Month: February 2018

“Bad People Lied To A Kangaroo Court” – Americans Can Handle The Truth!

Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

The bigger issue is FISA’s evisceration of the Fourth Amendment.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] submissions (including renewals) before the FISC [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard—particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

House Intelligence Committee FISA Memorandum, 1/18/18, Declassified 2/2/18

It’s hard to read the above without laughing. The only people who think that the government in a non-adversarial, secret, non-reviewable judicial proceeding will produce “all material and relevant facts,” including “information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application,” are those pathetically deluded souls who believe that when rules, regulations, and laws are promulgated everyone complies, including the government that promulgated them. They’re always shocked when reality proves otherwise.

The rest of us might want to consider what it took for this exposure of potential government wrongdoing before the FISC. The House Intelligence Committee (HIC) pressed for months and was forced to threaten subpoenas before the Department of Justice and the FBI turned over the evidence upon which its memorandum is based.

If this wasn’t such a high-profile partisan battle, impinging on the presidency, that effort never would have been made. Had Hillary Clinton been elected or Democrats controlled Congress, none of this would have seen the light of day. The intelligence agencies and the FBI can rest assured, it will be business as usual before the FISC: non-adversarial, secret, non-reviewable proceedings in which they can allege, unchallenged, pretty much anything they want, their surveillance requests rubber-stamped by the court (historically it’s approved over 99 percent of all requests).

It is a measure of President Trump’s contempt for civil liberties that he just signed a reauthorization of the FISA law that was used to infringe his civil liberties. The reauthorization expands the government’s surveillance and bulk data capture of Americans’ personal information pursuant to general warrants that do not “require probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment, US Bill of Rights).

Most importantly, the reauthorization “would permit the use of evidence of crimes in federal court even when it is discovered during mass surveillance authorized by general warrants.”  Trump will overlook that little infringement of his rights in the interests of expanding his access to information and the power implicit in such access. He pursues power and is quite proficient at it. Civil liberties can be a real hindrance.

Incidentally, the HIC released its memo to Congress after FISA was reauthorized. HIC Republicans favored that reauthorization, despite what they have alleged about nefarious activities before the FISC. Their memo might have changed some votes. Anybody think the timing was a coincidence?

The FISC enables the government to end run Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. The HIC memo is a tree, FISA’s destruction of civil liberties the forest. Investigations, possibly indictments, trials, and convictions, will grind on for years and provide plenty of grist for plenty of commentators’ mills. The investigations will eventually wind down, but FISA may be forever. Comey and the Clintons might be in jail, but we all could be, based on evidence obtained without probable cause via general warrants, the government’s data gathering rubber-stamped by its kangaroo court.

As for the HIC’s memo, it’s a fine piece of legal craftsmanship, although it’s not a legal document per se. It confines itself to one matter: the DOJ and FBI’s request for a probable cause order—and three subsequent renewals—authorizing electronic surveillance of Trump campaign volunteer advisor Carter Page.

In the understated, cautious style that is the hallmark of competent legal investigatory work, the memo makes a prima facie case that certain individuals broke various laws. While the evidence underlying conclusions about various DOJ and FBI officials’ misrepresentations and omissions to the FISC, their biases, and ties to Fusion GPS has not been made public, there is almost certainly an ample evidentiary basis for those conclusions.

That evidence, the Democrats’ “counter-memo” and their evidence, and the FISA application and renewals should all be released to the public. The classified information isn’t protecting vital state secrets; it’s protecting officials from embarrassment and possible criminal charges. The American people are smarter and more honorable than those arguing for continuing secrecy; they can handle the truth.

It’s been claimed that the HIC memo plays into Russia’s or Putin’s hands, or that US intelligence capabilities have been or could be irreparably damaged if information was released, without explaining how those consequences could flow. An unfortunate aspect of the American establishment is that it seals itself off from hostile questions in adversarial settings. Never underestimate the power of a question. It would only take one or two to demonstrate that intelligence flunkies, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, and a host of media commentators are either lying through their teeth or have no idea what they’re talking about.

Speaking of big issues, the biggest issue of them all, unsustainable global debt, made an unbidden appearance last week as bond yields broke long-term trend lines to the upside and stocks gave way to the downside. Possible subversion of a duly elected president and even FISA’s evisceration of the Fourth Amendment may amount to playing on the beach as the tsunami rolls in. You can’t do much about what’s going on in Washington. For the tsunami, on the other hand, you can move to higher ground if you have not already done so.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ErDgFg Tyler Durden

“We Say Peoplekind”: Trudeau Mansplains To Woman That “Mankind” Is Not An Appropriate Term

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being widely mocked over the internet after he interrupted a woman during  a town hall to admonish her over using the word “mankind” in her question, telling her to instead use “peoplekind.” Trudeau was hosting a Q&A at MacEwan University in Edmonton on Thursday as part of a cross-country tour which began in January. 

Aimee, a member of South Korean feminist church World Mission Society Church of God, asked a question about removing Canadian restrictions on religious organizations when Trudeau corrected her. 

Aimee: We came here today to ask you to also look into the policies that religious charitable organizations have in our legislations so that it can also be changed because maternal love is the love that’s going to change the future of mankind.

Trudeau: We — we like to say “peoplekind,” not necessarily “mankind” ’cause it’s more inclusive. 

Aimee tells the Daily Mail that she wasn’t offended by Trudeau’s comment, saying “It wasn’t negative,’ and adding “Did it look like I was bothered by it?” 

And while Aimee may not have been bothered per-se, Twitter was merciless to the politically correct Prime Minister:

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2BcAphs Tyler Durden

Steve Wynn Resigns As CEO Of Wynn Resorts After Sex Allegations.

Little more than a week after the Wall Street Journal published a stunning report about casino mogul Steve Wynn’s decades-long history of sexual assault, harassment and abuse, the casino mogul has stepped down from the eponymous company that he founded back in 2002.

In a statement, Wynn said Max Maddox, the company’s president, will succeed him as CEO, and Boone Wayson will take over as non-executive chairman, effective immediately.

