Ted Cruz Tells Everyone How He Really Feels About Donald Trump

With just hours to go before the polls close in the critical state of Indiana, Texas Senator Ted Cruz delivered an extended monologue on live TV calling rival GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump a “pathological liar” and a “narcissist.” It’s an odd and telling display from someone who spent most of last year cozying up to Trump. 

Cruz delivers the sort of blunt, personal criticism that you don’t often see on the campaign trail, and he frames it as a moment of total honesty.

“I’m going to do something I haven’t done for the entire campaign…I’m going to tell you what I really think of Donald Trump,” Cruz says as he winds up. 

Here’s the video: 

It’s a moment of candor that tells us as much about Cruz as it does about Trump.

For one thing, it shows us Cruz’s statement of mind: He seems frustrated, angry, and upset—and it doesn’t look like he’s faking it. With his dramatic pauses and repetitive delivery, Cruz often comes across as unnatural and slightly fake. You can still see some of that here, but more than almost any other clip I’ve seen from Cruz over the course of the campaign, it seems natural, and genuinely felt. Cruz seems to really mean what he’s saying.

That’s understandable, given the position he’s in today. Indiana is widely viewed as Cruz’s last stand. It’s a must-win for his campaign, and if he loses tonight, it’s extremely doubtful that he’ll be able to keep Trump from winning the nomination.

Which means there is a strategic element at play here too. Cruz would rather the media focus on his rant than on his long-odds of winning, or on Trump’s latest conspiracy-theory-peddling about Cruz’s dad and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Even when he’s being genuine, Cruz, the race’s most rigorous tactician, is always acting in the interests of his campaign.

And that brings us to the real problem: Cruz’s statement is an open admission that he’s been misleading voters throughout the campaign.

It’s not just that he’s been holding back. It’s that, presuming today’s statement really does represent what he believes, his previous statements cannot be true.

Cruz ran as friendly to Trump throughout most of last year, secretly meeting with the businessman early in the race, coordinating with him on a foreign policy announcement, and frequently paying him compliments. In a December tweet, he rejected the idea of a face-off between himself and Trump because Trump is “terrific.”

Indeed, he pitched his friendliness to Trump as a campaign asset: “A lot of the other candidates have gone out of their way to smack [Trump] with a two-by-four, said some really nasty, vicious things,” Cruz said, according to the BBC. “I’ve sung his praises. He’s bold, he’s brash, and I think the support he’s gaining right now in the polls is because people are looking for someone willing to stand up to Washington.”

The message Cruz wants to send with today’s rant is something to the effect of, Wow! Finally! Cruz is saying what he really thinks! Better late than never, I suppose. But the message he’s actually sending is that while running for president over the last year, he’s been doing something else.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1SLO4ee
via IFTTT

If You Want to Keep Your Phone Contents Secret, Perhaps Don’t Use a Fingerprint Lock

FingerprintsYour fingerprints are both information that identifies who you are and can be used as evidence from crime scenes. They are also, now, cybersecurity tools that allow you to lock away information from snoops, be they hackers or government agents.

While citizens have the right to avoid self-incrimination, prosecutors are legally permitted as part of the investigation of a crime to do things like collect your fingerprints and DNA samples, with a court order. That information may nevertheless incriminate you if it’s attached to a crime scene.

Now that fingerprints can be used to secure smartphones, they can be used to get a whole lot more information about the person other than confirming his or her identity. So can a citizen be forced to use his or her own fingerprint to provide access to information that could be more incriminating than just their physical location? Is sticking your finger on a phone an act that should be treated the same as punching in your passcode?

For the latter, prosecutors have had a difficult time attempting to force citizens to give up their codes because it would potentially be incriminatory compelled speech. Thus we have the foundation for the current iteration of the encryption fight to try to force tech companies like Apple help law enforcement bypass their own security.

But for the fingerprints, so far judges seem to be more inclined to treat it like an order to provide a house key or essentially the way they’ve been treating fingerprints thus far. In two cases, judges have ordered citizens to use their fingers to open a phone to let investigators review the content.

It’s a complicated issue for legal experts. The Los Angeles Times spoke to a couple of them:

Even with the limited outlines of the inquiry, [law Professor Susan] Brenner said the act of compelling a person in custody to press her finger against a phone breached the 5th Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. It forced Bkchadzhyan to testify —without uttering a word — because by moving her finger and unlocking the phone, she authenticated its contents.

