyed the mechanism of credit creation as it had been known until then, and it has not been repaired.

Since then, we have pretended to repair the operations of credit by falsely substituting bank bailouts and Federal Reserve “quantitative easing” (QE) or digital money-printing for plain dealing in borrowed money between honest brokers at the local level. The unfortunate consequence is that in the process we have distorted — and possibly destroyed — the value of our money and the various things denominated in it, especially securities, bonds, stocks and other money-like paper.

The crash of the mortgage racket occurred not just because of swindling and fraud among bankers; in fact, that was only a nasty symptom of something larger: peak oil. I know that many people have come to disbelieve in the idea of peak oil, but that is only another mode of playing pretend. Peak oil, which essentially arrived in 2006, undermined the basic conditions of credit creation in an advanced techno-industrial society dependent on increasing supplies of fossil fuels. Most people, including practically all credentialed economists, fail to understand this. There is a fundamental relationship between ever-increasing energy supplies > economic growth > and credit-based money (or “money,” if you will). When the energy inputs flatten out or decrease, growth stops, wealth is no longer generated, old loans can’t be repaid, and new loans can’t be generated honestly, i.e. with the expectation of repayment. That has been our predicament since 2008 and nothing has changed. We are pretending to compensate by issuing new unpayable debt to pay the interest on our old accumulated debt. This pretense can only go on so long before our economic relations reflect the basic dishonesty of it. Reality is a harsh mistress.

In the meantime, we amuse ourselves with fairy tales about “the shale oil revolution” and “the manufacturing renaissance.” 2014 could be the year that the forces of Nature compel our attention and give us a reason to stop all this pretending.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/BB4QIf0fKYI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Yellen Draghi Carney Wrecking Ball Cometh … Prepare

Draghi’s ECB and Carney’s BoE have put in place plans for bail-ins and deposit confiscation. Yellen’s Fed is quiet allowing the FDIC to do the controversial bail-in ‘dirty work’ by stealth. Bail-ins cometh … Prepare … http://info.goldcore.com/protecting-your-savings-in-the-coming-bail-in-e…

Bail-Ins


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7CNsOwoiKNU/story01.htm GoldCore

Can the Libertarian Republican and the Non-Libertarian Republican Be Friends?


Identity is not destiny
Ross Tilchin at The
Brookings Institution has collated poll data about the leanings of
the various factions with the Republican Party. As libertarian
philosophy becomes a growing influence within the party, Tilchin
wonders how well libertarian Republicans might work with
conservative Christians and Tea Party Republicans. Tilchin thinks
that
libertarians may see limits to their influence
within the party
because religion tends to play much less of a role in their lives
than in the lives of the other two factions:

While these groups are similarly conservative on economic
matters (indeed, libertarians are further to the right than white
evangelicals or Tea Partiers on some economic issues, such as
raising the minimum wage), they are extremely divided by their
views on religion. Only 53% of libertarians describe religion as
the most important thing or one among many important things in
their lives. By comparison, 77% of Tea Party members say that
religion is either the most important thing or one among many
important things in their lives, and – not surprisingly – 94% of
white evangelicals say that religion is either the most important
thing or one among many important things in their lives. A full 44%
of libertarians say that religion is not important in their lives
or that religion is not as important as other things in their
lives. Only 11% of Tea Party members and 1% of white evangelicals
say that religion is not important in their lives.

Additionally, libertarians are among the most likely to agree
that religion causes more problems in society than it solves (37%
total: 17% completely agreeing, 20% mostly agreeing); the least
likely to agree that it is important for children to be brought up
in a religion so they can learn good values (35% total: 13%
completely disagree, 22% disagree); and the least likely to think
it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have
good values (63% total: 30% completely disagree, 33% mostly
disagree).

These stark differences in attitudes toward religion help
explain the large difference in view between libertarians and other
conservatives on social issues such as abortion, physician-assisted
suicide, and marijuana legalization. Given their positions on these
contentious social matters, it is very difficult to envision
Libertarians gaining the support of socially conservative voters in
the Republican Party.

Read the whole piece
here
. It also explores the simple mathematical problem of
libertarians being outnumbered by the other two factions of the
Republican Party in all regions of the country.

I take slight issue with the analysis, though perhaps not the
conclusion. What’s left out is the very libertarian idea that just
because libertarians don’t see religion as an important component
to their own lives, that doesn’t mean we would object to others who
decide otherwise. And believing that “religion causes more problems
in society than it solves” should not be taken to mean that a
libertarian believes the government should implement policies in a
pursuit to “fix” these problems.

Obviously there is disagreement, but it’s not actually,
literally about faith. The disagreement is about the extent of and
justifications for the use of government force. To say that
religious beliefs should not be used to determine whether it should
be legal to get an abortion or get married is not to say
that people shouldn’t use religion to make these decisions for
themselves in their own lives.