Wynn

Wynn decried the “rush to judgment” over the allegations for forcing him to step down. He has steadfastly denied the allegations in the WSJ report.

“In the last couple of weeks, I have found myself the focus of an avalanche of negative publicity,” Wynn said. “As I have reflected upon the environment this has created – one in which a rush to judgment takes precedence over everything else, including the facts – I have reached the conclusion I cannot continue to be effective in my current roles.”

The decision comes 10 days after he stepped down as finance chair of the Republican National Committee.

Since the WSJ’s original blockbuster, more women have come forward to accuse Wynn of abuse, including one former employee who said Wynn coerced her into sex multiple times back in the late 1980s because he said he wanted to know what it felt like to have sex with a grandmother, according to a Las Vegas Review-Journal report.

In the statement, Wayson lauded Wynn for his “pivotal” role in “transforming Las Vegas into the entertainment destination it is today.”

Since the original WSJ report, Wynn Resorts’ stock has shed almost a quarter of its value.

* * *

Read the statement in its entirety below:

STATEMENT FROM WYNN RESORTS:

The Board of Directors of Wynn Resorts reluctantly announced today that it accepted the resignation of Steve Wynn as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors.  The board has appointed Matt Maddox, currently President of the Company, as its CEO, and Boone Wayson as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors, effective immediately.

“It is with a collective heavy heart, that the board of directors of Wynn Resorts today accepted the resignation of our founder, CEO and friend Steve Wynn,” said non-executive director of the board Boone Wayson.  “Steve Wynn is an industry giant.  He is a philanthropist and a beloved leader and visionary.  He played the pivotal role in transforming Las Vegas into the entertainment destination it is today. He also assembled a world-class team of executives that will continue to meet the high standards of excellence that Steve Wynn created and the Wynn brand has come to represent.”

Steve Wynn created modern Las Vegas.  He transformed the city into an economic powerhouse by making it a world-wide tourist destination.  He designed, built and operated the most iconic resorts on the Las Vegas strip, beginning with the Mirage, then Treasure Island, the Bellagio, Wynn Las Vegas and Encore at Wynn Las Vegas.  Wynn Macau, Mr. Wynn’s first resort in the SAR of Macau in China, was designated by Forbes Travel Guide as the best resort in the world.  Along with Wynn Palace in Cotai, the company built by Steve Wynn has been recognized as having more Five Star awards than any independent hotel company in the world.

Wynn Resorts remains as committed as ever to upholding the highest standards and being an inclusive and supportive employer.  In fact, more than 40 percent of all Wynn Las Vegas management are women; the highest in the gaming industry. The company will continue to fully focus on its operations at Wynn Macau, Wynn Palace and Wynn Las Vegas; the development and opening of the first phase of Wynn Paradise Park, currently under construction on the former Wynn golf course; as well as the construction of Wynn Boston Harbor, which will open in June 2019.  

Details of Mr. Wynn’s separation agreement will be disclosed when they are finalized.

STATEMENT FROM STEVE WYNN:

“In the last couple of weeks, I have found myself the focus of an avalanche of negative publicity.  As I have reflected upon the environment this has created — one in which a rush to judgment takes precedence over everything else, including the facts — I have reached the conclusion I cannot continue to be effective in my current roles.  Therefore, effective immediately, I have decided to step down as CEO and Chairman of the Board of Wynn Resorts, a company I founded and that I love.

“The Wynn Resorts team and I have built houses of brick.  Which is to say, the institution we created — a collection of the finest designers and architects ever assembled, as well as an operating philosophy now ingrained in the minds and hearts of our entire team — will remain standing for the long term.   I am extremely proud of everything we have built at this company.  Most of all, I am proud of our employees.

“The succession plan laid out by the Board of Directors and which I wholeheartedly endorse now places Matt Maddox in the CEO seat.  With Matt, Wynn Resorts is in good hands.  He and his team are well positioned to carry on the plans and vision for the company I created.  

I want to thank all of the employees who have made Wynn Resorts the most admired resort company in the world, and for the support I have received from them in recent weeks.  Most importantly, I want everyone to continue to be proud of this company and the many unique ways it will forever continue to delight guests.”

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GWGSO3 Tyler Durden

Whole Foods Employees Miserable: “Seeing Someone Cry At Work Is Becoming Normal”

Whole Foods’ new inventory management system aimed at improving efficiency and cutting down on waste is taking a toll on employees, who say the system’s stringent procedures and graded “scorecards” have crushed morale and led to widespread food shortages, reports Business Insider. 

The new system, called order-to-shelf, or OTS, “has a strict set of procedures for purchasing, displaying, and storing products on store shelves and in back rooms. To make sure stores comply, Whole Foods relies on “scorecards” that evaluate everything from the accuracy of signage to the proper recording of theft, or “shrink.”

Some employees, who walk through stores with managers to ensure compliance, describe the system as onerous and stress-inducing. Conversations with 27 current and recently departed Whole Foods workers, including cashiers and corporate employees — some of whom have been with the company for nearly two decades — say the system is seen by many as punitive. –BI

Terrified employees report constant fear over losing their jobs over the OTS “scorecards,” which anything below 89.9% can qualify as a failing score – resulting in possible firings. 

Store managers test employees twice weekly, according to company documents, while corporate employees from the store’s Austin, Texas headquarters conduct monthly walkthroughs which stores must themselves pass. 

“I wake up in the middle of the night from nightmares about maps and inventory, and when regional leadership is going to come in and see one thing wrong, and fail the team,” a supervisor at a West Coast Whole Foods told Business Insider. “The stress has created such a tense working environment. Seeing someone cry at work is becoming normal.”

 

Despite the heart-palpitating shortcomings of the OTS system, employees, supervisors and industry analysts have said that Whole Foods’ previous inventory management system was inefficient and needed to be updated. 

“Whole Foods had a very decentralized approach, which adds complexity, and complexity adds cost,” said Jim Holbrook, CEO of private label and retail consultancy Daymon Worldwide, which recently started working with Whole Foods.