“By showing you opened the phone, you showed that you have control over it,” Brenner said. “It’s the same as if she went home and pulled out paper documents — she’s produced it.”

But Albert Gidari, the director of privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said the action might not violate the 5th Amendment prohibition of self-incrimination.

“Unlike disclosing passcodes, you are not compelled to speak or say what’s ‘in your mind’ to law enforcement,” Gidari said. “‘Put your finger here’ is not testimonial or self-incriminating.”

But consider this idea: The government can get a warrant to search your home. If you refuse to cooperate, they can force their way in. Citizens can passively resist a search warrant of a physical location (or actively resist and get themselves arrested), but it doesn’t stop police from carrying out the search. This is not remotely the same situation, and treating it as though a fingerprint is just another type of “key” is ignoring the issue that the police can’t simply force the matter when the suspect refuses to cooperate.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Y6hXJP
via IFTTT

ECB Blames You For Negative Interest Rates

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

Just after sunrise on April 19, 1775, a large contingent of British military troops arrived to the town of Lexington, Massachusetts.

They were under orders to search for and confiscate all weapons and munitions from the colonials– something the British army had done countless times before.

In many ways it was a routine operation. And yet, that morning, roughly 80 local militiamen stood blocking their path.

Paul Revere had ridden through Lexington only hours before to warn residents of the approaching threat.

There was a lot of yelling and tension between the two sides, and amid all the confusion, someone fired his musket. Then another. Then another.

(Historians are still unclear which side shot first, though much of the evidence points to Han Solo.)

And though few people realized it at the time, those turned out to be the opening shots of the American Revolution.

This is how revolutions often start– people who have reached their breaking points engage in a small acts of defiance that quickly escalate out of control.

We’ve seen this pattern over and over again.

The Arab Spring uprising in 2011 started with a Tunisian fruit cart merchant who lit himself on fire. Revolution ensued.

The 2014 revolution in Ukraine started when police violently clashed with peaceful anti-government demonstrators.

Revolutions, of course, can take many forms. There are social revolutions, political revolutions… and even financial revolutions.

That’s what we’re seeing today: financial revolution.

Now that interest rates are negative in many parts of the world, the financial system has become an incredibly destructive force.

Negative rates adversely impact the livelihoods of just about everyone, from the average guy on the street all the way to the banks themselves.

A few key players have reached their breaking points and are starting to engage in acts of defiance.

I told you recently how the Bavarian Banking Association in Germany advised its member banks to hold physical cash instead of reserve deposits with the European Central Bank (ECB) at negative interest.

Some major insurance funds are also jumping on board, choosing to hold physical cash instead of bank deposits earning negative interest.

In its effort to avoid negative interest rates, the Canton of Zug in Switzerland asked its citizens to delay paying their taxes.

Now even the political and media establishments in Germany are rebelling against the ECB, saying that negative interest rates chip away at the savings of pensioners.

In response, the ECB opted for the ‘blame the victim’ approach, pointing the finger at all of us little people because we’ve been saving too much money.

So according to the unelected bureaucrats who printed all the money to begin with, people have been saving too much.

Consequently, everyone must be punished with negative interest rates. And they’re your fault.

That’s like a rapist saying, “she deserved it.” It was an appalling response, and astonishingly stupid.

You’re supposed to save money. That’s what the Universal Law of Prosperity is based on: produce more than you consume. Save more than you spend.

Penalizing savers is the exact opposite of what bureaucrats should be doing.

But people are starting to figure this out. The resentment is growing, even within the financial system itself.

Remember that modern ‘money’ is backed by nothing but unelected bureaucrats and their insipid economic theories.

The only way this system works is when there’s unquestionable confidence in the people running it, almost to the point of blind obedience and wilful ignorance.

When that confidence wanes, the financial system can spiral out of control very quickly.

We may be reaching that point soon and could look back on this period as the opening shots of the Financial Revolution.

If you recognize that the financial system is destructive and want to make a change, your most powerful option is to stop using it.

Or at least reduce your dependence on it.

Part of being a Sovereign Man is having a strong sense of freedom and independence… and that includes financial independence.

Last week we talked about the importance of holding physical cash.

You won’t be worse off for taking some savings out of the banking system.

And you’ll be protected against problems like negative interest, bank bail-ins, or withdrawal controls.

(All of these, by the way, already exist or have happened recently.)

But cash is not a panacea. Because if there really is a major reset in the financial system, your paper money might lose significant purchasing power.

That’s why it makes sense to hold gold and silver in addition to cash.

