Triffin’s Paradox Revisited: Crunch-Time For The U.S. Dollar & The Global Economy

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The reality is that we're one panic away from foreign-exchange markets ripping free of central bank manipulation.

While all eyes on fixated on global stock markets as the measure of "prosperity" and "growth" (or is it hubris?), the larger force at work beneath the dovish cooing of central bankers is foreign exchange: the relative value of nations' currencies, which are influenced (like everything else) by supply and demand, which is in turn influenced by interest rates, perceived risk, asset purchases and sales by central banks and capital flows seeking the lowest possible risk and the highest possible return.

Which brings us to Triffin's Paradox, a topic I've covered for many years:

Understanding the "Exorbitant Privilege" of the U.S. Dollar (November 19, 2012)

The Federal Reserve, Interest Rates and Triffin's Paradox (November 19, 2015)

The core of Triffin's Paradox is that the issuer of a reserve currency must serve two entirely different sets of users: the domestic economy, and the international economy.

The U.S. dollar (USD) is the global economy's primary reserve currency. When the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to zero (Zero Interest Rate Policy, ZIRP), it weakened the dollar relative to other currencies. In this ZIRP environment, it made sense to borrow dollars for next to nothing and use this free money to buy bonds and other assets in other currencies that paid higher yields. Many of these assets were in emerging market economies such as Brazil.

As a result of this enormous carry trade, an estimated $7 trillion was borrowed in USD and invested in other currencies/nations.

Once the Fed started making noises about "normalizing"/raising interest rates in the U.S. (i.e. signaling the markets that a trend change was at hand), the dollar strengthened and the carry trade started reversing: those who had bought assets in other currencies with borrowed USD started selling those assets, which pushed emerging market currencies and markets off a cliff.

Meanwhile, since China pegs its currency the yuan/RMB to the USD, the rising dollar dragged the yuan higher thanks to the peg. A strengthening yuan made China's exports more expensive and less competitive, the last thing China needed as its domestic credit bubble ran out of steam.

So while the Fed needed to "normalize" rates in the U.S. before the next recession required more Fed stimulus, it also needed to weaken the USD to protect China from a destabilizing currency devaluation.

Those holding millions of soon-to-be-devalued yuan in China were naturally anxious to convert their yuan into USD before the devaluation robbed them of 25% of the purchasing power of their money, and this has created an unprecedented capital flow of cash out of China and into USD and other Western assets, such as chateaux in France, homes in Vancouver B.C., etc.

This mad rush of capital out of China is adding another destabilizing factor to China's already wobbly debt bubble economy, and China's weakness has weakened an already wobbly global economy crippled by stagnation and the decline of emerging markets and commodities–two consequences of the rising USD.

This has created a no-win conundrum for the Fed: if it normalizes rates (as it should, after seven years of ZIRP and stimulus) in the domestic U.S. economy, that will strengthen the USD, further pressuring China's yuan and emerging markets, which in turn will further pressure an already-tottering global economy.

There are no winners, regardless of what policy the Fed chooses to pursue. This is why we see such absurd waffling in the Fed: one statement suggests interest rates hikes are on the way, and the next dovish cooing suggests rate hikes are so far away that global markets can safely ignore the possibility.

This push-pull is reflected in the chart of the USD:

As the Fed waffles in response to global markets, the USD has swung up and down in a trading range.

Sorry, Fed: you can't have it both ways. Eventually, the domestic economy will pay the price of essentially zero interest rates, or China and the global economy will pay the price of a strengthening USD.

No nation ever achieved global hegemony by devaluing its currency. Hegemony requires a strong currency, for the ultimate arbitrage is trading fiat currency that has been created out of thin air for real commodities and goods.

Generating currency out of thin air and trading it for tangible goods is the definition of hegemony. Is there is any greater magic power than that?

In essence, the Fed must raise rates to strengthen the U.S. dollar (USD) to keep commodities such as oil cheap for American consumers. The most direct way to keep commodities cheap is to strengthen one's currency, which makes commodities extracted in other nations cheaper by raising the purchasing power of the domestic economy on the global stage.