Under the old system, buyers at the store and regional levels had more sway over what to sell. With OTS, however, those decisions have been shifted to the Austin corporate offices – a similar approach to conventional supermarkets like Safeway and Kroger. 

It remains to be seen whether this business model — and OTS — will work for Whole Foods. Holbrook believes it will. He said Amazon, which purchased Whole Foods last year for $13.7 billion, would be able to help Whole Foods work out the kinks with OTS.

“Amazon is very good at managing logistics behind the scenes,” Holbrook said. “Whole Foods will be a better shopping experience as a result.”

Many employees are also hopeful that Amazon will fix the new system.

“We all just hope that Amazon will walk into some stores and see all the holes on the shelf,” a 12-year employee of a Midwest Whole Foods said. –BI

In their defense, Whole Foods says it’s order-to-shelf (OTS) system allows employees more time to engage with customers – a poorly thought out response. 

“The team members are really excited about” order-to-shelf, said Whole Foods EVP of operations David Lannon last year on a call with investors, adding “They’re really proud when they’re able to achieve that, which is lower out-of-stocks, less inventory in the store, being able to be on the sales floor talking to customers and selling more products.”

Boston Whole Foods (Paul Fantoni)

Whole Foods employees around the country thought that was hilarious. One such disaffected West Coast supervisor said “On my most recent time card, I clocked over 10 hours of overtime, sitting at a desk doing OTS work,” adding “Rather than focusing on guest service, I’ve had team members cleaning facial-care testers and facing the shelves, so that everything looks perfect and untouched at all times.”

Many Whole Foods employees at the corporate and store levels still don’t understand how OTS works, employees said.

“OTS has confused so many smart, logical, and experienced individuals, the befuddlement is now a thing, a life all its own,” an employee of a Chicago-area store said. “It’s a collective confusion — constantly changing, no clear answers to the questions that never were, until now.”

An employee of a North Carolina Whole Foods said: “No one really knows this business model, and those who are doing the scorecards — even regional leadership — are not clear on practices and consequently are constantly providing the department leaders with inaccurate directions. All this comes at a time when labor has been reduced to an unachievable level given the requirements of the OTS model.“

Other employees have complained about a lack of training as a key reason as to why the OTS system is failing. 

“The problem lies in lack of training and the fact that every single member of management from store level to corporate is over tasked and overburdened,” according to one former corporate employee who conducted walkthroughs at East Coast locations. 

Some even suggested that Whole Foods corporate had no clue about working in stores – and that the new OTS protocols were absurd. 

“In the beginning, we actually had a checklist where one task was to initial that you initialed off another task.” 

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nMeEOj Tyler Durden

Nomi Prins: Trump’s New Dark Money Man Takes Over

Authored by Nomi Prins via The Daily Reckoning,

During her last news conference in December, Janet Yellen stood firm on her record stating, “The global economy is doing well. We’re in a synchronized expansion. This is the first time in many years that we’ve seen this.”

While attempting to lock in her record, Yellen urged, “There’s less to lose sleep about now than has been true for quite some time.”

Well, a lot of people lost sleep these past few days. And they might lose more sleep in the days to come.

Markets were due for a correction. Whether it turns out to be something worse, time will tell.

A recent article in MarketWatch said 2018 could “be the year the stock market rally screeches to a halt.” That’s because at some point debt bubbles are going to pop, and after they do, stocks will follow.

The Fed has continued to provide what I call dark money to big Wall Street banks while they continue to buy back their shares with it.

Dark money comes from central banks. Ultimately, central banks “print” money or electronically create funds to purchase bonds or stocks. They also use tools like adjusting interest rate policy and currency agreements with other central banks.

Dark money then flows out to the biggest Wall Street banks and financial institutions. Policy makers set the tone for central bank fabrication and movements of money through markets, banks and the world.

Because of dark money provided by central banks, corporations have been piling on debt like arsonists hoarding lighters before a fire. They’ve been using that debt either to service old debt or to buy their own stocks. That move artificially elevates their share values and in turn makes more bond investors relish buying their debt.

Apple, for example, has been one stalwart that’s been riding “the borrowing bandwagon as it looks to fund its massive share buyback program.” Apple went as far as to issue $12 billion of debt in the last four months of 2017 in order to buy its own stock.

The entire U.S. primary corporate bond, or debt, market has been at record levels. There was $1.44 trillion of investment-grade issuance in 2017 compared with $1.34 trillion in 2016. There was $266.3 billion of high-yield issuance last year, that sector’s fourth-biggest year.

This debt creation can’t sustain itself forever. It doesn’t take but a tiny mistake by central bankers to throw the bond markets into disarray.

Equity markets don’t always follow right away, but they will eventually follow. And these past few days, equities marched in lockstep with the spike in bond yields.

The Fed’s balance sheet reductions until now have basically been a rounding error. But last week, the Fed sold $22 billion of assets. Is it a coincidence that stocks sold off?

But this would just be a taste of what could happen.

As the MarketWatch article I mentioned says, “If and when the bubble does pop, however, the deleveraging by lenders could create a credit crunch the likes of which haven’t been seen since the Great Recession.”

Let’s briefly review how we got here…

After the 2007–08 financial crash, the Federal Reserve starting buying $3 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury and mortgage-backed bonds from banks and the market. This epic purchasing power manipulated prices, drove down bond yields and “provided an artificial boost to the stock market.”

That’s not free market economics. The artificial nature of this move should concern any investor. The Fed’s maneuvers have only grown from there.

All told, the Fed’s book of assets has quadrupled from $914.8 billion in late 2007 to $4.5 trillion in 2014. It did this through a bond-buying program dubbed quantitative easing (QE) and in stages called QE1, QE2 and QE3. Even now the size of its asset book is over $4.4 trillion.

The Fed, or any of the major central banks that took the same course, never had any real unwind strategies for this. While outgoing Fed Chair Janet Yellen may have given speeches about how the Fed will “normalize its balance sheet back to something resembling pre-crisis days,” she really did nothing about it. The Fed has been talking about this since 2011.