Given the libertarian rejection of government coercion, who else
is better suited to even approach these issues with social
conservatives? Who outside of libertarians is arguing in favor of
same-sex marriages getting the same legal recognition as
heterosexual marriages, while at the same time arguing that no
church should be obligated to recognize them, nor should any
business be
dragooned
into providing goods and services for them?

Make room! Coming through!Rather than seeing libertarians in opposition to
social conservatives, it’s more helpful to see libertarians as
allies in protecting the civil liberties of the religious even as
they lose cultural influence. Libertarians may not be able to “take
over” the Republican Party (not that they should stop trying), but
the party itself may be in deep trouble if these factions cannot
find points of agreement.

Over at The American Conservative, W. James Antle III
today takes note
at how Sen. Rand Paul is attempting to promote
noninterventionist messages and drug policy reform ideas to
Christian conservatives.

Reason has frequently debated where libertarians fit in the
political world of the reds vs. the blues.
Here’s a discussion from 2010
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/can-the-libertarian-republican-and-the-n
via IFTTT

Americans React To End Of Jobless Benefits: “I Just Don’t Know What To Do, Except Pray”

"It's going to put my family and me out on the streets," is a perspective shared by many of the 1.3 million Americans about to lose their emergency unemployment claims. The program, started during the recession, was intended to help jobless people after they exhausted state benefits, typically lasting six months. House Republicans resisted continuing the benefits without budget cuts elsewhere to cover the cost. As Bloomberg reports, opponents say the extended benefits discourage the unemployed from accepting jobs and that the program should be curtailed, given the recovery in the nation’s labor market.

Via Bloomberg,

It lacks compassion for the victims of the recession and, economically, it’s shooting ourselves in the foot,” said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, which backs policies that help low-income workers. “The timing is very premature. The evidence is that people who want work can’t find it.”

 

 

The economy has now been out of a recession for more than four years,” said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute in Washington, which argues for scaling back the role of government. “These unemployment benefits are emergency benefits, but the economy is no longer in an emergency situation. People can find jobs if they are willing to moderate their wage demands and make compromises.”

 

 

“Not all of us have savings and a lot of us have to take care of family because of what happened in the economy,” said Walker, of Santa Clarita, who said she has applied for at least three jobs a week and shares an apartment with her unemployed son, his wife and two children. “It’s going to put my family and me out on the streets.”

 

 

There were 3.9 million job openings across the U.S. at the end of October, according to the Labor Department. That same month, 11.3 million people were looking for work but couldn’t find it, a gap advocates say underscores the need to keep benefits flowing.

 

 

Failure to extend the program will affect 1.9 million people who are forecast to use up their state benefits in the first half of 2014 before they can find work, according to the White House.

 

 

The effect will be especially pronounced in the most-populous U.S. states. In New York, 102,700 people were expected to lose their benefits on Dec. 28, said Chris White, a spokesman for the state’s labor department. In New Jersey, about 90,300 will do the same, according to estimates from Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. More than 222,000 Californians will likewise see their benefits disappear.

 

 

“I understand the government doesn’t want to pay for people who are taking advantage of it,” she said. “But I am not, and many other people are not.”

 

“I just don’t know what to do, except pray.”

Of course, as we discussed in detail previously, this will mean a notable drop in the unemployment rate (for what that is worth)…

 

This has profound implications for the oh-so-important unemployment rate that  the Fed is so dependent upon…

JPM's Feroli: One observation that could set an upper bound on thinking about a participation effect is to hypothesize that all 1.3 million EUC claimants exit the labor force after benefits expire in 1Q (again, should Congress allow that to happen). In that case, the unemployment rate would fall by 0.8%-pt, obviously an extreme example. Some of the Fed studies can help to narrow the range of outcomes.

 

One of the more recent works (Farber and Valletta from the San Francisco Fed) indicates that about a fifth of long-term unemployment is due to extended benefits. With just over 4 million long-term unemployed recently, this would imply that the absence of extended UI benefits could lower the unemployment rate by 0.5%-pt.

This will directly impact the Fed's credibility to manage the economt in a "data-dependent" manner:

JPM's Feroli: Setting aside the normative aspect of whether from a public policy perspective this is a desirable or undesirable outcome, such a fall in the unemployment and participation rates could create some tricky choices for Fed policymakers as they assess the health of the labor market.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/e0VPsSXtibw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Public Domain

Here’s some
mostly good news
in the world of intellectual property law:

Sherlock Hound is still under copyright.A federal judge has issued a declarative
judgment stating that Holmes, Watson, 221B Baker Street, the
dastardly Professor Moriarty and other elements included in the 50
Holmes works that Arthur Conan Doyle published before Jan. 1, 1923,
are no longer covered by United States copyright law, and can
therefore be freely used by others without paying any licensing fee
to the writer’s estate.

