another site
By EconMatters
We discuss the oil market, and the recent OPEC news regarding potential production cuts in November, and its effects on the market. A likely test of the $48 level seems in the cards this week.
© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle
via http://ift.tt/2dAHR8e EconMatters
A debate-watching party at the University of Michigan, hosted by the conservative Young Americans for Freedom, turned violent on Monday as five anti-Trump protesters invaded the campus auditorium shouting “Donald Trump is racist!”
Another female protester held a sign stating “Hitler: Make Germany great again, Trump’s America” while another, dressed as Jesus, walked around the room banging on a drum to disrupt the event.
Below is the full video courtesy of The College Fix:
According to The College Fix, one of the conservative debate watchers was later “roughed up outside the venue” after ripping up an anti-Trump sign.
Student co-organizer Grant Strobl, in a statement Monday to The College Fix, said audience members had a variety of viewpoints on the candidates, and it was unfortunate protesters interrupted a “bipartisan event.”
“I think it is important to protect the freedom of speech of the protestors, and I encourage them to protest outside of the event so that students can exercise their freedom to listen to the debate,” he said.
Responding to allegations that the male who ripped up the anti-Trump sign was roughed up outside the venue after the event, Strobl added: “I don’t know the full details of the fighting outside of the event, but it is dangerous when difference in opinion translates into assault. However, all of the attendees of our event were respectful and engaged.”
So many “trigger warnings” and “micro-aggressions” here…these kids are going to need a lot of psychological support over the coming months/years.
via http://ift.tt/2d7VFLH Tyler Durden
The ink on the OPEC “deal” is not dry yet, and in fact it won’t be until November when the actual deal which breaks down the oil production quota for every OPEC member is ratified – if that ever happens – and already the bickering has begun. As Reuters reported moments ago, Iraq questioned one of the two methods OPEC is using to estimate the oil production of its members, signalling the issue could be a problem for the country to join output limits that the group agreed to start implementing this year.
The reason for Iraq’s displeasure is that OPEC uses two sets of figures for output estimates – submissions by the countries themselves and estimates by secondary sources, which are usually lower but are seen as better reflecting real output.
Think of its as GAAP vs non-GAAP production, with OPEC’s number strategically lower for one simple reason: OPEC’s member nations have and always will cheat when it comes to oil production numbers and quotas. The difference, which in Iraq’s case amounts to 284,000 bpd (or the difference between its own estimate of 4.638mmbpd and the OPEC estimate of 4.354mmbd) for the month of August, is substantial.
“These figures (secondary sources) do not represent our actual production,” Iraqi Oil Minister Jabar Ali al-Luaibi said. He said Iraq’s current production could be as high as 4.7 million barrels per day.
And since Iraq, as well as every other OPEC member who is not given an Iran-like exemption to keep producing more, will try to be pegged to the highest possible exiting production number, the negotiation now shifts to just what is the actual production number.
Incidentally, the nearly 300kbpd delta in August production estimates for Iraq alone is within the threshold of the upper range of the proposed cut which as noted before would be between 32.5 and 33.0mmbpd relative to the existing peak OPEC output of 33.2mmbpds – a spread which is as small as 200kbpd. In other words, unless just Iraq agrees to use the OPEC production estimate and demands that the quota be set on its own number, it means that there is possibility there will be no production cuts at all as Saudi will have to accmomodate Iraq’s greater production estimate.
Incidentally, Iraq is not alone, and if it is given a green light to peg production to its own production estimate, then similar demands will arise from Venezuela, UAE and Kuwait, all of whose self-reported crude oil output is far higher than the official OPEC number.
via http://ift.tt/2d5CUFr Tyler Durden
Unprecedented black voter turnout was a huge component of Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012. Per the chart below from the New York Times, after running in the low-to-mid 50% range for decades, black voter participation surged to over 60% for Obama in 2008 and 2012, the highest ever recorded.
Meanwhile, black voter turnout in the midterm elections remained fairly constant through 2012 indicating that people were really just showing up to vote for Obama and not necessarily because of a new level of political engagement overall.
So, the question is, should Hillary expect the same level of unprecedented black voter turnout that Obama was able to garner? Apparently, her campaign is not convinced and that’s why, according to Leslie Wimes, President of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus, they’re in “full panic mode.”
According to the numbers, Hillary has every reason for concern. Per Politico, in 2008 and 2012, Obama received 95% of the 1.7mm votes cast by black voters in Florida. Unfortunately for Hillary, a recent poll from Florida Atlantic University found that she is only polling at 68% among black voters while Trump is polling at 20%. Now, if you assume that black voter turnout drops just 5% in 2016 and that Hillary’s support drops from 95% to 70% that could cost her over 500,000 votes in a state that Obama only won by roughly 75,000. When factoring in the higher support for Trump this could swing the overall Florida race by 7 points…not a good sign when Obama narrowly won the state by less than 1%.
