For Anyone Who Wonders What Thomas Frank Thinks of the Films of Harold Ramis…

Idea for a movie: Bill Murray and Amy Adams join the Army.One of the few memorable
moments at last night’s largely dreary Oscar ceremony came when
Bill Murray, onstage to present the cinematography award, gave an
unscripted shout-out to the late
Harold Ramis
, Murray’s frequent creative partner from the ’70s
through the early ’90s. The reactions to Ramis’ death haven’t quite
faded from the press yet: Besides the coverage of Murray’s tribute,
yesterday saw Salon publish a critique
of Ramis’ work by the liberal pundit Thomas Frank. Frank, while
acknowledging that he enjoys Ramis’ movies, argues that liberals do
not “own the imagery of subversion and outsiderness” and that
Ramis-style comedy can be adapted to other political ends—indeed,
that several of the writer/actor/director’s pictures are open to
libertarian or even conservative readings. The evolution from the
anti-square humor of Animal House and Caddyshack
to the anti-EPA humor of Ghostbusters is a natural
progression, Frank writes, not a rupture.

I can’t really disagree with that, since I wrote
pretty much the same thing
last Thursday, albeit from a
different political perspective. Indeed, I wrapped up my post by
saying my observations were “old hat, really, whether you’re a
libertarian pointing out those continuities to praise them or a Tom
Frank type pointing them out to attack them.” Frank was probably
plotting his piece already as I wrote that. Or maybe I’ve stumbled
onto the blogger’s equivalent of chanting “Candyman” into a
mirror.

Frank also adds some arguments that I didn’t make. Some are
sharp: He’s absolutely right that the old-money/new-money conflict
at the heart of Caddyshack fits snugly with the
supply-side worldview. Some are less impressive: He attempts to
find a special ideological meaning in the fact that College
Republicans were making anti-Mondale “Fritzbusters” jokes during
the ’84 election, an effort that runs aground on the fact that
Democrats were doing Reaganbusters
gags
 in the same campaign. Everyone was making
Ghostbusters references that year. It was like all those
forced references to selfies and hashtags today.

Or maybe that was the point all along, and we just missed it?

And Frank gets off a clever line when he writes that “the
fraternity at Dartmouth which served as one of the models for
‘Animal House’ has of late become a kind of pipeline into the
investment-banking industry” right after he quotes one of the
movie’s most famous bits of dialogue—the part where one of the
Delta House crew says, “You fucked up. You trusted us.” You can see
the seeds of an interesting comparison there: If Animal
House
blurred the boundary between anti-authoritarian fun and
entitled assholery, there are people on Wall Street who whose
rhetoric blurs the boundary between desubsidized deregulation
and subsidized moral hazard. Frank, alas, isn’t
keen
on drawing that distinction either.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1eWPRYS
via IFTTT

Are We Making Too Much of the East-West Divide in Ukraine?

The American Conservative editor Daniel
McCarthy has a
blog post
up outlining what he sees as the three outcomes
Russian President Vladimir Putin may be considering relating to the
ongoing crisis in Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula in the Black
Sea.

McCarthy believes that the first and most preferred outcome
Putin may be working towards is “the strongly pro-Russian peninsula
remains part of a Ukraine that is effectively subservient to
Russia’s interests, no matter who is in charge in Kiev.”

The second possible outcome Putin may be working towards,
McCarthy argues, is that Russian activity in Crimea is viewed as an
example of what might happen to eastern Ukraine if Ukrainian
officials don’t “play ball the Russian way.”

McCarthy goes on to say that Putin may be trying to save what he
can from Ukraine having come to the conclusion that the situation
in Ukraine cannot be resolved in a way that will be beneficial to
Russian interests.

At the moment Russia is making it clear that Russian forces are
not going to be leaving Crimea any time soon, and has warned
Ukrainian forces
in Crimea that they face attack if they do not
surrender by 03:00 GMT.

McCarthy highlights something interesting, which has been
mentioned a lot recently in coverage of the crisis in Ukraine; the
east of Ukraine, and its interest to Russia.

In the last few days and weeks, some in the media
have made much of the supposed political and cultural split in
Ukraine, with maps like the one to the right (showing how
Ukrainians voted in the 2010 presidential election) being shown as
an example of the divisions in Ukraine. 

However, this east-west split in Ukraine that has been recently
discussed is perhaps not as simple as it might initially appear to
be.