If there are greater problems in the monetary system, your precious metals will turn out to be an extraordinary insurance policy.

(Silver is a better bargain right now based on historical ratios, but it’s hard to imagine you can go wrong with either one.)

via http://ift.tt/1SLL2GS Tyler Durden

Dollar’s Best Day In 6 Months Sparks Stock Slump, Bond Jump

For those anxiously Buying in May…

 

The machines giveth (in low volume meltup) and the data (Global PMI plunged to cycle lows following China's update overnight, not helped by EU's downgraded growth and inflation outlook) taketh away..

 

From Friday, Trannies and Small Caps are the biggest losers and Nasdaq danced at unchanged…

 

AAPL broke its longest losing streak since 1998… (thank you Jim Cramer and Buybacks)

 

VIX jockeyed with 16 all day…

 

As "Most Shorted" stocks plunged the most in 2 months…

 

HY bonds (HYG) had their worst day in 2 months as HY spreads spiked notably more than stocks…

 

Treasury yields collapsed today by the most in 3 months…

 

As The USD Index surged on EUR and AUD (RBA rate cut) weakness…

 

Today was the Bloomberg Dollar Index's best day since Nov 2015…

 

Post-European open dollar strength took the shine off commodities, though PMs were the least impacted…

 

Crude slid back to a $43 handle befopre tonight's inventory data…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/1NTqI9q Tyler Durden

EIA Inventory Report Analysis and Key Levels to Watch in the Oil Market (Video)

By EconMatters

Last week we had a bearish EIA Report and Oil moved up $3 bucks due to Fund Flows getting ahead of the fundamentals.

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle    

via http://ift.tt/1rjFTyD EconMatters

The ECB Just Admitted QE and NIRP Cannot Produce Growth

As we noted yesterday, the ECB cannot and will not be able to generate GDP growth or inflation.

 

The EU is simply too leveraged. You cannot have an entire region sporting a Debt to GDP of over 90%… with banks leveraged at 26 to 1 using sovereign debt as collateral on their derivatives trades, and “fix it” using NIRP or QE.

 

This is like trying to hold up a 400 lb. weight… and then having someone offer you a floor lamp as additional support. The effect, at best, is largely psychological.

 

Cue today…

 

The European Commission told the euro area’s largest economies to reduce debt and modernize labor markets as it again slashed its inflation forecast and warned of slower-than-predicted growth across the 19-nation bloc.

France, Spain and Italy, which have persistently failed to hit European Union budget targets, are still off track, the Brussels-based commission said on Tuesday. Gross domestic product in the currency area will increase by 1.6 percent this year and 1.8 percent in 2017 — both 0.1 percentage point lower than the commission forecast in February. Inflation will average 0.2 percent this year, below the European Central Bank’s target.

            Source: Bloomberg.

 

So… even after expanding the pace of its QE purchases from €60 billion to €80 billion per month, the ECB expects inflation to be 0.2%.

 

Bear in mind, the ECB has been overestimating growth and inflation for four years straight. The notion that inflation will hit 0.2% might be misguided.

 

The fact of the matter is that nothing in the EU has been fixed. All that happened was the markets bought into Mario Draghi’s fib that he’d do “whatever it takes… and believe me it will be enough.”

 

This is perhaps the single greatest metaphor for everything post-2008: a Central Banker claiming the impossible and the entire world believing it. Meanwhile no structural issues have been addressed, no deleveraging has taken place, and trillions of Dollars have been misallocated based on Central Banks skewing the risk profile of the world by trying to corner the bond market.

 

How will this end? Terribly. Bonds are the bedrock of the entire financial system. Currently over $7 trillion in sovereign bonds are sporting NEGATIVE yields. It is absolute insanity.

 

Eventually this will trigger another 2008 type event. The derivatives market for interest rates is over $500 trillion in size. By way of comparison, the Credit Default Swap market, which nearly took down the system in 2008, was just $50-60 trillion in size.

 

The next Crisis is just around the corner. And it will make 2008 look like a joke.

 

If you’ve yet to take action to prepare for the second round of the financial crisis, we offer a FREE investment report Financial Crisis "Round Two" Survival Guide that outlines easy, simple to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from a market downturn, but actually produce profits.

