Month: September 2017

In a breakthrough that could permanently ameliorate the threat of thinning water supplies in California and much of the western US, a team of scientists says it will soon be able to induce rainfall and lightning storms by firing high-energy laser beams into the heavens.

Express reports that the breakthrough involves manipulating the static electricity present in clouds – which, after all, are just balls of condensation, triggering rainfall, according to experts at the University of Central Florida and the University of Arizona.

A six year drought in California was finally declared over this year but the threat for the south-western state as well as other locations in the world remains the same.

But scientists may now be able to induce rain and lightning storms using high energy lasers in a breakthrough that could potentially eradicate droughts throughout the globe.

The possibility of condensation, lightning and storms are ever present in the clouds and are containED through high amounts of static electricity.

Experts from the University of Central Florida and the University of Arizona believe that by firing a series of laser beams, they can activate the static electricity and induce rain and storms.

Here’s how it would work: One beam would be fired into the clouds to stimulate rainfall. Then, a second beam would surround the first beam to help sustain it for longer.

“When a laser beam becomes intense enough, it behaves differently than usual – it collapses inward on itself,” said Matthew Mills, a graduate student in the Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL).

 

“The collapse becomes so intense that electrons in the air’s oxygen and nitrogen are ripped off creating plasma – basically a soup of electrons.”

This struggle is known as “filamentation” and creates a “light string” that only lasts for a short time before it disperses – hence the need for the second beam.

However, “because a filament creates excited electrons in its wake as it moves, it artificially seeds the conditions necessary for rain and lightning to occur.”

And, as it turns out, “if you wrap a large, low intensity, doughnut-like ‘dress’ beam around the filament and slowly move it inward, you can provide this arbitrary extension.

“Since we have control over the length of a filament with our method, one could seed the conditions needed for a rainstorm from afar," Mills continued.

 

“Ultimately, you could artificially control the rain and lightning over a large expanse with such ideas.”

One of the scientists involved with the study appeared on CBS This Morning on Thursday to explain how the technology would work in more detail:

 

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

Authored by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist,

Today’s post will be about Japanese yen vol, but I am sure to bore some readers with that topic, so I am starting with something a little more interesting.

 As many of you know, I am a little bit of a bitcoin skeptic. At the end of the day, I have trouble investing in the ledger in the sky.

Call me old-fashioned, call me a troglodyte, call me a bitter gold bug, call me whatever you want, I just can’t bring myself to get long bits in the cloud. And before you send me messages how I don’t understand it, don’t forget I was mining bitcoin before most of Wall Street had ever heard of it. So I am much more than just some trade-a-saurus that refuses to get with the times, I am the knob who passed on bitcoin at $5.

Yet I have the privilege of counting Tony Greer from TG Macro as one of my pals, and his enthusiasm about using crypto currencies for micro-payments has piqued my interest. From Tony’s great letter the other day:

For selfish reasons, this is the article that gets me most excited about bitcoin and the blockchain. The streamlining of media distribution is going to kick the door open for individuals to compete with publishing powerhouses and main stream periodicals.

 

Publishing content on Amazon, iTunes, even YouTube is extremely costly for the author/artist. Youtubers can’t earn money until they get 10,000 views. Apple and Amazon take between 30% and 75% for the right to their distribution networks. Since media consumption has gone digital, it’s been difficult to charge on a PER ARTICLE basis because of high transaction costs making it prohibitively expensive. All that’s about to change. The blockchain is going to allow thousands of transactions to be processed at low to no cost, it will preserve a record of all those transactions along with all the content, it provides transparency for the artist/author and consumer, and one day, it will make the Morning Navigator available to every single reader in the world for $1 per copy.

Take a moment to read the article Tony linked to. Yeah, I know. You would never expect me to be linking to an article in BitCoin Magazine, but life’s funny.

I have no real counterargument to the idea of using cryptos for micropayments. There is a real need for the ability to easily transfer small amounts of money. Given that it is simply a change in a ledger at a bank, it should be virtually free. Yet the banks, VISA and Mastercard, have for too long enjoyed oligopoly pricing, and just like the music industry fifteen years ago, they will not willingly lower their fees until it is too late.

The other day I was out with some bankers who were explaining Ben Davies’ newest project. Many of you will remember Ben as the CIO of Hinde Capital, but a year or so ago he left to devote his time to GLINT. Having a look at the prototype, I realized this product very well might change the way we think about global currencies and how we transact. I will not bother shilling their service (if you are interested click on the link to get to their website), but needless to say, existing financial institutions should be worried about the emergence of GLINT, Goldmoney, and all the other fintech startups that are nipping at their heels.

Up until now, the biggest beneficiaries of the move to digital cash have been VISA and Mastercard. And although I understand all the reasons why their point of presence will make de-throning them difficult, I just can’t help but wonder how long before their margins are threatened.

It’s not like their stocks are down and out…

I am not advocating investing in bitcoin, GLINT, or any other fintech startup. As I have shown, I am not smart enough to tell you who is going to win. But I am beginning to wonder if the easier trade is to short VISA and Mastercard. For too long they have enjoyed oligopoly style rents, and I just think that the real takeaway from all this new technology is that their day in the sun might soon well be over…

*  *  *

Japanese Yen Volatility

Between 1999 and 2012, the Bank of Japan increased their balance sheet threefold, raising it from 10% of GDP to 30%. Many a pundit screamed about Japan’s irresponsible monetary policy, but then the 2008 Great Financial Crisis hit, and suddenly the BoJ’s policies didn’t seem that extreme. The Fed embarked on a massive quantitative easing program, followed by most of the rest of the developed world. Next thing you knew, the Bank of Japan’s bloated balance sheet seemed like just one of many.

Post GFC, the rate at which these other Central Banks were expanding their balance sheet put extreme stress on the Japanese economy as the BoJ’s relatively tame quantitative easing policy was overwhelmed by the rest of the world. Global deflation was exported to Japan. And just when things couldn’t get worse, Japan was hit by the tsunami / nuclear disaster. Paradoxically, this caused a spike in the USDJPY rate down to 75, with the Yen hitting an all-time high value against the US dollar.

This proved the final straw for the Japanese people, and Prime Minister Abe was elected on a platform of breaking the back of deflation through innovative extreme policies. And just like that, Abeconomics was born.