And, at least according to the president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus, this math has the Clinton campaign in “full panic mode.” Per Politico:
“Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in panic mode. Full panic mode,” said Leslie Wimes, a South Florida-based president of the Democratic African-American Women Caucus.
“They have a big problem because they thought Obama and Michelle saying, ‘Hey, go vote for Hillary’ would do it. But it’s not enough,” Wimes said, explaining that too much of the black vote in Florida is anti-Trump, rather than pro-Clinton. “In the end, we don’t vote against somebody. We vote for somebody.”
All of which has left the Clinton campaign scrambling to garner support from African-American voters who are uninspired by her candidacy. As such, her campaign has called in the big guns to help rally support in Florida. Bill Clinton, once nicknamed the “first black president,” has been enlisted to conduct a North Florida bus tour on Friday. Meanwhile, Barack and Michelle Obama are also expected to campaign in Florida at least twice before Election Day. Michelle has even recorded an ad that’s currently airing on Florida radio.
But it may not be enough as black Tallahassee Mayor (and Clinton supporter) Andrew Gillum admitted that “it’s hard to recapture” the level of support that Obama received from black voters in 2012.
Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, one of Clinton’s highest-profile black leaders in the state, acknowledged that he saw “varying levels of enthusiasm” for Clinton at a recent event. Though he said “it’s hard to recapture that level of enthusiasm” Obama enjoyed in 2008, he’s confident young black voters will show up to the polls for Clinton.
“While I’d love for them to be excited when they show up to the polls,” citing his own excitement about what Clinton’s policy agenda can offer the black community, “my first job is to make sure they get there,” Gillum said.
Meanwhile, the lack of excitement is “worrying” Henry Crespo, president of the Miami-based Florida Democratic Black Caucus, who said that “No one is writing songs for Hillary. Obama had will.i.am. Hillary has nobody.”
via http://ift.tt/2daSK14 Tyler Durden
Submitted by Nick Bernabe via TheAntiMedia.org,
Trump’s supporters and conservative media say he won. Hillary’s supporters and the liberal media say she won. But who lost the presidential debate last night? Well, America did.
America lost because Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are among the most unliked candidates in American political history. We lost because Trump is a billionaire who spent his entire career benefiting from politicians to make his fortune. We lost because Hillary is a politician who spent her entire political career benefiting from billionaires to make her powerful (and rich).
America lost because corporate politicians make promises they never deliver on. We lost because both candidates say they are going to change things, but we already know they won’t. We lost because both candidates stood in front of 100 million Americans last night and lied to us with straight faces. We lost because the main reason people are voting for Trump is he’s not Clinton, and the main reason people are voting for Clinton is she’s not Trump.
America lost because the debate was just a highly publicized reality show episode that seemed to focus more on personality wars than policies or ideas. We lost because the few ideas that these candidates do propose are simply stale, old philosophies that have been proven to fail the majority of working Americans for decades. We lost because the two mainstream political parties are almost indistinguishable when it comes to their top priorities (save for wedge social issues, which continue to divide the populace).
America lost because only 9 percent of the population voted for Hillary and Trump in the primaries. We lost because over 40 percent of Americans don’t identify as Democrat or Republican.
America lost because the political discussion has been limited to these two (very unlikable) choices. We lost because Republicans and Democrats have a duopoly over our political system. We lost because the media refuses to give fair coverage to third-party candidates. We lost because 50 percent of us wanted third-party candidates in the debate, but the private corporation that runs the debates refused. We lost because this corporation is deeply entrenched with the two-party system it protects.
America lost because despite the overwhelming unpopularity of Trump and Clinton, paired with Congress’ approval rating, which can hardly out-poll cockroaches (or Nickleback), we continue to vote for these people thinking something will somehow change. We lost because career politicians continue to be reelected at an overwhelming rate despite being completely unrepresentative of their constituents.
America lost because this country has become an oligarchy. We lost because both Trump and Clinton have been longtime members of this ruling class. America will continue to lose the debates. America will also lose the 2016 election because one of these candidates will win. Our only hope is for some kind of drastic change by the time the next election rolls around.
via http://ift.tt/2dupqWK Tyler Durden
In the latest, and most dramatic – if perhaps entertaining – escalation of diplomacy between the US and Russian, earlier today Secretary of State John Kerry threatened to cut off all contacts with Moscow over Syria, unless Russian and Syrian government attacks on Aleppo end. Kerry issued the ultimatum in a Wednesday telephone call to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Kerry told Lavrov the U.S. was preparing to “suspend U.S.-Russia bilateral engagement on Syria,” including on a proposed counterterrorism partnership, “unless Russia takes immediate steps to end the assault on Aleppo” and restore a cease-fire.