 

You can pick up a FREE copy at:

http://ift.tt/1rPiWR3

 

Best Regards

Phoenix Capital Research

 

via http://ift.tt/26Qm3vp Phoenix Capital Research

The Beginning Of The End For Cruz? Here Are Five Things To Watch For In Indiana Today

Update: *PAUL RYAN SAYS TRUMP WILL BE NOMINEE IF HE WINS INDIANA: CNBC

Today's primary in the Hoosier State could prove to be the last stand for Ted Cruz and John Kasich, as The Donald looks to deliver the final knockout blow to the two challengers. If Trump wins, it certainly would be an embarrassment for a GOP establishment that has literally done everything it can to stop Trump, most recently touting the Cruz/Kasich alliance that self-destructed just hours after it was announced.

On the Democrat side of things, Hillary looks to build on her lead and silence Bernie's recent calls for a contested convention.

Here is how the GOP race stands heading into today

Most of the polls show Trump firmly in command

And here is how the Democrats stand

With polls showing Hillary leading comfortably

Here are five things to watch for today, courtesy of The Hill

Do Cruz’s gambles work?

Cruz has already been mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination on the first ballot at July’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland. But he has been feverishly campaigning across Indiana and trying to shake up the race.

 

Last week, the Texas senator’s campaign announced he had forged an alliance with third-place contender John Kasich in the hope that the Ohio governor’s supporters would vote for Cruz in Indiana and keep Trump from winning as many delegates.

 

But the pact quickly unraveled as the candidates sent mixed messages. Kasich canceled events in the state but insisted he wouldn’t tell supporters to vote for his opponent; Cruz denied he’s working with Kasich at all.

 

A few days later, Cruz named Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential pick if he’s the nominee. The rare gamble of naming a running mate at this stage hasn’t happened since 1976. At an Indianapolis rally, Fiorina sought to convince voters that Trump and Clinton are two of a kind.

 

The Cruz-Fiorina duo received a tepid reception, however, and strategists said it underscores his desperation.

 

Cruz had been benefitting of late from anti-Trump sentiment, but his fortunes appear to have suffered as the billionaire gets closer to the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

 

Over the weekend, one poll showed him behind by as many as 17 points, and he now says California will be the decisive state. A win in Indiana, however, could renew the hopes by Republicans that he could be a viable alternative to Trump.

How much closer does Trump get to 1,237?

Following his clean sweep of five primaries in the Northeast last week, Trump declared himself the “presumptive nominee,” and a victory in the Hoosier State would bring him closer to the reality of avoiding a contested convention in Cleveland.

 

Indiana is still a tight race, though, with two polls on Friday showing conflicting results: One found Cruz with a double-digit lead, while another survey showed Trump ahead by 9 points. And a survey released over the weekend found Trump with a 15-point lead.

 

Trump received a notable endorsement from former Indiana University basketball coach Bobby Knight, while Cruz embarrassed himself at a rally by calling a basketball hoop a basketball “ring.”

 

And while Gov. Mike Pence says he’ll be voting for Cruz on Tuesday, he also praised Trump, saying he “has given voice to the frustration of millions of working Americans with a lack of progress in Washington, D.C.”

 

Trump needs only 241 delegates to clinch the nomination and avoid a contested convention, according to The Associated Press delegate tracker.

 

Indiana holds a winner-take-most contest. The statewide winner will receive 30 delegates, and 27 more will be awarded through winner-take-all contests in each congressional district.

 

If he wins all 57 delegates, the real estate mogul would need as little as 41 percent of the remaining delegates.

If Cruz loses Indiana, will the anti-Trump movement fall apart?

The major Never Trump groups are going all-in for a Cruz victory in Indiana.

 

The Club for Growth Action poured in $1.7 million for ads attacking Trump, and Our Principles PAC has spent at least $1 million in the state.

 

These groups hope to stymie Trump’s momentum in Indiana, but Our Principles PAC chairwoman Katie Packer conceded that a Trump victory would make efforts to stop him in California’s June primary more difficult.

 

“We certainly see Indiana as crucial for Trump. If he doesn’t win Indiana, he can’t get to 1,237,” Packer told The Hill last week. “If he does win Indiana, then it all comes down to California. No question about it; it makes our job a lot harder.”

 

If Trump can’t be stopped in Indiana, the looming question will be whether the Never Trump movement thinks spending more money is worthwhile.

Can Clinton hold off Sanders?

Clinton is also running on significant momentum after winning four of the five primaries last week and New York’s the week before. Her victory speech last week made it clear she’s channeling much of her attention to the fall by repeatedly attacking Trump.

 

Sanders has been making a push in the Hoosier State, spending at least $1 million on TV ads, though the campaign will cut about $200,000 by laying off hundreds of campaign staffers.