What about John Cleese? Can we copyright John Cleese?The ruling came in response to a
civil complaint filed in February by Leslie S. Klinger, the editor
of the three-volume, nearly 3,000-page “New Annotated Sherlock
Holmes” and a number of other Holmes-related books. The complaint
stemmed from “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” a collection of
new Holmes stories written by different authors and edited by Mr.
Klinger and Laurie R. King, herself the author of a mystery series
featuring Mary Russell, Holmes’s wife.

Mr. Klinger and Ms. King had paid a $5,000 licensing fee for a
previous Holmes-inspired collection. But in the complaint, Mr.
Klinger said that the publisher of “In the Company of Sherlock
Holmes,” Pegasus Books, had declined to go forward after receiving
a letter from the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd., a business entity
organized in Britain, suggesting that the estate would prevent the
new book from being sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and “similar
retailers” unless it received another fee.

I call this mostly good news because the judge sided
with the Doyle estate when it came to elements of the Holmes mythos
introduced after 1923. Those are still under copyright protection
in the U.S., so if you want to publish a story that mentions, say,
Dr. Watson’s career as a rugby player, you still need to pay a fee
to Doyle’s heirs.

The court’s decision, which you can read
here
, discusses such topics as a precedent set by Amos ‘n’
Andy
and whether Watson’s second marriage is a copyrightable
“characteristic” or a non-copyrightable “event.” If you enjoy the
territory where legal and literary exegesis collide, you should
read it.

When I last wrote about
this case
, I posed some questions to Reason readers.
Now that the judge has released his ruling, I’ll offer them
again:

And for his next trick, the world's greatest detective will play "Flight of the Bumblebee" while juggling firecrackers atop a flagpole.Posts like this tend to set off
debates in the comments about whether copyright laws should exist
at all, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that they
should. Can anyone give me a good reason for applying copyright to
a character, as opposed to a story about that character?
It shouldn’t be difficult for the fans of, say, Star Wars
to tell which stories about Han Solo have George Lucas’ input or
blessing and which ones do not. Why shouldn’t you have the legal
right to circulate your own Han Solo films or novels on more than a
semi-clandestine
amateur basis
without asking permission first, competing head
to head with Disney to see who can tell the better stories about
the characters and settings that Lucas invented? I can see why
Disney’s shareholders wouldn’t like that, but why should their
preferences be law?

And suppose we agree that characters should be copyrightable. Why
on Earth should intellectual property law protect particular
characteristics of a public-domain character? Does it really make
sense to have a legal regime in which anyone can write a story
about Sherlock Holmes but you need to pay tribute to Arthur Conan
Doyle’s heirs if you allude to the
wrong elements
of the canon?

Bonus link:Ripping,
Mixing, and Burning Arthur Conan Doyle
.”

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/sherlock-holmes-and-the-case-of-the-publ
via IFTTT

Pending Home Sales Plunge At Fastest Pace Since April 2011

For the 5th month in a row, pending home sales missed expectations (though a silver lining is a positive print MoM – breaking a 5-month streak). Year-over-year, home sales collapsed at 4% – its worst drop since April 2011, and that even after prior data was revised lower. Still, despite this ongoing plunge, there is always hope – as engendered by NAR’s chief economist who states (somewhat unconfidently), “we may have reached a cyclical low.” Cylical low indeed – just don’t look at the chart?!!

Sure doesn’t look like a cyclical low…

 

as data misses for the 5th month in a row…

 

There is always hope… (via NAR)

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said the market is flattening. “We may have reached a cyclical low because the positive fundamentals of job creation and household formation are likely to foster a fairly stable level of contract activity in 2014,” he said. “Although the final months of 2013 are finishing on a soft note, the year as a whole will end with the best sales total in seven years.”

Total existing-home sales this year are expected to reach 5.1 million, a gain of almost 10 percent over 2012, but should stay at that level in 2014, and then rise to 5.3 million in 2015. The national median existing-home price for all of this year will be close to $197,300, up nearly 12 percent from 2012, but is projected to rise at a more moderate pace of 5 to 5.5 percent in 2014, and grow another 4 percent in 2015.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/a4g6wFPfNkI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Ronald Bailey Introduces Your New Robot Overlords

Ronald Bailey reviews
Average Is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great
Stagnation,
by George Mason University economist Tyler
Cowen. The book explains that the rise and spread of intelligent
machines has led to increasing income inequality and anemic job
growth. And this dynamic is likely to be permanent. Such is the
arresting and depressing thesis of the book, writes Bailey.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/ronald-bailey-introduces-your-new-robot
via IFTTT

Twitter (Re)Enters Bear Market

For the second time in its brief life as a publicly-traded stock, the latest exhibit in 2013’s FOMO meme has hit a bear market. At $59.78, Twitter has dropped 20% from its all-time high and must – must – be a bargain here?