Since then the Bank of Japan balance sheet has swelled from 30% of GDP to 95%!

It’s too easy to take this for granted. The blue tickets just seem to keep coming, and coming, and coming. Pretty soon, it all seems so normal.

But it isn’t. Not even close. This is bat-shit-crazy monetary expansion. Forget about arguing whether it is appropriate or needed. It doesn’t matter. The markets don’t give a hoot about your opinion. Nor does the BoJ. Heck, they barely even care what Yellen or Trump thinks. They are going to do what they think best for their people, and that means inflating the shit out of their currency.

What I find amazing is how complacent the markets have become about all of this. Sure when Abeconomics first came to pass there were tons of worrisome hedge fund presentations about the inevitability of disaster. But since then Kyle Bass and all the other Japan skeptics have moved on to China, or to the most recent hedge-fund-herding-theme-of-the-day. Yet at one point a few years back a reporter asked Kyle if he could put on one trade for the next decade and couldn’t touch it, what would it be? Bass answered gold denominated in Yen. I have this sneaking suspicion our favourite Texas hedge fund manager’s call was way more prescient than even he imagines (I just hope Kyle hasn’t taken it all off to bet on the China collapse.)

It’s not like the market hasn’t figured the short Japanese Yen trade out. Shorting Yen is one of the go-to carry trades for macro traders everywhere.

I am not adding much value by reiterating climbing aboard this trade. It’s a crowded trade, and most importantly, not that original.

The trouble with crowded trades is that the exit doors are always too small. And even the BoJ is worried about the possibility of a speculative unwind in the Japanese foreign exchange market.

It was with great interest that I read an article in the Nikkei Asian Review titled “Japan looking to tamp down leverage in forex trades”.

Japan is considering lowering the maximum leverage permissible in foreign exchange trading on grounds that both retail and institutional investors are facing greater risks should the market face sudden fluctuations.

 

Foreign exchange margin trading in Japan amounts to roughly 5 quadrillion yen ($44.2 trillion) annually. The lower cap would reduce the risk of a crisis originating in Japan, but will likely be met by resistance from industry players.

 

The Financial Services Agency has begun discussions with the Financial Futures Association of Japan on changing the rule. The leading proposal would reduce the maximum leverage ratio from 25 to 10. The cabinet could issue an order as early as next year to place the new ceiling into effect.

I don’t necessarily think this regulatory change will be something that causes the whole Yen carry trade to unwind, but it’s one piece of a puzzle that definitely seems precariously perched. The BoJ wants the yen to decline, just not too fast. The trouble is that markets don’t always let Central Bankers devalue currencies in a nice calm manner.

I have long held the view that most market pundits are expecting the next crisis to look just like the last. They are all shorting credit because that’s what worked last time. And it’s also why for the longest time, VIX was consistently trading at a higher price than realized volatility. Long equity volatility was the real big winner last time, so everyone loads up on VXX because after all, we all know the next 2008 style crash is right around the corner.

Well, I might not know much, but I know that the next crisis will not be the same as the last one. It never is.

So while everyone is busy loading up on VIX calls, or buying CDX protection, I am more interested in thinking about where the global financial system is most unbalanced.

And I can’t believe there is anything more frightening than the manic increase in the BoJ’s balance sheet. I don’t know if it is going to end in a stomach churning roller-coaster-style free fall where the BoJ loses control of their money supply and the Yen spikes to 200, or if some other event will cause a massive short covering rally of Yen that forces a rally back to 95 or even 85 before the BoJ steps in, and prints an even stupider amount. But I am convinced it is not stable.

You would think that given the massive money printing the market would have bid up the price of protection, but Japanese implied volatility is remarkably low. I have plotted the 6-month over-the-counter implied volatility level of the Yen over the past few years.

Of course, the 2008 crash caused a pick up in volatility, so the move to 22% does not seem unreasonable. And the ensuing move back to 8% makes sense. Then with the introduction of Abeconomics, the rally to 14% is easy to justify. But it’s the drifting back down to sub 10% that I think mispriced.

There is no way that the Yen has the same risk as the 2001-2006 period. It just ain’t so. Kuroda has taken Japan down a monetary path that is unprecedented. To think that this will road will not be filled with huge obstacles is naive. Yet here at 10% for six-month Yen vol, we are only a couple vol points away from the lower end of the range of the past couple of decades.

I am buying long-term Japanese yen volatility. No, I don’t trade OTC, so I am going to the CME and buying straddles, strangles, and every other long vol option spread I can think of. I wish there is was some way to just buy a VXX type ETF of the Yen, but there simply isn’t demand for this type of product. The inability to easily buy a hedge is precisely why it stands a much better chance of being the real risk you should be worried about.

Japanese yen volatility is too cheap given the dangers involved in this crazy monetary experiment. Just because all the hedge fund wise guys have forgotten about the trade doesn’t mean you have to.

Panics don’t occur when everyone is looking for them. I am not sure about the trigger, and heck, I am not even sure about the direction.

But I do know that you don’t print 65% of your GDP in 5 years and not affect markets.

There will be consequences, we just don’t know what they are yet. Get your insurance while you can, not when you have to…

via http://ift.tt/2xIt7yg Tyler Durden

As Congress and the U.S. news media continue to lose their collective minds over what appears to be a meaningless amount of advertising dollars purchased on Facebook by “potentially Russian linked” accounts, Julian Assange offered up a helpful reminder that if Silicon Valley’s tech billionaires colluded with anyone in the months leading up to the 2016 election it was Hillary Clinton, who they all “wanted to win badly.”

Podesta emails reveal that Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg wanted Hillary Clinton to win “badly”, provided research to her in March 2015 and met privately with her on multiple occasions. https://t.co/SxNQ4etdPD http://pic.twitter.com/dqyRG2zuln

— Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) September 28, 2017

For evidence that Facebook was “in the tank” for Hillary from the start, one has to look no further than the following email from Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, who told John Podesta in June 2015 that she wanted Hillary to “win badly” and was “here to help as I can.” 

Can you imagine the “outrage” that Senator Warner would feel if such an email were sent to someone on Trump’s campaign?

