Month: January 2017

Submitted by Fred Wilson via AVC.com,

Here’s what I expect to happen this year:

• Trump will hit the ground running, cutting corporate and personal taxes, and eliminating the preferential treatment of carried interest capital gains. The stock market has already factored in these tax cuts so it won’t be as big of a boon for investors as might be expected, but the seven and half year bull market run will be extended as a result of this tax cut stimulus before being halted by rising rates and/or some boneheaded move by President Trump which seems inevitable. We just don’t know the timing of it. The loss of capital gains treatment on carried interest won’t hurt professional investors too much because the lower personal tax rates will take the sting out of it. In addition, corporations will use the lower tax rates as an excuse to bring back massive amounts of capital that have been locked up overseas, producing a cash surplus that will result in an M&A boom. This will lead to an even more fuel to the fire that is causing “old line” corporations to acquire startups.

• The IPO market, led by Snapchat, will be white hot. Look for entrepreneurs and the VCs that back them to have IPO fever in 2017. I expect we will see more tech IPOs in 2017 than we have since 2000.

• The ad:tech market will go the way of search, social, and mobile as investors and entrepreneurs concede that Google and Facebook have won and everyone else has lost. It will be nearly impossible to raise money for an online advertising business in 2017. However, there will be new players, like Snapchat, and existing ones, like Twitter, that succeed by offering advertisers a fundamentally different offering than Facebook and Google do.

• The SAAS sector will continue to consolidate, driven by a trifecta of legacy enterprise software companies (like Oracle), successful SAAS companies (like Workday), and private equity firms all going in search of additional lines of business and recurring subscription revenue streams.

• AI will be the new mobile. Investors will ask management what their “AI strategy” is before investing and will be wary of companies that don’t have one.

• Tech investors will start to adopt genomics as an additional “information technology” investment category, blurring the distinction between life science and tech investors that has existed in the VC sector for the past thirty years. This will lead to a funding frenzy and many investments will go badly. But there will be big winners to be had in this sector and it will be an important category for VCs for the foreseeable future.

• Google, Facebook, and to a lesser extent Apple and Amazon will be seen as monopolists by government and individuals in the US (as they have been for years outside the US). Things like the fake news crisis will make clear to everyone how reliant we have become on these tech powerhouses and there will be a backlash. It will be Microsoft redux and the government will seek remedies which will be futile. But as in the Microsoft situation, technology, particularly decentralized applications built on open data platforms (ie blockchain technology), will come to the rescue and reduce our reliance on these monopolies. This scenario will take years to play out, but the seeds have been sown and we will start to see this scenario play out in 2017.

• Cyberwarfare will be front and center in our lives in the same way that nuclear warfare was during the cold war. Crypto will be the equivalent of bomb shelters and we will all be learning about private keys, how to use them, and how to manage them. A company will make crypto mainstream via an easy to use interface and it will become the next big thing.

These are my big predictions for 2017. If my prior track record is any indication, I will be wrong about more of this than I am right. The beauty of the VC business is you don’t have to be right that often, as long as you are right about something big. Which leads to going out on a limb and taking risks. And I think that strategy will pay dividends in 2017. Here’s to a new year and new challenges to overcome.

via http://ift.tt/2j5nDcE Tyler Durden

By EconMatters

We provide some game training for the uninitiated regarding financial markets, fund flows via the currency crosses, to move assets around the trading board in this video. Be careful of rallies in markets, that you don`t become the sucker that is taken advantage of to profit take at your expense.

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

via http://ift.tt/2i6Mvw9 EconMatters

Trump is on a roll: having dispatched of Ford’s Mexican facility plans, followed shortly by the GOP’s proposal to overhaul the independent Ethics office just just a handful of tweets, moments ago the NYT reported that Trump’s old Fox News nemesis, Megyn Kelly is leaving Fox to join NBC.

According to the Times report, Kelly will take a “triple role” at NBC: hosting a daytime news and discussion show, anchoring a Sunday night news show and being a central part of the network’s special coverage of politics and other big events. Kelly’s departure is certainly not due to her ratings: she was the second-most-watched anchor on cable news, behind only Fox’s Bill O’Reilly.

More details from the NYT:

Megyn Kelly, who arrived at Fox News 12 years ago as a television news neophyte but rose to become one of its two biggest stars, has decided to leave the network to take on a broad new role at NBC News for an undisclosed amount, people briefed on the negotiations said on Tuesday.

