Month: January 2017

Submitted by Eric Bush via Gavekal Capital blog,

Over the past 10-years personal income in the US has increased at a 3.39% annualized rate which is the slowest 10-year annualized growth rate since the data began in 1960.

Clearly, there has been a ‘stair-step’ decline in the growth rate of personal income over the past several decades. In the 1980s personal income averaged a 9.5% annualized growth rate, in the 1990s it averaged a 6.4% annualized growth rate, and in the 2000s it averaged a 5.2% annualized growth rate. Thus far in the 2010s, the average annualized growth rate has fallen to 3.9%.

Even as the growth rate in personal income has slowed during the course of this decade, the American consumer is saving more money by spending less than they are making. In the chart below we show the spread between the 10-year, annualized change in personal income and the 10-year, annualized change in personal consumption expenditures. When this spread is positive, as it has been since 2010, it indicates that consumers are spending less than they are making.

This chart illustrates just how rare it is for Americans to spend less than they earn in the post-WWII era. From 1976 – 2011, US consumers regularly spent more than they made. 

The global economy needs to recognize that there is a new “smarter” American consumer out there as two-thirds of Americans now say they prefer saving over spending compared to just about 50% agreeing with that statement prior to the GFC.

via http://ift.tt/2kNxVus Tyler Durden

In what those with a flair for the dramatic might be allowed to call “mutiny”, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, who is the current acting Attorney General, has given orders to the Justice Department not to defend Trump’s executive order.

Her just released statement is below:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

 

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

 

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

 

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

While it is clear that Yates is making a purely political statement, her glaring insubordination to the Trump administration will take on a largely symbolic hue, and may be imitated by various other government agencies which still have interim or permanent democratic leadership, as is the case with every instance of political “mutiny.”

That said, Donald Trump’s response, once he realizes he may have a mini mutiny on his hands, should be interesting.

via http://ift.tt/2kNzsky Tyler Durden

Having cleared one suspect (of Moroccan descent) as merely a witness, The Globe and Mail reports that the white male suspect in the deadly Quebec City mosque attack yesterday was known in the city's activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump.

As Reuters reports, a French-Canadian university student was the sole suspect in a shooting at a Quebec City mosque and was charged with the premeditated murder of six people, Canadian authorities said on Monday, in what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called "a terrorist attack."

Court documents identified the gunman in the attack on Sunday evening prayers as Alexandre Bissonnette. He was also charged with five counts of attempted murder, according to court papers.

 

Among the six men killed were a butcher, a university professor, a pharmacist and an accountant, according to police and Canadian media.

 

Police declined to discuss possible motives for the shooting at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec.

 

"They consider this a lone wolf situation," a Canadian source familiar with the situation said.

 

Trudeau, who has made a point of welcoming refugees and immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, was quick to tell parliament in Ottawa: "Make no mistake, this was a terrorist attack."

In Washington, U.S. government security experts were leaning to the view that the gunman most likely was motivated by hatred for Muslims, a U.S. government source familiar with official reporting said.

And, coincidentally, as The Globe and Mail reports, Alexandre Bissonnette, 27, a student at Laval University who lived on a quiet crescent in the Cap-Rouge suburb of Quebec City, was known in the city's activist circles as a right-wing troll who frequently took anti-foreigner and anti-feminist positions and stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump.

Mr. Bissonnette's online profile and school friendships revealed little interest in extremist politics until last March when French nationalist leader Marine Le Pen visited Quebec City and inspired Mr. Bissonnette to vocal extreme online activism, according to people who clashed with him.

 

Vincent Boissoneault, a student in international relations at Laval University, grew up with Mr. Bissonnette and was friends with him on Facebook. He said they frequently clashed on politics when Mr. Bissonnette attacked refugees or expressed support for Ms. Le Pen or Mr. Trump.

 

"I can tell you he was certainly no Muslim convert. I wrote him off as a xenophobe. I didn't even think of him as totally racist, but he was enthralled by a borderline racist nationalist movement," Mr. Boissoneault said.

 

François Deschamps, an employment councillor who runs a refugee support Facebook page, said he immediately recognized Mr. Bissonnette's photo. "He was someone who made frequent extreme comments in social media denigrating refugees and feminism. It wasn't outright hate, rather part of this new nationalist conservative identity movement that is more intolerant than hateful."

Seems like a perfect fit for this "lone wolf" attack, right?

Which is why another friend's comments seemed to entirely dismiss this perspective…

Michel Kingma-Lord, who grew up with Mr. Bissonnette, said he was "shocked" by the news that his erstwhile friend was suspected in a mass shooting. The two had grown apart in recent years, but spent many happy hours collecting minerals together as boys, scouring the schoolyard for bits of quartz.

 

"He was a really good guy," said Mr. Kingma-Lord. "A very generous kind of guy, always listening, polite."

 

Mr. Bissonnette studied political science, Mr. Kingma-Lord said, but seemed more interested in the campus chess club than any kind of ideology. "He never posted anything about hate speech," Mr. Kingma-Lord said. "He wouldn't share any political ideology. When we talked, it was just normal talk."