Another critical element of U.S. hegemony is to be the dumping ground for the exports of our trading partners. By strengthening the dollar, the Fed increases the purchasing power of everyone who holds USD. This lowers the cost of goods imported from nations with weakening currencies, who are more than willing to trade their commodities and goods for USD.

What better way to keep bond yields low and stock valuations high than insuring a flow of capital into U.S.-denominated assets?

There is one more destabilizing possibility: the markets may push the USD higher, regardless of what the Fed says or does. The currency markets trade $5 trillion a day–more than the Fed's entire $4 trillion balance sheet.

Once traders realize China will have to devalue the yuan by a lot more than a few baby-step devaluations, the stampede into USD could overwhelm even coordinated interventions by central bankers.

Of course no central banker will ever admit that markets could wrest free of central bank control, but the reality is that we're one panic away from foreign-exchange markets ripping free of central bank manipulation.


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

Disastrous Ticket Sales, Ongoing Political Turmoil Put Brazil Olympics In Jeopardy

Brazil’s widely documented (and escalating) economic, financial, and political devastation has traversed a path from the tragic, to the farcical, to the absurd, and now appears stuck in surreal.

Because in addition to an imminent collapse of the Rouseff regime which will hopefully be peaceful while unleashing a period of a great unknown, in our last piece on the 2016 Summer Olympics we quite bluntly said that the thought of even hosting the games, in what is now only four months away, was a joke. Brazil’s economy is seeing depression like conditions, and political landscape is an absolute disaster.

To refresh your memory on the current state of Brazil, in the aftermath of China’s hard commodity landing, the country has sadly devolved to sub-banana status level. Last summer, the country descended into political turmoil and the economy sank into what might as well be a depression. Nine months later, inflation is running in the double digits, output is in freefall, and unemployment is soaring. Last Wednesday, the government reported its widest primary budget deficit in history and less than 24 hours later, the central bank delivered a dire outlook for growth and inflation.

Meanwhile, VP Michel Temer’s PMDB has split with Dilma Rousseff’s governing coalition, paving the way for her impeachment and casting considerable doubt on the future of the President’s cabinet.

Just last week, in the aftermath of all of… this,  we asked a few very serious questions that we believe have yet to be addressed, along with a quote from the acting governor of Rio de Janeiro saying that the situation is “the worst I’ve seen in my career”

After all, there are quite a few very serious questions swirling around the Rio games. For instance: Will the water be clean enough for athletes to compete in? Will there be enough auxiliary power to keep the lights on? And, most importantly, will the games take place at all?

Millions of Brazilian citizens have recently taken to the streets to call for Rousseff’s ouster and to protest the return of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to government. It’s exceedingly possible that if House Speaker Eduardo Cunha can’t manage to get the impeachment job done, the populace will simply march on the Presidential palace.

How any of the above is compatible with hosting the largest sporting event in the history of the world is beyond us and George Hilton apparently has reservations himself. As does Francisco Dornelles, acting governor of Rio de Janeiro. “This is the worst situation I’ve seen in my political career,” Dornelles said this week, referencing the state’s finances. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Now, less than a week later, there is more disturbing, if expected, news. As CNN reports, only half of the tickets have been sold. With just four months to go, this is a huge blow to the viability of the 2016 games.

Brazil’s new minister of sports Ricardo Leyser (replacing another guy who resigned just days ago) suggests that the Brazilian Government may buy the tickets and distribute them to public schools. But… with what funds? After all Brazil is fast approaching insolvent? Or is this the asset the Brazilian Central Bank will monetize in its version of QE, as it prints even more money, in the process unleashing the worst stagflationary episode in history?

Actually, this is not a joke: Leyser told Brazilian newspaper Folha that the Brazilian government may purchase tickets that will be distributed to public schools. He said public officials must also work to boost worldwide confidence in Rio’s ability to host the games and ensure travelers’ safety.

The Government already posted a record primary budget deficit, and as a reminder, construction workers who are building the venues for the games are already pissed off that they aren’t being paid for their work. It’s unclear whether construction of the Olympic facilities will be finished as organizers have faced steep funding constraints – the budget was slashed by $500 million in January.

For now, however, just like with the stock market, there still is hope.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1TzY7Hs Tyler Durden

How The U.S. Treasury Just Crushed 80 Hedge Funds

The following list, according to Goldman Sachs, shows 50 stocks that most frequently appear among the largest 10 holdings of hedge funds. Spot the top one.