 

The NBC News chairman, Andrew Lack, wooed Ms. Kelly away from Fox News by offering her a triple role in which she will host her own daytime news and discussion program, anchor an in-depth Sunday night news show and take regular part in the network’s special political programming and other big-event coverage.

 

The move will herald a seismic shift in the cable news landscape, where Ms. Kelly had become the second-most watched host — after Bill O’Reilly of Fox News — and often helped define the national political debate, especially over the last year as Donald J. Trump regularly attacked her, at times in viciously personal terms.

 

Ms. Kelly’s departure would upend Fox News’s vaunted prime-time lineup and inject a new dose of tumult just a few months after the departure of the network’s powerful founding chairman, Roger Ailes, who was ousted after several women made allegations that he sexually harassed them.

Kelly appears to also be taking a pay cut with her depatrure: 21st Century Fox, controlled by the family of Rupert Murdoch, had reportedly offered Kelly more than $20 million a year to stay after her current contract expires this year. Accrding to the NYT, “rival networks seeking to hire Ms. Kelly away, including NBC News, had made it clear that they could not match that money from Fox, the cable news leader for the last 15 years running.”

And all of this in a day’s work for Trump who is not even president for another 17 days.

Below is the press release just issued by NBC News

MEGYN KELLY JOINS NBC NEWSKelly to Anchor New Daytime News Program & Primetime Magazine Show

 

JANUARY 3, 2017 — Megyn Kelly, one of America’s most prominent news anchors, will join NBC News, it was announced today by Andrew Lack, Chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group.

 

Kelly will become anchor of a new one hour daytime program that she will develop closely with NBC News colleagues. The show will air Monday through Friday at a time to be announced in the coming months.

 

As part of the multi-year agreement, Kelly will also anchor a new Sunday evening news magazine show and will become an important contributor to NBC’s breaking news coverage as well as the network’s political and special events coverage.

 

Details about both of Kelly’s news programs will be unveiled in the coming months.

 

“Megyn is an exceptional journalist and news anchor, who has had an extraordinary career” Lack said. “She’s demonstrated tremendous skill and poise, and we’re lucky to have her.”

 

Kelly joins NBC News at a time when all four broadcasts in the division – “TODAY,” “NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt,” “Meet the Press,” and “Dateline NBC” – are leading in the key 25-54 news demo and the coveted 18-49 demo in the 2016-17 season to date. All four shows also won those same two demos in the November sweep period, the first time that has happened since 2002.

 

Kelly has consistently delivered top ratings while maintaining a uniquely strong connection with her viewers and an important voice on social media. Since 2013, Kelly has anchored FOX News Channel’s (FNC) The Kelly File, which she helped to create. The Kelly File is consistently the number one news program in overall viewers on cable news and first among the critical 25-54 demo audience. It is also the number two show in all of cable news. She joined FNC in 2004 as a Washington-based correspondent.

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

Confused by today’s sudden intraday reversal in risk assets, which pulled the Dow Jones from up over 160 to barely in the green, while slamming Crude from up over 2% on the day to red?

You are not alone: as JPM’s Adam Crisafulli opines in his intraday “market update” note, “the question isn’t why stocks have come in from their highs but instead why they were so strong to begin with.”

From JPMorgan:

Market update: The reflation trade was strong out of the gate but has reversed a decent amount heading into the afternoon – the question isn’t why stocks have come in from their highs but instead why they were so strong to begin with.

 

In a lot of ways trading is similar to the last two weeks of Dec in that news is minimal while liquidity remains limited. The only major headlines over the last few days were manufacturing PMIs and while they were either inline (Eurozone, China NBS) or better-than-expected (US, UK, and China Caixin) none of the figures are dramatically altering the narrative around growth and the key for stocks over the coming weeks and months will remain US politics (specifically the progression of tax/regulatory reform and realization of Trump’s trade agenda). Trump’s GM tweet Tues morning didn’t help sentiment although fits a pattern that is now several weeks old (he has tweeted on a variety of corporate matters since 11/8).

 

The bigger picture backdrop for US equities remains unchanged – the landscape doesn’t seem favorable given the potential for elevated political expectations to be disappointed. On the calendar for the next few days the big events include FOMC minutes (Wed 1/4 2pmET) and US Dec jobs (Fri 8:30amET) while next week (week of 1/9) brings a handful of major catalysts: Obama speaks Tues 1/10, Trump speaks Wed 1/11, Yellen speaks Thurs 1/12, and bank earnings kick off Fri morning 1/13 (BAC, JPM, PNC, WFC).