Mr. Bissonnette's Facebook profile was removed from public view Monday morning along with the comments he left behind. Before Ms. Le Pen's visit, Mr. Bissonnette's friends say he showed little interest in politics, despite studying the subject at Laval University.

Before it was removed, Mr. Bissonnette's Facebook page revealed normal preoccupations of young adulthood. While he "liked" the page of Ms. Le Pen and other right-wing politicians, he also liked Garfield and pop stars such as Katy Perry.

A man of Moroccan descent who had also been arrested was now considered a witness, although his nationality was not immediately known, the Canadian source said.

via http://ift.tt/2jogyUX Tyler Durden

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

 

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

 

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear:

remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.

via http://ift.tt/2jP8lW8 Tyler Durden

"Most Shorted" stocks are crashing today – down the most since Brexit.

Total Short Interest has collapsed from its highest since 2008 (at the March 2016 lows) to the lowest in three years now…

The question is – is there any short-squeeze ammunition left?

Because the whole world is positioned for moar…

Will the Trump gap of hope be filled…

via http://ift.tt/2kkD3JX Tyler Durden

Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

It’s only taken a week for President Trump to give the body politic an immigration enema. The aim, perhaps, was to flush out a set of bad ideas that Barack Obama had managed over eight years to instate as “normal.” Namely, that it’s unnecessary to enforce the immigration laws, or cruel and unusual to do so, or that national borders are a barbarous anachronism, or that federal laws are optional in certain self-selected jurisdictions.

But Trump’s staff sure fucked up the details carrying out his refugee and immigration ban, most particularly detaining people with green cards, and those already granted visas. The blunder provoked an impressive blowback of airport protests, and finally a stay from a federal judge, which muddied the legality of Trump’s executive order — all in all, a tactical stumble for Prez DT, who apparently omitted to consult with an array of government agencies and their lawyers before issuing the decree at close-of-business Friday. For the record, I’m down with the complaint that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Afghanistan were left off the no-come list, since those lands produce more radical Islamic maniacs than anywhere else.

The reader by now probably detects my ambivalent feelings in this bundle of issues and grievances, so let me try to clarify my basic positions: I think borders matter and they need to be protected. I think our immigration law enforcement under Obama has been deeply dishonest and damaging to our politics in ways that go far beyond the question of who gets to come here. I believe we are under no obligation to take in everybody and anybody who wants to move here. I believe we need an official time out from the high-volume immigration of recent decades. I believe we have good reasons to be picky about who we let in.

The most dishonest and damaging trope of recent years is the widely-accepted idea on the Left that illegal immigrants are merely “undocumented” — as if they were the hapless victims of some clerical error made by the government and therefore deserving of a pass. Language matters. The acceptance and repetition of this lie has in effect given permission to the Left to lie whenever it suits their purposes about all kinds of things, for instance the delusion that Russia stole the election from Hillary Clinton and that Radical Islam doesn’t pose a threat to western values (or even exist). And it is certainly true that they are assisted by legacy media giants such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR. The Times, especially is keen to provoke a national crisis that might unseat Trump, by simply declaring it so in a three-column headline:

The furor seemed rather out of proportion to the people inconvenienced by Trump’s administrative blundering: about 300 green card holders out of 300,000 travelers admitted over the weekend — even after the White House walked back its green card miscue on Sunday. And it gives the impression even to someone who is allergic to conspiracy theory (yours truly) that some organizing principle is behind it. That principle may be the deep neurosis of the Dem/Prog Left reduced to virtue-signaling in their out-of-power echo chamber. Having no coherent ideas about the immigration issue besides resistance to it, they offer only sentimental narratives: tears on the statue of liberty, “dreamers,” sanctuary cities, nation-of-open-arms, we’re-all-children-of-immigrants, and anyway North America was stolen from the Indians. The hysteria is impressive, as if the Left has come down with ergot poisoning, seeing witches (racists, homophobes, misogynists, white privilege villains, and Russians) behind every juniper shrub in the land.

I’d go as far to say that this neurosis derives from the general psychological boundary problems of the current Dem/Prog ethos. Their zeal to erase categories has resulted in lost categories of thinking – it’s all one big soup of victimization out there now and everybody better rush to cash in their victim brownie points while they still can — or as long as Senator Chuck Schumer can keep the crocodile tears flowing. From my vantage, this country would actually benefit from having firmer categories of thinking and certainly firmer categories of behavior.

What really irks the Left is any defense of Western civilization, especially in something so concrete as demographics. This defensive impulse has been deeply suppressed in the recent political life of Europe and America. On the university campuses, it’s become the equivalent of original sin. Donald Trump turned out to be a peculiar choice to lead a turnaround from all this, and his oafishness may eventually deter an effort to restore something like a self-respecting common culture. But the turnaround is coming to Europe, too, this year in a set of national elections. Expect more civil strife as the battle is joined.

via http://ift.tt/2kkQWI1 Tyler Durden

via http://ift.tt/2kIor4v Pivotfarm

via http://ift.tt/2kIi7dq Pivotfarm