Did The “Dash For Trash” Just End?

For almost three years there has been one recurring simple strategy to outperforming the market – find the worst company you can, and buy its stock with both hands and feet… As we have discussed numerous times, the massive outperformance of “weak balance sheet” companies over “strong balance sheet” companies – the absolute sign of a massive mal-investment boom – has been a straight line to profits with hardly a hiccup since the Fed unleashed QE2. However, the last week or so, as geopolitical risks rise and it appears ever more likely that the Fed’s free money pipe will dry up, the dash-for-trash has reversed.

 

 

The last 5 days saw “strong” companies outperform “weak” companies by the most in 3 years – something appears to be changing.




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

Please Don't Blame The Fed: Alan Greenspan Says "Bubbles Are A Function Of Human Nature"

Submitted by David Stockman’s Contra Corner

C’mon Alan! Bubbles Are Caused By Central Bankers, Not “Human Nature”

Alan Greenspan just cannot give up the ghost. During his baleful 18-year reign, the Fed was turned into a serial bubble machine—and thereby became a clear and present danger to honest free market capitalism and an enemy of the 99% who do not benefit from the Wall Street casino and the vast inflation of financial assets which it has enabled.  His legacy is a toxically financialized economy that has extracted huge windfall rents from main street, and left it burdened with overwhelming debts and sharply reduced capacity for gains in real living standards and breadwinner jobs.

Yet after all this time Greenspan still insists on blaming the people for the economic and financial havoc that he engendered from his perch in the Eccles Building. Indeed, posturing himself as some kind of latter day monetary Calvinist, he made it crystal clear in yesterday’s interview that the blame cannot be placed at his feet where it belongs:

I have come to the conclusion that bubbles, as I noted, are a function of human nature.

C’mon. The historical record makes absolutely clear that Greenspan panicked time and again when speculation reached a fevered peak in financial markets. Instead of allowing the free market to cleanse itself and liquidate reckless gamblers employing too much debt and too many risky trades, he flooded Wall Street with liquidity and jawboned the speculators into propping up the casino.  Within months of his August 1987 arrival, for example, he panicked on Black Monday and not only inappropriately flooded with liquidity a Wall Street that was rife with rotten speculation and a toxic product called “portfolio insurance”, but also intervened directly to garrote the markets attempt at self-correction.

In that context he sent his henchman, Gerald Corrigan who was head of the New York Fed, down to Wall Street to break arms and bust heads in an effort to insure that firms continued to trade with each other and extend credit where their own risk control managers appropriately wanted to cancel credit lines to insolvent counter-parties.  Then and there, the Greenspan “put” was born, and the stock market was en route to becoming a Fed-driven casino rather than an honest venue for real price discovery. Indeed, the entire Greenspan-Corrigan mission in the wake of Black Monday was to force Wall Street firms and banks into price “undiscovery”.

Incidentally, in yesterday’s interview Greenspan belatedly confessed that he had caused Goldman Sachs to “undiscover” that Continental Illinois was a bad credit risk, and that, instead of demanding payment, they needed to see it Corrigan’s way. Not surprisingly, Corrigan went on to become a Goldman partner in charge of hand-holding the New York Fed’s open market desk, which is to say, an exemplar of how crony capitalism is done.

Goldman was contemplating withholding a $700 million payment to Continental Illinois Bank in Chicago scheduled for the Wednesday morning following the crash. In retrospect, had they withheld that payment, the crisis would have been far more disabling. Few remember that crisis because nothing happened as a consequence.

Well, that’s just the point. Free markets correct their own excesses when two-way trading is permitted to run its course. At the time of Greenspan’s first panic, the financial markets were laboring under the pressure of Washington’s huge debt emissions owing to the giant Reagan deficits. In that context, interest rates wanted to soar in order to reflect the “crowding out” effect of Uncle Sam’s massive borrowing—a path that would have laid the stock market speculators low for years to come. And it would have also generated a fiscal clean-up package in Washington that would have nipped in the bud the lamentable Reagan era myth that “deficits don’t matter”.