As the AP reported, in the telephone call with Lavrov, Kerry “expressed grave concern over the deteriorating situation in Syria, particularly for continued Russian and Syrian regime attacks on hospitals, the water supply network and other civilian infrastructure in Aleppo,” Kirby’s statement said. Kerry also told Lavrov the U.S. holds Russia responsible for the use of incendiary and bunker-buster bombs in an urban area.
It was unclear what effect Kerry’s words would have. There have been many threats lobbed at Russia over the years for the duration of the Syrian conflict, now in its 6th year, and most warnings have gone unfulfilled, including President Barack Obama’s declaration that the U.S. would take military action if Syrian President Bashar Assad crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. Furthermore, Syria has repeatedly stressed that it is in its right to try to retake Aleppo from rebel forces.
“The burden remains on Russia to stop this assault and allow humanitarian access to Aleppo and other areas in need,” Kerry told Lavrov, according to State Department spokesman John Kirby.
According to western-based sources, government shelling and airstrikes landed near a bread distribution center and two hospitals in Aleppo on Wednesday. Activists and medics reported several people killed. They said at least one of the medical facilities was no longer operable, leaving the country’s biggest city with only six functioning hospitals.
Ironically, despite Moscow’s military engagement in the war alongside Assad’s government, Washington has been working with its former Cold War foe in hopes of securing a cease-fire and a peace process, most recently a “landmark” ceasefire deal, which however collapse just a week later after US-coalition forces “mistakenly” bombed a Syrian army position. Still, despite the most recent collapse in diplomatic relations, current coordination to ensure U.S. and Russian planes stay out of each other’s way will continue no matter what, the Pentagon said. The U.S. and its coalition partners are flying missions in Syria against IS; the U.S. also has a small contingent of special forces on the ground.
As AP notes, Kerry’s threat aside, the U.S. has few other options beyond engaging Moscow to end the fighting between Assad’s forces and rebels. Obama has made clear he won’t authorize military action against Syria and the presence of Russian air assets alongside Syrian forces makes such a scenario all the more unlikely. The U.S. is similarly uncomfortable ramping up military support for anti-Assad rebels given the close ties even the so-called “moderate” groups maintain with al-Qaida-linked militants.
Making matters worse, peace efforts without Russia are unlikely to win over Assad. And green-lighting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey or other countries to provide more weapons to the rebels could only make the war deadlier. Already, as many as 500,000 people have been killed.
Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry presented a different version of the call, which focused on Lavrov’s demand that the U.S. compel opposition forces to separate themselves from extremist groups. He told Kerry that many U.S.-backed groups have merged with the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and said Nusra was getting U.S. weaponry that way. He made no reference to the “ultimatum” showing how seriously Russia is taking it.
via http://ift.tt/2days9w Tyler Durden
Before he lost the rigged Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton (only to become her sad mascot in the subsequent months), Bernie Sanders was actually speaking some truth to voters.
A perfect example of that can be seen in the following clip from an MSNBC town hall in which he responds to a supporter’s question regarding whether he should vote for Hillary if she wins the primary.
Enjoy.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Follow me on Twitter.
‘You Shouldn’t Listen to Me’ – Here’s What Bernie Sanders Said About Voting for Hillary Clinton originally appeared on Liberty Blitzkrieg on September 28, 2016.
from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2dE6nbu
via IFTTT
What do a couple of the least libertarian Senate Republicans in office, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have in common with libertarian-leaning GOP conservative Sen. Mike Lee of Utah?
All three of them are down on the idea of unfettered gambling on the Internet, and the day after casino magnate Sheldon Adelson gave $20 million to a Super PAC that helps Senate Republican races, the three of have revived legislation to try to ban it.
The proposed legislation is remarkably short. The actual text of the bill is about as long as its title. We might as well excerpt the whole thing:
To ensure the integrity of laws enacted to prevent the use of financial instruments for funding or operating online casinos are not undermined by legal opinions not carrying the force of law issued by Federal Government lawyers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF PROHIBITION ON FUNDING OF UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
The Memorandum Opinion for the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, dated September 20, 2011, shall have no force or effect for the purposes of interpreting section 5362(10) of title 31, United States Code.
