Second Crash Warning From The IMF – This Time It’s About Vol

Another week, another warning regarding financial crash scenarios from those keen minds at the IMF.

In “Here Is The IMF’s Global Financial Crash Scenario” last week, we highlighted the institution’s surprisingly candid discussion hidden away in its latest Financial Stability Report “Rising Medium-Term Vulnerabilities Could Derail the Global Recovery"…or as we paraphrased the IMF’s “politically correct way of saying the financial system is on the verge of crashing”.

As we noted previously, in the section also called "Global Financial Dislocation Scenario" because "crash" sounds just a little too pedestrian, the IMF uses a DSGE model to project the current global financial situation, and ominously admits that "concerns about a continuing buildup in debt loads and overstretched asset valuations could have global economic repercussions" and – in modeling out the next crash, pardon "dislocation" – the IMF conducts a "scenario analysis" to illustrate how a repricing of risks could "lead to a rise in credit spreads and a fall in capital market and housing prices, derailing the economic recovery and undermining financial stability."

This week the IMF has gone a step further, courting the mainstream financial media to publicise its warning about the dangers of historically low volatility and related short volatility strategies.

As The FT reports, The International Monetary Fund has warned that the increasing use of exotic financial products tied to equity volatility by investors such as pension funds is creating unknown risks that could result in a severe shock to financial markets. In an interview with the Financial Times Tobias Adrian, director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department of the IMF, said an increasing appetite for yield was driving investors to look for ways to boost income through complex instruments.

“The combination of low yields and low volatility facilitates the use of leverage by investors to increase returns, and we have seen rapid growth in some types of products that do this,” he said.

It explains some of the short vol strategies that we’ve been expressing concern about for several years. To wit.

Mr Adrian’s warning comes amid increasing evidence that pension funds and insurance companies are venturing into riskier types of investments to gain income.

 

Some are also effectively writing insurance contracts against a market crash to pocket premiums. Last year the $14bn Hawaii Employees Retirement System said it was writing put options to boost its income, while other US pension schemes such as the South Carolina Retirement System Investment Commission and Illinois State Universities Retirement System have also hired outside managers to use option writing strategies. The IMF estimates that assets invested in volatility targeting strategies have risen to about $500bn, with this amount increasing by more than half over the past three years. Marko Kolanovic, head of macro, derivative and quantitative Strategies at JPMorgan, last month warned of “strategies that sell on ‘autopilot’”, and how risk management models that use volatility could be luring investors into taking on too much risk.

 

“Very expensive assets often have very low volatility, and despite downside risk are deemed perfectly safe by these models,” he wrote in a note to clients.

While we applaud this warning from the IMF, it’s absurdly belated and the short vol “horse” has long since bolted. Moreover, we think that the IMF is seriously under-estimating the magnitude of short vol risk in financial markets. Indeed, the IMF’s research department would do well to read the recent report from Artemis Capital Management which we drew investors’ attention to.

Artemis estimates that financial engineering strategies that are short vol, either explicitly or implicitly, amount to more than $2 trillion. However, both Artemis and the IMF are “on the same page” when it comes to what would unfold if there was a sustained spike in volatility. The FT continues…

The IMF believes that sustained low volatility increases incentives for investors to take on higher levels of leverage while causing risk models that use volatility as an important input to understate real levels of risk participants may be taking on.

“A sustained increase in volatility could then trigger a sell-off in the assets underlying these products, amplifying the shock to markets,” Mr Adrian said…

With equity implied volatility continuing to drop over the course of this year, investors who have bet that markets will remain tranquil have been rewarded. Yet the true quantity of complex products being sold that are linked to volatility of various assets is hard to ascertain due to such deals mostly being done in private. Regulators therefore find it difficult to map out the risks in the event of an unexpected market shock.

via http://ift.tt/2gWz1YI Tyler Durden

Europe Will Reap What Spain Has Sown

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The Spanish government decided to reach back into its history and borrow from the playbook of longtime Spanish fascist dictator Francisco Franco in dealing with Catalonia’s decision to declare independence from the Spanish Kingdom as the Republic of Catalonia. The Catalan government’s decision to declare independence followed an October 1 referendum in the region that resulted in a “yes” for independence.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, whose Popular Party is a direct political descendant of Franco’s fascist Falangist Party, wasted no time in invoking, for the first time, Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, which allows the Spanish Kingdom to impose direct rule on regions not adhering to the whiplashing from Madrid. Catalonia is the first, but possible not the last victim, of Spain’s neo-fascism on display for the entire world.

During the Spanish Civil War, the Catalans and Basques fought with bravery on behalf of the Spanish Second Republic against the fascist forces of Franco and his fascists. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini provided all-out support for Franco, much like the European Union, NATO, and the United States have fully backed Rajoy in his confrontation with Catalonia. Spain’s King Felipe VI October 3 speech, in which he condemned the Catalan referendum’s pro-independence results, was seen by many Catalans, as well as other groups like the Basques, Galicians, and Andalusians, as an unnecessary involvement in politics. Not only Catalans, but others across Spain, began calling for the scrapping of the Bourbon family’s monarchy and the establishment of the Spanish Third Republic. The Bourbons have little respect among the working peoples of Spain and France. After all, it was an ancestor of Felipe VI, Louis XVI of France, who lost his head to a French revolutionary guillotine after ignoring the poverty of the French people.