In short, owing to his Black Monday panic Greenspan let both the Wall Street gamblers and the Washington spenders off-the-hook, and launched the nation on the road toward the debt and speculation-riven crony capitalism that prevails today. So the claim that “nothing happened as a consequence” could not be farther from the truth. What happened was the onset of a historic calamity—that is, the official repudiation of free markets, fiscal rectitude and sound money.

And there was more. As is also well known, on the next morning (Tuesday), the futures market in Chicago and stock exchanges in New York came to a dead stop and were heading for another cleansing free-fall, when suddenly massive buy orders came in from Fortune 500 companies to buy their own stock.  That didn’t happen by accident. Ayn Rand’s former disciple was busy at work over-riding the free market and jaw-booning CEO’s into their first great foray into stock buybacks—-a speculative pursuit which has now become an institutionalized disease in the C-suites.

In the years that followed the same pattern ensued at each point the markets attempted to rectify themselves. That includes 1994 when the bond market and mortgage back securities market went into a cleansing tailspin, but instead of allowing the money market rates to rise to market clearing levels, the Greenspan Fed panicked and capped the rise at just 300 basis points. That is, at a fraction of what Volcker had permitted and far below what was needed to arrest the incipient financial bubble that was already then underway.

Likewise, during the 1998 Russian and LTCM crisis, Greenspan panicked once again and slashed interest rates to save speculators in Russian securities and domestic hedge funds, and jawboned Wall Street into bailing out LTCM. Needless to say, the latter was a reckless gambling den that had been leveraged 100:1 by the very same Wall Street firms that Greenspan organized into a mafia-like cartel designed to prevent the free market from working its will, and to spare the offending Wall Street firms from taking their lumps.

By now, therefore, the “Greenspan put” was deeply implanted in the casino. That became fully evident when the market soared in 1999 after Greenspan’s late 1998 panicked rescue of the speculators. The Wall Street gamblers now understood that shorting over-bought markets was dangerous and that buying the dips was the route to fabulous riches for fast money traders. The era of one-way markets had thus been launched.

Yet by that point Greenspan had been crowned the “Maestro”, causing him to throw any remaining semblance of sound money and respect for market price discovery to the winds. Even as the NASDAQ and dotcom stocks soared to insane heights in the spring of 2000, Greenspan told a congressional committee that there was no evident financial bubble and that the Fed could not prevent one if there were. A noxious lies was thereby born.

And then it got worse after the dotcom crash. Beginning on Christmas eve 2000 the Fed began to slash interest rates, and didn’t stop its meeting after meeting cuts until it had lowered the funds rate to an unprecedented 1% by the spring of 2003.  By then, of course, the housing bubble was already galloping toward its eventual destructive demise, but the Greenspan Fed was oblivious.

Even during the first bubble of the 1990s, the home mortgage market had been reasonably well-behaved and gross mortgage originations rarely exceeded $1 trillion annually until the end of the decade. But at the time that Greenspan made the final federal funds reduction to 1.0% i
n Q2 2003, the annualized run-rate of gross mortgage originations had soared to the outlandish sum of $5 trillion.

Indeed, the whole housing bubble finance mechanism of homeowners raiding their own ATM (i.e. equity in their homes) was underway, and a debt fueled boom in housing prices was entering its final lunatic phase.  But Greenspan saw no bubbles at all. Nor did he have a clue that a giant financial crisis owing to his destruction of honest financial markets was just around the corner when he exited the Eccles Building early 2006.

Notwithstanding this sorry history, Greenspan did the world a large favor in yesterday’s interview while trying to justify his Calvinistic blame of “human nature” for financial bubbles. He claimed that the Fed tried to stop a bubble when it tightened in 1994, but that effort failed—thereby proving, apparently, that central banks are no match for human nature.

Accordingly, bubbles needed to be allowed to run their course. Henceforth, the Fed would function as a clean-up brigade with a mission to flood the market with liquidity after the fact—that is, to operate the very kind of bubble finance policy that has now become deeply and destructively institutionalized.