Interesting how a bill doesn’t have to be wordy to be incomprehensible. To explain, the “opinion” being referenced in this text is a recent legal interpretation of the 1961 federal Wire Act—which bans interstate sports betting—that has determined that the Act does not actually ban other types of internet gambling on the federal level. Thus states have authority to decide for themselves whether to allow it.
And so some states, like Nevada, legalized online poker in a very, very limited fashion. The growth of online gambling presents a massive threat to the bottom line of brick-and-mortar casino magnates like Adelson (though some other casinos are embracing online betting). So, much like a restaurant owner trying to convince a city council to ban food trucks, Adelson has committed a ton of money to try to fight internet gambling. This bill would be an attempt to legislatively overrule the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law.
Despite Lee’s libertarian leanings, this opposition to Internet gambling is not new, and it’s unlikely that Adelson’s support influenced in position. He has previously attempted to pass legislation to undo the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law. In an interview with Reason in 2014 he explained that because internet gambling crosses state borders, it is appropriate for the federal government to play a role in defining the rules. In particular, he thinks federal regulation needs to be set up specifically so that people can’t use the internet to bypass their home state’s own laws or restrictions:
[T]his is actually a necessary step to take to respect each state’s right to decide whether or to what extent to allow gambling and that’s necessary in order to preserve each state’s right to decide. Otherwise, you could have one state here or there authorizing gambling and if no one is able to prohibit Internet gambling, then people in every state would be able to gamble.
In May, Veronique de Rugy broke down the intense crony protectionism undergirding attempts to ban online gambling. Read more here.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cLRSAP
via IFTTT
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson has made being a nice, non-combative guy a central part of his campaign strategy.
But just minutes before Monday’s debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Johnson lashed out at U.S. foreign policy failures, his exclusion by the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the media’s fixation on his Aleppo gaffe rather than his larger point that the nation’s interventions have “thousands of people dying” while failing to establish peace.
When asked by reporters at Twitter’s New York headquarters how he would talk about foreign policy, the former two-term New Mexico governor raged:
I want to stop with these military interventions! In my heart, I don’t want to send our men and servicewomen to lose their lives, and I don’t want to them to be responsible for what are ultimately thousands of innocent people being killed in these countries.
So Hillary Clinton dots the i’s and crosses the t’s on all the names and everything associated with this, but as a result of that, we have the foreign policy that we have now, that I have to tell you I think is horrible. Horrible!
And that’s how I would answer it tonight. I would be mad. I would be angry. i would be angry that people would people would be calling me out on the names, geographic locations, names of foreign leaders, when the underlying policy has thousands of people dying. And that is unacceptable.
Johnson and his running mate William Weld took questions from reporters at Twitter’s Manhattan headquarters when Bloomberg reporter Arit John asked, “If you were in the debate, how would you handle some of these detailed policy questions?” The reporter also referenced Johnson’s infamous “What is Aleppo?” gaffe.
Johnson flew off the handle again minutes later when asked whether he and Weld were “spoiler candidates.” Johnson furrowed his brow and barked:
Why would you even say that?…We’re giving people a chance to vote for something, as opposed to the lesser of two evils. That’s what we are providing, first vote. You want to waste your vote with Clinton…or Trump, go right ahead and waste your vote. We’re not spoilers, we are the first vote! So I guess we should drop out? Is that your editorial, should we drop out?”
Later on Monday night, during a Facebook Live interview, Reason’s Matt Welch, who was hosting the Q&A, asked Johnson about the perception that he’s “goofy.”
Johnson replied:
If goofy means being fiscally conservative, small government, being a good steward of tax dollars, if goofy means standing up for civil liberties, you and I being able to make choices in our lives, iff goofy means standing up for military personnel that we’re putting in harm’s way, if goofy means saying…let’s stop with the regime changes, if goofy is supporting free markets, more US jobs, I’m the goofiest guy in the whole planet!
In a Facebook Live interview filmed on Tuesday morning after the debate, Johnson explained that his outbursts stem from the fact that U.S. servicemen and women “have to pull those triggers” and kill innocent people in misbegoten conflicts.
That’s not their fault, that’s the fault of political leadership. And these are the people I’m debating? And these are the people I’m debating? And I’m speaking specifically about Hillary Clinton…Somehow that makes her more qualified? Yeah, that just pisses me off, Matt. Really pisses me off.
Watch the video, which was captured by Matt Welch, below.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2daN5bh
via IFTTT
The euro “might start to unravel” if Deutsche Bank collapses according to respected financial journalist Matthew Lynn. “It all has a very 2008 feel to it …” he warns in the Telegraph where he outlines his growing concerns about Deutsche Bank, concerns we have written about in recent months. He writes:
Our image of German banks, and the German economy, as completely rock solid is so strong that it takes a lot to persuade us they might be in trouble.