 

US equity sector trends:  Stocks enjoyed a classic “reflation” trade rally during the day’s opening hour but things have since faded. The fins are still outperforming but only slightly (financials-specific news was quiet and will prob. stay that way until earnings begin on Fri 1/13). Tech is doing a bit better than the SPX; AAPL is adding to its weakness from last week and the SOX is mixed while internet does well (NVDA is extending its losses from last week). Healthcare is very strong and it seems like the space is trying to recoup some of its underperformance from last year (the JPMorgan HC conf. Jan 9-13 will be the next major event for this space). Capital goods are doing a bit better than the overall SPX. Autos is among the market’s best sector ahead of Dec sales numbers out Wed; F in particular is doing well (it was rallying before the 11amET announcement) while GM is higher despite Trump’s tweet. Energy has faded from its highs as oil reverses its initial gains (MPC though is the best stock in the whole SPX after its value-enhancing announcement this morning). Bondproxy groups (staples, REITs, utilities) are lagging although telecoms are very strong (thanks to the JPM u/g of CTL and Citi’s u/g of VZ).

via http://ift.tt/2hMsSJ7 Tyler Durden

President-elect Trump is on a roll today. Following House Republican's vote to strip the Ethics Office of independence, Trump lashed out with a tweet suggesting Congress' time be better spent on other things… and just minutes ago, following an emergency meeting, Republicans have confirmed the amendment has been pulled.

As a reminder, House Republicans abruptly voted on Monday night to eliminate the independence of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the chamber’s nonpartisan ethics board which investigates lawmakers' alleged misconduct, largely stripping it of its power, leading to pushback from Democrats and government watchdog groups. House Republicans, meeting as a group Monday night, approved an amendment from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte that would place the office under the oversight of the lawmaker-run House Ethics Committee.

And Trump responded…

With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

……..may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2017

 Which led House Republicans to hold an emergency meeting , resulting in… (via The Hill)

House Republicans at an emergency conference meeting on Tuesday withdrew a proposal to gut an ethics watchdog.

 

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) offered a motion to restore the current OCE rules, and that was accepted by the GOP conference.

 

The new Congress hadn't even formally gaveled in on before GOP leaders held an emergency conference meeting to discuss the blowback against the party's vote Monday evening to gut the chamber's independent ethics watchdog.

Trump wins again!

TO REVIEW- house Rs changed ethics process privately last night. They hear major outcry. GOP leadership reverses the process. All in 1 day

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) January 3, 2017

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

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater – the world's largest hedge fund, has "been reflecting for quite a while on the destructive effects that fake and distorted media are having on our society’s well-being," but it appears a recent Wall Street Journal article about his fund – full of intentional distortions, appears to have pushed the billionaire over the edge at just how destructive and widespread these 'fake' and 'distorted' agendas are.

Via LinkedIn.com

To me, fake and distorted media are essentially the same problem in different degrees. My own experience, which I will share later in this piece, is just one small case within an epidemic. While Bridgewater will survive this case—and even if we didn't, the world would be just fine—it is questionable whether the world will be just fine if this fake and distorted media epidemic is not arrested. As Martin Baron, the Washington Post's Executive Editor, said in reflecting on the problem, "If you have a society where people can't agree on the basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?"

Distorted pictures lead us to make bad decisions. In my opinion, if people don't correct such inaccuracies and don't fight against this problem, continued distortions in the media will prevent the public's accurate understanding of what is happening, which will threaten our society's well-being. We in the financial community now openly talk about fake or distorted media being used to manipulate market prices to the harm of many, and similar conversations are taking place in most areas.

This is not just a fringe media problem; it is a mainstream media problem. And while it is widely recognized, there is no discussion underway about how to rectify it. The Associated Press said that only 6 percent of Americans surveyed have “a lot of trust” in the media. A recent Gallup study showed that Americans' trust in the media has dropped to an all-time low, with only 32 percent of those surveyed saying that they have either a “fair” or “great deal” of trust in the media. That compares with 55 percent having such confidence in 1999 and 72 percent in 1976. The dramatically decreased trustworthiness has even plagued icons of journalistic trust such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as sensationalism and commercialism have superseded accuracy and journalistic integrity as primary objectives.‎ Many, if not most, "journalists" are trying to write the story that they want to write and fit the facts to it rather than accumulating facts to accurately report pictures of what is true. To be clear, I am not saying that this is the case for all people in the news media as there are a number of true journalists who do seek to convey accurate information; I’m just saying that they are a rapidly shrinking percentage of the total and the poll numbers reflect that.