Over at
Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty
Glenn Kates points out that
attempts to broadly define eastern Ukraine as culturally distinct
from western Ukraine are problematic, and shows that in the areas
surrounding the city of Kharkiv, which is located in eastern
Ukraine, the majority of people say Ukrainian is their native
language. Kates goes on to say that an attempt to split eastern
Ukraine from Ukraine would be opposed by many in the east and that
polling shows that most Russian speakers in Ukraine feel loyal to
Ukraine, not Russia:

Any effort to break eastern Ukraine from Ukraine proper would
meet resistance not only from the western half of the country, but
from wide swaths of Ukrainians living within those regions (This is
a good time to note that past polls have indicated that a majority
of Russian-speakers living in the country have also expressed
loyalty to Ukraine and not Russia. Also, some people who identify
themselves as Ukrainian-speaking may speak Russian in their
day-to-day lives).

Map of most common native languages in Ukraine
based on 2001 census to the right (Ukrainian in blue, Russian in
red).

Over at the
Kyiv Post
, Ilya Timtchenko points out that maps
like the one above from the 2010 presidential election do not
reflect the current situation:

The problem is that much of the media’s referenced information
is coming from the outdated 2010 presidential elections or even
from 2004 Orange Revolution data. During the past seven months, the
picture has dramatically changed. As for the past month, the harsh
division is simply not there anymore.

Most of Ukraine’s citizens who represent the nation’s cultural
and intellectual society have held a view directly opposite to
mainstream Western media.

Timtchenko concludes:

The “divided Ukraine” narrative is seductive in its simplicity
and disastrous in its ramifications. Sure, it’s easier to consume.
But it’s also wrong—and it contributes to Putin’s plan to bring
catastrophe to a nation that is struggling for democracy and human
rights.

It should be noted that McCarthy does not cite the supposed
divisions between east and west Ukraine as a reason why Russia may
be using the situation in Crimea as a veiled threat to eastern
Ukraine. Of course, given the geographical reality of the
Russia-Ukraine border eastern Ukraine is more at risk of Russian
aggression than the west.

More from Reason.com on Ukraine here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/NNxRKs
via IFTTT

Who Gets Thrown Under The Bus In The Next Financial Crisis?

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The speculative excesses and political power of Wall Street pose a strategic threat to the Deep State, and as a result a showdown between the Deep State and the surface machinery of governance that has been captured by Wall Street is looming.

The basic idea of the Deep State is that the visible machinery of governance–electoral politics and the Federal Reserve–doesn't set strategic policy, it ratifies and implements decisions made behind closed doors. In Mike Lofgren's definition, the Deep State is "effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process."

In my analysis, the Deep State is the National Security State which enables a vast Imperial structure that incorporates hard and soft power–military, diplomatic, intelligence, finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education–in a system of global domination and influence.

The Dollar and the Deep State (February 24, 2014)

Ukraine: A Deep State Analysis (February 27, 2014)

Like any other bureaucracy, the Deep State is prone to group-think, the tendency to join the prevailing "herd" in accepting a dominant paradigm and narrative that identifies key dynamics and sets priorities.

Group-think responds to both success and failure. In the case of the Deep State, key elements of the neo-conservative paradigm have been discredited. The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm: Requiem for a Decade of Distraction (Foreign Affairs)

(Anyone seeking a public reflection of the current thinking within the Deep State would do well to read Foreign Affairs, with an emphasis on reading between the lines.)

For the sake of argument, let's assume the leaders of the U.S. Deep State are not complete morons. Granted, that is quite a stretch, given that these are the people who gambled the lives of thousands of American troops and trillions of dollars in treasure on discretionary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But it is also reasonable to assume that the neo-conservatives who naively assumed that residents of Baghdad would not only welcome their foreign liberators with baskets of flowers but would magically reconstruct the social institutions that had been systemically destroyed by Saddam over the previous 30 years–yes, those neo-con nincompoops– have been quietly put to pasture on their mini-estates in Northern Virginia.

In other words, it is reasonable to assume that the Deep State has accepted that "mistakes were made" and flushed those responsible for the previous decade's disasters.

The Deep State undoubtedly has its own niceties and protocols, but it is by necessity ruthlessly Darwinian: failure is not only always an option, it is inevitable as a systems-level consequence of tightly connected, interactive complex systems; such failures are known as "normal accidents," catastrophes resulting from seemingly small miscalculations and miscues that cascade into systemic crises.