Or what about if Paul Manafort were invited to Facebook headquarters to meet Mark Zuckerberg to discuss “how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about.”  Oh wait, that did happen except it wasn’t Trump’s campaign head that was invited, it was John Podesta.

And wouldn’t you know it, just a few days later Mark Zuckerberg did meet with John Podesta…but we’re sure they only discussed the ins and outs of setting up a 501(c)(3).   

Of course, the “collusion” between the Hillary team and Facebook goes on and on…here is John Podesta in January 2016 expressing how much he looks forward to working with Facebook to “elect the first woman President of the United States.”

Meanwhile, as we noted back in November 2016, Google’s Chairman, Eric Schmidt, didn’t even pretend to be impartial and actually submitted a thorough “strategic plan” designed to help Hillary win the election.

Among the latest set of Podesta releases, was the following email sent on April 15, 2014 by Google’s Eric Schmidt titled “Notes for a 2016 Democratic Campaign” in which the Google/Alphabet Chairman tells Cheryl Mills that “I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better.  This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all.“

Google head Eric Schmidt’s secret strategic plan for the US election #PodestaEmails https://t.co/LskJODXyXn

More: https://t.co/ZUfh7WDAT5 http://pic.twitter.com/llq5G9kp5V

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 31, 2016

 

While there are numerous curious nuances in the plan, presented below in its entirety, the one section that caught our – and Wikileaks’ attention – is the following which implicitly suggests Google planned the creation of a voter tracking database, using smart phones:

 

Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.  In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter.  A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about (“the benefits of ACA to you” etc.)

All that said, we do very much hope that Senator Warner is able to quickly get to the bottom of exactly who bought those $50,000 worth of Facebook ads…because that’s what is really important here.

via http://ift.tt/2xR2JVh Tyler Durden

That didn't take long.

After issuing a ruling in July that officially declared that the tokens sold during initial coin offerings must be registered as securities – a ruling that many hoped would lend a badly needed veneer of legitimacy to the shady ICO market – the SEC is following through with what we imagine will be the first of many civil actions against ICO and the individuals who launch them.

The agency on Friday announced civil actions against two companies and their founder, businessman Maksim Zaslavskiy, for violating anti-fraud and registration provisions of federal securities laws after misleading investors in a pair of so-called initial coin offerings (ICOs) purportedly backed by investments in real estate and diamonds.

It's important to remember that this is civil complaint – the SEC doesn't have the power to make arrests; to do that, it must work in tandem with the FBI. Zaslavskiy is a free man. However, his assets – and those belonging to his companies – have been frozen. Instead, the agency is seeking to permanently ban Zaslavskiy from participating in any future digital-currency offerings, along with what we imagine will be hefty fines.

In its press release, the SEC accused Maksim Zaslavskiy and his companies of selling unregistered securities, while also alleging that the digital tokens or coins he was peddling didn't really exist. According to the SEC's complaint, investors in REcoin Group Foundation and DRC World (also known as Diamond Reserve Club) were told (presumably by Zaslavskiy) that they could expect sizeable returns from the companies' operations, when neither had any real operations to speak of.

As we've previously reported, the ICO market has exploded since late last year. The total sum raised has already reached $1.3 billion, with more expected by year's end. However, the ease with which unscrupulous people could fraudulently market their tokens (and earn big money) has attracted attention from regulators all over the world. China cited fears about abuses related to ICOs as the reason for shuttering all local digital-currency exchanges. Russia briefly flirted with the idea as well.

Earlier today, FINMA, the Swiss government body responsible for regulating markets, said it was investigating several ICOs for possible fraud. In its press release announcing the investigations, the regulator explained that because ICOs are structured in a similar way to traditional stock offerings, they fall under the agency's purview. So every time it has received a complaint related to ICOS, its representatives have pursued that complaint.

To the best of our knowledge, these are the first indications that any official regulatory action is being taken against ICO purveyors in either the US or Switzerland.

In its civil complaint, the SEC alleges that "from July 2017 to the present, Zaslavskiy, the President and sole owner of the Companies, fraudulently raised at least $300,000 from hundreds of investors, through various material misrepresentations and deceptive acts relating to supposed investments in digital “tokens” or “coins” offered, first by REcoin, then by Diamond, during the ICOs."

Zaslavskiy allegedly touted REcoin as "The First Ever Cryptocurrency Backed by Real Estate."  Alleged misstatements to REcoin investors included that the company had a "team of lawyers, professionals, brokers, and accountants" that would invest REcoin's ICO proceeds into real estate when in fact none had been hired or even consulted. Zaslavskiy and REcoin allegedly misrepresented they had raised between $2 million and $4 million from investors when the actual amount is approximately $300,000.

Zaslavskiy then carried his scheme over to Diamond Reserve Club. He marketed the organization as one that invests in diamonds and obtains discounts with product retailers for individuals who purchase "memberships" in the company. Despite their representations to investors, the SEC alleges that Zaslavskiy and Diamond have not purchased any diamonds nor engaged in any business operations. Yet they allegedly continue to solicit investors and raise funds as though they have.

Read the rest of the complaint below:

 

2017.09.29icocomplaint by zerohedge on Scribd

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2fYs3Pj Tyler Durden

Editor Mark O’Byrne

– Gold climbs over 12% in YTD, matching S&P500 performance
– Palladium best performing market, surges 36% 2017 YTD
– Gold outperforms Nikkei 225, Euro Stoxx 50, FTSE and ISEQ
– Geo-political concerns including Trump and North Korea supporting gold
– Safe haven demand should push gold higher in Q4
– Owning physical gold not dependent on third party websites and technology remains essential

Click to enlarge. Source Finviz.com

In the year-to-date the gold price performance has matched the S&P 500, climbing over 12%.

Gold’s matching of the S&P 500 is particularly impressive when you consider the record-breaking performance of the benchmark stock market index in the last year. Yesterday it advanced 0.1% to 2510.06, a new all time record high price.

It is also impressive considering sentiment towards stocks is shall we say “irrationally exuberant”, while sentiment towards gold remains muted despite gold eking out gains in 2016 and now again in 2017.

The precious metal has performed well predominantly due to rising uncertainties regarding North Korea, Trump and the political mess in the U.S. and other geopolitical tensions.