 The Fed tried in 1994 to defuse a bubble with monetary policy alone. We called it a boom back then. The terminology has changed, but the phenomenon is the same. We increased the federal funds rate by 300 basis points, and we did indeed stop the nascent stock-market bubble expansion in its tracks. But after we stopped patting ourselves on the back for creating a successful soft landing, it became clear that we hadn’t snuffed the bubble out at all. I have always assumed that the ability of the economy to withstand the 300-basis-point tightening revised the market’s view of the sustainability of the boom and increased the equilibrium level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The dot-com boom resumed.

 

When bubbles emerge, they take on a life of their own. It is very difficult to stop them, short of a debilitating crunch in the marketplace. The Volcker Fed confronted and defused the huge inflation surge of 1979 but had to confront a sharp economic contraction. Short of that, bubbles have to run their course. Bubbles are functions of unchangeable human nature….

No better indictment of monetary central planning and money market interest rate pegging could be delivered. Greenspan institutionalized macroeconomic management through rigid control of the funds rate and  by an intolerance for money market movements of more than 25 basis points. In the process, “price discovery” was supplanted by “price administration”.

More importantly, the single most important price in all of capitalism—-the price of hot money on Wall Street—-was shackled. The carry trades were soon off the races because cheap and predictable overnight funding costs are the mothers milk of financial speculation.

Once upon a time, Wall Street would cure its own excesses when the “call money” rate soared by hundreds of basis points during a single day, and rates sometimes reached deep into double digits when speculation got overheated. Yet it was that vital market-clearing mechanism, that instrument of financial market self-correction, which Greenspan now admits he destroyed in 1994 when he capped the funds rate rise at 300 basis points.And then he became puzzled as to why just a short time later the mania reignited.

It goes without saying, of course, that the free-market/sound money Greenspan of the days before he became head of the monetary politburo in Washington would not have been puzzled at all.




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

Please Don’t Blame The Fed: Alan Greenspan Says “Bubbles Are A Function Of Human Nature”

Submitted by David Stockman’s Contra Corner

C’mon Alan! Bubbles Are Caused By Central Bankers, Not “Human Nature”

Alan Greenspan just cannot give up the ghost. During his baleful 18-year reign, the Fed was turned into a serial bubble machine—and thereby became a clear and present danger to honest free market capitalism and an enemy of the 99% who do not benefit from the Wall Street casino and the vast inflation of financial assets which it has enabled.  His legacy is a toxically financialized economy that has extracted huge windfall rents from main street, and left it burdened with overwhelming debts and sharply reduced capacity for gains in real living standards and breadwinner jobs.

Yet after all this time Greenspan still insists on blaming the people for the economic and financial havoc that he engendered from his perch in the Eccles Building. Indeed, posturing himself as some kind of latter day monetary Calvinist, he made it crystal clear in yesterday’s interview that the blame cannot be placed at his feet where it belongs:

I have come to the conclusion that bubbles, as I noted, are a function of human nature.

C’mon. The historical record makes absolutely clear that Greenspan panicked time and again when speculation reached a fevered peak in financial markets. Instead of allowing the free market to cleanse itself and liquidate reckless gamblers employing too much debt and too many risky trades, he flooded Wall Street with liquidity and jawboned the speculators into propping up the casino.  Within months of his August 1987 arrival, for example, he panicked on Black Monday and not only inappropriately flooded with liquidity a Wall Street that was rife with rotten speculation and a toxic product called “portfolio insurance”, but also intervened directly to garrote the markets attempt at self-correction.

In that context he sent his henchman, Gerald Corrigan who was head of the New York Fed, down to Wall Street to break arms and bust heads in an effort to insure that firms continued to trade with each other and extend credit where their own risk control managers appropriately wanted to cancel credit lines to insolvent counter-parties.  Then and there, the Greenspan “put” was born, and the stock market was en route to becoming a Fed-driven casino rather than an honest venue for real price discovery. Indeed, the entire Greenspan-Corrigan mission in the wake of Black Monday was to force Wall Street firms and banks into price “undiscovery”.

Incidentally, in yesterday’s interview Greenspan belatedly confessed that he had caused Goldman Sachs to “undiscover” that Continental Illinois was a bad credit risk, and that, instead of demanding payment, they needed to see it Corrigan’s way. Not surprisingly, Corrigan went on to become a Goldman partner in charge of hand-holding the New York Fed’s open market desk, which is to say, an exemplar of how crony capitalism is done.