Right now, we’re looking at another five years or so before the Fed’s balance sheet would normalize under the current schedule. Finally, in October 2017 the Fed supposedly began to cut its bond buying program by “shrinking the amount of its maturing bonds that it will roll over into new bond purchases.”

But as I explained, it was mostly cosmetic until a more substantial reduction last week. The question now becomes whether or not Janet Yellen’s successor, Jerome Powell, will change course.

Here’s my answer:

Don’t expect Powell’s policies to differ from Yellen’s. He also won’t change from her predecessor, Ben Bernanke, as his voting record shows us, aside from pressing for more leniency for Wall Street.

As the former number two man on the Federal Reserve Board of Directors, he has a record of pressing Congress to weaken the Volcker Rule provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker Rule was a security measure meant to prevent banks from making risky bets using taxpayer money.

His stance dovetails with that of the Trump administration — specifically that of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who endorsed him for the post. So Powell will be friendly to dark money creation.

While Powell may have once had some reservations about voting for the Fed’s quantitative easing (QE), or dark money creation, in the past — he ultimately voted for it.

Powell and the Fed board, under his leadership, will continue to watch for blips in the market or amongst banks. Any signs of distress, like we’re seeing now, implies more dark money will enter into the market. At the very least, I think they will hold off tapering of the Fed’s books (quantitative tightening) as promised last year.

As I revealed in my book, All the Presidents’ Bankers, the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington is very real. It is also one of the most powerful and influential aspects of government. Power and money have no real party allegiance.

See, no matter who sits in the White House, dark money calls the shots. Effective today, we have a new financial alchemist in Washington.

Don’t expect Trump to talk about his newest Dark Money Man at the Federal Reserve. By law, the Fed is supposed to be regulating Wall Street. What Trump brings to the halls of the Fed will, however, matter to us all.

A reservoir of dark money is waiting to flow into the places that offer opportunity and security. It will flow into the stock and bond markets if things get dicier. Look for a massive amount of central bank money to enter the market and infiltrate sectors like renewable energy, infrastructure and construction, blockchain innovations and cryptocurrency.

What all of this means is the more dark money entering the financial markets, the better the opportunity for investors.

While this bubble continues to grow it won’t last forever. It can’t.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FTy3Du Tyler Durden

How Al-Qaeda Ended Up With Anti-Aircraft Missiles: Here Is The Congressional Authorization

After the terrorist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebrand of Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the Syrian al-Qaeda affiliate, claimed responsibility for the dramatic downing of a Russian Su-25 fighter jet over Idlib in northwest Syria on Saturday – the first Russian plane downed in Syria since 2015 – a number of analysts have published articles asking the obvious million dollar question: where did al-Qaeda get the portable anti-aircraft missile system used in the attack?

Once such article in Al Monitor speculates on the following: “The three immediate questions that arose from the attack were how the downing was made possible, how the militants acquired the arms and whether there was a bigger-level player behind the attack.”


MANPADS are heat seeking shoulder fired missiles capable of hitting targets flying at anywhere between 10,000 and 15,000 feet. Image source: Activist Post

And Al Monitor seems to answer its own question in the following when listing the array of allied groups now operating under the leadership of al-Qaeda (HTS) – among them groups previously “vetted” and approved to receive advanced weaponry by the CIA (specifically the TOW anti-tank missile):

Dozens of miles of Idlib province are contested among an array of groups, including the terrorist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebrand of Jabhat al-Nusra, which was affiliated with al-Qaeda; the Free Syrian Army; and its affiliate Jaish al-Nasr, which is considered a “moderate opposition group” that received weapons from the United States. Minutes after the downing of the Su-25, Alaa al-Hamwi, the military commander of Jaish al-Nasr’s aid defense battalion, claimed responsibility for the attack. Alaa argued that Jaish al-Nasr’s command supplied weapons to protect against the Russian air assault.

Later, however, HTS claimed responsibility for downing the plane.

Though US intelligence and defense officials have long denied that so-called “vetted” groups in Syria were recipients of anti-aircraft systems, rumors to the contrary have been persistent for years. The latest denial came immediately on the heels of Saturday’s Russian jet shoot down, which resulted in the death of the pilot on the ground as he came under fire by jihadists. Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian J.T. Rankine-Galloway told Russia’s TASS: “The United States have not provided any of its allied forces in Syria with anti-aircraft weapons.”

The Pentagon spokesman further said, according to RT, that the US-led coalition is currently not engaged in any operations in the area where the jet was downed Saturday, indicating the coalition’s combat efforts are “geographically orientated on the current fight with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS, ISIL) in eastern Syria.” Yet the statement clearly avoided any reference to past US programs to arm so-called “moderates” – whether through the secretive CIA program or DoD program. And this is to say nothing of allies like Saudi Arabia who worked closely with US intelligence for years in supplying weapons to anti-Assad militants.

But does anyone remember this? …from The Wall Street Journal all the way back in February of 2014, headlined Saudis Agree to Provide Syrian Rebels With Mobile Antiaircraft Missiles – U.S. Also Giving Fighters Millions of Dollars for Salaries

Washington’s Arab allies, disappointed with Syria peace talks, have agreed to provide rebels there with more sophisticated weaponry, including shoulder-fired missiles that can take down jets, according to Western and Arab diplomats and opposition figures.

Saudi Arabia has offered to give the opposition for the first time Chinese man-portable air defense systems, or Manpads, and antitank guided missiles from Russia, according to an Arab diplomat and several opposition figures with knowledge of the efforts. Saudi officials couldn’t be reached to comment.

The U.S. has long opposed arming rebels with antiaircraft missiles for fear they could fall into the hands of extremists who might use them against the West or commercial airlines. The Saudis have held off supplying them in the past because of U.S. opposition.

And also this March 2014 report from US government-funded Voice of America news:

Saudi Arabia reportedly is offering to provide Syrian rebels more sophisticated weapons, including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles that can take down fighter planes and helicopter gunships. They could be a game changer in the Syrian civil war. Known as MANPADS or man-portable air defense systems, the shoulder-fired missiles are a highly-effective weapon.