Spain’s reaction to Catalonia’s independence was swift and reminiscent of Hitler’s extinguishment of Austria’s independence in his infamous “Anschluss” (union) between Nazi Germany and Austria. Rajoy ordered the sacking of Catalan First Minister Carles Puigdemont; his entire Cabinet, chief of the Catalan Mossos d’Esquadra police Jose Luis Trapero, Catalan representatives in Madrid, Brussels, Strasbourg, London, Paris, Copenhagen, Rome, Berlin, Vatican City, Lisbon, Rabat, Warsaw, Vienna, Zagreb, and Geneva; and even Catalan schoolteachers. Catalan government ministers were replaced with lisp-talking Castillian apparatchiks sent to the Catalan capital of Barcelona to administer, by fiat, all Catalan government institutions. Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria took over Puigdemont’s job, while Spanish Interior Minister Juan Ignacio Zoido took over the Catalan police functions from Trapero. Police duties in Catalonia were largely transferred from the Mossos d’Esquadra to the feared “Guardia Civil,” the notorious political enforcers for Franco’s fascist regime that were created by Franco as a Spanish version of Nazi Germany’s Gestapo.

The Madrid regime announced that new Catalan elections would be held on December 21 of this year, however, it is far from clear whether Catalonia’s pro-independence parties will be permitted to field candidates. Madrid may proscribe all of Catalonia’s pro-independence parties and groups, including “Junts Pel Sí” ("Together For Yes") and the Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP), leaving only pro-Spanish parties like Rajoy’s neo-fascist Popular Party and the accommodationist Socialists, Ciudadanos, and George Soros-financed Podemos on the ballot. Moreover, Madrid has threatened to put on trial all of Catalonia’s independence leaders for sedition. Sedition convictions under Spanish law carry a maximum 15-year prison term.

Madrid also ordered shut down a Catalan government special commission that was investigating Spanish police brutality against Catalan citizens during pro-independence demonstrations following the October 1 referendum. Ominously, the Madrid authorities ordered sacked police chief Trapero to turn in his passport, a sign that Madrid is contemplating seizing the passports of all of Catalonia’s independence leaders to prevent them from operating a Republic of Catalonia government-in-exile. The precedent for such action was the anti-Franco Spanish Second Republic’s government-in-exile established in Paris in 1939 after Franco’s seizure of Spain. After Nazi Germany’s invasion of France in 1940, the government-in-exile moved to Mexico City, where it was recognized by Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Venezuela, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Albania until its dissolution in 1977 after Spain’s so-called “constitutional monarchy” was restored after Franco’s death. The seizure of passports from Catalan officials and the closure of Catalan foreign missions abroad by Madrid is clearly aimed at preventing a Catalan government-in-exile from being formed.

Today, Rajoy and his junta have the support of all the major corporate periodicals in Spain, El País, El Mundo, ABC, El Razón, and Barcelona’s quisling newspaper La Vanguardia. However, no newspaper endorsements or messages of support from Donald Trump, Angela Merkel, Theresa May, and Jean-Claude Juncker that will enable Rajoy’s thugs to keep Catalonia under his boot heel. Catalonia’s future will be determined by its own people and their friends abroad, many of whom have rallied to Catalonia’s cause.

No sooner had Catalonia declared its independence, messages of support began streaming into Barcelona.

Jean-Guy Talamoni, the president of the National Assembly of Corsica, a French island where independence sentiment is strong, praised the “birth of the Republic of Catalonia.” Carole Delga, the president of the French region of Occitania, where Catalan is spoken in the Pyrenees-Orientales department, recognized Occitania’s strong ties to Catalonia and called for urgent talks between Spanish and Catalan authorities to maintain the civil peace.

Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has promised a second Scottish independence referendum, voiced support for Catalonia. The leader of the Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh said, “The right to self-determination is an important international principle, and I hope very much it will be respected in Catalonia, and everywhere else." There is every reason to believe that Rajoy is seizing the Spanish European Union passports of Catalan leaders to prevent them from establishing a government-in-exile in either Edinburgh or Glasgow, two cities from which they could have at their service satellite communications links and direct air access to Europe’s major cities. There is a great degree of support among Scots for Catalan independence. The new Catalan Defense Committee Scotland is organizing opposition to Madrid’s aggression against Catalonia. It has stated, “The brutality and repression that has been visited upon the people of Catalonia cannot be allowed to continue, or to be legitimized.” The committee is not only confining its activities in Scotland and is vowing to spearhead a Europe-wide movement.

Catalonia’s cause is also supported by Jan Peumans, the speaker of the Flemish regional parliament. Citing the example of Scotland, Peumans said of Catalonia and his own region of Flanders, that independence of such regions is an “evolution that no European government can avoid.”

Regional leaders in Italy’s Lombardy and Veneto regions, which both voted in favor of more autonomy in recent referendums, rallied to Catalonia’s side and condemned Spain’s arrest and intimidation of Catalan leaders. Separatist leaders in the Faroe Islands, which voted in 1946 for independence from Denmark only to see the Danish government bow to pressure from Washington to keep the islands Danish, hope to repeat the 1946 vote in an April 2018 referendum for a new constitution for an independent Faroes. The declaration of the Republic of Catalonia has provided encouragement to not only the Faroese but those in Greenland who want to see a total break from Danish (and NATO) control.

Rajoy’s junta’s crackdown in Catalonia could also re-ignite the Basque region’s desire for independence. The Basque guerrilla group ETA declared a unilateral cease fire in 2010 but it never fully disarmed. If the Spanish suppression of Catalonia succeeds, the Basques may see themselves as next on Rajoy’s list. Unlike the Catalans, the Basques have shown Madrid that they are quite capable of bringing a war home to the very center of the Spanish state in Madrid. The Galicians may also see their autonomy at risk and a mobilization of the armed “Restistencia Galega” would force Madrid to face multiple fronts in not only Catalonia and the Basque region, but Galicia, as well.