Goldman was contemplating withholding a $700 million payment to Continental Illinois Bank in Chicago scheduled for the Wednesday morning following the crash. In retrospect, had they withheld that payment, the crisis would have been far more disabling. Few remember that crisis because nothing happened as a consequence.

Well, that’s just the point. Free markets correct their own excesses when two-way trading is permitted to run its course. At the time of Greenspan’s first panic, the financial markets were laboring under the pressure of Washington’s huge debt emissions owing to the giant Reagan deficits. In that context, interest rates wanted to soar in order to reflect the “crowding out” effect of Uncle Sam’s massive borrowing—a path that would have laid the stock market speculators low for years to come. And it would have also generated a fiscal clean-up package in Washington that would have nipped in the bud the lamentable Reagan era myth that “deficits don’t matter”.

In short, owing to his Black Monday panic Greenspan let both the Wall Street gamblers and the Washington spenders off-the-hook, and launched the nation on the road toward the debt and speculation-riven crony capitalism that prevails today. So the claim that “nothing happened as a consequence” could not be farther from the truth. What happened was the onset of a historic calamity—that is, the official repudiation of free markets, fiscal rectitude and sound money.

And there was more. As is also well known, on the next morning (Tuesday), the futures market in Chicago and stock exchanges in New York came to a dead stop and were heading for another cleansing free-fall, when suddenly massive buy orders came in from Fortune 500 companies to buy their own stock.  That didn’t happen by accident. Ayn Rand’s former disciple was busy at work over-riding the free market and jaw-booning CEO’s into their first great foray into stock buybacks—-a speculative pursuit which has now become an institutionalized disease in the C-suites.

In the years that followed the same pattern ensued at each point the markets attempted to rectify themselves. That includes 1994 when the bond market and mortgage back securities market went into a cleansing tailspin, but instead of allowing the money market rates to rise to market clearing levels, the Greenspan Fed panicked and capped the rise at just 300 basis points. That is, at a fraction of what Volcker had permitted and far below what was needed to arrest the incipient financial bubble that was already then underway.

Likewise, during the 1998 Russian and LTCM crisis, Greenspan panicked once again and slashed interest rates to save speculators in Russian securities and domestic hedge funds, and jawboned Wall Street into bailing out LTCM. Needless to say, the latter was a reckless gambling den that had been leveraged 100:1 by the very same Wall Street firms that Greenspan organized into a mafia-like cartel designed to prevent the free market from working its will, and to spare the offending Wall Street firms from taking their lumps.

By now, therefore, the “Greenspan put” was deeply implanted in the casino. That became fully evident when the market soared in 1999 after Greenspan’s late 1998 panicked rescue of the speculators. The Wall Street gamblers now understood that shorting over-bought markets was dangerous and that buying the dips was the route to fabulous riches for fast money traders. The era of one-way markets had thus been launched.

Yet by that point Greenspan had been crowned the “Maestro”, causing him to throw any remaining semblance of sound money and respect for market price discovery to the winds. Even as the NASDAQ and dotcom stocks soared to insane heights in the spring of 2000, Greenspan told a congressional committee that there was no evident financial bubble and that the Fed could not prevent one if there were. A noxious lies was thereby born.

And then it got worse after the dotcom crash. Beginning on Christmas eve 2000 the Fed began to slash interest rates, and didn’t stop its meeting after meeting cuts until it had lowered the funds rate to an unprecedented 1% by the spring of 2003.  By then, of course, the housing bubble was already galloping toward its eventual destructive demise, but the Greenspan Fed was oblivious.

Even during the first bubble of the 1990s, the home mortgage market had been reasonably well-behaved and gross mortgage originations rarely exceeded $1 trillion annually until the end of the decade. But at the time that Greenspan made the final federal funds reduction to 1.0% in Q2 2003, the annualized run-rate of gross mortgage originations had soared to the outlandish sum of $5 trillion.