Now, Saudi Arabia is offering to supply moderate rebels with these weapons. That could tip the balance on the battlefield.

…President Barack Obama is said to be rethinking U.S. strategy toward Syria. No doubt arming the Syrian rebels will be on the agenda when Obama travels to Saudi Arabia in late March.

Meanwhile, in February 2018 there’s this to consider…

Al-Qaeda controls a strip of land (Idlib province) not far from the Mediterranean coast, and has now clearly demonstrated the capability of shooting down aircraft. 


In 2014 a historical first was reached: al-Qaeda established a foothold on the Mediterranean coast after it took the Syrian town of Kessab, but has since been pushed back into Idlib.

However, al-Qaeda still remains a very short drive to the Mediterranean coast, with Syrian government territory in between. 

MANPADS (“man-portable air-defense system”) have appeared on the Syrian battlefield in recent years in the hands armed opposition groups supported by the West and Gulf states, including various FSA and Islamist factions – some of which, as Al Monitor confirms, operate today in Idlib.

These groups have at various times filmed and demonstrated themselves to be in possession of these externally supplied MANPADS long before last weekend’s Russian jet downing. The portable systems are believed by analysts to have entered Syria in multiple waves via different routes and external sponsors, including old Soviet models shipped out of Libya, Chinese FN-6’s provided by Qatar, and through NATO member Turkey’s porous border with Syria. Some supplies were also likely gained through opposition takeovers of Syrian government storehouses as well as ISIS seizures of Iraqi government bases and equipment.

Most likely, United States intelligence operatives simply allowed its close allies like the Saudis and Turks to introduce MANPADS early on in the conflict to the Syrian battlefield. In this way the US could maintain “plausible deniability” as it is likely doing now after last weekend’s attack.

But a detail which has gone largely unnoticed since the Russian fighter downing is that Congress had already quietly laid the legal framework for US transfer of MANPADS to groups in Syria over a year ago as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (the NDAA passed the House and Senate in the opening weeks of December 2016). The leading military news site SOFREP reported the authorization at the end of 2016, and described at the time that “Congress for the first time authorized the Department of Defense to provide vetted-Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles.”

Concerning procedural rules, the NDAA requires that the Secretaries of Defense and State submit a formal request to Congress requesting the transfer of the anti-aircraft missiles systems to Syria, which must include the following according to the SOFREP report:

  • A detailed description of each element of the vetted Syrian opposition receiving MANPADS
  • The justification for providing those elements with MANPADS
  • The number and type of MANPADS provided
  • The logistics plan for resupplying approved elements with MANPADS
  • The duration of support

And SOFREP included the following observation:

The inclusion of the provision represents a departure from previous versions of the NDAA. The original House bill specifically prohibited the transfer of MANPADS to “any entity” in Syria, while the Senate bill did not address it.

Though there was an attempt in March 2017 to roll back the authorization, nothing appears to have changed regarding MANPADS and Syria in the 2018 NDAA, which was signed into law by President Trump.

Here’s the law authorizing US transfer of MANPADS to Syria as contained in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

However, long before this formal NDAA legal framework was put into effect, it appears anti-aircraft systems were already being handed out among Syrian militant groups – again, likely through the Saudis or a third party US ally. In May 2016 we featured the following commentary:

Dr. Christina Lin, a leading scholar on jihadist groups, opens her April 8th commentary at Asia Times: “In a blunder reeking of the fallout caused by supplying Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to 1980s mujahideen in Afghanistan, civilian airline passengers are now under threat from Syrian jihadists armed with portable surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS).

Reports say some American-backed jihadi groups are being equipped with US-made MANPADS. Indications are they’re obtaining these advanced weapons either directly or indirectly from the US or its Mideast allies in connection with a recent escalation in the fighting in Syria.”

And further:

Dr. Lin quotes a Saudi official as saying (in Germany’s Spiegel), “We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground… just like surface-to-air missiles in Afghanistan were able to change the balance of power there.” He was referring there to this in 1979, where Obama’s friend Zbigniew Brzezinski explained why the Americans and the Saudis were supplying SAMs to the mujahideen who became al-Qaeda, and he was also referring to this in 1998, where Brzezinski, when asked whether he thought that arming those fundamentalist Sunnis had been a mistake, said that it certainly was not.

And an unpleasant reminder which bears repeating…

The threat of MANPADS taking out civilian passenger jets is very real, as history proves. The US Department of State counted that 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by MANPADS since the 1970s, which includes the complete downing of 28 civilian airliners resulting in over 800 fatalities. The State Department’s official report on MANPADS and civilian aircraft provides the following partial list of attacks on civilian aviation:

  • March 12, 1975: A Douglas C-54D-5-DC passenger airliner, operated by Air Vietnam, crashed into Vietnamese territory after being hit by a MANPADS. All six crew members and 20 passengers were killed in the crash.
  • September 3, 1978: An Air Rhodesia Vickers 782D Viscount passenger airliner crash landed after being hit by a MANPADS fired by forces from the Zimbabwe Peoples Revolution Army. Four crew members and 34 of the 56 passengers were killed in the crash.
  • December 19, 1988: Two Douglas DC-7 spray aircraft en route from Senegal to Morocco, chartered by the U.S. Agency for International Development to eradicate locusts, were struck by MANPADS fired by POLISARIO militants in the Western Sahara. One DC-7 crashed killing all 5 crew members. The other DC-7 landed safely in Morocco.
  • September 22, 1993: A Tupolev 154B aircraft operated by Transair Georgia was shot down by Abkhazian separatist forces, crashed onto the runway and caught fire, killing 108.
  • April 6, 1994: A Dassault Mystère-Falcon 50 executive jet carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and its French flight crew was shot down over Kigali, killing all aboard and sparking massive ethnic violence and regional conflict.
  • October 10, 1998: A Boeing 727-30 Lignes Aeriennes Congolaises airliner was downed over the Democratic Republic of the Congo jungle by Tutsi militia, killing 41.
  • December 26, 1998: A United Nations-chartered Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport was shot down over Angola by UNITA forces, killing 14.
  • January 2, 1999: A United Nations Lockheed L-100-30 Hercules transport was shot down by UNITA forces in Angola, killing 9.
  • November 28, 2002: Terrorists fired two MANPADS at an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757-3E7 with 271 passengers and crew as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. Both missiles missed.
  • November 22, 2003: A DHL Airbus A300B4-203F cargo jet transporting mail in Iraq was struck and damaged by a MANPADS. Though hit in the left fuel tank, the plane was able to return to the Baghdad airport and land safely.
  • March 23, 2007: A Transaviaexport Ilyushin 76TD cargo plane was shot down over Mogadishu, Somalia, killing the entire crew of 11.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2BK19qY Tyler Durden