Its strong performance is despite noise from the US Federal Reserve regarding its alleged plans to tighten money supply and increase rates. Other major central banks have also provided similar indications.

Elsewhere, gold has outperformed both the Euro Stoxx 50 and Nikkei 225 which are 8.5% and 6.5% higher respectively. The UK’s FTSE and Ireland’s ISEQ are underperforming and have the hallmarks of markets that are topping out.

The FTSE and the ISEQ are 2.5% and 4.25% higher year to date.

Silver, platinum and palladium up 5.5%, 2% and 37%  YTD respectively

Gold wasn’t the only precious metal that performed well in the last three quarters. All four precious metals have climbed in price.

Palladium has been the headline grabbing asset in the last year. In the year-to-date the industrial precious metal is up by nearly 37%. Holdings in exchange-traded funds backed are close to the highest since the beginning of the year.

This week for the first time since 2001, palladium topped the platinum price. Palladium is predominantly used in pollution-control devices for gasoline-powered cars and trucks. In contrast platinum is used in diesel-powered engines.

Governments have been slowly clamping down on diesel due to concerns over its role in pollution and emissions scandals. Platinum is up by only 2% this year. Some believe the metal has been oversold in recent days and there is too much heat in the palladium market.
Meanwhile silver is refusing to go below $16/oz. Some investors may feel disappointed that it has failed to break above $19/oz this year, despite strength in gold.

Investors in silver must continue to take heart that silver does still stand to gain whenever the U.S. dollar loses strength or concerns about the stock market creates demands for assets to hedge risk with.

Geo-political concerns with North Korea and elsewhere fuel demand

In a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey the biggest ‘tail risk’ seen by investors was North Korea’s missile risk.

This was ahead of policy missteps in central banks of the US and China, and credit tightening in China.

However, worries over nuclear war are not the only concern fuelling the price of gold. Uncertainty regarding political haggling and stalemate in Washington are also providing key support.

Critics of President Trump are concerned that he and his team have achieved very little since his inauguration. Any plans that have been proposed are seemingly poorly devised and quickly shot-down.

This week the Republicans failed once again to defeat Obamacare, a key component of Trump’s election promises. Also the White House announced a plan for a lower corporate tax rate and to cut the highest individual income tax rate.

Critics argued however that the plan was awash with cronyism and helped the wealthy. There was also little indication given as to how the tax cuts would be funded amid risks that deepening U.S. deficits may further weaken the dollar.

Expect more safe haven demand next quarter 

As we all know, gold is a barometer for uncertainty. With a 12% climb in the last year and no sign of risks abating, there is little reason to not expect the price to continue to climb.

Should gold reach $1,400, then this will be a four-year high and a sure sign of a bullish breakout for the precious metal.

We shouldn’t invest in gold because of some ambulance-chasing punt on geopolitical disaster. Gold should play a key role in your investment portfolio as a tool for protecting against risk and hedging declines in stock and other markets and currency devaluations.

In truth, there is still a huge amount of uncertainty regarding the outlook for the global economy and global markets.

No one knows how central banks’ attempts to unwind the last decade of monetary policy will play out, nor does anyone know how President Trump’s government will survive in an America that will continue to feel more pressure from the likes of Russia and China.

Investors need to stay focused on the medium and especially the long-term and the bigger picture.

Editors Conclusion

Sentiment in the gold market remains quite poor. Most of the public remains on the sidelines  and there is very little positive coverage of gold.

Nor is there an appreciation of the scale of economic, geo-political and monetary risks facing investors and savers today.

There remains a fundamental lack of knowledge of the still very strong supply and demand factors driving the physical gold market and a lack of understanding as to why gold remains a vitally important asset to own in a portfolio.

Many stock markets are at record highs. Many bond markets are at record highs. Many property markets are at record highs. This makes gold which is remains nearly 33% below its record high very attractive from a hedging and diversification perspective.

Real diversification through owning allocated and segregated gold not dependent on third party websites and technology remains essential.

The old Wall Street adage to always keep 10% of your wealth in gold and hope that it does not work remains prudent.

Lets hope for the best but be prepared for less benign financial scenarios…

 

Gold and Silver Bullion – News and Commentary

Gold steady, on track for first monthly loss in three (Reuters.com)

Dollar Pressured After Strong Week; Bonds Advance: Markets Wrap (Bloomberg)

India May Have a Spot Gold Exchange in 12 to 18 Months (Bloomberg)

Gold rebounds from 6-week low as dollar drops (Reuters.com)

U.S. trade deficit shrinks in August, but the gap has widened in 2017 (Marketwatch)

 Source: Zerohedge

Gold and cash reign as U.S. fund investors sell stocks: Lipper (Reuters)

Is This The Real Driver Of Gold’s Recent Weakness? (Zerohedge)

Here’s what this “old school” investor thinks of bitcoin… (Stansberry CH)

You’re Likely A Lot Less Prepared For Crisis Than You Realize (Peak Prosperity)

Rickards Warns “Cracks In The Dollar Are Getting Larger” (Zerohedge)

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

29 Sep: USD 1,286.95, GBP 963.15 & EUR 1,090.82 per ounce
28 Sep: USD 1,284.30, GBP 961.04 & EUR 1,091.40 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 1,291.30, GBP 963.83 & EUR 1,099.54 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 1,306.90, GBP 969.59 & EUR 1,105.38 per ounce
25 Sep: USD 1,295.50, GBP 957.89 & EUR 1,089.26 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 1,297.00, GBP 956.15 & EUR 1,082.09 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 1,297.35, GBP 960.56 & EUR 1,089.00 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

29 Sep: USD 16.86, GBP 12.60 & EUR 14.27 per ounce
28 Sep: USD 16.82, GBP 12.53 & EUR 14.28 per ounce
27 Sep: USD 16.89, GBP 12.58 & EUR 14.38 per ounce
26 Sep: USD 17.01, GBP 12.67 & EUR 14.43 per ounce
25 Sep: USD 16.95, GBP 12.57 & EUR 14.27 per ounce
22 Sep: USD 16.97, GBP 12.52 & EUR 14.18 per ounce
21 Sep: USD 16.95, GBP 12.58 & EUR 14.24 per ounce