 

There’s been minimal polling in the state, but a survey over the weekend found Clinton up 4 points, within the margin of error. A poll released Friday found her leading by 8 points.

 

But Indiana’s demographics don’t look favorable for Sanders. The northern part of the state is heavily African-American, a voter bloc that Clinton continues to win by overwhelming margins.

 

His one saving grace could be the state’s voter registration system, which allows voters to participate in either primary. That means he could attract independents, who tend to gravitate toward his campaign.

 

“It’s not the greatest state in the world for Bernie Sanders,” Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said. “The fact that it’s open is good because he does very well in open primaries. But he may be too liberal for Democrats down that way. It’s going to depend a lot on turnout among independents.”

 

Clinton is shy of the Democratic nomination by 218 delegates, including superdelegates, according to the AP’s tracker. Sanders would need to win every remaining pledged delegate and sway more superdelegates to his side to reach that threshold.

 

Indiana Democrats award 83 delegates proportionally.

Is Sanders in to win or to influence?

Sanders and his campaign maintain that the Vermont senator will stay in the race until the Democratic National Convention in July.

 

This differs from senior strategist Tad Devine’s remarks after Sanders lost in New York that the campaign will “assess where we are” after the Northeastern primaries. But after a bad night, Sanders still says he isn’t going anywhere.

 

The mixed messages and recent campaign layoffs leave some wondering whether Sanders still sees a path to victory or if he’s just angling for leverage at the convention and a chance to mold the party’s platform.

 

At a recent town hall, Sanders placed the responsibility on Clinton to woo his supporters and wouldn’t definitively say whether he’d back her as the nominee. Clinton fired back, chiding him for setting conditions for his support and calling for the party to unify.

 

He has since said he’ll do anything to prevent a Republican from winning the White House and admits that his path to the nomination is “narrow.”

 

Bannon said Sanders’s recent comments sound more like “a concession speech.”

 

“The way I read Bernie, it’s a guy who’s come to grips he’s not going to be the Democratic nominee for president,” Bannon said.

 

At a Sunday press conference, however, Sanders said he and Clinton were headed to a contested convention. Will Sanders and his surrogates come to a clear position after Tuesday, win or lose?

*  *  *

As Philip Diehl notes, via The Hill, this is The Beginning of The End for Cruz…

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) has run a brilliant campaign, and if it were not for Donald Trump, he'd probably be on the verge of wrapping up the Republican nomination by now. The Texas firebrand knew long before others that the party's primary schedule and delegate allocation rules played to his advantage, not to an establishment candidate like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. From his arrival in the Senate, Cruz has bent the political space-time continuum around himself by demonstrating GOP leaders' inability to govern effectively or deliver on their promises to conservatives.

 

But he has made a fatal mistake. After excoriating the GOP establishment in the Senate and on the campaign trail, Cruz has now made common cause with the party in a desperate attempt to stop Trump. Wisconsin marked the turning point. Initially, he was coy about accepting the party's support. He did not court it, but Wisconsin was crucial to slowing Trump's momentum. And it worked. The Texan took 36 of the state's 42 delegates and appeared to have dealt a setback to the New York real estate mogul. But by cooperating with the party in Wisconsin, Cruz crucially altered the narrative of the campaign. The core of his electoral value proposition has been fierce opposition to the party's leaders. Once he tacitly accepted the party's embrace, he began to morph from a conservative stalwart to an opportunist.

 

The end of the beginning came in mid-March when establishmentarian Sen. Lindsey Graham(S.C.) endorsed Cruz. The beginning of the end came with Cruz's victory in Wisconsin on April 5, when the media portrayed it as a product of an unholy alliance between Cruz and the establishment. This narrative fed directly into discussions of scenarios in which Cruz would conduct raids on Trump's delegates. In turn, the party would make changes in the convention rules and use Trojan-horse delegates to hand the nomination to Cruz, or a white-knight candidate such as Speaker Paul Ryan (Wis.). Cruz appeared too-clever-by-half, or worse, a patsy being played by the establishment to, first, turn away Trump, then deny the nomination to Cruz.

 

A kiss by the GOP establishment in 2016 has been the kiss of death. This has been the most consistent pattern of the campaign. Yet, as strategic as Cruz has been in his run, he seems to have missed this cautionary lesson. Or perhaps he believed he was immune, or he felt the opportunity slipping away and acted in desperation.