Señor Rajoy and his proto-fascists would do well to listen to the Catalan protesters singing from the streets of Barcelona their traditional Catalan songs and one from the musical “Les Misérables” that should worry the puppet minister for the Bourbon king of Spain: “Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people Who will not be slaves again!.. Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Beyond the barricade. Is there a world you long to see? Then join in the fight. That will give you the right to be free!”

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

Brickbat: Buyer’s Market

House for saleCynthia Lopez had a buyer willing to pay her $265,000 for her home. But just days before the sale closed, officials with the city of Denver informed her that her home was part of an affordable housing program and she could sell the home for no more than $186,000. Officials admit that none of the paperwork that Lopez signed when she bought the house indicated it was part of such a program and that she didn’t qualify for the program when she bought it. They say that doesn’t matter. In fact, now that it has been brought to their attention that her income didn’t qualify for the program, they say she must sell the house and she must sell it for no more than $186,000.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ziUHFW
via IFTTT

BoE Expected To Vote 6-3 For Rate Increase And Signal Markets Underpricing Future Hikes

The last time the Bank of England raised rates was July 2007, when rates increased to 5.75%. Credit markets began to dislocate a month later (when LIBOR diverged from Fed Funds), equity markets peaked three months after the increase and things eventually got much worse.

So, the track record is not auspicious, but the alleged global macro narrative this time is one of synchronised global growth, notwithstanding Catalonia, North Korea and embryonic concerns about Chinese deleveraging. On the domestic front, UK inflation is a bit too warm, growth a bit too tepid and Brexit a bit too uncertain.

Nonetheless, the BoE is expected to vote 6-3 in favour of a rate hike from 0.25% to 0.50% on Thursday, as Bloomberg reports, not everyone at the Bank of England will be on board with raising interest rates.

While Nov. 2 may see the U.K.’s first rate increase in more than a decade, economists surveyed by Bloomberg say three out of nine officials on the Monetary Policy Committee will vote against the move. That’s based on the median estimate from 24 responses. Any divide within the BOE panel reflects the conflicting signals from the economy, which is seeing both a currency-driven inflation surge and weaker expansion. While for some officials, the economy may still be too fragile to endure a rate increase, Governor Mark Carney and others see Brexit reducing potential output, making the U.K. more vulnerable to overheating.

Two of the three likely dissenters are two of the three deputy governors no less, as Bloomberg notes…

Policy makers Dave Ramsden and Jon Cunliffe may be among those to dissent. Ramsden said this month he doesn’t yet see domestic inflationary pressures building, and Cunliffe said it’s an “open question” when the BOE should lift its benchmark rate from a record-low 0.25 percent.

 

Silvana Tenreyro, described as “neutral” on policy by Bloomberg Economics, has also hinted that she’ll proceed with caution. The overriding thinking on the committee, however, seems to be that above-target inflation and a shock to supply from leaving the European Union means a rate hike is warranted.

 

In the build-up to the decision on Thursday, some recent data may have emboldened the more hawkish policy makers. The economy expanded by 0.4 percent in the third quarter, more than economists expected, and inflation hit 3 percent last month, a full percentage point above the BOE’s target. The central bank will update its economic forecasts alongside the policy decision. Compared with August, economists see a chance of an increase in the bank’s inflation estimate for this year.

If a rate hike is forthcoming – and markets are pricing in an 88% probability of one – the more important question is the signal about future hikes. While many commentators believe that it will be a question of “one and done” (a “dovish” hike), Bloomberg believes that the “BOE may also say markets underestimating further hikes”, noting, even with a division on the MPC, economists forecast that the BOE will keep alive the prospect that further rate increases are on the cards. While another move may not come soon, more than half of those surveyed expect Carney to indicate that markets are still under-pricing the odds of future tightening.

Never mind further rate hikes, a substantial percentage of economists are against a rate increase this week. A Reuters poll published in the past week showed more than 70 percent of economists believe now is not the time to raise rates – though slightly more than that said it would happen anyway.

When Carney was appointed BoE Governor in 2012, then UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, described him as “the outstanding central banker of his generation.” While he might be outstandingly handsome (we’re told), the coming months will determine whether he lives up to that billing, or is seen as making a catastrophic policy error – like Jean Claude Trichet in 2008.

via http://ift.tt/2ltE8ks Tyler Durden

Paul Craig Roberts Goes There: “One Day, Tomorrow Won’t Arrive”

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Before the idiots in Washington get us blown off of the face of the earth, the morons had better come to terms with the fact that the US military is now second class compared to the Russian military.

For example, the US Navy has been made obsolete by Russia’s hypersonic maneuvering Zircon missile.

For example, the speed and trajectory changes of the Russian Sarmat ICBM has nullified Washington’s ABM system. One Sarmet is sufficient to take out Great Britain, or France, or Germany, or Texas. It only takes a dozen to wipe out the United States.

Why don’t you know this?

For example, Washington’s enormously expensive F-35 jet fighter is no match whatsoever for Russian fighters.

For example, US tanks are no match for Russian tanks.

For example, Russian troops are superior in their combat readiness and training and are highly motivated and not worn out by 16 years of pointless and frustrating wars over no one knows what.