And just like that, the US Treasury singlehandedly crushed the second quarter, and perhaps the year, for at least 107 hedge funds, which likely means more redemptions to come, more illiquidaity, an even more volatile market in the months to come, and obviously, even more central bank intervention to offset it all.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Mbun20 Tyler Durden

Schrodinger’s Pharmageddon

For all those who are sitting on pins this morning (and there are many), following every twist in the ongoing drama involving what until yesterday was supposed to be the biggest M&A deal of the decade, we have some news. Moments ago Reuters blasted that:

  • PFIZER SAID TO LEAN TOWARD ABANDONING ALLERGAN DEAL: REUTERS

The stock promptly sold off. And then, not even 5 minutes later, Bloomberg blasted the following:

  • PFIZER SAID TO SCRAMBLE TO SAVE ALLERGAN DEAL AMID NEW TAX RULE

The stock then promptly spiked but judging by the feeble response, not even vacuum tubes care much anymore.

So who does care? Well, as it turns out, a whole lot of people. RBC Charlie McElligott explains:

With AGN currently -19.0% against PFE +2.5% pre-open, the epicenter of the destruction will be felt within the arb community, where they have this trade on in size (ISI estimates +25mm AGN against -300mm PFE, with only 10% of that trading after-hours last night—i.e. “more to come” today) and lever it up 3 to 6 x’s.  One then turns to other deals which might see forced spread-unwinding (e.g. AET / HUM, TWC/CHTR etc) as merger-arb books are scaled-back across Street (you don’t have to be an event-fund to have a side-pocket).  Reminder, Merger Arb has been the only equity strategy posting a POSITIVE YTD return (HFR Merger Arb Index +1.6% YTD)…so you know a lot of funds were increasing the sizes of those books because it was working, against a much thornier long / short or market-neutral environment.

Speaking directly to this observation that this has implications far-beyond ‘just’ the risk-arb world: per the most recent GS HF Monitor (thru Q4 filings), AGN is ‘THE’ most consensually held stock across the broad hedge fund community (sampling of 860 funds): there are 80 hedge funds holding the stock as a top 10 largest position (tops of the VIP list), 107 HFs own it overall, it has an average 7% portfolio weight, and 16% of its equity cap is owned by hedge funds.

It’s highly likely that HC dedicateds won’t defend the stock for two reasons: 1) the broad question of ‘are the tax benefits still there to see the deal go through’ with these ex post facto changes to essentially what the acquirer is buying and 2) in light of the spec pharma pain YTD, low delta on managers sticking around to see how it plays out.  Clearly last night’s “shoot first / ask questions later” response shows that arbs feel same way.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qopg51 Tyler Durden

Yanis Varoufakis Issues A Major Warning To The Greek People

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Varoufakis said that Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister and the architect of the deals Greece signed in 2010 and 2012, was “consistent throughout”. “His view was ‘I’m not discussing the program – this was accepted by the previous [Greek] government and we can’t possibly allow an election to change anything.

 

“So at that point I said ‘Well perhaps we should simply not hold elections anymore for indebted countries’, and there was no answer. The only interpretation I can give [of their view] is, ‘Yes, that would be a good idea, but it would be difficult. So you either sign on the dotted line or you are out.’”

 

– From last year’s post:  Everything You Need to Know About the Greek Crisis and ECB Fascism in Two Paragraphs

By now, most of you have heard about Wikileaks’ release of internal deliberations between the top two IMF officials in charge of managing the Greek debt crisis – Poul Thomsen, the head of the IMF’s European Department, and Delia Velkouleskou, the IMF Mission Chief for Greece.

In nutshell, the two discussed whether or not a new credit crisis would be required in order to force EU creditors to agree with the IMF’s debt relief objective. Shedding some much needed perspective on the situation, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has chimed in, and he makes one thing perfectly clear — no matter who comes out ahead in this dispute (the IMF or the EU), it will be the Greek people who lose.

Here are a few excerpts from his op-ed published at Der Spiegel.