The failure to rectify this problem is due to there not being any systemic checks on the news media’s quality. The news media is unique in being the only industry that operates without quality controls or checks on its power. It has so much unchecked power that even the most powerful people and companies are afraid to speak out against it for fear of recrimination. In fact, I presume that I will be widely attacked in the media for what I am saying here. Nonetheless I am compelled to say what many people express privately, which is that 1) the quality of news media is declining in general, 2) those in the news media have an enormous amount of power, 3) the news industry is unique in not having its standards of behavior specified and overseen, and 4) this confluence of realities is dangerous.   

While we all treasure our free press which is the reason that those in this industry are not overseen, the accelerating loss of faith in the media appears to be coming to a head and will probably lead to a backlash. I worry that if the industry doesn't fix its problems, other forces will cause the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, which will lead to some of the cherished press freedoms being lost. That too could undermine the public's ability to know what is true. There is no getting around the fact that we need a responsible news media, and the powers that be need to start talking about how to bring that about. Personally, I hope that prominent media organizations will explore ways of self-regulating the quality of what they are producing, or at least create ratings in the way the Motion Picture Association of America provides its movie ratings. If the industry created a self-regulatory organization that set standards and conveyed assessments of quality as is done in a number of other industries, it would be much better than most of the other alternatives. In any case, it’s not my place to determine how this problem is resolved as much as to speak up about the problem and encourage discussion of it. 

*  *  *

A Case in Point

I have mixed feelings about describing our most recent experience with The Wall Street Journal because many people might misconstrue my doing this as me simply complaining about an article that I didn’t like. While I certainly don’t want to let the inaccuracies about Bridgewater stand, my more pressing motivation is to give you a window into how media is often made because I believe that those of you who haven’t seen it from the inside will find it eye-opening. It probably will be a little bit like watching sausage being made for the first time.

 

About six weeks before the Wall Street Journal story by Rob Copeland and Bradley Hope came out, we were contacted by Copeland, who was “fact-checking” and seeking information about Bridgewater. Many of the things he was asking about were downright wrong, so we were presented with the choice of either cooperating with him or allowing the incorrect information to go out. Because we’ve had a history of Copeland and Hope writing misleading stories about Bridgewater even when we cooperated with them, we were inclined to not engage with them because we expected that they might again distort whatever we said. Copeland however insisted that they wanted to “reset the relationship” to present an accurate picture of the firm. He offered to enter into an agreement in which we would provide him with information that he didn’t already have in order to give him a fuller picture but only on the condition that he would not use that information unless we mutually agreed that his presentation of it in the article was accurate. We understand that the culture behind our exceptional success over the last 40 years is both unusual and commonly misunderstood, so we decided to enter into that agreement with him. As explained below, he broke the agreement by presenting distorted pictures of what we told him even after he asked us to "fact check" his assertions and we replied in writing that they were inaccurate.

 

Copeland and Hope allege that Bridgewater is an oppressive environment based on very few conversations—as they put it, on interviews with "more than a dozen past and present Bridgewater employees and others close to the firm.” We have about 1,500 people who work at Bridgewater, most of whom love it rather than feel oppressed, so the picture they gleaned from these dozen people was clearly not representative. Bridgewater obviously could not have been as successful for as long as it has been without a culture that values its employees and fosters excellence; Copeland wasn’t seeking to understand that. We explained to him in writing that "You are painting a one-sided negative picture of the work environment. The problem is that people who are happy with their experience and respecting our rules are not allowed to speak with the media so you end up hearing disproportionately from disgruntled people. It becomes a gross exaggeration and none of the joy of the Bridgewater experience gets represented.” We offered to provide Copeland an extensive list of employees and former employees who could freely speak with him. He did not take us up on that offer.