If the US ends up in a catastrophic war with a militarily superior power, it will be the fault of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, former CIA director John Brennan and the military/security complex, the presstitute media, and the American liberal/progressive/left, which, made completely stupid by Identity Politics, has allied with neoconservative warmongers against President Trump and prevented Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.

Without normal relations with Russia, nuclear Armageddon hangs over us like the sword of Damocles.

Do you not agree that it is outrageous, astounding, inexcusable, inexplicable, reckless and irresponsible that the Democratic Party, the print and TV media, the military/security complex that is supposed to protect us, and the liberal/progressive/left are working hand in glove to destroy the human race?

Why is there so much opposition to normalizing relations with a nuclear power? Why did even the Greens jump on the anti-Trump propaganda bandwagon. Don’t the Greens understand the consequences of nuclear war?

Why is there such a crazed, insane effort to eject a president who wants to normalize relations with Russia?

Why are these questions not part of the public discourse?

The failure of political leadership, of media, of the intellectual class in America is total.

The rest of the world must find some means of quarantining Washington before the evil destroys life on earth.

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

Crypto Mania – Why “It Is Currently Rational To Be Irrational”

Following JP Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon’s, now infamous rant about Bitcoin being a fraud, a great product for criminals and having no value, Adam Ludwin, CEO of Chain.com, wrote “A Letter to Jamie Dimon”, which received some coverage in the financial media for its balanced discussion regarding the outlook for cryptocurrencies.

In his letter, Ludwin noted…

In short: there’s a lot of noise. But there is also signal.

 

To find it, we need to start by defining cryptocurrency. Without a working definition we are lost. Most people arguing about cryptocurrencies are talking past each other because they don’t stop to ask the other side what they think cryptocurrencies are for.  

 

Here’s my definition: cryptocurrencies are a new asset class that enable decentralized applications. If this is true, your (Jamie Dimon’s) point of view on cryptocurrencies has very little to do with what you think about them in comparison to traditional currencies or securities, and everything to do with your opinion of decentralized applications and their value relative to current software models. Don’t have an opinion on decentralized applications? Then you can’t possibly have one on cryptocurrencies yet…And since this isn’t about cryptocurrencies vs. fiat currencies let’s stop using the word currency. It’s a head fake. It has way too much baggage and I notice that when you talk about Bitcoin in public you keep comparing it to the Dollar, Euro, and Yen. That comparison won’t help you understand what’s going on. In fact, it’s getting in the way.

Back in your box, Jamie.

As Forbes reports, Ludwin was invited to speak at a recent SEC meeting…

The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee held a public meeting regarding blockchain and distributed ledger technology earlier this month, and one of the individuals who was invited to participate in the meeting was Chain CEO Adam Ludwin. During his opening remarks, Ludwin shared his perspective on the entire blockchain ecosystem (both public and private models), but the most compelling part of his appearance may have been when he shared his views on the current price mania around cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICO).

 

“I think you have to look at it from the perspective of the buyer and the seller mentality,” Ludwin said of the current digital asset market. “In essence, it is currently rational to be irrational as a buyer [or] a seller in this market.

In Ludwin’s opinion, the buyers of ICOs are either people who made tons of money in Bitcoin/Ethereum or people who missed Bitcoin/Ethereum, because they didn’t understand them, so have resorted to buying tokens they don’t understand either.

When discussing the kinds of people who are participating in ICOs and token crowdsales during his appearance at the public meeting, Ludwin was quick to point to those who have already made large sums of cash by speculating on the prices of bitcoin and ether over the past few years. “On the buyer side, there are many, many people who invested early in bitcoin, made a tremendous amount of money and now have, effectively, a house money effect weighing on them where it’s found money — it’s a windfall — and they’re diversifying into every new project that comes along because: Why not?” explained Ludwin.

“If you’ve made money, you might as well say, ‘I’ll keep going.’” Ludwin also pointed to those who sat on the sidelines while bitcoin and ether went up a hundredfold or more because they didn’t understand the technology as probable buyers of new digital assets.

 

“Now, you almost have this inverted mindset where you tell yourself, ‘Alright, I have to look for things I don’t understand, and the more confusing it is, the better investment it probably is,’” said Ludwin. “It’s a very perverse mentality, obviously.”

As for the sellers of ICOs, Ludwin explains why it’s even crazier than the dot.com boom.

From Ludwin’s perspective, the irrational exuberance from the buy side of the market has led to the creation of many new projects willing to meet that demand. The Chain CEO shared three reasons as to why it’s extremely tempting for individuals and teams to create, issue, and sell new cryptocurrencies. “Number one, there’s no dilution (it’s not equity in the traditional sense) and there’s no debt — you don’t have to pay it back,” said Ludwin.

 

“People are buying for the appreciation expectations. It’s really free financing; it’s a remarkable instrument. [Secondly], there’s a belief out there that, by selling tokens, you’re creating evangelists for your project and they will tell their friends [about it]. And the truth is that’s probably right. People are interested in spreading the news about a new token in order for their tokens to go up in price and the sellers do have a kind of product/market fit. Of course, the thing that people are buying is a dream of making money, not interest in the underlying service usually. Finally, there’s an ability now by issuing these tokens to actually exit before you start. Normally, when you build a company, the exit comes at the end (and that’s why it’s called the exit). Here, if you issue a token and you can clear tens of millions of dollars before your project even launches, it’s an even better deal than we had in the 90s [dotcom bubble].”

Forbes comments on how many ICOs are merely exploiting Ethereum’s ERC-20 standard. 