Recent Market Updates

– Gold Standard Resulted In “Fewer Catastrophes” – FT
– Financial Advice From Man Who Made $1+ Billion in 1929 – Importance Of Being Patient and “Sitting”
– “Gold prices to reach $1,400 before the end of the year” – GoldCore
– Commodities King Gartman Says Gold Soon Reach $1,400 As Drums of War Grow Louder
– Bitcoin “Is A Bubble” but Gold Is Money Says World’s Biggest Hedge Fund Manager
– Pensions and Debt Time Bomb In UK: £1 Trillion Crisis Looms
– Gold Investment “Compelling” As Fed May “Kill The Business Cycle”
– “This Is Where The Next Financial Crisis Will Come From” – Deutsche Bank
– Global Debt Bubble Understated By $13 Trillion Warn BIS
– Bitcoin Price Falls 40% In 3 Days Underlining Gold’s Safe Haven Credentials
– Gold Up, Markets Fatigued As War Talk Boils Over
– Oil Rich Venezuela Stops Accepting Dollars
– Massive Equifax Hack Shows Cyber Risk to Deposits and Investments Today

via http://ift.tt/2k9W3vT GoldCore

Authord by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

 

via http://ift.tt/2x3OGY9 Tyler Durden

Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,

Jimmy Song has 20 years experience as a software developer. So it’s easy to imagine that he took an interest in Bitcoin from the technology angle.

However, Jimmy first got interested in Bitcoin as a store of value and sound money, and only later started to contribute to the Bitcoin core development team and to train new developers for the technology.

The Epoch Times spoke to Jimmy Song about why Bitcoin is sound money, where its value comes from, and how it compares to the other cryptocurrencies.

The code provides the basis for Bitcoin as a store of value but it's the people behind it which keep it going…

Epoch Times: How did you first get interested in Bitcoin?

Jimmy Song: When I first read about it, Bitcoin had broken $1, and I wondered: what is Bitcoin? I’ve never heard of this thing, and why is it important that it broke a dollar? How can a Bitcoin have a dollar? I looked into it. I read about it. I read as much as I could and I discovered that it had this twenty-one million Bitcoin limit.

This is something where you can’t make more of it, and that was the big draw for me. I mean, there’s a medium of exchange component that was pretty interesting too. You could send money to Africa in ten minutes without anything complicated like the Western Union, but having the store of value property was far more interesting to me.

You’re not going to be able to inflate it in any way. Bitcoin is sound money because there is a fixed supply limit and demand is always increasing. That creates a really good investment, at least from my perspective, and so I bought some at around $30. I do wish I bought a lot more but everybody in Bitcoin does.

Epoch Times: Later you started programming for several Bitcoin projects, and now you contribute to the core development team. Please tell us why you believe in Bitcoin as a network.

Mr. Song: The big thing that appeals to me now is its anti-fragility. Nassim Taleb talks about anti-fragility in his book ‘Antifragile,’ but basically, Bitcoin gains from disorder and that’s what I’ve noticed. Why does it keep going up when there’s crazy things happening to it and especially with regard to this recent hard for with Bitcoin Cash?

I thought about it and upon reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason is: Bitcoin is being immunized against attack. It’s growing from disorder because there are actual people who are going out there and changing parts of the ecosystem. You can be a core developer, you could be a wallet developer, or you could be an exchange developer, you can be a merchant developer or a processor developer. Whatever it is, they’re all sort of working to make their part of the ecosystem better so that they can withstand these attacks and as a result, Bitcoin becomes a better store of value. Right? The more immunity it has to attack, the more secure it is, the better a store of value it becomes.

Things like the Bitcoin software just aren’t smart enough to handle stuff like that. It has to be people that actually fix it and that’s what I think gives Bitcoin a lot of security value — because you have all these people watching it and not just like computer software that’s running on its own. It’s developers, it’s the people that are actually checking the code or watching the network figuring out low probability scenarios and how to immunize against those. That’s what gives it value. That’s what gives us security. That’s what makes it a great store of value.

Epoch Times: According to you, the quality of the development team directly influences the value of the cryptocurrency.

Mr. Song: If you look at the different market capitalizations of cryptocurrencies, the quality of the developers and the price tends to be somewhat correlated. So Bitcoin is obviously the biggest and has the most developers, it’s number one and the second is Ethereum and number three right now is Bitcoin Cash.

That makes sense because it’s the developers that give any coin or ecosystem the antifragile quality. Right? They’re the ones that can react to attacks on the network. They’re the ones that can fix various things whereas, like coins that have gone down in value, their developers have abandoned it or they’ve since moved on to other things or aren’t very good. I don’t know if a correlation is necessarily causation but the fact that developers give the network security and the security gives it a store of value and that in turn gives it a higher price, that makes sense to me.

Epoch Times: Another important point for cryptocurrencies is the decentralization. They need to be decentralized, otherwise one could just use a centrally managed currency like the U.S. dollar. Would you say Bitcoin is the most decentralized of them all?

Mr. Song: I would say so. There’s a lot of different implementations of Bitcoin. There’s a lot of different nodes and software and wallets. There are all kinds of wallets on the Bitcoin network. You have exchanges, you have this whole infrastructure that’s very motivated to make it good and it’s definitely more decentralized than say Ethereum or, Bitcoin Cash or any of these other ones. A lot of them have foundations or a group of developers who run the show.

If you look at something like the DAO hack of the Ethereum network. They said, this is what we’re going to do and it was decreed by Vitalik Buterin and they had a hard fork, completely reversing the hack. That may be good for whatever they’re trying to do but that’s not decentralized.

Ethereum is not sound money for a lot of reasons, but that that’s one of the reasons that it would disqualify, it is that there’s a central person that you can go to and appeal to and say, “let’s make another a hundred million Ethereum right now.” Ripple suffers from the same problem. They have this huge storage of ripples that they can release to the market at any point.

If you have an authoritarian governance model, I don’t really see that as very secure sound, whereas with Bitcoin, it’s very decentralized. I mean, nobody would go along with raising of the twenty-one million limit and things of that nature. In that way, I see Bitcoin as more secure than all these other coins because there is no single point of failure. I think one of the best things that the founder, Satoshi Nakamoti, did was disappear because that took away sort of that authoritarian voice that he would have naturally had. And people still appeal to Satoshi all the time but, in a sense, his disappearance kind of led to the decentralization that we see today.