 

According to the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, Cruz hit his peak of the 2016 campaign on April 6, the day following the Wisconsin primary. After being stuck at 20 percent for two months, the Texas senator's support jumped 14 percentage points in 30 days, and he closed the gap with Trump to 7 points. The trend reversed when Cruz's Faustian bargain  became clear. He began to fade over the next 19 days and Trump's lead almost doubled.

 

The pattern is more evident in state polling. According to six polls conducted in New York between March 29 and April 7, Cruz's support stood at 19 percent around the time of the Wisconsin primary. By primary day, his share of the vote was less than 15 percent and he had lost by 46 points. In Maryland, an NBC/Marist College poll showed Cruz reaching his peak at 29 percent between April 5 and April 9 and closing the gap with Trump to 12 points. When the returns came in only 17 days later, Cruz had drawn less than 20 percent of the vote and lost by 36 points.

 

In Pennsylvania, two polls conducted between April 1 and April 7 showed Cruz with an average of 25 percent of the vote, 18 points down to Trump. When votes were counted, Cruz had won less than 22 percent of the vote and lost by 35 points. His support saw a similar dramatic collapse in Connecticut after the Wisconsin primary.

 

The pattern holds outside of the Northeastern states. A Field poll conducted in California between March 24 and April 4 showed Cruz's support at 32 percent, within 7 points of Trump. Three weeks later, a Fox News poll found the Texan's support had fallen to 22 percent and he was trailing Trump by 27 points.

 

All of these polls were conducted before Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich reached their ill-fated agreement to avoid competing with each other in Indiana, Oregon and New Mexico. Not only did the agreement have a very short half-life, but it cemented impressions that Cruz would make any deal with the party establishment to remain viable. Now he has tapped former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in an attempt to put California back in play, a curious move considering that Fiorina was trounced in her 2010 Senate race in the state, in a Republican year against an apparently vulnerable incumbent. The move has all the markings of desperation.

via http://ift.tt/26Qm5Ue Tyler Durden

There’s Only One ‘Honest’ Position On Obama-Trade – Kill It

Submitted by Constantin Gurdgiev via True Economics blog,

In a recent op-ed in FT, Wolfgang Mu?nchau raised a very valid point that globalisation, free trade and markets liberalisation do produce both winners and losers. Nothing new here. But the key point is that this realisation must be timed / juxtaposed against political and social realities on the ground…

Quoting from Mu?nchau (emphasis is mine):

“In the past two years, there has been a dramatic reversal of public opinion in Germany about the benefits of free global trade in general, and TTIP in particular. In 2014, almost 90 per cent of Germans were in favour of free trade, according to a YouGov poll. That has fallen to 56 per cent. The number of people who reject TTIP outright has risen from 25 per cent to 33 per cent over the same period of time.  These numbers do not suggest that the EU should become protectionist. But… [EU leaders] should be more open-minded about the political costs of this agreement. …A no to TTIP would at least remove one factor behind the surge in anti-EU or anti-globalisation attitudes.

 

The marginal economic benefits of the agreement are outweighed by the political consequences of its adoption.

 

What advocates of global market liberalisation should recognise is that both globalisation and European integration have produced losers. Both were supposed to produce a situation in which nobody should be worse off, while some might be better off.”

See the full text here

Perhaps it is this dynamic – of the excess supply of losers and the over-concentration of winners – that is behind the dire state of global trade growth:

 

Wolfgang Mu?nchau's article came in days ahead of the leaks that revealed the duplicit nature of EU and U.S. negotiating positions on TTIP (see Leaked TTIP documents cast doubt on EU-US trade deal), well before we knew that (again, emphasis is mine)

"These leaked documents give us an unparalleled look at the scope of US demands to lower or circumvent EU protections for environment and public health as part of TTIP. The EU position is very bad, and the US position is terrible. …The way is being cleared for a race to the bottom in environmental, consumer protection and public health standards."

In simple terms, TTIP is risking to further magnify the chasm between the winners in the Agreement (larger corporates on both sides of the Atlantic, plus Governments) and the losers (consumers, small firms and entrepreneurs).

The documents reveal that under the TTIP, "American firms could influence the content of EU laws at several points along the regulatory line, including through a plethora of proposed technical working groups and committees." If so, the TTIP will only increase bureaucratic costs and amplify impact of large corporates lobbying power at the expense of smaller firms and start ups.