The feud between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European side of Greece’s troika of creditors is old news. However, Wikileaks’ publication of a dialogue between key IMF players suggests that we are approaching something of a hazardous endgame.Ever since the first Greek ‘bailout’ program was signed, in May 2010, the IMF has been violating its own “primary directive”: the obligation not to fund insolvent governments. As a result, the IMF’s leadership has been facing a revolt from its staff members who demand an exit strategy arguing that, if the EU continues to obstruct the debt relief necessary to restore the solvency of the Greek government, the IMF should leave the Greek program.

 

Five years on, this IMF-EU impasse continues, causing a one-third collapse of Greek GDP and fuelling hopelessness to a degree that has made real reform harder than ever.

 

To the uninitiated it looks as if the IMF-EU tussle is about some botched numbers. But the real issue behind them is deeply political and has ramifications well beyond Greece.

 

The IMF is right that the Commission’s numbers do not add up and, thus, engender the insufferable hypocrisy of a Commission pretending to prefer “lighter” austerity when its denial of debt relief translates into a primary budget surplus target (total tax revenues minus government expenditure, exempting debt repayments) of 3.5 percent of Greek GDP which, in turn, requires measures even harsher than the IMF’s.

 

Are the IMF’s numbers any better? Regarding the primary budget surplus target (a crucial number that must be kept under 1.5 percent of GDP to give Greece any chance of recovery) Thomsen and Velculescu embrace precisely the number that I was proposing to the troika last year.

 

Why then did the IMF not back me in 2015 but are adopting the same 1.5 percent surplus target now? Because they also wanted something that I would never grant: crushing new austerity which is inhuman and unnecessary but which, today, the Tsipras government (according to Velculescu) seems ready to accept, having already surrendered once in July 2015.

 

The IMF’s austerity package is inhuman because it will destroy hundreds of thousands of small businesses, defund society’s weakest, and turbocharge the humanitarian crisis. And it is unnecessary because meaningful growth is much more likely to return to Greece under our policy proposals to end austerity, target the oligarchy, and reform public administration (rather than attacking, again, the weak).

 

To give a monstrously exaggerated but terribly instructive parallel of the IMF’s logic, if Greece is nuked tomorrow the economic crisis ends and its macroeconomic numbers are “fixed” as long as creditors accept a 100 percent haircut. But, if I am right that our numbers added up just as well, while allowing Greece to recover without further social decline, why did the IMF join Berlin to crush us in 2015?

 

For decades, whenever the IMF “visited” a struggling country, it promoted “reforms” that led to the demolition of small businesses and the proletarisation of middle-class professionals. Abandoning the template in Greece would be to confess to the possibility that decades of anti-social programs imposed globally might have been inhuman and unnecessary.

 

To recap, the Wikileaks revelations unveil an attrition war between a reasonably numerate villain (the IMF) and a chronic procrastinator (Berlin). We also know that the IMF is seriously considering bringing things to a head next July by dangling Greece once more over the abyss, exactly as in July 2015. Except that this time the purpose is to force the hand not of Alexis Tsipras, whose fresh acquiescence the IMF considers in the bag, but of the German Chancellor.

 

Will Christine Lagarde (the IMF’s Managing Director with ambitions of a European political comeback) toe the line of her underlings? How will Chancellor Merkel react to the publication of these conversations? Might the protagonists’ strategies change now that we have had a glimpse of them?

 

While pondering these questions, I cannot stem the torrent of sadness from the thought that last year, during our Athens Spring, Greece had weapons against the troika’s organised incompetence that I was, alas, not allowed to use. The result is a Europe more deeply immersed in disrepute and a Greek people watching from the sidelines an ugly brawl darkening their already bleak future.

Sad beyond words.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PS53J7 Tyler Durden

Judge Forces UVA’s Jackie to Testify in Lawsuit Over False Gang Rape Story

UVAThe lies of “Jackie”—the University of Virginia student at the center of Rolling Stone‘s erroneous rape story—have finally caught up with her: Jackie will be compelled to testify as part of UVA Dean Nicole Eramo’s lawsuit against the magazine, a judge has ruled. 

Eramo, who was portrayed as indifferent and unhelpful toward victims of sexual assault in the Rolling Stone story, is suing the magazine for defamation. She has asked for $7.85 million in damages. [Related: Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?] 