Epoch Times: Because you believe developers are so important for Bitcoin, you have recently started a training program with which you hope to alleviate some of the shortages.

Mr. Song: Developers are at the heart of what Bitcoin is. I recognize that almost every company is trying to hire ten big block-chain engineers or Bitcoin engineers and there’s a very, very small supply. The software developers that got into Bitcoin early enough are really rich so they don’t really need to work, or they started their own companies or they’re part of another company and they’re very happy already because their companies are very motivated to keep them happy.

I decided the way to fill that gap is just to train more people, and I do have some background in doing that. So I started the company Programming Blockchain, and I started recently with the first two-day seminar where I teach everything. I feel this is a win for everybody. It’s a win for the students because they can have a much more lucrative career in blockchain engineering or Bitcoin engineering.

It’s obviously good for the industry because they’re getting more Bitcoin developers, and this is big needs area for pretty much every company. It’s obviously good for me because this is something that I like to do. I feel like it’s contributing and also I’m making money. So win, win, win, and that’s the direction I want to go.

via http://ift.tt/2x3t9Pg Tyler Durden

A scientist tasked with monitoring the proliferation of nuclear weapons has published what he described as a “rough simulation” of what would happen if North Korea follows through with threats to test a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean.

The upshot of the simulation – which was published by Lassina Zerbo, the head of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization – is that such an “atmospheric burst” could spread a “radio-isotope cloud” of radiation across the planet, potentially leading to the catastrophic loss of life. 

In response to inquiries: Rough simulation (Sept15-29) of #radio-isotope cloud from hypothetical atmospheric burst over Pacific: #CTBT #IMS http://pic.twitter.com/361ZBkoUy7

— Lassina Zerbo (@SinaZerbo) September 28, 2017

Simply a rough simulation of potential cloud that cld carry isotopes! In response to specific inquiries and nothing more.

— Lassina Zerbo (@SinaZerbo) September 28, 2017

To be sure, some criticized the graphic as misleading, arguing that such a test probably wouldn’t lead to a world-wide cataclysm.

This is very misleading. Folks will interpret as cataclysmic. Localized rad levels and global fallout totally different.

— Tucker Murray (@TJM11291) September 28, 2017

A Harvard PhD professor said that people “will confuse it with the kinds of fallout clouds they are used to reading about” the “shelter in place for two weeks kind.”

They will confuse it with the kinds of fallout clouds they are used to reading about, the "take shelter for 2 weeks" kind. http://pic.twitter.com/JEvIhbe97L

— Alex Wellerstein (@wellerstein) September 28, 2017

US President Donald Trump warned earlier this week, North Korea’s nuclear weapons threaten “the entire world with unthinkable loss of life,” adding that the US has several “devastating” military options to choose from in dealing with North Korea.  

Last week, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho told the UN General Assembly in New York that the US had effectively “declared war” on North Korea, and that the isolated country wouldn’t hesitate to retaliate with a nuclear strike. Since then, there have been reports that the North could be planning another show of force – and possibly its seventh nuclear test – to coincide with a local holiday next month.

According to Ri, the “most powerful detonation of an H-bomb” would be one of the North’s “highest-level” actions against the US, as Russia Today reports.

“It could be the most powerful detonation of a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific,” Ri told Yonhap while in New York. “We have no idea about what actions could be taken, as it will be ordered by leader Kim Jong-un.”

North Korea completed its sixth successful nuclear test earlier this month when it tested what’s believed to have been a hydrogen bomb. However, it’s unclear if the country has developed a thermonuclear warhead small enough to fit inside the tip of one of it’s ICBMs. Monitoring groups estimate the explosion caused by the Sept. 3 test was 16 times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

Yesterday, China announced that it had ordered all North Korean businesses operating within its borders to close, part of its obligations under the latest round of UN Security Council sanctions that were passed earlier this month.

Ultimately, Russia and China have called on both the US and North Korea to sit down for diplomatic talks. The two countries even proposed a peace plan where North would agree to suspend its nuclear and ballistic missile tests in exchange for the US halting its military drills with the South Koreans. However, neither the US nor North Korea have expressed much interest in talks.

via http://ift.tt/2xMD1kl Tyler Durden

As we previously warned, the latest McCarthyite scam called "Hamilton 68" is increasingly serving as a go-to source for major media outlets and more disturbingly, now even members of Congress. This week Republican Senator James Lankford (Oklahoma) added another layer to the seemingly endless 'Russiagate' conspiracies – he claimed Wednesday during a hearing on threats faced by the US that Russia is using the NFL anthem kneeling controversy to drive a wedge through the American populace.

Lankford, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, made the bizarre claim that, "We watched, even this weekend, the Russians and their troll farms, their internet folks, start hashtagging out #TakeAKnee and also hashtagging out #BoycottNFL,” during a hearing on threats faced by the United States. Lankford, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, explained further that, "They were taking both sides of the argument this weekend… to try to raise the noise level of America and make a big issue seem like an even bigger issue as they are trying to push divisiveness in this country."

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK). Image source: C-Span

Representative Adam Schiff of California, a Democrat, has also been a leading congressional voice demanding investigations into supposed Russian social media manipulation and election meddling. Stories in Reuters and the New York Times this week which uncritically amplified the claims, referenced the Hamilton 68 online platform as a key source of information for congressional investigators. Reuters described the online tool as:

A website built by researchers working with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan, transatlantic project to counter Russian disinformation, showed tweets promoting both sides of the football debate from 600 accounts that analysts identified as users who spread Russian propaganda on Twitter. A Senate aide said the website was viewed as credible among congressional investigators.

But a cursory glance at Hamilton68 – which is mostly funded by the US and NATO states (Bill Kristol is on the project's board, need we say more?) – reveals that both its list of "600 accounts" and methodology for determining these accounts as purveyors of "Russian disinformation" are largely hidden from public view. As we concluded when we initially profiled the platform and the organization behind it, the online tool is lacking in any semblance of scientific data-driven analysis, and its conclusions are thus meaningless. It exists to give gullible audiences the illusion that a data analysis driven tech tool produced via a "bipartisan" think tank has meticulously and objectively proven the "there's a Russia connection lurking behind every corner" conspiracy theory.