The perfect example of the inability for some companies or projects to resist the urge to do their own ICO might be messaging app Kik’s Kin token. According to CoinJournal, Kik CEO Ted Livingston admitted that they were essentially launching the token because they had no other way to compete with Facebook. Kik was able to raise nearly $100 million in their token distribution event — money that comes with all of the benefits mentioned by Ludwin. Ethereum’s ERC-20 token standard has also made it extremely easy for anyone to launch a new digital asset with the click of a button. BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen discussed the ease with which tokens can be launched on top of Ethereum at the Blockstack Summit earlier this year.

 

“A lot of what people are doing now are these like ERC-20 tokens and stuff on Ethereum for their ICOs mostly because they don’t possess the skills to roll out an actual altcoin for the most part, which is not confidence inspiring,” said Cohen. “As a general rule, if you don’t possess the skills to roll out an altcoin, you probably shouldn’t be doing an ICO.” In the past, those who wanted to launch a new, tradeable token needed to create their own blockchain from scratch and convince exchanges to take the time to add it to their platform. The ERC-20 standard has made the process of adding a new token to an exchange much simpler because many of the new tokens follow the same general structure.

In the opening section of his letter to Jamie Dimon, Ludwin stated….

It’s easy to believe cryptocurrencies have no inherent value. Or that governments will crush them. It’s also becoming fashionable to believe the opposite: that they will disrupt banks, governments, and Silicon Valley giants once and for all. Neither extreme is true. The reality is nuanced and important. Which is why I’ve decided to write you this briefing note. I hope it helps you appreciate cryptocurrencies more deeply.

Let me start by stating that I believe:

  • The market for cryptocurrencies is overheated and irrationally exuberant
  • There are a lot of poseurs creating them, and some scammers, too
  • There are a lot of conflicts of interest, self-serving hype, and obfuscation
  • Very few people in the media understand what’s going on
  • Very few people in finance understand what’s going on
  • Very few people in technology understand what’s going on
  • Very few people in academia or government understand what’s going on
  • Very few people buying cryptocurrencies understand what’s going on
  • It’s very possible I don’t understand what’s going on

Also:

  • Banks and governments aren’t going away
  • Traditional software isn’t going away

Ludwin argues that all asset classes exist to allocate resources to a specific form of organization.

Despite the myopic focus on trading crypto assets recently, they don’t exist solely to be traded. That is, in principle at least, they don’t exist for their own sake. To understand what I mean, think about other asset classes and what form of organization they serve:

  • Corporate equities serve companies
  • Government bonds serve nations, states, municipalities
  • Mortgages serve property owners

And now:

  • Crypto assets serve decentralized applications

If you haven’t read Ludwin’s letter, you’d probably assume that he argues for the superiority of decentralized application over centralized applications, but you’d be wrong. He explains.

In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:

  • They are slower
  • They are more expensive
  • They are less scalable
  • They have worse user experiences
  • They have volatile and uncertain governance

And no, this isn’t just because they are new. This won’t fundamentally change with bigger blocks, lightning networks, sharding, forks, self-amending ledgers, or any other technical solutions. That’s because there are structural trade-offs that result directly from the primary design goal of these services, beneath which all other goals must be subordinated in order for them to be relevant: decentralization.

Here’s the important bit about crypto assets for Ludwin.

Thus, bitcoin, for example, isn’t best described as “Decentralized PayPal.” It’s more honest to say it’s an extremely inefficient electronic payments network, but in exchange we get decentralization. Bottom line: centralized applications beat the pants off decentralized applications on virtually every dimension. EXCEPT FOR ONE DIMENSION. And not only are decentralized applications better at this one thing, they are the only way we can achieve it. What am I referring to? Censorship resistance. This is where we come to the elusive signal in the noise. Censorship resistance means that access to decentralized applications is open and unfettered. Transactions on these services are unstoppable. More concretely, nothing can stop me from sending Bitcoin to anyone I please. Nothing can stop me from executing code on Ethereum. Nothing can stop me from storing files on Filecoin. As long as I have an internet connection and pay the network’s transaction fee, denominated in its crypto asset, I am free to do what I want. (If Bitcoin is capitalism distilled, it’s also a kind of freedom distilled. Which is why libertarians can get a bit obsessed.)

Here are his “big picture” thoughts from the letter on the challenge for cryptos.

Given how different they are from the app models we know and love, will anyone ever really use decentralized applications? Will they become a critical part of the economy? It’s hard to predict because it depends in part on the technology’s evolution but far more on society’s reaction to it. For example: until relatively recently, encrypted messaging was only used by hackers, spies, and paranoids. That didn’t seem to be changing. Until it did. Post-Snowden and post-Trump, everyone from Silicon Valley to the Acela corridor seems to be on either Signal or Telegram. WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. The press solicit tips through SecureDrop. Yes, the technology got a little better and easier to use. But it is mainly changes in society that are driving adoption. In other words, we grew up in the rainforest, but sometimes things change and it helps to know how to adapt to other environments. And this is the basic argument that the smart money is making on crypto assets and decentralized applications: that it’s simply too early to say anything. That it is a profound change. That, should one or more of these decentralized applications actually become an integral part of the world, their underlying crypto assets will be extremely valuable.

Despite his use of words like “irrational” and “perverse”, Forbes notes that Ludwin’s view on the outlook for cryptocurrency prices is positive.