As bad as the U.S. position, is, EU's position is even worse. Despite making lots of political noise about protecting European consumers, environmental and health standards etc, the EU negotiators have clearly adopted a two-faced-Janus position vis-a-vis different stakeholders. For example, on many points of more controversial U.S. proposals, "the EU has not yet accepted the US demands, but they are uncontested in the negotiators’ note, and no counter-proposals have been made in these areas." In other words, the EU leadership is saying one thing to the European audiences (advancing a virtuous position of a defender of consumer rights and environment) while positing no explicit objection to the U.S. proposals. In simple terms, the EU leadership appears to be outright lying and manipulating public opinion.

How do we know this?

 "In January, the EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström said the precautionary principle, obliging regulatory caution where there is scientific doubt, was a core and non-negotiable EU principle. She said: “We will defend the precautionary approach to regulation in Europe, in TTIP and in all our other agreements.” But the principle is not mentioned in the 248 pages of TTIP negotiating texts." In plain English, Malmström is lying.

 

Another example: "The public document offers a robust defence of the EU’s right to regulate and create a court-like system for disputes, unlike the internal note, which does not mention them." Again, what is said for public consumption is at odds to what the EU is saying at the negotiating table.

 

Wolfgang Mu?nchau pointed that "The marginal economic benefits of the agreement are outweighed by the political consequences of its adoption". 

 But you can also add to his equation negative social consequences of the TTIP and adverse consequences to SMEs and entrepreneurs. By the time you do the sums, it is clear that TTIP is not an agreement about free trade, but an agreement about corporatist  system takeover of transcontinental trade and investment flows. As such, its marginal benefits are negative to begin with.

via http://ift.tt/1rjqQoD Tyler Durden

China Threatens Its Economists And Analysts To Only Write Bullish Reports, Or Else

When it comes to dealing with the mass media and its impact on public confidence, China has a long and illustrious history of not beating around the bush.  Last summer around the time its stock market bubble started to crack, Beijing banned the use of such terms as “equity disaster” and “rescue the market.” Then earlier this year, China’s president Xi Jingping visited the country’s three big state news organizations, Xinhua, the People’s Daily and China Central Television, to lecture them on the need to toe the party line, “tell China’s stories well” and enhance the nation’s influence in the world.

After all, hinting that not all is as it appears in official propaganda soundbites would merely instill further lack of confidence in the economy and accelerate the stealthy capital outflows from the country (while making the Vancouver real estate market even more entertaining).

Now, according to the WSJ, Chinese authorities have set their sights on a new set of targets: “economists, analysts and business reporters with gloomy views on China’s economy.”

While in the US and the rest of the free world, anyone who holds a less than bullish view of things is simply marginalized as a conspiracy theorist, ridiculed by establishment economists and pundits, is the recipient of mainstream media hit pieces, or denigrated by the president as “peddling fiction”, China has decided to take a more blunt approach: “securities regulators, media censors and other government officials have issued verbal warnings to commentators whose public remarks on the economy are out of step with the government’s upbeat statements.”

Take the example of Lin Caiyi, chief economist at Guotai Junan Securities who has been outspoken about rising corporate debt and a glut of housing and the weakening Chinese currency. According to the WSJ, she received a warning in recent weeks, her second, from her state-owned firm’s compliance department, which instructed her to avoid making “overly bearish” remarks about the economy, particularly the currency.

For now it is just verbal warnings although if past is prologue we expect China will soon incarcerate at least a few of its “rogue” bearish economists to send a very clear signal that any lack of upbeat commentary will not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, China’s economy is doing so well, that as a result of “pressure” by financial regulators bent on stabilizing the market, stock analysts at brokerage firms are becoming wary of issuing critical reports on listed companies. At least one Chinese think tank  was told by propaganda officials not to cast doubt on a planned government program to help state companies reduce debt.

What China really wants is to make sure that every financial and economic expert is on the same page and reinforcing the same message as that uttered by the country’s political leaders.

The WSJ caveats that while evidence of the clampdown is anecdotal, it appears widespread. Government departments didn’t respond to requests for comment or declined to. Commentary about the economy and reporting on business, unlike on politics or many social policies, have been relatively unfettered in China in a tacit acknowledgment by officials that a freer flow of information serves economic vitality.

As noted above, Beijing openly moved to reassert control of the country’s economic story line after stumbles over the stock markets and exchange-rate policies last year fed doubts among investors about the government’s competence in navigating a hard-to-arrest slowdown in growth. During the past two months, the Communist Party leadership has taken to talking up the economy to try to reassure global markets, seemingly not realizing that such “full tilt” propaganda merely confirms everyone’s worries about the just how bad the underlying economy truly is.