Unless I am reading this wrong, it shows Russians bought ads to try and help Democrat causes? ???? ????????‍?? http://pic.twitter.com/6f8TLzKaa7

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) September 27, 2017

But the senselessness of Senator Lankford's shrill and bizarro assertions hardly needs much comment: he's essentially claiming that nefarious Russian-backed social media accounts promoted two contrary positions at a moment when much of the American populace itself was doing the exact same thing through millions of tweets, Facebook posts, and online message boards. As Mark Zuckerburg pointed out this week in what was surely a disappointing moment of truth for promoters of Russiagate conspiracies in general, "campaigns spent hundreds of millions advertising online" which was "1000x more than any problematic ads we've found."

It's important to remember that Hamilton 68 dashboard's "monitoring" of content primarily features what it calls "second tier Russian propaganda". As we previously reported this involves the following:

It tracks and stores information about others who have no connection to Russia but who "on their own initiative reliably repeat and amplify Russian themes." This is what the German Marshall Fund calls a "network" of second tier disinformation distributors.

If an article, tweet, or headline is trending among "Russian influence" accounts – which in this case means Alliance for Securing Democracy's secret list of 600 twitter accounts – the trending URL appears on the dashboard's front page. Essentially this is simple guilt by association, as we described:

What does this "network" of people with no connection to Russia but who amplify Russian "themes" do?

 

It "reflects Russian messaging priorities, but that does not mean every name or link you see on the dashboard is pro-Russian. The network sometimes amplifies stories that Russia likes, or people with like-minded views but no formal connection to Russia."

 

So, according to the self-proclaimed alliance for securing democracy you might not even know it when you are pushing Russian state propaganda!

So if even if stories from mainstream or establishment news organizations like The Washington Post, Bloomberg, or Reuters happen to be tweeted frequently by "Russian influence accounts" these mainstream sites appear on Hamilton 68's dashboard. Again, given that originating account identities are not revealed, the information is meaningless – it's but a mere reflection of what happens to be trending all over social media at any given moment.

Indeed below is an example of sites the tool was tracking within the first week Hamilton 68 was launched at the beginning of August. The below dashboard pane is accompanied with the descriptor: "Top websites tweeted by a monitored set of accounts related to Russian influence campaigns." Both Bloomberg and The Washington Times and other mainstream and long established outlets appear somewhat regularly on this dashboard which claims to identify Russian meddling.

Alliance for Securing Democracy's online tracking tool reads: "Top websites tweeted by a monitored set of accounts related to Russian influence campaigns." 

But the dashboard more often targets hugely popular independent news sites like Robert Parry's Consortium News, The Federalist, Breitbart, and WikiLeaks. As The New York Times mentions, "Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent 'had a primary theme of anti-Americanism'". It is impossible to know what, according to the site's designers, "anti-Americanism" means, but it no doubt involves articles which are critical of US foreign policy. This means that if a Washington Post or Reuters article, for example, highlights "staggering" Iraqi civilian deaths under US coalition bombings, that article would likely register as "anti-American" by the platform and its creators. By such methods, the Washington Post, Reuters, and numerous independent sites are brought under suspicion alongside RT News and Sputnik. But "anti-American" could also simply mean any article produced by a site that Hamilton 68's creators don't like. Again, the data is meaningless. 

Indeed, on Thursday both The Intercept and Antiwar.com were top trending sites on the Hamilton's 68 dashboard. Ironically, The Intercept has take various editorial positions concerning Russian hacking allegations, and last June published a rather sensational headline, Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election, which ended up making only a small splash, but landed NSA leaker Reality Winner in jail.

Thursday's (9/28) list of Top Trending Domains advanced by what Hamilton 68 identifies as Russian backed social media accounts. Antiwar News and The Intercept were trending.

Antiwar.com was founded as far back as 1995 for the purpose of opposing American militarism and interventionism. It was one of the early and consistent few news and activist sites which opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Starting in 2011 it came under FBI investigation after what the FBI admitted was a "mistake". The site's founders, who were also personally under FBI monitoring for their "anti-war views", estimate that they had lost at least $75,000 per year after donors pulled their support while citing fears that the FBI might monitor them too. Antiwar was forced to sue in federal court just to clear its name and reputation, and yet the damage is long lasting and not fully quantifiable.

Similarly, as Hamilton 68's methodology is based entirely on guilt by association, it could potentially do some real damage to the independent sites it targets. This is an increased possibility given that highly visible outlets like the New York Times, Reuters, and NPR are now citing it. And this is precisely what it aims to do: silence dissenting voices and independent thought. But like the first round of McCarthyite hysteria, this too shall hopefully pass, and history will not look kindly on those engaged in this shrill and absurd witch hunt which doesn't appear to be relenting anytime soon.

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

Authored bvy Daniel Nevins via FFWiley.com,

As reported earlier this morning by the Wall Street Journal, President Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin met with Kevin Warsh yesterday to discuss the potential vacancy at the Fed next February.

Warsh already has central banking experience, having sat on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) from February 2006 until March 2011.

Two and a half years after he resigned from the Fed, he emerged as a vocal critic of FOMC policies, including those policies he helped craft. He published an op-ed in the WSJ on November 12, 2013, and it was quite the editorial. As that happened to be the first week of hunting season, we suggested that Warsh had declared open season on his ex-colleagues, and we came up a gimmicky picture to go along with our reporting:

But we also thought his op-ed needed translation. It was written with the polite wording and between-the-lines meanings that you might expect from such an establishment figure. He seemed to be holding back. We offered our guesses on what he was really trying to say. And with today’s breaking news, we thought it would be a good time to reprint our translation.

So, if you’re wondering what the current frontrunner as Trump’s choice for the Fed chairmanship really thinks, here are Warsh’s comments on nine topics, followed by our translations.

Quantitative easing

“The purchase of long-term assets from the U.S. Treasury to achieve negative real interest rates is extraordinary, an unprecedented change in practice since the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951.