Jackie’s testimony could prove key to Eramo’s case. Jackie told Rolling Stone that she was gang-raped by nine men—including her date, a lifeguard named Haven Monahan—during a party at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. But numerous investigations into the allegation have found it to be baseless. There was no party at Phi Psi on the night in question, Jackie’s friends dispute aspects of her account, and most damningly, Haven Monahan does not exist. 

Many media experts, including the Columbia University School of Journalism, believe that Rolling Stone‘s reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, would have easily uncovered Jackie’s lies if she had bothered to follow basic journalistic protocol. But neither the author, nor the magazine’s editors, pressed Jackie for key details that would have exposed the story as false. 

Jackie, of course, bears just as much responsibility for her lies as Rolling Stone does. She is not, however, named in the lawsuit. 

Her deposition, then, is in some sense a rare opportunity for the law to hold her at least partially accountable. It would be interesting to see whether she confesses, at long last, to exaggerating her story, or fabricating it entirely. 

It would be interesting, except that her deposition will take place behind closed doors and the transcripts will be sealed, according to CNN. Unless these records are released, we may never know what Jackie revealed once sworn under oath to tell the truth. 

In any case, it’s gratifying that the judge rejected claims made by Jackie’s lawyers that she should be exempt from testifying because the process would “re-traumatize” her. We would all like to hear the truth, but Eramo, at least, is entitled to it. 

Columbia’s report on the Rolling Stone debacle was published exactly one year ago today. Read my analysis of it here. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1q4bKmc
via IFTTT

The Incredible Cluelessness of Donald Trump

Over the past few weeks, Donald Trump has given a series of extended interviews with major news outlets, covering topics ranging from foreign policy to the economy to abortion. Those interviews have been intensely revealing. What they have shown is that Donald Trump has no idea what he is talking about on just about anything of relevance to a presidential candidate.

More than that, though, we’ve learned that Trump refuses to prepare, and will not learn even the most basic factoids, even when a topic is certain to arise during an interview. Instead, he will respond with deliberate provocations, with refusals to answer questions, by altering his “position” repeatedly, by changing the subject, and by ignoring or denying the facts of the subject at hand. He has demonstrated not only that he is a blithering know-nothing, but that he is determined to stay that way.

In the space of just three days last week, for example, Trump—who years ago described himself as “very pro-choice” but has said throughout the campaign that he is now pro-life—managed to take five different positions on abortion.

First he said that, should abortion become illegal, there would have to be some punishment for women who got abortions. Shortly after the statement became public, a spokesperson clarified to say that the issue should be left to states, and that Trump was “pro-life with exceptions.” Later that same day, his campaign released yet another statement saying that if abortion were made illegal, doctors who performed the procedures would be subject to punishment, but women would not be. The next day, he shifted again, seeming to indicate that he believes abortion should remain legal, saying that while he would prefer a federalist approach, “the laws are set…and I think we have to leave it that way.” The same day, his campaign released another statement saying that Trump merely wants the law to stay the same way until he is president.

Trump’s fumbling responses do not reveal what his actual position on abortion is so much as they show that he has no idea what he is talking about, and has never bothered to learn even the most basic talking points about the subject. That is more or less Trump’s own explanation for his initial statement that women would need to be punished for getting abortions if the practice were outlawed.

“I’ve been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on a, you know, basis of an older line from years ago on a very conservative basis,” he said in a CBS interview, when asked about his response. Trump did not know this, or bother to find out. On a controversial topic that was sure to come up in a major interview, Trump chose to simply wing it.

Trump’s Impossible Debt Reduction Promises

That appears to be how Trump conducts just about all of his interviews and policy pronouncements. He consults with almost no one except a handful of loyalists, family members, and Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of the GOP’s most restrictionist voices on immigration, and he tends to describe himself as his own chief adviser on both strategy and policy.

So it’s no surprise that whenever his answers can be fact-checked, the facts fail to check. In an interview with The Washington Post published over the weekend, for example, Trump said that he would completely eliminate the nation’s $19 trillion debt in just eight years. He provided no clear way to do this, except to say that he would renegotiate the nation’s trade deals so as to reduce the trade deficit. “The power is trade,” he said. “Our deals are so bad.”