As a result, incompetence cannot be rewarded lest the Deep State itself suffer the consequences.

The Deep State's prime directive is to preserve the Deep State itself and the nation it depends on for its survival. My analysis starts by identifying the vectors of dependency. (To the best of my knowledge, I am the first to use this term in this context.) The Deep State depends on the survival of the U.S. nation-state, but the nation-state does not depend on the Deep State for its survival, despite the certainty within the Deep State that "we are the only thing keeping this thing together."

Strategy is one thing, responding to crisis is another. The surface government (elected officials, regulatory agencies, the Federal Reserve, etc.) responds to crisis in two basic ways: it chooses whatever short-term politically expedient fix reduces the immediate political pain (also known as "kicking the can down the road") and it sacrifices the interests of politically weak groups to protect its cronies and fiefdoms.

This crisis-response triage requires that somebody gets thrown under the bus. In the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed threw savers and the bottom 95% under the bus to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars–what was previously paid in interest–to the banks to rebuild their broken balance sheets. The Fed also provided limitless liquidity to bank trading desks and financiers to skim billions from carry trades, effectively channeling the nation's financial resources to enrich its cronies, the top 1/10th of 1%.

The Deep State must take a longer view, and make strategic triage decisions. All sorts of people, groups and policies are routinely tossed under the bus–foreign leaders, resistance groups, civil liberties, etc.–as the Deep State adjusts to long-term developments and crises with strategic consequences.

Many Deep State decisions and policies are barely noticed, even though they are completely public. For example, the U.S. Deep State recognized that the dissolution of the Soviet Union opened an extremely dangerous door to nuclear weapons falling into non-state hands. So the U.S. spent tens of billions of dollars helping secure the thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons left in limbo after the breakup.

Though the Deep State's institutional bias is to focus on conventional national security issues, it must also monitor potential strategic threats created by issues such as climate change, immigration and Peak Cheap Oil. The financial crisis was apparently an unexpected and unwelcome distraction from the geopolitical Great Game, and the response of the Deep State was muted.
while the surface policies of the Federal Reserve and Federal government appear to serve the interests of the financial Elites, I am beginning to discern the possibility of a strategic Deep State response to the next (and inevitable) financial crisis.

This crisis is simple to summarize: the paper claims on wealth so far exceed actual wealth that something's gotta give. These claims include trillions of dollars in shadow-banking bets (derivatives and other leveraged claims all teetering on a tiny base of real collateral) and trillions of dollars in debt-based claims on future income.

Simply put, the vast majority of these claims will have to be zeroed out, i.e. these phantom-claim "assets" will be voided and declared worthless. This leads to the key question: who will the Deep State throw under the bus to preserve itself and the nation-state?

Once again, identifying the vectors of dependency clarifies the strategic priorities. As I pointed out in The Dollar and the Deep State, the pre-eminence of both the Deep State and the U.S. nation-state depend on the U.S. dollar remaining the key reserve currency in the global economy.

The collapse of the U.S. dollar would destroy the foundation of both the Deep State and the U.S. nation-state, hence my conclusion that the Deep State will not enable that collapse.

As for all the financial claims on real wealth that will have to go to zero value, let's identify the operative vector of dependency with a question: which scenario most threatens the Deep State: 50 million hungry Americans taking to the streets shouting, "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!" or 10,000 financiers losing a couple trillion dollars in phantom wealth?

In other words, the phantom financier claims of Wall Street now pose a strategic threat to the integrity of the U.S. and its Deep State.

The Deep State needs a functioning U.S. nation-state, and a mass uprising arising from the collapse of the state cannot be suppressed with a few whiffs of grapeshot. The collapse of global pre-eminence and state financing of food stamps and other social welfare programs directly threaten the Deep State.

The collapse of financier fortunes? While that would hurt some Yalie cronies, the Deep State is not Wall Street; it attracts those who prefer power to wealth and strategy to trading. I have no doubt whatsoever that the leadership of the Deep State would have no qualms about throwing bankers and financiers under the bus once they pose a strategic threat to the U.S. dollar and other financial interests vital to the Deep State, for example, keeping 300 million Americans distracted, placated and docile.