Indeed, the whole housing bubble finance mechanism of homeowners raiding their own ATM (i.e. equity in their homes) was underway, and a debt fueled boom in housing prices was entering its final lunatic phase.  But Greenspan saw no bubbles at all. Nor did he have a clue that a giant financial crisis owing to his destruction of honest financial markets was just around the corner when he exited the Eccles Building early 2006.

Notwithstanding this sorry history, Greenspan did the world a large favor in yesterday’s interview while trying to justify his Calvinistic blame of “human nature” for financial bubbles. He claimed that the Fed tried to stop a bubble when it tightened in 1994, but that effort failed—thereby proving, apparently, that central banks are no match for human nature.

Accordingly, bubbles needed to be allowed to run their course. Henceforth, the Fed would function as a clean-up brigade with a mission to flood the market with liquidity after the fact—that is, to operate the very kind of bubble finance policy that has now become deeply and destructively institutionalized.

 The Fed tried in 1994 to defuse a bubble with monetary policy alone. We called it a boom back then. The terminology has changed, but the phenomenon is the same. We increased the federal funds rate by 300 basis points, and we did indeed stop the nascent stock-market bubble expansion in its tracks. But after we stopped patting ourselves on the back for creating a successful soft landing, it became clear that we hadn’t snuffed the bubble out at all. I have always assumed that the ability of the economy to withstand the 300-basis-point tightening revised the market’s view of the sustainability of the boom and increased the equilibrium level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The dot-com boom resumed.

 

When bubbles emerge, they take on a life of their own. It is very difficult to stop them, short of a debilitating crunch in the marketplace. The Volcker Fed confronted and defused the huge inflation surge of 1979 but had to confront a sharp economic contraction. Short of that, bubbles have to run their course. Bubbles are functions of unchangeable human nature….

No better indictment of monetary central planning and money market interest rate pegging could be delivered. Greenspan institutionalized macroeconomic management through rigid control of the funds rate and  by an intolerance for money market movements of more than 25 basis points. In the process, “price discovery” was supplanted by “price administration”.

More importantly, the single most important price in all of capitalism—-the price of hot money on Wall Street—-was shackled. The carry trades were soon off the races because cheap and predictable overnight funding costs are the mothers milk of financial speculation.

Once upon a time, Wall Street would cure its own excesses when the “call money” rate soared by hundreds of basis points during a single day, and rates sometimes reached deep into double digits when speculation got overheated. Yet it was that vital market-clearing mechanism, that instrument of financial market self-correction, which Greenspan now admits he destroyed in 1994 when he capped the funds rate rise at 300 basis points.And then he became puzzled as to why just a short time later the mania reignited.

It goes without saying, of course, that the free-market/sound money Greenspan of the days before he became head of the monetary politburo in Washington would not have been puzzled at all.




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

Ed Krayewski Talking Israel-Hamas Conflict on The Alan Nathan Show

background radioI’ll be on the Alan
Nathan Show
in just a few minutes, in the 6p.m. hour, talking
about the continuing conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Nathan is interested in the question of why some consider the
Palestinians more “righteous” in the conflict because they have
more casualties. As I told him (the interview’s pre-recorded), I’m
not interested in those kinds of questions. Nevertheless, the
Israeli government’s response to Hamas’ haphazard lobbing of
rockets into its territory—largely intercepted by the Iron Dome if
they’re actually headed anywhere where there’s a risk—doesn’t seem
an appropriate one if the goal is to minimize the security threat
posed by Hamas and other extremist groups in Gaza.

As to the rockets and the Israeli government’s response, I
repeated a point I made in a column
earlier this week
:

In the U.S., every time an incidence of “gun violence” makes the
national news, certain political groups call for an immediate
widespread curtailment of Second Amendment rights to combat the
threat. Feelings of terror, however they are generated, can be
powerful motivators for reactionary politics. The effort to curtail
gun rights often fails in the U.S. because the intended victims of
the rights-deprivation are a part of the political process and
enjoy broad support despite a vocal, almost hysterical, opposition.
The Gazans have no say in Israeli politics—their opinion on being
bombed is irrelevant. And they have little say in Palestinian
politics, either, when their leaders can’t agree on elections,
stake their survival in escalating conflict with Israel, all
while propagandized their
population with the same anti-Israeli hatred that animates their
politics.