Trump’s promise doesn’t pass the laugh test.

To start with, that’s just not how trade deficits work. Trade imbalances, which measure the difference in value between a nation’s exports and imports, do not represent dollars that the government can simply collect to pay down the creditors. And even if somehow you could, it still wouldn’t cover the debt. Plus, that doesn’t account for Trump’s tax plan, which would represent a nearly $10 trillion increase in the deficit over a decade.

And then there’s Trump’s repeated promise not to reform Social Security, except through essentially minor reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse. The math simply doesn’t add up.

As Jim Tankersly writes at the Post, “Trump could pass his tax cut, monetize the entire trade deficit as additional revenues, somehow eliminate all federal spending except Social Security (which he has said he will protect) and still not pay off $19 trillion of debt in eight years.” Nor is it remotely plausible that Trump would reduce the debt through economic growth. As the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget,  an organization that is dedicated to reducing federal debt and deficits, notes, Trump’s plan would ultimately require cutting non-entitlement spending by about 90 percent, while growing at more than 20 percent each year. To put this in context: Many economists were skeptical when Jeb Bush said that as president the nation would achieve four percent growth.

As with abortion, what we learn from this isn’t really what Trump thinks about the issue: Instead, the main takeaway is that Trump doesn’t know enough to learn even very basic facts about the subjects he discusses, and could not, in the course of running for president, be bothered to learn them.

Nonsense Policy

In other cases, Trump’s responses to questions about policy are so removed from both reality and coherent thinking that they simply defy analysis. In the same Washington Post interview, Trump argued that the real unemployment rate was not 5 percent, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)—the government agency that produces the official unemployment rate—says it is, but is instead much higher.

“We’re at a number that’s probably into the twenties if you look at the real number,” he said, suggesting that the official statistic was generated for political purposes. “That was a number that was devised, statistically devised to make politicians — and in particular presidents — look good.”

It might be reasonable for Trump to take issue with the official statistic if he had, say, a methodological dispute with the way the BLS produced its estimate. But Trump has nothing of the sort. His sole evidence to support this claim is that “I wouldn’t be getting the kind of massive crowds that I’m getting if the number was a real number.”

The problem with this is that it is not any kind of evidence at all. It is an inference based on a data point that has nothing to do with his conclusion, an inference that says, basically: Trump’s rallies are well-attended, therefore the real unemployment rate is four times what the official statistic says it is. It is as logically sound as the proposition that bananas do not respond to the pull of gravity because Donald Trump often wears red ties. The first part is not true, and although the second part is, it has nothing to do with the first. It is economic policy Dadaism.

Trump’s indifference to both fact and reason makes him extremely difficult to argue with. We saw this in a debate earlier this year when Fox News moderator Chris Wallace told Trump that his plan to save the federal government $300 billion by cutting drug spending wouldn’t work because the program he wanted to cut only cost $78 billion annually. Trump responded by bringing up some irrelevant details and unrelated issues, being told that they were irrelevant, and then concluding that, because of his superior skills as a negotiator, he could in fact save $300 billion. Trump is completely un-phased by appeals to logic, math, or sense.

And that’s what happens when Trump bothers to answer the questions posed to him. Sometimes when interviewers press Trump for further details on questions, he will just change the subject, refusing to answer the question. In a different interview with The Washington Post editorial board, Trump responded to a clear follow-up question about whether or not he would use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS with the following: “I’ll tell you one thing. This is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?”

Trump’s Dangerous Self-Certainty

What these responses make clear is that Trump boasts a dangerous combination of self-certainty about issues he does not understand and an unwillingness to ever perform even the most cursory review of the issues he discusses. This is not new. It is a core part of his persona. Indeed, Trump seems to have a longstanding belief in his own ability to get up to speed on complex policy issues extremely quickly.

Back in 1984, Trump argued that he should be mediating nuclear arms negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, as Jim Geraghty notes. Trump did not have any particular experience with high-stakes international arms treaties, but did not see that as a barrier to his success. “It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles,” he told The Washington Post at the time. To be clear, Trump was not some nuclear arms expert who merely needed to brush up on new developments: As recently as 2015, he did not know what the nuclear triad is. He simply thought that an hour and a half was all that it would take for him to learn what he needed to learn.