Peter Thiel: “Crypto Is Libertarian, AI Is Communist”

Authored by Sonya Mann via Inc.com,

Peter Thiel is known for extending an idea to its logical extremes and then inverting it. The habit has served him well as one of tech’s most contrarian and successful investors. 

Talking about two of the technologies that Silicon Valley is most excited about right now — cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence — the controversial billionaire and PayPal cofounder used this technique on Wednesday night.

“Crypto is libertarian, AI is communist,” Thiel declared, during a public debate with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute.

Like many of Thiel’s pronouncements, it was equal parts catchy and gnomic. In case you’re wondering, he was talking about decentralization and centralization.

Cryptocurrencies are typically open-source, meaning that anyone with technical ability can contribute. On top of that, anyone disgruntled with a given cryptocurrency’s trajectory can “fork” it, creating a new coin, as has happened to both bitcoin and ethereum. When tokens are purchased or earned, they can’t be confiscated unless the owner’s private keys (a sort of cryptographic password) are compromised.

Cryptocurrencies are also famously designed to be extralegal — beyond the reach of the government — although of course the SEC and the IRS hope to quash that notion.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence relies on the trend that came before it, big data, and big data is gathered by big entities. For example, Google is able to do extraordinary things with machine learning because of the staggering amount of search data, image data, and general user behavior data that it’s amassed over the years.

Historically, communist regimes like the Soviet Union and Maoist China sought to create highly centralized command economies, noted Thiel. A sufficiently powerful AI could realize the bureaucrat’s dream of accurately predicting peasant farmers’ potato yields months in advance from thousands of miles away. No wonder, then, as he said, “the Chinese Communist Party hates crypto and loves AI.”

Hoffman heard Thiel out, then offered an alternative metaphor: Cryptocurrencies are “anarchy” and artificial intelligence is “the rule of law.”

Throughout the night, Hoffman was more optimistic than Thiel about the ability of Silicon Valley to deploy its products for good. He pointed to marketplaces like Airbnb that turn regular people into “micro-entrepreneurs” as an example of the tech industry spreading opportunity.

However, Hoffman also expressed worries about tech’s impact on politics. “We need to commit to ‘Spiderman ethics,'” he said. “With power comes responsibility.” He described the Valley’s burgeoning doubts: “We’re not convinced that this future is going to be good for us, for our future.”

According to Thiel, America’s economy is practically only vibrant when it comes to technology. “We’ve had sort of narrow cone of progress around computers,” he explained. “There is not that much progress in the world of atoms, only in the world of bits,” he added, pointing out that non-software engineering would have been the absolute wrong thing to study in the 1980’s from a careerist standpoint.

The talk between Thiel and Hoffman, moderated by Niall Ferguson, was broadly themed to address technology and politics. Both men have strong views on these topics. Thiel notoriously supported President Trump during 2016, a move that earned him few friends in the mostly liberal tech industry.

Thiel suggested that he knew prior to Trump’s ascendancy that a candidate who was “both extremely pessimistic and motivational” would be a powerful combination. Hoffman, on the other hand, was an advisor to Hillary Clinton, according to Recode, and uses his fortune to bolster liberal candidates and causes.

During the talk, the audience was allowed to submit questions through a web interface. The questions were then displayed to the rest of the audience in a Reddit-like format. Ferguson said that the most popular questions would be posed to Thiel and Hoffman. Some were, but the most highly upvoted question was never addressed by the end of the night: “On the topic of post-partisan politics: Peter, how do you square libertarian political beliefs with support for mass government surveillance?” Presumably this query was a reference to Thiel’s leadership at Palantir, a secretive private company that specializes in data analysis and works closely with the government.

A recurring theme of the night was the need to reach across the aisle in intellectual discourse in order to have a fuller view of reality. Thiel in some sense has no choice about this, since his peers largely disagree with him, as he pointed out. He said that a conservative student at a school like Stanford would get a better education than a liberal one: “If you’re liberal, you’ll really just get your views reinforced.” Hoffman also said that being friends with a contrarian Thiel helped test and strengthen his own views.

Another audience member asked, “How much of your friendship is attributed to the fact that you met in the benign environment of the university? Would you still become friends if you met today?” Hoffman responded that it wasn’t the camaraderie of university, but the fact that it was a period of life dedicating to growing and understanding.

Earlier in the conversation, Thiel advocated for “steelmanning,” which is the practice of trying to understand the strongest version of your opponents’ views. (It’s the opposite of “strawmanning.”) 

“There’s always a tendency for us to reduce the other side to a caricature of itself,” he said.

“The left will be able to win again, but it has to start by steelmanning.”

It’s not enough to “tell Trump voters to hurry up and die.” Hoffman pointed out that this was a caricature of liberal views, and both men shared a chuckle.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nJ5dPl Tyler Durden

Chicago Vol-Selling Fund Blows Up, Down More Than 50% After “Significant Losses”

According to its website, the Chicago-based LJM Partners fund invests in “volatility strategies” with an emphasis on selling volatility, which “are traditionally uncorrelated with other assets and are capable of producing postive [sic] returns in a wide range of market conditions” and one look at the performance of its recent strategies, of which the LJM Moderately Aggressive Strategy is the most popular, with AUM of $366MM, confirms this to be the case.

Until today.