The Israeli government, of course, doesn’t need approval from
the U.N. or the U.S. or anyone else to respond or react in any way
it chooses, only from enough people to make it through the next
election. The only relevant question to U.S. policy is whether

we should be subsidizing it

Toward the end, I suggested the Israeli government may, in
reviewing the operation after it ends, find that its approach
caused it to miss opportunities. I identified the right prime
minister, Ehud Olmert, though not by name, under which the
Winograd Commission
happened but may have mentioned it was
after a conflict with Hamas not Hezbollah. On a semi-related note,
earlier in the segment Nathan asked why Hezbollah and Hamas were

repairing ties
 when a Sunni-Shi’a conflict is brewing
across the region. You’ll have to tune
in
for my answer.

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

Excuses for Police Militarization: ‘You can't put a price tag on keeping someone safe’

Pocatello, Idaho is
a quiet place. It’s home to little more than 50,000 people and it’s
got low
crime rates
. The Pocatello Police Department seems to think
it’s much more dangerous, as they just purchased a behemoth of a
war machine: a mine-resistant, ambush protected (MRAP) Caiman,
which weighs about 15 tons.

Such vehicles were designed with asymmetrical combat against
Iraqi insurgents with roadside bombs in mind, not patrolling sleepy
towns. But, when the Iraq War wrapped up and the military learned
that MRAPs were too top-heavy for the mountainous terrain in
Afghanistan, they started shipping them back to American soil.

Police Chief Scott Marchand
gave a peek
into his fantasy with his new tool: “This is not
just a SWAT ride. What we want to do is get everybody
patrol-trained. So, In the middle of the night, 2 o’clock in the
morning, you have somebody down, you have an officer down… anybody
can get in and get there for the rescue.”  

All a local police force has to do is pay for shipping. Hundreds
of thousands of dollars new, the Pocatello PD got theirs for just
$6,000.

And it’s the price that they’re focusing on. “You can’t put a
price tag on keeping someone safe,” Master Patrol Officer Nick
Edwards
told
KPVI News earlier this week. But then he kind of
contradicted himself by noting that they opted not to get one when
the price was higher. “The police department looked at possibly
getting one of these back in 2007. You’re looking at $300,000 to
purchase an armored vehicle like this to protect guys. You can get
this for next to nothing. It was very minimal to obtain a vehicle
like this.”

Either way, what Edwards means when he
says “keeping someone safe” is “police officer.” Whether
they’re being terrorized by a no-knock raid or
actually losing their life in one
, countless Americans in just
about every state
are not being kept safe by the militarization of America’s police
equipment and tactics.

But what the hey, why would someone expect cops care about
bookish concepts like “militarization”? A Springfield, Illinois
sheriff who just got to whip out his MRAP for the first time in a
“standoff” with a man in a trailer dismissed
questions about militarization say, “You know, militarization of
local law enforcement is something politicians need to worry about,
not at our level. We’re worried about protection, safety and
security of the people in the county.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1t5zAgr
via IFTTT

Excuses for Police Militarization: ‘You can’t put a price tag on keeping someone safe’

Pocatello, Idaho is
a quiet place. It’s home to little more than 50,000 people and it’s
got low
crime rates
. The Pocatello Police Department seems to think
it’s much more dangerous, as they just purchased a behemoth of a
war machine: a mine-resistant, ambush protected (MRAP) Caiman,
which weighs about 15 tons.

Such vehicles were designed with asymmetrical combat against
Iraqi insurgents with roadside bombs in mind, not patrolling sleepy
towns. But, when the Iraq War wrapped up and the military learned
that MRAPs were too top-heavy for the mountainous terrain in
Afghanistan, they started shipping them back to American soil.

Police Chief Scott Marchand
gave a peek
into his fantasy with his new tool: “This is not
just a SWAT ride. What we want to do is get everybody
patrol-trained. So, In the middle of the night, 2 o’clock in the
morning, you have somebody down, you have an officer down… anybody
can get in and get there for the rescue.”  

All a local police force has to do is pay for shipping. Hundreds
of thousands of dollars new, the Pocatello PD got theirs for just
$6,000.