Although Ludwin took part of his time to address the obvious (some would call) bubble in the cryptocurrency market, he still sees a bright future for this new asset class. “Despite what probably sounds like a bit of cynicism here on cryptocurrencies and the fact that it’s obvious, I think, to every fair observer that we’re witnessing a mania that will have a correction . . . you should not bet against cryptocurrencies in their long term sustainability or viability and the reality that they are a new asset class, that they’re enabling a fundamentally new and important segment, and I think [they] will only increase globally in value over time,” said Ludwin.

 

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

Chinese Police Foil Plot To Assassinate Kim Jong Un’s Nephew

As the two women who fatally poisoned Kim Jong Nam with a toxic nerve agent face the gallows in a Malaysian murder trial, Bloomberg is reporting that Chinese police have broken up a plot purportedly masterminded in North Korea whereby a group of men were dispatched to Beijing to murder Jong Nam’s son, 22-year-old Kim Han Sol, who is also the nephew of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Since taking the reins of the North Korean state following the death of his father in 2011, Jong Un has readily murdered members of his family to eliminate any potential challenges to his rule. Chinese police arrested two of seven North Korean agents suspected of involvement with the plot.

Jong Un executed his uncle Jang Song Thaek in 2013 on charges of graft and factionalism. Earlier this month, the leader promoted his 28-year-old sister to the ruling party’s political wing, bringing her closer to the center of power, Bloomberg reported.

Kim Han Sol

Some agents are being interrogated in special facilities on the outskirts of Beijing, a South Korean newspaper reported without elaborating on whether the other five were arrested. China’s foreign ministry didn’t immediately respond to a faxed request for comment.

Kim Han Sol identified himself as the son of Kim Jong Nam – who was poisoned in February during a brazen attack at Kuala Lumpur airport – in a YouTube video released earlier this year. Kim Jong Nam was the eldest son of late North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

South Korean government officials have speculated that Kim Jong Un was behind the murder of his half-brother, a critic of his leadership who had lived outside the country for years. The Associated Press reported that attorneys in the trial of Jong Nam’s suspected assassins have sought to pin the blame for the assassination on four shadowy North Korean figures believed to have masterminded the murder plot.

Authorities in Malaysia said the two women charged with Kim Jong Nam’s murder used the chemical weapon VX in the attack, claiming they were trained to swipe the poison on the victim’s face and knew the substance was toxic. The pair have pleaded not guilty.

via http://ift.tt/2hoAC6r Tyler Durden

Visualizing America’s Most Polarizing Brands

Due to some players kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality against black people in the United States and the subsequent hostile response from the president, the NFL has been dominating headlines recently. The issue is highly politicized, with opinions largely split down party lines. In fact, as a survey by Morning Consult shows, it has become one of the most polarizing brands in the country.

As Statista's Martin Armstroing points out, when looking at favorability, the NFL enjoys a net score of 38 percent among Clinton voters. When subtracting the share of Trump voters giving a negative rating from those giving a favorable one, the result is a score of -24 percent. For Republican voters, this makes it one of the least popular brands, with only CNN and the New York Times receiving a lower score in this list -28 percent and -25 percent, respectively. 

Infographic: America's Most Polarizing Brands | Statista

You will find more statistics at Statista

Unsurprisingly, the most polarizing brand is Trump Hotels. With a 99 percentage point difference, Trump voters recorded a net favorability of 48 percent, while the hotels count as one of the least-liked brands among Democrats with a net score of -52 percent.

via http://ift.tt/2h1vk3X Tyler Durden

Chris Hedges: Our Ever-Deadlier Police State

Authored by Chris Hedges via TruthDig.com,

None of the reforms, increased training, diversity programs, community outreach and gimmicks such as body cameras have blunted America’s deadly police assault, especially against poor people of color. Police forces in the United States – which, according to The Washington Post, have fatally shot 782 people this year – are unaccountable, militarized monstrosities that spread fear and terror in poor communities.

By comparison, police in England and Wales killed 62 people in the 27 years between the start of 1990 and the end of 2016.

Police officers have become rogue predators in impoverished communities. Under U.S. forfeiture laws, police indiscriminately seize money, real estate, automobiles and other assets. In many cities, traffic, parking and other fines are little more than legalized extortion that funds local government and turns jails into debtor prisons.

Because of a failed court system, millions of young men and women are railroaded into prison, many for nonviolent offenses. SWAT teams with military weapons burst into homes often under warrants for nonviolent offenses, sometimes shooting those inside. Trigger-happy cops pump multiple rounds into the backs of unarmed men and women and are rarely charged with murder. And for poor Americans, basic constitutional rights, including due process, were effectively abolished decades ago.

Jonathan Simon’s “Governing Through Crime” and Michelle Alexander’s “The New Jim Crow” point out that what is defined and targeted as criminal activity by the police and the courts is largely determined by racial inequality and class, and most importantly by the potential of targeted groups to cause social and political unrest. Criminal policy, as sociologist Alex S. Vitale writes in his new book, “The End of Policing,” “is structured around the use of punishment to manage the ‘dangerous classes,’ masquerading as a system of justice.”

The criminal justice system, at the same time, refuses to hold Wall Street banks, corporations and oligarchs accountable for crimes that have caused incalculable damage to the global economy and the ecosystem. None of the bankers who committed massive acts of fraud and were responsible for the financial collapse in 2008 have gone to prison even though their crimes resulted in widespread unemployment, millions of evictions and foreclosures, homelessness, bankruptcies and the looting of the U.S. Treasury to bail out financial speculators at taxpayer expense. We live in a two-tiered legal system, one in which poor people are harassed, arrested and jailed for absurd infractions, such as selling loose cigarettes—which led to Eric Garner being choked to death by a New York City policeman in 2014—while crimes of appalling magnitude that wiped out 40 percent of the world’s wealth are dealt with through tepid administrative controls, symbolic fines and civil enforcement.