“Vigorous debate among economists and public confidence in this conversation is critical if China is to successfully navigate the choppy economic waters,” said Scott Kennedy, a deputy director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “If the party and government only want to hear good news, then they’d be better off hearing nothing because the value of the words would be less than zero.”

None of this, however, trickles down to the politburo, which just cares about one thing: stopping the naysayers. 

Some lower-level government officials describe a siege mentality taking hold among Chinese leaders and senior officials as international financiers like George Soros expressed gloom about the economic outlook early this year. At high-level meetings the past few months in the walled Zhongnanhai compound where the leaders work, some senior officials called for quashing any criticism that might encourage foreigners to “short China”—or bet against the prospects for growth—officials with knowledge of the discussions say.

 

“You can see they’re not happy when you tried to tell them foreign speculators are not your biggest problem,” said one of the officials who attended the meetings.

You can also see it during overnight CNH trading sessions when in its eagerness to destroy Yuan shorts, the PBOC unleashes the artillery to push the currency higher, even if it ultimately means more pain for China’s economy.

Meanwhile, “journalism” in China is now back to levels seen during the peak of the communist regime: non-existent.

“As a Chinese reporter, you can do anything but journalism these days,” said a senior editor at a state-owned media outlet. One colleague, the editor said, was forced by the outlet to take a leave of absence over what senior editors considered the reporter’s aggressive investigation into the causes of last summer’s stock market crash.

It was unclear if a major party mouthpiece had unleashed a hitpiece against the reporter first.

Still, the one aspect of the economy China is most worried about is its currency. In February, as reported here before, the central bank abruptly stopped releasing data on foreign-exchange purchases by commercial banks—long viewed by market analysts as a key snapshot of China’s capital flows—amid growing worries over more money leaving its shores. In a statement days later, the central bank said it took the step because the data were “no longer a true reflection of China’s capital flows.”

Ms. Lin, the economist at Guotai Junan, said she started getting guidance last fall to tone down her public remarks about the Chinese currency, the yuan or renminbi—something she acknowledged at an economic forum held at Shanghai’s Fudan University in October.

“I was told by regulators not to recommend shorting the renminbi,” Ms. Lin told the gathering, “so I’m just going to recommend buying the dollar.” Neither Ms. Lin nor her firm responded to inquiries for comment, nor did the regulator.

Or take the example of another ludicrous plan recently proposed by China: the intention to convert trillions of bad loans into equity, something we dubbed an “unprecedented nationalization of insolvent companies.” Here too Beijing wants to make it clear that no domestic opposition to this “plan” will be accepted:

In the financial hub of Shanghai, the city’s propaganda department recently instructed a local think tank to stop researching a planned debt-for-equity swap program aimed at helping big state companies reduce debt, according to economists familiar with the matter. The reason, these economists said, is that officials don’t want the research to turn up unfavorable evidence after Premier Li Keqiang and others have endorsed the swaps.  The information office of the Shanghai government didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Many analysts have said the plan, which would allow banks to exchange bad loans for equity in companies they lend to, could risk keeping companies afloat when they should sink while leaving banks more strapped for capital. Given the climate, some are changing their tone.

Then, in mid-April, a well-known Chinese economist gave investors in Hong Kong a grim assessment of the economy. It was not meant to last.

Despite recent signs of a rebound, Gao Shanwen, chief economist at brokerage Essence Securities Co., told investors that “a lot of the official data aren’t reliable” and the economy still faces “big problems,” according to people who attended the closed-door event.

 

Words of those remarks crackled across social media. Two days later, Mr. Gao issued a clarification on his public account in the popular Chinese messaging app, WeChat, saying those remarks were “made up.” He then released a report on the economy shorn of critical commentary. Mr. Gao and representatives at his firm didn’t return requests for comment.

And just like that not only is all Chinese “economic data” rubbish and a completely goalseeked fabrication, but henceforth any domestic commentary on said “data” will be just as credible.

Meanwhile, while in the US while the government is not directly threatening anyone who dares to criticize the economy – yet – there are more tacit ways of pressuring critics and contrarians, the most simple of which of course is to simply pay much more to those who do comply with the tacit propaganda line. This, sooner or later, is sufficient to get even the most bearish naysayers to change their tune. After all they have to eat too.

Incidentally, when that fails and when bullish US propaganda has to be as leakproof as that of China, we are confident that any naysayers will get comparable treatment.

via http://ift.tt/26QbsR8 Tyler Durden