And yet it has become increasingly hard to ignore the slow-motion car crash that is Deutsche Bank, or to avoid the conclusion that something very nasty is developing at what was once seen as Europe’s strongest financial institution. Its shares have been in free-fall for a year, touching a new low of 10.7 euros on Monday, down from 27 euros a year ago. Over the weekend, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel waded into the mess, briefing that there could be no government bail-out of the bank.
But hold on. Surely that is an extra-ordinary decision? If the German government does not stand behind the bank, then inevitably all its counter-parties – the other banks and institutions it deals with – are going to start feeling very nervous about trading with it. As we know from 2008, once confidence starts to evaporate, a bank is in big, big trouble. In fact, if Deutsche does go down, it is looking increasingly likely that it will take Merkel with it – and quite possibly the euro as well.
Merkel is playing a very dangerous game with Deutsche – and one that could easily go badly wrong. If her refusal to sanction a bail-out is responsible for a Deutsche collapse that could easily end her Chancellorship. But if she rescues it, the euro might start to unravel. It is hardly surprising that the markets are watching the relentless decline in its share price with mounting horror.
We have warned about Deutsche Bank and its massive derivative book and potential insolvency for many months now – see
Fed’s Annual Stress Tests: Deutsche Bank & Santander Fail
CEOs of Deutsche Bank “Shown Door” – Trouble Brewing at World’s Largest Holder of Derivatives?
Gold and Silver Bullion – News and Commentary
Gold extends losses as dollar, stocks rise (Reuters)
Gold prices mostly steady in Asia as rates, politics and OPEC mix (Investing)
WTO cuts 2016 world trade growth forecast to 1.7 percent, cites wake-up call (Reuters)
City-by-city look as house price gains slow (MarketWatch)
IMF sounds alarm bells over trade slowdown and low inflation (Telegraph)
What the return of politics means for your money (MoneyWeek)
Dollar Going the Way of the Denarius (InternationalMan)
Transition of Price Discovery in the Global Gold and Silver Market (SafeHaven)
Will Deutsche Bank’s Collapse Be Worse Than Lehman Brothers? (GoldEagle)
Deutsche Bank To Blow Up and Create Euro “Chaos”? (DollarCollapse)
Gold Prices (LBMA AM)
28 Sep: USD 1,324.80, GBP 1,020.10 & EUR 1,181.06 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 1,335.85, GBP 1,031.01 & EUR 1,187.84 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 1,336.30, GBP 1,033.23 & EUR 1,188.91 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 1,335.90, GBP 1,027.17 & EUR 1,192.16 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,332.45, GBP 1,019.59 & EUR 1,186.68 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,319.60, GBP 1,015.96 & EUR 1,183.81 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 1,315.40, GBP 1,011.02 & EUR 1,175.84 per ounce
Silver Prices (LBMA)
28 Sep: USD 19.12, GBP 14.69 & EUR 17.05 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 19.42, GBP 14.99 & EUR 17.26 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 19.44, GBP 15.04 & EUR 17.29 per ounce
23 Sep: USD 19.82, GBP 15.28 & EUR 17.66 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 19.88, GBP 15.22 & EUR 17.69 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 19.43, GBP 14.95 & EUR 17.43 per ounce
20 Sep: USD 19.17, GBP 14.78 & EUR 17.15 per ounce
Recent Market Updates
– Do You Really Own Your Gold?
– “Gold Will Likely Soar To A Record Within Five Years”
– Savings Guarantee? U.N. Warns Next Financial Crisis Imminent
– Gold Up 1.5%, Silver Surges 3% – Yellen Stays Ultra Loose At 0.25%
– Trump and Clinton Are “Positive For Gold” – $1,900/oz by End of Year
– Gold Bugs Rejoice – Central Banks Think You’re On To Something
– ‘Hard’ Brexit Looms For Ireland
– EU Bail In Rules Ignored By Italy – Mother Of All Systemic Threats and World War?
– Buy Gold – Bonds Are ‘Biggest Bubble In World’ – Billionaire Singer Warns
– Silver Bullion Market – “Most Bullish Story Ever Told?”
– “Sorry, You Can’t Have Your Gold Bullion”
– Global Stocks, Bonds Fall Sharply – Gold Consolidates After Two Weeks Of Gains
– Gold, Silver, Blockchain and Fintech – Solutions To Negative Rates, Bail-ins, Cash Confiscations and Cashless Society
via http://ift.tt/2d7JMpm GoldCore