 

 

It seems the fast-mony has greatly rotated from TWTR to CROX +14% (buying on the back of Blackstone’s ‘investment’ in preferreds which could highly dilute the current common stock)…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/JmfiihWVu1I/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Art Cashin’s Poetic 2013 Summary

From Paula Dean and twerking to Drones and Duck Dynasty with a peotic sprinkling of Mandela, Thatcher, “if you like it you can keep it”, and government shutdown; UBS’ avuncular floor director Art Cashin unleashes his latest ode with a subtle reminder of the most important ‘word’ for 2013 – FOMO – “fear of missing out.”

 

Via Art Cashin,

‘Tis two days yet to New Year

but despite what you’re hopin’

The folks in the Board Room

say “the full Eve we’ll stay open”

 

So we’ll buy and we’ll sell

as the tape crawls along

And though “Bubbly’s” verboten

we may still sing a song

 

Two Thousand Thirteen

had some spots of high hopes

They may get fumbled away

by those Washington dopes

 

A brief government shutdown

pushed sides further apart

Let’s all hope things improve

as the New Year we start

 

“If you like it you can keep it”

we heard the President quip

When that didn’t work out

in the polls he did slip

 

We lost special people

as we seem to each year

It just makes us treasure

each one that’s still here

 

Mandela and Thatcher

they reshaped their times

They’ll now regale the angels

backed by heavenly chimes

 

And Peter O’Toole

with his steely blue eyes

Joined the great Joan Fontaine

in God’s still bluer skies

 

Jean Stapleton’s “Edith”

has joined Archie on high

And author Tom Clancy

chose October to die

 

Ed Koch now asks angels

his set quote, “How’m I doin”

Gone is Hugo Chavez

who brought his nation to ruin

 

Helen Thomas asks questions

of St. Peter these days

Also Frank Lautenberg

left his senator’s ways

 

Jim Hall, jazz guitarist,

played his final great note

Richie Havens, quite different

is now in the same boat

 

Ray Harryhausen, who

created creatures unreal

Joined Jonathan Winters

every scene he would steal

 

Van Cliburn’s piano

angels hear without faults

As Patti Page sings them

the old Tennessee Waltz

 

And Frost re-met Nixon

midst the clouds they’ll debate

While Tony Soprano

while in Rome met his fate

 

Scott Carpenter and angels

now together will sup

Roger Ebert gave the harp

a quite hearty thumbs up

 

Esther Williams swam off

Eydie Gorme took a bow

And Annette Funicello

has joined them both now

 

And Doctor Joyce Brothers

bid her clients goodbye

While “Dear Abby” Van Buren

gives advice from on high

 

In Boston, two brothers

put some bombs in a crowd

Although hundreds were injured

that great town stayed unbowed

 

Wild fires aplenty

burned in state after state

Elsewhere came tornadoes

seems Mother Nature’s irate

 

The Philippines saw a cyclone

winds of 200 miles

Caused immense devastation

to those once lovely isles

 

A Bangladesh building

did collapse in the spring

Though a thousand folks died

few reforms did it bring

 

In Syria, chemicals

wiped out a whole town

In a mall in Nairobi

scores of folks were mowed down

 

FOMO is a slogan

it’s “fear of missing out”

Now we’re all self-absorbed

that’s what that’s all about

 

Wall Street saw stocks soar

but Main Street stayed slow

As the Fed starts to taper

we’ll see just how things go

 

Jeff Bezos announced

a new delivery drone

Edward Snowden revealed

that we’d tapped Merkel’s phone

 

Prince George did arrive

of pictures there was no lack

and sweet tooths were quite pleased

to see Twinkies come back

 

Paula Deen fell from grace

for some things she once said

The Duck Dynasty guy

made some people turn red

 

Former Hannah Montana

shocked some fans with a twerk

In Toronto the mayor

some folks called a jerk

 

Let not this year’s memories

of sadness or sleaze

Disturb you this day

just give your heart ease

 

Have faith that this New Year

will bring a new sign

And believe in yourself

it will all work out fine

 

Just lift up your spirits

and some fruit of the vine

And kiss ye a loved one

and sing Auld Lange Syne

 

And late Tuesday evening

as you watch the ball fall

Wish yourself all the best

Happy New Year to All!!


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ZvdHyoteC8Q/story01.htm Tyler Durden