It's certainly not lost on the Deep State that a palpable hatred of bankers, financiers and the Federal Reserve is taking root across the land. I know this is outside the mainstream, but I think it is increasingly likely that the financial system's skimmers and swindlers are being recognized as potential strategic threats to the Deep State.

What is essential to the Deep State's survival and supremacy and what is not essential? Are 10,000 obscenely wealthy financiers essential? No. Between saving the U.S. dollar and making whole the $100 trillion in nominal-value bets made by financiers in offshore shadow-banking accounts–there's no contest.

Conventional wisdom has it that Wall Street dominates the state and the Fed. To the degree that these formal surface institutions can be influenced by lobbying, campaign contributions and plum positions, this is true. But these surface institutions only ratify and implement Deep State directives.

I know this sounds "impossible" within conventional narratives, but I am increasingly confident that the financiers' phantom claims on real wealth will be thrown under the bus in the next global financial crisis. Look at it this way: there's essentially nothing left to stripmine from the bottom 80%; most have been reduced to neofeudal debt-serfdom. Since the survival of the nation-state depends on the 80% remaining either passive or productive, the Deep State has a vital strategic interest in both the U.S. dollar and in maintaining the social welfare programs that enable the bottom 80%'s survival.

The Three-and-a-Half Class Society (October 22, 2012)

The Deep State also needs the top 20% to remain productive to maintain U.S. soft and hard power. Transferring trillions of dollars in real wealth to make good the claims of the financier class would require the stripmining of the whatever assets the top 20% still hold. This transfer would directly threaten both the nation-state and the Deep State.

The dominance of Wall Street over the formal, visible machinery of governance has persuaded many that Wall Street is the Deep State. I believe this is a serious misread of the real Deep State. As I noted in The Dollar and the Deep State, to even discern the outlines of the Deep State requires a senior military position or national-security civilian equivalent.

Those writing knowledgeably about Wall Street and finance typically show near-zero knowledge of high-echelon U.S. military and national-security assets, policies and networks, so this blind spot is understandable.

It's widely assumed that Wall Street rules the roost in both the mainstream financial media and in the alternative financial blogosphere. In my view, the speculative excesses and political power of Wall Street pose a strategic threat to the Deep State, and as a result a showdown between the Deep State and the surface machinery of governance that has been captured by Wall Street is looming.

Though everyone who is convinced the U.S. dollar will go to zero is confident that Wall Street will emerge victorious from the next financial crisis, I am convinced of the opposite: the Deep State will do whatever it takes to eliminate strategic threats to the integrity of the Deep State and the nation it depends on for its power and survival. In a financial crisis that threatens the dollar and the Deep State, the phantom claims of Wall Street's financier skimmers, scammers and swindlers will be tossed under the bus with few qualms. The triage might even be performed with a certain relish.

Put another way: we've reached Peak Wall Street and it's all downhill from here.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pVGbH6 Tyler Durden

S&P Spikes On Massive Volume As Russia Denies “Ultimatum”

While the news actually broke earlier, once the headline that Russia denies an “ultimatum” threat to assault the Ukrainian fleet hit Reuters, the algos smashed USDJPY higher and that lifted stocks on a huge volume spike ($3.7bn notional in first minute) up to near VWAP.

Reuters:

  • RUSSIAN BLACK SEA FLEET SAYS IT HAS NO PLANS TO LAUNCH ASSAULT ON UKRAINIAN MILITARY UNITS IN CRIMEA – INTERFAX NEWS AGENCY

Bloomberg:

  • *RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY SAID TO DENY UKRAINE ULTIMATUM

 

 

Interestingly, no follow-through and not even enough juice to hit VWAP… despite USDJPY’s best efforts to get S&P futures back to that balance point…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1dU1CQe Tyler Durden

Russia Denies It Has Given Ukraine An Ultimatum, Calls It “Utter Nonsense”

Just released from Vedomosti, google translated for most linguistic impact:

Russian Defense Ministry denies reports appeared that the Ukrainian military in Crimea delivered an ultimatum .

 

Today the agency ” Interfax-Ukraine” reported, citing a source in the Defense Ministry of Ukraine , that the commander of the Black Sea Fleet of Russia Alexander Vitko an ultimatum Ukrainian soldiers in the Crimea . According to the source agency , if, prior to 5:00 am Tuesday Ukrainian soldiers ” do not give up , start a real assault units and parts of the Ukrainian Armed Forces around the Crimea.”