The grotesque distortions of the judicial system and the aggressive war on the poor by the police will get worse under President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There has been a rollback of President Barack Obama’s 2015 restrictions on the 1033 Program, a 1989 congressional action that allows the transfer of military weaponry, including grenade launchers, armored personnel carriers and .50-caliber machine guns, from the federal government to local police forces. Since 1997, the Department of Defense has turned over a staggering $5.1 billion in military hardware to police departments.

The Trump administration also is resurrecting private prisons in the federal prison system, accelerating the so-called war on drugs, stacking the courts with right-wing “law and order” judges and preaching the divisive politics of punishment and retribution. Police unions enthusiastically embrace these actions, seeing in them a return to the Wild West mentality that characterized the brutality of police departments in the 1960s and 1970s, when radicals, especially black radicals, were murdered with impunity at the hands of law enforcement. The Praetorian Guard of the elites, as in all totalitarian systems, will soon be beyond the reach of the law. As Vitale writes in his book, “Our entire criminal justice system has become a gigantic revenge factory.”

The arguments—including the racist one about “superpredators“—used to justify the expansion of police power have no credibility, as the gun violence in south Chicago, abject failure of the war on drugs and vast expansion of the prison system over the last 40 years illustrate. The problem is not ultimately in policing techniques and procedures; it is in the increasing reliance on the police as a form of social control to buttress a system of corporate capitalism that has turned the working poor into modern-day serfs and abandoned whole segments of the society. Government no longer makes any attempt to ameliorate racial and economic inequality. Instead, it criminalizes poverty. It has turned the poor into one more cash crop for the rich.

“By conceptualizing the problem of policing as one of inadequate training and professionalization, reformers fail to directly address how the very nature of policing and the legal system served to maintain and exacerbate racial inequality,” Vitale writes.

 

“By calling for colorblind ‘law and order’ they strengthen a system that puts people of color at a structural disadvantage. At the root, they fail to appreciate that the basic nature of the police, since its earliest origins, is to be a tool for managing inequality and maintaining the status quo. Police reforms that fail to directly address this reality are doomed to reproduce it. …Well-trained police following proper procedures are still going to be arresting people for mostly low-level offenses, and the burden of that will continue to fall primarily on communities of color because that is how the system is designed to operate—not because of the biases or misunderstandings of officers.”

In a recent interview, Vitale told me, “We’ve been waging a war on drugs for 40 years by putting people in prison for ever longer sentences. Yet drugs are cheaper, easier to get, and at a higher quality than they’ve ever been. Any high school student in America can get any kind of drugs they want. Yet we persist in this idea that the way to respond to the problem of drugs, and many other social problems, is through arrest, courts, punishments, prisons. This is what Trump is playing to. This idea that the only appropriate role for the state is one of coercion and threats—whether it’s in the foreign policy sphere or in the domestic sphere.”

Police forces, as Vitale writes in his book, were not formed to ensure public safety or prevent crime. They were created by the property classes to maintain economic and political dominance and exert control over slaves, the poor, dissidents and labor unions that challenged the wealthy’s hold on power and ability to amass personal fortunes. Many of America’s policing techniques, including widespread surveillance, were pioneered and perfected in colonies of the U.S. and then brought back to police departments in the homeland. Blacks in the South had to be controlled, and labor unions and radical socialists in the industrial Northeast and Midwest had to be broken.

The fundamental role of the police has never changed. Paul Butler in his book “Chokehold: Policing Black Men” and James Forman Jr. in his book “Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America” echo Vitale’s point that the war on drugs “has never been about public health or public safety. It’s been about providing a cover for aggressive and invasive policing that targets almost exclusively people of color.”

“People often point to the London Metropolitan Police, who were formed in the 1820s by Sir Robert Peel,” Vitale said. “They are held up as this liberal ideal of a dispassionate, politically neutral police with the support of the citizenry. But this really misreads the history. Peel is sent to manage the British occupation of Ireland. He’s confronted with a dilemma. Historically, peasant uprisings, rural outrages were dealt with by either the local militia or the British military. In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, in the need for soldiers in other parts of the British Empire, he is having more and more difficulty managing these disorders. In addition, when he does call out the militia, they often open fire on the crowd and kill lots of people, creating martyrs and inflaming further unrest. He said, ‘I need a force that can manage these outrages without inflaming passions further.’ He developed the Peace Preservation Force, which was the first attempt to create a hybrid military-civilian force that can try to win over the population by embedding itself in the local communities, taking on some crime control functions, but its primary purpose was always to manage the occupation. He then exports that model to London as the industrial working classes are flooding the city, dealing with poverty, cycles of boom and bust in the economy, and that becomes their primary mission.”

“The creation of the very first state police force in the United States was the Pennsylvania State Police in 1905,” Vitale said. “For the same reasons. It was modeled similarly on U.S. occupation forces in the Philippines. There was a back and forth with personnel and ideas. What happened was local police were unable to manage the coal strikes and iron strikes. … They needed a force that was more adherent to the interest of capital. … Interestingly, for these small-town police forces in a coal mining town there was sometimes sympathy. They wouldn’t open fire on the strikers. So, the state police force was created to be that strong arm for the law. Again, the direct connection between colonialism and the domestic management of workers. … It’s a two-way exchange. As we’re developing ideas throughout our own colonial undertakings, bringing those ideas home, and then refining them and shipping them back to our partners around the world who are often despotic regimes with close economic relationships to the United States. There’s a very sad history here of the U.S. exporting basically models of policing that morphs into death squads and horrible human rights abuses.”