And it’s the price that they’re focusing on. “You can’t put a
price tag on keeping someone safe,” Master Patrol Officer Nick
Edwards
told
KPVI News earlier this week. But then he kind of
contradicted himself by noting that they opted not to get one when
the price was higher. “The police department looked at possibly
getting one of these back in 2007. You’re looking at $300,000 to
purchase an armored vehicle like this to protect guys. You can get
this for next to nothing. It was very minimal to obtain a vehicle
like this.”

Either way, what Edwards means when he
says “keeping someone safe” is “police officer.” Whether
they’re being terrorized by a no-knock raid or
actually losing their life in one
, countless Americans in just
about every state
are not being kept safe by the militarization of America’s police
equipment and tactics.

But what the hey, why would someone expect cops care about
bookish concepts like “militarization”? A Springfield, Illinois
sheriff who just got to whip out his MRAP for the first time in a
“standoff” with a man in a trailer dismissed
questions about militarization say, “You know, militarization of
local law enforcement is something politicians need to worry about,
not at our level. We’re worried about protection, safety and
security of the people in the county.”

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1t5zAgr
via IFTTT

Convicted Ex-Los Angeles Councilman Will Continue Collecting Six-Figure Pension

Former Los Angeles Councilman Richard AlarcónRichard Alarcón’s was
convicted of four felonies this week, including voter fraud and
perjury. It turned out he lied about where he lived in 2007 and
2009 in order to represent the city’s District 7. His wife was also
convicted of three counts.

But he will keep his pension, which totals $116,000 a year for
that short stint on the City Council.  From the
Los Angeles Daily News
:

Alarcón’s conviction comes three months after City Councilman
Mitchell Englander introduced a motion that would require city
workers convicted of a felony involving the use of their city
position to forfeit their pension. The proposed law was spurred by
revelations over the $72,000 annual pension collected by a recently
convicted
city building inspector
, Englander’s motion states.

Englander’s office didn’t respond to a comment Thursday. But
earlier in the week, an Englander spokeswoman said the councilman
is still pushing to pass the ordinance. Amid growing scrutiny over
workers’ benefits, Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012 signed a law requiring
public employees convicted of a felony to forfeit retirement
benefits accrued after the date the felony occurred. However, Los
Angeles has its own pension systems, and the state law doesn’t
apply to the city.

It may not actually be possible to strip him of his pension
retroactively even if Los Angeles ultimately does pass a law.
Unsurprisingly, some who serve office or have worked for the city
don’t seem particularly outraged:

City councilman and former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard
Parks, whose own hefty annual pension has been criticized, didn’t
seem fazed by Alarcón’s pension allocation, despite the
convictions.

“He earned the pension — once you earned it, it’s yours,” Parks
said Thursday. “By City Charter, there’s nothing you can do
retroactively to take it away. Just because he was found guilty
does not terminate nor mitigate the contract he had with the City
as an employee.”

Having a plum contract with the city is not exactly the same as
having “earned” anything. It reminds me of when contestants on
Survivor argue over who more “deserves” to win $1
million.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1ooEi5Q
via IFTTT

Government Wants to Fix Your Waiter's 'Unpredictable' Work Schedule

Part-time workers are sick of the unpredictability of their work
schedules and the government
wants to fix that.
 That is the premise behind the
oh-so-cleverly titled “Schedules
that Work Act,”
legislation introduced
this week
that says it will “require employers to provide more
predictable and stable schedules for employees” who work part time
or hourly.

How will our elected officials do this? By forcing bosses and
employees to talk it out:

[Employers] shall engage in a timely, good faith interactive
process with the employee that includes a discussion of potential
schedule changes that would meet the employers needs.

Groundbreaking.

According to The New York Times, laws like this are a
part of a
“growing national movement”
to curb practices like “requiring
employees to work unpredictable hours that wreak havoc with
everyday routines like college and child care.” Vermont and San
Francisco have already “adopted laws giving workers the right to
request flexible or predictable schedules to take care of children
or aging parents.”

But employers don’t have to grant schedule requests if they have
a “bona fide business reason” for not doing so. The only thing
proposals like these do is show the ignorance of the lawmakers
pushing for their passage. 