On the other hand, 90 minutes appears to be more than he’s spent learning about practically any of the policy issues he’s discussed during this campaign.

The GOP is Willing to Support Trump’s Ignorance

All of this is, of course, incredibly damning to Trump. But it also reflects poorly on his supporters, who seem not to care that Trump is helplessly uninformed. The same goes for the Republican party politicians and leaders who continue to insist that the party will stand behind Trump if he is the nominee.

When Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, says that “we are going to support the nominee of our party, whoever it is, 100 percent,” what he reveals is that either he believes the party should support someone who has shown over and over again that he is manifestly unqualified to hold the office of president, or he does not believe that Trump’s total policy ignorance should be disqualifying. He is saying, essentially, that it’s okay, just so long as Trump is running as a Republican. He, and the rest of Trump’s backers in the party, are validating Trump and his campaign. Trump may be clueless about politics in many ways, but he knew enough to run under the banner of a party that would support him in his ignorance.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1MbqgD6
via IFTTT

New Jersey In Fiscal Peril As David Tepper Departs

Over the past several months, the recurring story of hedge fund billionaires taking leave their home states, and heading to tax-friendly Florida has led various pundits to focus on the deteriorating fiscal state of hedge-fund heavy Connecticut, where as we reported recently credit risk surged to record highs following a disappointing bond auction.

 

As we reported at the time, the likely culprit was the state’s $550 million general-obligation sale on March 17, which included debt due in 2026 that priced to yield 2.52 percent, compared with an expected 2.37 percent based on Bloomberg’s Connecticut index. The state’s office of policy and management said last week that the budget deficit for the current fiscal year is $131 million, an increase of $111 million from the prior month’s estimate.

The ongoing hedge fund exodus, as billionaires leave for states where their money is treated better, will only make things for CT worse.

Now another state is in the crosshairs following the imminent “exstatiation” of prominent hedge fund billionaire, Appaloosa’s David Tepper. 

As Bloomberg reports, the decision by billionaire hedge-fund manager David Tepper to quit New Jersey for tax-friendly Florida has put the Garden State in fiscal peril, and  could complicate estimates of how much tax money the struggling state will collect, the head of the Legislature’s nonpartisan research branch warned lawmakers.

That’s right: one person can make or break the precarious fiscal balance of New Jersey.

According to Bloomberg, Tepper, 58, registered to vote in Florida in October, listing a Miami Beach condominium as his permanent address, and in December filed a court document declaring that he is now a resident of the state. On Jan. 1, he relocated his Appaloosa Management from New Jersey to Florida, which is free of personal-income and estate taxes.

His move has put NJ state official in a state of near panic.

“We may be facing an unusual degree of income-tax forecast risk,” Frank Haines, budget and finance officer with the Office of Legislative Services told a Senate committee Tuesday in Trenton.

The reason for the panic is that New Jersey relies on personal income taxes for about 40% of its revenue, and less than 1 percent of taxpayers contribute about a third of those collections, according to the legislative services office. A one percent forecasting error in the income-tax estimate can mean a $140 million gap, Haines said.

Tepper’s departure is unexpected: he has lived in New Jersey for more than two decades, initially as an executive at Goldman Sachs where he helped run junk-bond trading during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and then after founded Appaloosa in 1993. His fortune is estimated at $10.6 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

That makes him as the wealthiest person in New Jersey. Or rather “made” him.

But the worst news is for New Jersey residents who already bear the country’s third-highest tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation in Washington. Along with the nation’s highest property taxes, it’s one of two states that levy both an estate tax on the deceased and an inheritance tax on their heirs. The income-tax rate for top earners is 8.97%. Democratic legislators have repeatedly passed a millionaire’s tax that would increase the levy to 10.75 percent, but Republican Governor Chris Christie has vetoed it each time.

With Tepper’s departure, Christie will have no choice but to comply.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on NJ CDS: already the riskiest state in the country, NJ credit default swaps are set to blow out further in the coming weeks.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/238I2hP Tyler Durden

Paul Krugman Blames Over-Regulation for Urban Unaffordability

In an op-ed published in yesterday’s New York Times, What? Me Over-Regulate?Nobel laureate, economics professor and “Conscience of a Liberal” blogger Paul Krugman took aim at what he believes is the culprit for the US’ “shortage of urban dwellings” and the un-affordability of existing housing inventory.