 

We also offered to put Copeland in contact with three prominent organizational psychologists and researchers who, out of their own curiosity, had studied our culture in depth and conveyed their highly-regarded analyses in three different books. These researchers were on site at Bridgewater and had access to anyone they wanted to speak with when they did their studies. Copeland and Hope never even walked though Bridgewater speaking to its people, yet they also chose not to speak with these experts. If you are interested in reading a few much more informed assessments of Bridgewater, we suggest that you read An Everyone Culture by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, Originals by Adam Grant, and/or Learn or Die by Edward Hess or read the quotations from these books that are included here.

 

Copeland asked us about our culture of radical transparency, so we explained the logic behind it. We directed him to Principles, which describes it in depth. We agreed that Bridgewater is a challenging place to work, that the characterization of the firm being like “an intellectual Navy Seals” is apt, and that it isn’t for everyone. We made clear that nobody doubts that our unique culture has worked remarkably well for 40 years, and that no company could produce the results we have without there being deep and meaningful relationships among the people who work there. We tried to explain how the culture works and how it has produced our unique results, and we tried to provide him with facts that substantiated that assertion. For example, in our most recent anonymous annual survey, 89 percent of employees agreed that “running Bridgewater according to the culture and principles is key to Bridgewater’s success” and 94 percent agreed that “the culture helps my personal evolution.” Similarly, 89 percent of our clients said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with Bridgewater, 95 percent said that “Bridgewater’s investment insights are uniquely valuable,” and 95 percent said that “Bridgewater’s personnel are honest and direct with me, even when we disagree.”

 

We also explained the logic behind radical transparency in conversations and in the following written statement: "If you agree that a real idea-meritocracy is an extremely powerful thing, it should not be a great leap for you to see that giving people the right to see things for themselves is better than forcing them to rely on information that is processed for them by others. Radical transparency forces issues to the surface—most importantly (and most uncomfortably) the problems that people are dealing with and how they’re dealing with them—and it allows the organization to draw on the talents and insights of all of its members to solve them. Eventually, for people who get used to it, living in a culture of radical transparency is more comfortable than living in the fog of not knowing what’s going on. And it is incredibly effective. But, to be clear, like most great things it also has drawbacks. Its biggest drawback is that it is initially very difficult for most people to deal with uncomfortable realities.” Copeland and Hope chose to not use any of that. Rather than seeking to understand how the culture and radical transparency work or referring to such facts in their article, they chose instead to push the story that they wanted to write.

 

We discussed turnover rates at Bridgewater and showed them the statistics that make clear that in the first year or two turnover is unusually high and in subsequent years it is unusually low. This pattern is a result of Bridgewater’s culture and its having tough and unique standards. The company is not for everyone but for those who it is for, there is nothing like it. The numbers substantiate this—21 percent leave in the first year and another 10 percent leave in the second year, but the turnover rates of those in years three, four, and five are exceptionally low, at only six percent, four percent, and three percent respectively. Copeland and Hope chose to focus only on the relatively high early turnover saying “Bridgewater says about one-fifth of new hires leave. The pressure is such that those who stay are seen crying in bathrooms.” They omitted the longer-term high retention rates and the satisfaction levels behind them.

 

When Copeland asked about how radical transparency works, he suggested that we were disingenuous because we didn’t pursue it totally. We explained our approach: “Don’t get me wrong: radical transparency isn’t the same as total transparency. It just means much more transparency than is typical. We do keep some things confidential, such as illnesses or deeply personal problems, sensitive details about intellectual property or security issues, the timing of a major trade, and at least for the short term, matters that are likely to be distorted, sensationalized, and harmfully misunderstood if leaked to the press.” And we pointed him to the relevant principles. Copeland and Hope chose to ignore those explanations and write “he decided to let only 10 percent have the full measure of what he calls radical transparency.” After he passed that by us, we replied that "It is incorrect that only 10 percent get radical transparency. Here’s the fact. Everyone can see most everything, but only the top 150 or so people get to see the most sensitive type of stuff which, in most companies would be limited to only the top 5 or 10 people." The authors chose to go with their mischaracterizations, even though doing so was misleading.