Not surprisingly, the record surge in volatility crushed the fund which specializes in vol-selling, and according to a letter from its founder and chairman Tony Caine, seen by the WSJ, the fund told its investors on Tuesday that it had suffered significant losses.

“LJM strategies have suffered significant losses,” Caine said an email seen by the Wall Street Journal.”At this time, the portfolio management team is trying to hedge with as many futures as possible to attempt to insulate portfolios from further losses.”

“Our plan is to go to a defensive position depending on liquidity of options markets. Our goal is to preserve as much capital as possible” Caine said, admitting that the ability to do that depends on market conditions and liquidity.

Alas, one look at the NAV of the fund confirms the worst: with losses of over 50%, it is almost certainly lights out for this particular vol-seller.

The company website lists a total of $547 million in assets under management, including proprietary assets, and was founded in 1998. It will most likely liquidate 20 years later.

LJM was not the only casualty of the record VIX spike.

Overnight, some of the most prominent inverse VIX ETNs were terminated: first Nomura said it would redeem VIX-linked NEXT notes, while on Tuesday morning, Credit Suisse announced it would “accelerated” one of the most popular inverse VIX ETNs, the XIV. We also highlighted some European fallout, including UK’s Man Group and Option Solutions, which suffered losses as great as 65% after the historic surge in the VIX. Bill Gross likewise was hit, with yesterday’s market move sending his Janus unconstrained fund back in the red for the year.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EKH7uP Tyler Durden

The Cost Of Illegal Immigration

Authored by Ruthie Blum via The Gatestone Institute,

In his State of the Union address on January 30, US President Donald J. Trump referred to the brutal murder of two 16-year-old girls from Long Island in December 2016 by members of the “savage MS-13 gang,” responsible for a spate of other gruesome killings in the area, as well.

Many of these gang members, he explained, had entered the United States illegally. “For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities,” he said.

Calling on Congress “to finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed… criminal gangs to break into our country,” he listed the four pillars of his immigration-reform proposal:

  • A path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents.

  • The construction of a “great wall on the southern border” and enforcement by agents patrolling and securing the border.

  • Ending the visa lottery, “a program that randomly plans out green cards without regard for skill, merit, for the safety of American people.”

  • Ending the “current, broken system” of chain migration of distant relatives, and limiting sponsorships to spouses and minor children.

Although he did not specify this in his speech, Trump reportedly is seeking $25 billion from Congress to fund the wall. Opponents of the wall have been arguing that illegal immigrants do not commit crimes at a higher rate than legal immigrants or native-born Americans; that illegal immigration has been a boon to the economy, rather than a drain on it; and that the cost both of deportation and a wall far exceeds the benefits of both. These claims are repeatedly voiced by the Trump administration’s detractors, as part of their campaign to accuse the president of racism; but what are the facts?

To set the record straight, let us take a look at a number of those that have been obscured or ignored by the media.

As far as the cost of the wall is concerned, a study released in September 2017 by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) reveals that, “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens.” This, the report says, is a nearly $3 billion increase in the cost since 2013. It is also rather more than the single payment of $25 billion that it will cost to build a wall – five and a half times more, and every year.

Pictured: The US-Mexico border fence near San Diego, California. (Image source: US Customs and Border Protection)

 

The same goes for the cost of deporting illegal immigrants. According to Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies,

“…The average cost of a deportation is much smaller than the net fiscal drain created by the average illegal immigrant,” in part due to the fact that “illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education…creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.”

The question of the rates of criminality among illegal aliens vs. those of legal immigrants and American-born citizens has been examined by John R. Lott, Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, using Arizona’s prison population as a microcosm for study. According to Lott, the ability to measure the crime-rate among illegal immigrants in the U.S. has been difficult, due to many factors, including the lack of a national data base and “primitive” methodology – such as “simple, cross-sectional analysis to see whether areas with higher immigrant populations have higher crime rates,” and “a purely time series approach… look at the United States as a whole and note that crime has decreased since 1990 as immigration has increased.” The advantage of the Arizona Department of Corrections study, Lott says, is that

“over our 32.5-year period, we know each prisoner who entered the prison system, their criminal convictions history, and whether he is a documented or undocumented immigrant. The only mystery is why this type of data has not been utilized until now.”

Peter Kirsanow wryly solved the mystery in National Review, writing:

“Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes.”

According to Lott, whose research spans 1985-2017:

“Arizona’s prison population data allow us to compare undocumented immigrants’ share of the prison population with their estimated share of the state population…For the first time, we break down the data to examine differences between US citizens, undocumented immigrants, and legal permanent residents. One advantage of using convictions rather than just reported crimes is that convictions depend on a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard of evidence and thus are much less likely to count innocent people.”

The findings are unequivocal, as the following summary illustrates:

“Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens…There are dramatic differences between in the criminal histories of convicts who are U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants…

“[Y]oung undocumented immigrants commit crime at twice the rate of young U.S. citizens. These undocumented immigrants also tend to commit more serious crimes. If undocumented immigrants committed crime nationally as they do in Arizona, in 2016 they would have been responsible for over 1,000 more murders, 5,200 rapes, 8,900 robberies, 25,300 aggravated assaults, and 26,900 burglaries.”