In Krugman’s view, “Our big cities, even New York, could comfortably hold quite a few more families than they do. The reason they don’t is that rules and regulations block construction.” He adds that increasing urban density could actually have environmental benefits:

Furthermore, within metropolitan areas, restrictions on new housing push workers away from the center, forcing them to engage in longer commutes and creating more traffic congestion.

Though long an advocate of regulation and central planning in just about every economic sphere, Krugman has railed against rent control and land-use restrictions as drivers of inequality and artificially-inflated prices for years. In late 2015 he argued, “this is an issue on which you don’t have to be a conservative to believe that we have too much regulation.”

Much like Vox‘s Matt Yglesias, who also vocally opposes the over-regulation of the urban housing market, Krugman fits into a group which City Journal‘s Aaron Renn dubbed “Libertarians of Convenience,” supporters of the free market “but only for things they like or want to do”:

While they’ve assailed density limits, height restrictions, minimum-unit sizes, and other housing regulations, for example, they have celebrated New York’s access-to-buildings law, which mandates that commercial buildings allow bicycles on freight elevators. Similarly, while car parking minimums have drawn fire, sites like Greater Greater Washington have simultaneously embraced bicycle parking minimums in the District of Columbia. When Los Angeles mandated reflective roofing materials, CityLab described the regulation approvingly as banning “heat-sucking” roofs. And progressives’ call for food freedom abruptly reverses itself when trans fats, genetically modified foods, or large sugary drinks are in question—they think all should be banned or strictly regulated.

Krugman’s support of increasing the housing supply comes with a pretty important caveat: his backing of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to “selectively loosen rules on density, height, and parking as long as developers include affordable and senior housing.”

But Krugman doesn’t connect how requirements to build “affordable housing” in concurrence with new development inherently involves the creation of yet another layer of red tape. This, in conjunction with calls to “landmark” more and more businesses and buildings, makes finding space to develop the longed-for increased housing supply a much more difficult prospect.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Xf3Npe
via IFTTT

Trump Reveals How Mexico Will Pay For “The Wall”

In what he assures will be "an easy decision," Donald Trump has released details of his plan to "compel Mexico to pay for the wall." In a 600 word statement, Trump proposes, in a potentially devastating move for Mexico’s economy, to block billions of dollars in payments immigrants send back home until the nation made "a one-time payment of $5-10 billion" to the U.S.

The Donald cites a section of the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law that he argues can be changed to enforce his proposal if he is elected president, but as Bloomberg reports, it's unclear if Trump would be able to carry out the plan without approval from Congress.

Trump's full statement: COMPELLING MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL

Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 – the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:

 

On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.

 

On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.

 

On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.

 

Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse – thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).

 

Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty – our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.

 

Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.

 

Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.

The Donald cites a section of the USA Patriot Act antiterrorism law that he argues can be changed to enforce his proposal if he is elected president, but as Bloomberg reports, it's unclear if Trump would be able to carry out the plan without approval from Congress.

World Bank data show Mexico gets about $25 billion in total remittances annually, and while that includes payments originating in other countries, the bulk is from the U.S. The data also show that remittances accounted for about 2 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product in 2014.

 

Officials in Mexico have repeatedly said they would not fund the border wall as Trump proposes.

 

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto’s administration said last year that Trump’s plan to bill Mexico for the wall “reflects an enormous ignorance for what Mexico represents, and also the irresponsibility of the candidate who’s saying it.”

 

Trump said he would also consider adding trade tariffs to Mexican goods or increasing visa fees for Mexican travelers to increase pressure on the Mexican government to pay for the wall.

 

“Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage,” Trump said in the memo, which also proposes canceling or denying business or tourism visas for some “important people in the Mexican economy.”

Trump released his proposal as Republican voters went to the polls in the Wisconsin primary. If Trump loses that contest Tuesday to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, as polls indicate is likely, it would complicate his path to winning the nomination outright before the party’s national convention in July.

The wall proposal — and the plan to use economic leverage to get Mexico to fund it — reflect broader pieces of Trump’s foreign and domestic policy vision.


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