37 State Attorneys General Demand Answers From Zuckerberg In Data Harvesting Scandal

Thirty-seven “profoundly concerned” U.S. state and territory attorneys general fired off a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday, demanding answers over reports that personal user information from Facebook profiles was provided to third parties without the users’ knowledge or consent. 

“Most recently, we have learned from news reports that the business practices within the social media world have evolved to give multiple software developers access to personal information of Facebook users. These reports raise serious questions regarding consumer privacy”

The letter notes the 50 million Facebook profiles which may have been “misused and misappropriated by third-party software developers,” noting that Facebook “took as much as 30%” of payments made through applications used by Facebook users. 

“According to these reports, Facebook’s previous policies allowed developers to access the personal data of “friends” of people who used applications on the platform, without the knowledge or express consent of those “friends.” It has also been reported that while providing other developers access to personal Facebook user data, Facebook took as much as thirty (30) percent of payments made through the developers’ applications by Facebook users.” 

In other words – while a Facebook user may have agreed in the fine print to allowing the social media giant to hoover up their information – their “friends” did not. 

“These revelations raise many serious questions concerning Facebook’s policies and practices” reads the letter, which asks “were those terms of service clear and understandable, or buried in boilerplate where few users would even read them?” 

The Attorneys General also want to know;

  • How did Facebook monitor what these developers did with all the data they collected? 
  • What type of controls did Facebook have over the data given to developers?
  • Did Facebook have protective safeguards in place, including audits, to ensure developers were not misusing the Facebook user’s data?
  • How many users in our respective states were impacted?
  • When did Facebook learn of this breach of privacy protections?
  • During this timeframe, what other third party “research” applications were also able to access the data of unsuspecting Facebook users? 

Moreover, the letter requests an update from Facebook as to how the company plans to allow users to more easily control the privacy of their accounts, noting that “Even with the changes Facebook has made in recent years, many users still do not know that their profile—and personal data—is available to third-party vendors. Facebook has made promises about users’ privacy in the past, and we need to know that users can trust Facebook. With the information we have now, our trust has been broken.

We look forward to Facebook’s response. As the Attorneys General note in their letter – “Users of Facebook deserve to know the answers to these questions and more.” 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2IVkllE Tyler Durden

Stockman Warns Trump’s New War Cabinet Will Create A Fiscal Doom Loop

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

Last week the Donald’s incipient trade war got Wall Street’s nerves jangling, but that wasn’t the half of what’s coming.

To wit, Trump has now essentially formed a War Cabinet and signed a Horribus spending bill that is a warrant for fiscal meltdown. 

Indeed, the two essentially comprise a self-fueling doom loop which means Washington’s descent into fiscal catastrophe is well-nigh unstoppable; it’s all over except for the screaming in the bond pits.

That is, Trump’s new War Cabinet of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and Mad Dog Mattis is arguably the most interventionist, militarist, confrontationist and bellicose national security team ever assembled by a sitting President. We cannot think of a single country that has even looked cross-eyed at Washington in recent years where one or all four of them has not threatened to drone, bomb, invade or decapitate its current ruling regime.

That means Imperial Washington’s rampant War Fever owing to the Dem-left declaration of war on Russia and Putin is now about to be drastically intensified by the complete victory of the neocon-right in the Trump Administration. The result will be sharpened confrontation, if not actual outbreak of hostilities, across the full spectrum of adversaries—Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea—-and an escalating tempo of military operations and procurement to implement the policy.

At the same time, the Donald’s pathetic Fake Veto maneuver on Friday cemented the special interest lobbies’ absolute control over domestic appropriations. Of course, Chuckles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi crowed loudly about the $63 billion annual domestic spending increase they got in return for the Donald’s $80 billion defense add-on, but the victory was not partisan; it belonged to the Swamp creatures who suckle the politicians of both parties and own the appropriations committees lock, stock and barrel.