 

Similarly, their representations regarding our “secret project” to systemize our criteria for management decision making were both sensationalistic and misleading. We explained that what we are doing in systemizing management decision making is the same thing we have been doing for 30 years in systemizing our investment decision making, which is to collectively agree on good principles for making decisions and to express them in computer code. This allows us to input the relevant data and for the computer to process it according to our mutually agreed-upon criteria. We explained that we are doing this because we have learned that this principled and systemized decision making process allows us to get above our emotional attachments to our own conclusions and focus instead on deciding what our decision making criteria should be, which ultimately leads to better decisions because computers can process these criteria in much better ways than humans can. For example, by collecting data on people, we can learn what they are like, what jobs they are best suited for, and how they would most effectively work together. People also learn a lot about themselves, which helps them and their personal development. We are collecting and building these criteria collectively, yet the writers chose to characterize all this as being “like trying to make Ray’s brain into a computer” because that fit better with their desire to paint a picture of Bridgewater being a crazy, oppressive place run by a Dr. Frankenstein type character — even though the evidence shows it to be an idea-meritocracy which has, for several decades, succeeded in producing meaningful work, meaningful relationships, and unparalleled results through its radical truthfulness and radical transparency.

 

Copeland and Hope mischaracterized several other things (e.g., my thinking on Jim Comey, a man whom I admire). In each case, I explained to them that they were mischaracterizing and they chose not to convey anything that didn’t fit with the story they wanted to write. I won’t delve into more examples because we are past the point of diminishing returns.

So there you are. You now have a window into how some media is being made, and you’re left facing the dilemma I described in the first part of this piece. There is no established party to assess the accuracies of what is being said, and you are left to wrestle with questions of what is true based on the scant evidence you have in front of you. I suggest that rather than worry about what’s true about Bridgewater, which probably won’t have an effect on your life, you worry instead about the systemic risks arising from fake and distorted media.

via http://ift.tt/2i6t3Qi Tyler Durden

After a 70-year ban, Adolf Hitler's Nazi manifesto Mein Kampf was made available again in Germany in 2016, and as The BBC reports, the German publisher of a special annotated edition of the anti-semitic text says sales have soared since its launch a year ago.

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.
– Adolf Hitler

As The BBC reports, about 85,000 German-language copies of the anti-Semitic Nazi manifesto have been sold.

Publisher Andreas Wirsching said "the figures overwhelmed us".

 

He is director of the Institute of Contemporary History (IfZ) in Munich.

 

At the end of January the IfZ will launch a sixth print run. The book contains critical notes by scholars.

 

Unlike the Nazi-era editions, the IfZ's Mein Kampf (My Struggle) has a plain white cover – without a picture of Hitler. The swastika and other Nazi symbols are banned in Germany.

 

Mr Wirsching told the German news agency DPA that the IfZ was planning a shorter, French-language edition. "But two-thirds of our commentaries will be translated" for it, he said.

 

He said the IfZ had obtained solid legal advice before republishing the book on a limited scale. And the scholarly edition was aimed partly at pre-empting any editions put out by Nazi sympathisers.

 

"It would be irresponsible to just let this text spread arbitrarily," he told DPA.

But, as Mike Krieger noted previously, sales of Hitler's manifesto have been soaring worldwide for the last few years. At this point, we’d like to remain hopeful that these sales trends spring from a similar curiosity on behalf of the population, rather than from a darker more hateful place. From Time:

The infamous manifesto Adolf Hitler wrote while in prison after a failed coup in 1923, Mein Kampf or My Struggle, in which the dictator outlined his idea of a global Jewish conspiracy, is a surprise hit on the ebook market. While the book’s print copy sales remain stagnant, the ebook is in the top 20 on iTunes’s Politics & Events chart, next to books by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the number one Propaganda & Political Psychology book on Amazon, and the 17th bestseller in the company’s Nationalism list. How could that be?

 

Chris Faraone explains why in a fascinating essaythat argues ebooks provide the perfect format for reading controversial material. “Mein Kampf could be following a similar trend to that of smut and romance novels,” Faraone writes. Customers may have not wanted to be seen reading the book or having it on their shelf at home, but the cheap digital copies “can be quietly perused then dropped into a folder or deleted.”

 

Ebook reviewers’ comments support the 50 Shades of Grey theory. “I think I waited 45 years to read Hitler’s words… I wish I had read it sooner,” wrote Steven Wagg. “Curiosity killed me to get this book,” said another reviewer. The document also functions as a warning: “People need to understand that if we do not learn from people like this, then we will fall into their traps again,” Ray D’Aguanno wrote on Amazon.

Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, says it "'would be best to leave 'Mein Kampf' where it belongs: the poison cabinet of history.'" "'Unlike other works that truly deserve to be republished as annotated editions, 'Mein Kampf' does not,'" he adds.

via http://ift.tt/2j554Fu Tyler Durden