The Fed is directly influencing the price of long-term Treasurys—the most important asset in the world, the predicate from which virtually all investment decisions are judged. Earlier this year the notion that the Fed might modestly taper its purchases drove significant upheaval across financial markets. This episode should engender humility on all sides. It should also correct the misimpression that QE is anything other than an untested, incomplete experiment.”

What he really wants to say:

We’d all be better off if the central banking gods (myself included) hadn’t been so damn arrogant to think that we actually understood QE. We don’t, and it never should have been attempted.

The Fed’s focus on inflation

“Low measured inflation and anchored inflationary expectations should only begin the discussion about the wisdom of Fed policy, not least because of the long and variable lags between monetary interventions and their effects on the economy. The most pronounced risk of QE is not an outbreak of hyperinflation. Rather, long periods of free money and subsidized credit are associated with significant capital misallocation and malinvestment—which do not augur well for long-term growth or financial stability.”

What he really wants to say:

The inflation target is stupid. It’s not the CPI that’s killing us, it’s the credit booms and busts. The best way out of this mess is to lose the inflation target and go back to the old-fashioned approach of “taking the punch bowl away when the party gets going.”

Pulling off the exit from extraordinary measures

“[T]he foremost attributes needed by the Fed to end its extraordinary interventions and, ultimately, to raise interest rates, are courage and conviction. The Fed has been roundly criticized for providing candy to spur markets higher. Consider the challenge when a steady diet of spinach is on offer.”

What he really wants to say:

Pundits who praise the courage of our central bankers are clueless. The true story is that we consistently take the easy way out. If the current cast of characters wanted to show courage, they’d man up and replace the short-term sugar highs with long-term thinking.

The Fed’s relationship to the rest of Washington

“The administration and Congress are unwilling or unable to agree on tax and spending priorities, or long-term structural reforms. They avoid making tough choices, confident the Fed’s asset purchases will ride to the rescue. In short, the central bank has become the default provider of aggregate demand. But the more the Fed acts, the more it allows elected representatives to stay on the sidelines. The Fed’s weak tea crowds out stronger policy measures that can only be taken by elected officials. Nobel laureate economist Tom Sargent has it right: ‘Monetary policy cannot be coherent unless fiscal policy is.’”

What he really wants to say:

And if we don’t man up, you can count on Congress to continue its egregious generational theft and destroy our nation’s finances, just as Stan, Geoff and I have been warning.

Who benefits from QE and who doesn’t?

“Most do not question the Fed’s good intentions, but its policies have winners and losers, which should be acknowledged forthrightly.

The Fed buys mortgage-backed securities, thereby providing a direct boost to balance sheet wealth of existing homeowners to the detriment of renters and prospective future homeowners. The Fed buys long-term Treasurys to suppress yields and push investors into riskier assets, thereby boosting U.S. stocks.

The immediate beneficiaries: well-to-do households and established firms with larger balance sheets, larger risk appetites, and access to low-cost credit. The benefits to workers and retirees with significant fixed obligations are far more attenuated. The plodding improvement in the labor markets offers little solace.”

What he really wants to say:

Unbelievably, my ex-colleagues still don’t acknowledge their policies are killing the middle class to support the plutocracy. Their silence on this is wholly unacceptable and has to stop (and so do the policies).

Domestic versus global policy considerations

“[T]he U.S. is the linchpin of an integrated global economy. Fed-induced liquidity spreads to the rest of the world through trade and banking channels, capital and investment flows, and financial-market arbitrage. Aggressive easing by the Fed can be contagious, inclining other central banks to ease as well to stay competitive. The privilege of having the dollar as the world’s reserve currency demands a broad view of global economic and financial-market developments. Otherwise, this privilege could be squandered.”

What he really wants to say:

We really need to climb out of our shell and look at things from a global perspective. The rest of the world knows that we’re selling a bill of goods and won’t continue buying it forever. If we don’t change, you can kiss the dollar goodbye.

Forward guidance

“Since QE began, Fed policy makers have tried to explain that asset purchases and interest rates are different. Hence their refrain that tapering is not tightening, and that very low interest rates will continue after QE. Investors do not agree. Once the Fed begins to wind down its asset purchases, these market participants are likely to reassert their views with considerable force.

Recently, the Fed has elevated forward guidance as a means of persuading investors that it will indeed keep interest rates exceptionally low even after QE. Forward guidance is intended to explain how the central bank will react to incoming data. Fed projections for example, may show below-target inflation and a residual output gap justifying very low interest rates several years from now. But words are not equal to concrete policy action. And the Fed hasn’t received many awards for prescience in recent years.”

What he really wants to say:

Forward guidance is a load of crap. First, you won’t convince the market of any of your dumb ideas. Investors can and will think for themselves. Second, talk is cheap. And talk that’s based on the Fed’s ability to foresee the future? C’mon, that’s ridiculous.

Transparency

“[T]ransparency in communications about future policy is not a virtue unto itself. The highest virtue is getting policy right. Given manifest uncertainties about the state of the economy, oversharing policy deliberations is not useful if markets are led astray, or if public commitments reduce policy makers’ flexibility to call things the way they see them.”

What he really wants to say:

Transparency, shmansparency. I’ve had it up to here with taper, untaper, maybe taper, maybe not taper. I’ll trade a transparent central bank for one that knows what it’s doing any day.

Obama’s nomination of Janet Yellen as the next FOMC chair

“The president has nominated a person with a well-deserved reputation for probity and good judgment. The period ahead will demand these qualities in no small measure.”

What he really wants to say:

The president made a bad choice.

Disclaimer

These are only our guesses, not actual thoughts from Kevin Warsh, who hasn’t told us what he really wants to say.  We don’t even know if he hunts.  (We’re guessing no.)

Our up-to-date reflections

Back to the present now, we’ve reread our translations and have to admit that the last one—on the Janet Yellen nomination—was purely smart-alecky. But we don’t think the others were far-fetched—they seem consistent enough with Warsh’s carefully expressed opinions. If we were right, we could be facing big-time changes at the Fed. Then again, many Trump supporters expected a less war-mongering foreign policy from the presidential candidate who claimed we were being overly aggressive overseas.

So, if Warsh is indeed appointed as Yellen’s replacement, the key question is this: Will the individual change the institution, or will the institution change the individual? We may find out next year…

via http://ift.tt/2xE7wcM Tyler Durden