To be sure, upon folding at mid-day from his four-hour’s earlier veto tweet, the Donald promised “never again”, but his reason for signing the most wasteful, pork-ridden appropriations bill of this century tells you all you need to know. To wit,

There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill. There are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were in a sense forced if we want to build our military,” Trump said. “I said to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again.”

Au contraire. As long as he lasts in office, the Donald will be signing budget busters far worse than this one because the aggressive foreign policies of his War Cabinet will drive the pace of national security spending dramatically higher than the record $695 billion he signed into law last week; and these “must have” increases for pay, operations, ammo, spare parts, training, readiness and weapons replacement/augmentation will not get through the Congress until the bipartisan porkers have had their fill on the domestic side.

Your editor experienced long ago the toxic fiscal equation which arises when hawks and militarists take control of foreign policy and the defense budget. What you get is a “guns and butter” log-rolling dynamic as defense advocates on the spending committees buy the votes of colleagues whose snouts have penetrated deeply into the domestic pork barrel or whose paymasters inhabit the vast expanse of the health, education and social welfare complex.

That’s what stopped cold the Gipper’s short-lived attack on Big Government after 1981, and why the hawk-dominated GOP has been such a dismal failure on the fiscal front ever since.

But the Trumpite/GOP has brought guns and butter log-rolling to a whole new level of fiscal profligacy. And the overwhelming share of the blame for the resulting Horribus appropriations bill—which will raise spending by $143 billion this year and $2.4 trillion over the next decade—rests squarely with the incumbent member of Trump’s new War Cabinet, SecDef James Mattis.

Not only does his brazen bellicosity and demented militarism rival that of the other three members of Trump’s new War Cabinet, but Mattis also spent a 40 year career sucking the hind teats of the Warfare State, where he apparently never met a military budget that was big enough.

That is to say, Mattis is not remotely the “warrior monk” or “military intellectual” the fawning mainstream press makes him out to be. He’s actually a gung-ho bull-in-the-china-shop who defines his mission as complete obliteration of any foe who comes along; and which is to be accomplished by the assembly of overwhelming military capabilities and firepower.

Stated differently, the quotes below are not the expressions of a subtle mind. They reflect the mindset of the bombastic militarist who should have never, ever been let near the top post at the Pentagon, and who is the architect of the Donald’s hideously bloated defense budget and new long-term strategic plan for unaffordable, insensible global military dominance:

“The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot…..I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.’

Unlike most of the American generals who have been waging and loosing pointless wars over the last half century while cheerfully checking the boxes on the way to their post-retirement bonanzas, Mattis never got over it. He blitzed the enemy as an assault battalion commander in the first Gulf War, brought carnage to the Pashtun villages of southern Afghanistan and obliterated Fallujah (Iraq) twice—without ever noticing that he was not winning any wars, but just dispensing random high-tech violence at huge cost in blood (theirs), treasure (ours) and blowback (throughout the Muslim world).

Indeed, Mattis’ apparent lesson was that America needed massive military dominance to pacify an uncooperative world, and the Donald fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Yet in today’s world, America has no industrial state enemies remotely capable of and/or motivated to threaten the homeland. Indeed, the only real homeland defense we need is our nuclear retaliatory force of land-based ICBMs, sea-based Trident missiles and DOD’s 5,000 active and standby nuclear warheads—all of which were bought and paid for long ago.

That is, America doesn’t need no stinkin’ defense build-up, and could slash what it’s already spending by $250 billion per year without harming national security in the slightest.

That is also to say, neither Russia nor China is about to invade the American homeland with conventional forces because neither has even 5% of the necessary air-lift, sea-lift and power projection capacity that would be needed—even if they were ruled by lunatics, which they most assuredly are not.

Likewise, Russia and China are not suicidal enough to launch a first nuclear strike or attempt nuclear blackmail.

And beyond that, the even more dispositive point is that the very thought of hostile action against the American homeland would amount to an economic death warrant for either power.