 

The official representative of the Russian Defense Ministry called Message agency ” utter nonsense ” and said that any ultimatums Ukrainian military in the Crimea was not put.

 

Head of Naval Forces of Ukraine in Sevastopol Crimean authorities busy loyal soldiers about half ( in its territory is located a few buildings ), another half remains under control VMSU says Ukrainian officer , with no clusters of armed men and now there is no activity , but about the ultimatum he heard nothing.

Hmmmm, whom to believe…


    



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

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s ‘Mixed Drug Intoxication’ Is Typical of So-Called Heroin Overdoses

On Friday
the New York City medical examiner’s office released
autopsy results
indicating that the actor Philip Seymour
Hoffman died accidentally on February 2 from “acute mixed drug
intoxication” involving cocaine, amphetamine,
and benzodiazepines as well as heroin. The combination of
heroin and benzodiazepines, a class of drugs that includes Valium
and Xanax, presumably was what killed him, since both depress
respiration. The stimulants may have masked the effects of the
depressants, leading Hoffman to consume more than he otherwise
would have.

Drug combinations like this are typical of deaths attributed to
heroin or other narcotics.
Data
from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)
indicate that “multi-drug deaths” accounted for most fatalities
involving opiates or opioids in 2010: 72 percent in surburban New
York, 83 percent in Los Angeles, and 56 percent in Chicago, for
example. Back in the early 1990s, the share of
heroin-related deaths
reported by DAWN that involved other
drugs was even higher, 90 percent or more. (Note that the numbers
in the table are misaligned and need to be shifted downward.) In
short, when someone dies from what is described as a heroin
overdose, the actual cause is usually a fatal mixture of two or
more substances, frequently including depressants such as alcohol
or prescription tranquilizers.

That fact can make it difficult to assign legal blame for an
“overdose” death. Under federal law, for instance, a drug dealer
faces a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence when “death or serious
bodily injury results from” consumption of his product. In January
the Supreme Court unanimously
ruled
that when a death involves multiple drugs, the
prosecution has to show that the one supplied by the defendant was
a necessary or independently sufficient factor.

Under New York law such a case is
even harder to make
. According to a
1972 decision
that was upheld by the state’s highest court, a
drug dealer is not guilty of criminally negligent homicide merely
for supplying heroin and syringes to someone who died after
injecting the narcotic. Prosecutions for criminally negligent
homicide have been upheld in cases where the defendant played a
more active role in someone’s death—for example, by injecting
heroin or urging excessive alcohol consumption in the context of a
drinking game. The musician suspected of supplying heroin to
Hoffman, Robert Vineberg, has been
charged
with felony drug possession, but so far he has not been
accused of homicide.

Given the circumstances of the typical heroin-related death,
avoiding risky drug combinations is an obvious harm reduction
measure that should be promoted by anyone interested in preventing
such fatalities. Yet it is rarely mentioned in the aftermath of
high-profile overdoses such as Hoffman’s, perhaps because of a bias
against advice that aims to make drug use less dangerous rather
than eliminate it completely. As I have
argued
, that all-or-nothing attitude may also help explain why
Hoffman was so reckless once he fell off the wagon.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1hC1861
via IFTTT

The Biggest Component Of CPI – Rent – Is Now The Highest Since 2008: What Does This Mean For Broad Inflation?

Even as the Fed laments that inflation as measured by either the hedonically adjusted CPI, or the PCE deflator measure (which on any given month is whatever a seasonal adjustment excel model says it is), is persistently below its long-term target of 2%, one component of the broader CPI basket has quietly continued risen to new multi-year highs. That would be the so-called owners’ equivalent rent (OER), which is the biggest component of the CPI, and measures imputed costs of renting one’s own home: it is currently the highest it has been since 2008.

 However, while it accounts for a whopping 23.9% of the CPI basket, OER has a far smaller share or 11.3% of the Fed’s preferred inflation metric, the PCE deflator.

Bank of America observes that over long periods of time OER and the rest of the CPI should tend to move together, reflecting overall inflation — that is, changes in the purchasing power of a dollar. However, in recent years that has been anything but the case, with OER now the highest since the Lehman crisis and rising ever higher even as the Non Shelter Core CPI continues to decline.