The industries that the Schedues That Work Act is aimed
at—hospitality, retail, food service—use flexible schedules because
to stay profitable they must adjust their labor supply to meet a
demand that fluctuates widely from day to day. For example, the
amount of customers that visit a restaurant  can change
rapidly depending on hard-to-predict factors such as whether it
rained that day or whether regular patrons decided to try out a new
restaurant around the block.

It’s true that a lot of part-time workers are unhappy with their
employment conditions. The number of part-time workers who would
prefer to work full time has nearly doubled since 2007, to 7.5
million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Almost half of part-time, hourly workers receive a week or less of
advance notice about their schedule. 

Unpredictable scheduling practices can be frustrating for
workers, but the government can’t fix that. Workers, however,
can. The New York Times article gives a great
examples of this:

Sharlene Santos says her part-time schedule at a Zara clothing
store in Manhattan—ranging from 16 to 24 hours a week—is not
enough. “Making $220 a week, that’s not enough to live on—it’s not
realistic,” she said.

After Ms. Santos and four other Zara workers recently wrote to
the company, protesting that they were given too few hours and
received just two days’ notice for their schedule, the company
promised to start giving them two weeks’ advance notice.

Not all companies will be so receptive, and that’s okay because
they will lose out on retaining good employees. Eventually, those
workers frustrated with inefficient management will leave for
positions that better suit their scheduling needs, or they will
gain more skills and be able to move to a position of higher skill,
better pay and, yes, a schedule that fits their needs. 

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

Government Wants to Fix Your Waiter’s ‘Unpredictable’ Work Schedule

Part-time workers are sick of the unpredictability of their work
schedules and the government
wants to fix that.
 That is the premise behind the
oh-so-cleverly titled “Schedules
that Work Act,”
legislation introduced
this week
that says it will “require employers to provide more
predictable and stable schedules for employees” who work part time
or hourly.

How will our elected officials do this? By forcing bosses and
employees to talk it out:

[Employers] shall engage in a timely, good faith interactive
process with the employee that includes a discussion of potential
schedule changes that would meet the employers needs.

Groundbreaking.

According to The New York Times, laws like this are a
part of a
“growing national movement”
to curb practices like “requiring
employees to work unpredictable hours that wreak havoc with
everyday routines like college and child care.” Vermont and San
Francisco have already “adopted laws giving workers the right to
request flexible or predictable schedules to take care of children
or aging parents.”

But employers don’t have to grant schedule requests if they have
a “bona fide business reason” for not doing so. The only thing
proposals like these do is show the ignorance of the lawmakers
pushing for their passage. 

The industries that the Schedues That Work Act is aimed
at—hospitality, retail, food service—use flexible schedules because
to stay profitable they must adjust their labor supply to meet a
demand that fluctuates widely from day to day. For example, the
amount of customers that visit a restaurant  can change
rapidly depending on hard-to-predict factors such as whether it
rained that day or whether regular patrons decided to try out a new
restaurant around the block.

It’s true that a lot of part-time workers are unhappy with their
employment conditions. The number of part-time workers who would
prefer to work full time has nearly doubled since 2007, to 7.5
million, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Almost half of part-time, hourly workers receive a week or less of
advance notice about their schedule. 

Unpredictable scheduling practices can be frustrating for
workers, but the government can’t fix that. Workers, however,
can. The New York Times article gives a great
examples of this:

Sharlene Santos says her part-time schedule at a Zara clothing
store in Manhattan—ranging from 16 to 24 hours a week—is not
enough. “Making $220 a week, that’s not enough to live on—it’s not
realistic,” she said.

After Ms. Santos and four other Zara workers recently wrote to
the company, protesting that they were given too few hours and
received just two days’ notice for their schedule, the company
promised to start giving them two weeks’ advance notice.

Not all companies will be so receptive, and that’s okay because
they will lose out on retaining good employees. Eventually, those
workers frustrated with inefficient management will leave for
positions that better suit their scheduling needs, or they will
gain more skills and be able to move to a position of higher skill,
better pay and, yes, a schedule that fits their needs. 

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