The almost exclusive alliance on militarized police to deal with profound inequality and social problems is turning poor neighborhoods in cities such as Chicago into miniature failed states, ones where destitute young men and women join a gang for security and income and engage in battles with other gangs and the police. The “broken windows” policy shifts the burden for poverty onto the poor. It criminalizes minor infractions, arguing that disorder produces crime and upending decades of research about the causes of crime.

“As poverty deepens and housing prices rise, government support for affordable housing has evaporated, leaving in its wake a combination of homeless shelters and aggressive broken-windows-oriented policing,” Vitale writes. “As mental health facilities close, police become the first responders to calls for assistance with mental health crises. As youth are left without adequate schools, jobs, or recreational facilities, they form gangs for mutual protection or participate in the black markets of stolen goods, drugs, and sex to survive and are ruthlessly criminalized. Modern policing is largely a war on the poor that does little to make people safer or communities stronger, and even when it does, this is accomplished through the most coercive forms of state power that destroy the lives of millions.”

The accelerated assault on the poor and the growing omnipotence of the police signal our transformation into an authoritarian state in which the rich and the powerful are not subject to the rule of law. The Trump administration will promote none of the conditions that could ameliorate this crisis—affordable housing; well-paying jobs; safe and nurturing schools that do not charge tuition; better mental health facilities; efficient public transportation; the rebuilding of the nation’s infrastructure; demilitarized police forces in which most officers do not carry weapons; universal, government-funded health care; an end to the predatory loans and unethical practices of big banks; and reparations to African-Americans and an end to racial segregation. Trump and most of those he has appointed to positions of power disdain the poor as a dead weight on society. They blame stricken populations for their own misery. They seek to subjugate the poor, especially those of color, through police violence, ever harsher forms of punishment and an expansion of the prison system.

“We need an effective system of crime prevention and control in our communities, but that is not what the current system is,” Alexander writes in “The New Jim Crow.” “The system is better designed to create crime, and a perpetual class of people labeled criminal. … Saying mass incarceration is an abysmal failure makes sense, though only if one assumes that the criminal justice system is designed to prevent and control crime. But if mass incarceration is understood as a system of social control—specifically, racial control—then the system is a fantastic success.”

via http://ift.tt/2iN9Qsc Tyler Durden

Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy Goes On Trial For 2014 Armed Standoff With Federal Agents

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is officially set to go on trial this week for his role in leading a 2014 armed standoff against federal agents that became a rallying point for militia groups challenging U.S. government authority in the American West.  As Reuters notes, jury selection is slated to start later this morning in a U.S. District Court in Las Vegas after being postponed due to the mass shooting on October 1st that claimed 58 lives.

Jury selection in the latest trial was slated to begin on Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. The proceedings were postponed for three weeks after an unrelated mass shooting in Las Vegas on Oct. 1 in which 58 people were killed.

 

Standing trial with Cliven Bundy, 71, are the two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who led last year’s Oregon occupation, and a third co-defendant, Ryan Payne, a Montana resident linked by prosecutors to a militia group called Operation Mutual Aid.

 

A fourth co-defendant, internet blogger and radio host Peter Santilli, pleaded guilty on Oct. 6 to conspiracy and faces a possible six-year prison term.

Six lesser-known participants in the Nevada ranch showdown went on trial as a group earlier this year with two men found guilty.  One of the two men was sentenced to 68 years in prison and the other is still awaiting sentencing.  Two of the four remaining defendants were retried and acquitted, and two others pleaded guilty last week to obstructing a court order. Those two each face up to a year in prison when sentenced.

Bundy

As you may recall, Bundy’s Nevada revolt was sparked by a court-ordered roundup of his cattle by government agents over his refusal to pay fees required to graze the herd on federal land.  Hundreds of supporters, many heavily armed, rallied to Bundy’s cause demanding that his livestock be returned. Outnumbered law enforcement officers ultimately retreated rather than risk bloodshed. No shots were ever fired.

The face-off marked a flashpoint in long-simmering tensions over federal control of public lands in the West and was a precursor to Bundy’s two sons leading an armed six-week occupation of a federal wildlife center in Oregon two years later, in 2016 (see: “Now Is The Time To Stand Up”: Armed Activists, Militiamen Seize Federal Wildlife Refuge Office In Oregon).  Here’s a recap of the events leading up the Oregon standoff:

On Saturday, militants seized a remote government outpost following a protest by hundreds of angry citizens.

 

It all started back in 2001 when Dwight Hammond and his son Steven set fire to leased government land in what they said was an effort to beat back invasive plant species and – ironically – prevent wildfires. They set more fires in 2006 and were later convicted of arson.

 

 

Both men served time in prison but a judge eventually determined that their sentences were too light and ordered them back to jail.

 

After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation,” Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said, in a statement. The elder Bundy weighed in as well, noting that the occuption isn’t “exactly what [he] thought should happen.” “But I didn’t know what to do,” he added. “You know, if the Hammonds wouldn’t stand, if the sheriff didn’t stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn’t in on that.”

Ammon and Ryan Bundy, along with five other people, were previously charged with criminal conspiracy in the takeover of the Wildlife Refuge though that trial ended with the acquittal last year of all seven.

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