To be sure, the surge in rent prices to record highs is nothing new, and should be familiar to Zero Hedge readers. After all we presented just this a few short months ago:

 

 

Still, this divergence between rising rental inflation and disinflation in everything else has led Bank of America to ask whether as some analysts expect, an abrupt reversal in inflation is due with surprises to the upside. BofA cites said analysts who point to “special factors” that have either temporarily depressed inflation or are poised to jump higher very soon. Some of these stories have difficulty explaining why inflation has been so low for the past few years — those are rather persistent “temporary” factors.

At this point BofA points out that while in the short-term the divergence between the series is indeed notable, over the longer-term the two datasets eventually converge:

That co-movement can be seen clearly in Chart 1: since the user cost concept of OER was incorporated into the CPI in 1983, the correlation between the annual inflation rates in OER and the non-shelter core CPI has been 0.63. This strong positive relationship largely reflects the general downward trend in inflation since the  early 1980s, as the Fed consolidated the credibility gains from the Volcker disinflation and as other macro factors (such as globalization and the decline of collective bargaining and wage indexation) helped restrain price growth.

 

Look a little more closely at Chart 1, however, and it becomes apparent that there are several periods in which OER goes up — at least for a short time — but then reverts back to trend. Thus, it can be a misleading indicator of inflationary pressure in the medium term. More importantly, these times are typically ones in which the rest of the core CPI index falls as OER rises. This pattern is particularly clear in Chart 2. Since the peak of the housing bubble, the correlation between OER and non-shelter core CPI inflation actually has been negative: -0.29, in fact.

What is Bank of America’s conclusion about this

We can make this intuition more rigorous by separating the two inflation series into a longer-run trend and a cyclical component. The low-frequency trend in inflation likely varies over time, as inflation expectations and more persistent economic factors (such as globalization, as noted above) are not constants. We estimate these trends using an unobserved components model over the full sample of available data. Not surprisingly, the time-varying trends are highly correlated: 0.79. This correlation coefficient is larger than for the two individual series as the model isolates the common long-run determinants of inflation.

 

Conversely, the cyclical components as identified by this procedure are negatively correlated, albeit not significantly so for the full sample: about -0.03. Looking just at the post-bubble period, the correlation drops to -0.33. Thus, if anything, high OER has been an indicator of lower, not higher, inflation. What is going on? In a nutshell: tight household budget constraints.

And there you have New Normal Paradox 101.

In its attempt to reflate asset prices at all costs, and succeeding with both the stock market and new housing bubble if not so much wages and the broad economy, the Fed has made housing unaffordable for the vast majority of the population (confirmed further by the plunge to 15 year lows in mortgage applications), forcing Americans to scramble for rental housing, sending rents to all time highs. This can be is seen in the OER. The problem is that with so much of monthly discretionary spending going to rental, it means there is far less in free cash flow available to be used for other purchases. Which also means that inflation away from rents is declining and getting lower with every month almost as a result of the surge in rents!

Continuing with Paradox 101: if indeed the Fed wants to stimulate broad inflation and boost the economy with a stable and achievable 2% inflationary target, it should pop the housing and rental bubbles, and send prices for this component of the CPI basket plunging, affording consumers more discretionary cash flow for other purchases.

Sadly, the Fed, comprised of clueless economist PhD hacks, will never figure this out, and instead will ponder and wonder how it is possible that month after month even more broad deflation appears to be setting in. Of course, it only needs to look at the culprit – every period the incremental inflation is being eaten up by the monthly rental paycheck. Sadly, it won’t, and certainly not before it is too late, and this too housing bubble bursts uncontrollably. By then, then there will be bigger fish to fry, than wondering where all the inflation has gone.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/NNlo9x Tyler Durden

European Stocks Plunge, Led By Germany (And Banks)

Perhaps surprisingly, Germany’s DAX index was the weakest in Europe today as the Russia-Ukraine debacle escalates, underperforming high-beta “safe-havens” like Spain and Italy (which also fell rather notably). Despite the 2.5% to 3% declines across all major European equity markets, sovereign bond spreads barely budged! Seriously, Italian and Spanish bond spread rose a mere 5bps on the day. European banks collapsed 3.6%, its biggest drop in 6 months. EURCHF continues to collapse, now at 14 month lows (-200 pips today) as 2Y Swiss rates close at -11.4bps (the lows of 2014).

Germany was the worst of the major European indices…

 

…led by a collapse in banks…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


    



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