These numbers do not even include the cost to American taxpayers of the toll taken on America’s children by illegally imported drugs. Although available information on this is at best spotty, the key finding from the DEA’s 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment is that the “most commonly reported greatest drug threat was heroin, at 44.1 percent of law enforcement responses… This was followed by 29.8 percent of respondents indicating methamphetamine was their greatest drug threat, 9.3 percent reporting controlled prescription drugs…”

This tells us something about the extent of the problem, but not enough. The 2010 drug-threat assessment, released a year after the previous administration took office, revealed that,

“From January through November 2009, U.S. seizures of illegal drugs in transit exceeded 1,626 metric tons, indicating that DTOs succeed in moving several thousand tons of cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA into the United States annually. There are unique smuggling and transportation methods…”

In 2015, included in the DEA’s drug-threat assessment was the fact that drug overdoses killed more people in the United States than car accidents or guns. As was noted by the BBC at the time, “Many of these drugs are smuggled in large volumes by drug cartels…”

The late Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” His successors in Congress would do well to remember this while debating the issue of illegal immigration. They certainly need to keep it in mind when voting on the administration’s proposed plan.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2E6jn37 Tyler Durden

Rents Increase In 89% Of Largest US Cities

The number of US renters is growing much more rapidly than the number of homeowners, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that rents in the vast majority of American cities climbed again last month – continuing a trend that has largely persisted since the financial crisis, according to data compiled by RentCafe, a website that provides rental listings nationwide. RentCafe occasionally analyzes the reams of data it collects to provide insightful clues about the US housing market. And as markets puked following a robust headline increase in average hourly earnings – one of the first signs that stagnant consumer prices might once again rise – RC’s latest report shows that the national average rent was $1,361, 2.8% higher than this time last year, but flat on a monthly basis.

Nearly 90% of the nation’s biggest cities have seen rents grow in January; in 9% of cities rents remained unchanged, while only 2% experienced price declines…

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, it was actually America’s smaller cities that saw the greatest increases (to be sure, that’s probably because markets like San Francisco are already well past the boundaries of what typical middle-class workers can afford). These markets include Gilbert, AZ rose 8.5%, Roseville, CA (8.5%), and Fort Collins, CO (7.9%) breaking the top 10.

Meanwhile, in a sign that some of the hottest housing markets in the country are starting to buckle under the weight of overdevelopment, RC found that the only major market where rents dropped year-over-year was Brooklyn, where rents decreased by 14%.

Read RentCafe’s entire report below:

The price of apartments has gone up in 89% of the nation’s 250 largest cities in January 2018, as demand for rentals remains elevated throughout the country, sustained by an improving economy and low unemployment. Renters continue to embrace apartment life, as rent prices are increasing at a strong and steady annual rate of 2.8%, nationwide, reaching $1,361/month in January 2018.

The price of two-bedroom units is increasing the fastest

One and two-bedroom apartments remain the most in-demand apartment sizes in the U.S. The price of two-bedroom rentals has climbed the most over the year, with a 3.5% increase in rates, exceeding $1,400/month on average, while the price for one-bedroom units has increased by 3.4%, renting for $1,225/month on average in January. The slowest growing apartment type in January were studio apartments, renting for 2.5% more than this time last year.

 

Chart

Rents in 6 cities, including Brooklyn, NY, continue to slide

In only six cities out of the 250 studied are rents cheaper than they were one year ago. With a large new inventory of apartments to fill, the rental market in Lubbock, TX has seen the biggest drop in prices year over year, -6.3%, with an average apartment now renting for less than $900/month. Norman, OK is also seeing a slight decrease in the average rent (-2.3%), as a result of thousands of new apartments hitting the market in just the past few years, with an average rent of $861/month as of January 2018.

Diminished demand for housing has affected prices in McAllen, TX, which have declined by -2.2% year-over-year. Rents in Kansas City, KS and Baton Rouge, LA are also sliding slightly this month, by less than 2%. The only large market to see a decrease in rents is Brooklyn, NY, which had wrapped up last year -1.7% below the previous year’s levels, maintaining the downward direction in January as well, with rents down by -1.1% year over year.

U.S. Cities Where Rents Decreased Y-o-Y in January 2018

 

Chart

Three new cities break the top 10 with greatest rent increases

At the beginning of the year, we have three new cities entering the top 10 for fastest growing rents in the U.S. Fueled by increasing demand, Gilbert, AZ (8.5%), Roseville, CA (8.5%) and Fort Collins, CO (7.9%) saw big rent bumps over the past year. Rental prices in Gilbert, AZ are rising fast, clocking in at $1,156/month in January, as its population has been growing at extremely high rates, demand for housing has skyrocketed, and a big portion of the Gilbert population is renting.

Sacramento Metropolitan Area’s City of Roseville is joining Sacramento — where apartment prices have been on a steep climb for a while now — as one of the top 10 cities in the country with the fastest rising rents. The price of apartments in Roseville, CA has jumped by as much as 8.5% year-over-year, with the average rent currently exceeding $1,600/month. Fort Collins, CO has also become one of the country’s fastest growing rental markets, with residents and Colorado State students competing for a limited number of rental apartments. Rates are up almost 8% from the same time last year, a Fort Collins rental apartment costing on average $1,436/month at the moment.

Oil centers Odessa and Midland, TX are still at the top of the list with the highest rent rebounds over the year, 35% and 31.4% respectively. Buffalo, NY (12.1%) and Lancaster, CA (10.2%) also struggling with double-digit price hikes year-over-year.

U.S. Cities with the Fastest Growing Rents in January 2018

 

Three

The most expensive California rents push the limits again in January

The priciest cities for renters remain big urban job centers on both coasts, with Manhattan, NY at the top of the list with an average apartment rent of $4,079, unchanged from the previous month and down slightly by -1% over the year.

If renters living in The Golden State where hoping for a respite from high rents in the new year, they’re not getting it yet. Prices went up again in January in all 5 California cities in the top 10 most expensive for renters, with the highest rates in the state being in San Francisco, $3,448/month. Jersey City apartments, the sixth most expensive in the U.S., also saw increased rates this month, reaching $2,855.

Wichita, KS, Tulsa, OK, and Toledo, OH remain the country’s top 3 most affordable cities for renters, alongside 7 other Midwestern and Texan towns where average rents do not exceed $730/month, a fraction of the prices in coastal cities. In fact, things have been quiet in these parts of the country, as rents remained flat or grew slower than the national average in 9 out of 10 cities. Fort Wayne, IN was the only one to see a significant jump in prices for the year, 4.5%

 

Chart

At the start of the new year, rents are expected to continue rising throughout the country slightly above inflation, as demand for apartments remains strong from all generations of renters. Doug Ressler, senior analyst at Yardi Matrix, offered his opinion as to what renters can expect as we begin a new year:

You can find the average rent in your city at RentCafe.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2EMVEXc Tyler Durden