That’s because in the case of the Red Ponzi, the Donald is absolutely right about its massive trade imbalance. China’s $510 billion per year of exports to the US do not represent free and fair trade in the historic sense: They are an absolute freak of economic nature stemming from the massive central bank money printing spree of the last 25-years and the egregious mercantilism that Beijing has instituted to exploit it and to build the greatest credit-fueled house of cards in human history.

Accordingly, if China were to threaten the US militarily, the resulting embargo on Chinese goods would cause its economy to plunge into a thundering collapse within six months: To wit, America’s spacious closets are already stuffed full of enough junk from China—including every variety of Apple device—to last for years, while China’s debt-ridden production chain on the margin survives hand-to-mouth on export orders.

And as for Russia, pulleese!

Its entire GDP of $1.5 trillion is less than that of the New York metro area, and only 8% of the US economy as a whole. The very idea that it’s a military threat to America is just flat out ludicrous; and that is in no way changed by Putin’s recent hints that Russia has developed a new class of non-ballistic strategic weapons that are not vulnerable to US ABM defenses.

But of course!

It was the US and John Bolton specifically during his stint as head of arms control at the Bush State Department that caused the expiration of Nixon’s ABM treaty. And in light of the subsequent drive toward a US missile defense system, what does another power that wishes to preserve the credibility and efficacy of its nuclear deterrent or retaliatory strike capability do?

Why, it finds a way around the ABMs to insure that no adversary is tempted to launch a pre-emptive first strike while secure from retaliation in a protective ABM cocoon. That’s exactly what the old MAD playbooks recommend, and what Russia, apparently, actually did.

So why does Mattis want $700 billion per year of force structure, readiness and massive weapons upgrades this year, which is just a down payment on an embedded defense bow-wave that will quickly rise towards $1 trillion annually?

A good part of the answer is sheer economic ignorance. Mattis along with the career national security apparatchiks who now comprise the Donald’s new War Cabinet are making the same mistake as their cold war forebears did about the old Soviet Union.

The latter was always destined to collapse under the weight of command and control centralization and ersatz socialism; it was only a matter of funding a strategic deterrent and waiting out the collapse that finally came, and swiftly, too.

There was never any need for the massive conventional forces that were kept in being during the Cold War, and especially not the huge Reagan build-up. The latter essentially funded an expeditionary armada designed for invasion and occupation—an unneeded capability that eventually led to the follies of Washington’s serial military interventions in the Middle East.

That is even truer today. ISIS was a short-lived menace that arose from Washington’s interventions in Iraq and Syria, and has now been largely extinguished by its mortal 13-century old Shiite enemy: That is, the Shiite coalition of the Iraqi government in Baghdad, Iran, the Assad regime in Syria and the Hezbollah fighters of Lebanon.

There is nothing else from that region that threatens the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE or Springfield MA, and most especially not the Iranians and their Shiite allies. The Iranians never had a nuclear weapons program, even by the lights of the 17-agency NIEs (national intelligence estimates) from 2007 onwards, and they have now precluded the possibility by agreeing to the Obama nuke deal.

The fact is, Iran is not a terrorist state—even if its theocracy falls far short of democratic ideals, and even if its leaders do fulminate against the Great Satan in Washington.

After all, during the past 65 years Washington has attacked the Iranian people by installing a brutal, larcenous puppet regime under the Shah from 1953-1979; siding with Iraq when the latter invaded Iran during the 1980s; and by demonizing and attempting to destabilize it ever since.

The entire case against Iran has been concocted by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the coalition of right-wing parties upon which his rule depends. They claim the Tehran regime is an existential threat to Israel’s survival, but that’s ridiculous when they have upwards of 100 nukes and the Iranians have none, and when the Israeli air force has the capacity to turn Iran’s limited attack forces into a smoldering heap of twisted metal on a moment’s notice.

The Israeli claim that Hezbollah is a lethal Iranian dagger pointed at its survival is equally upside down. In fact, Israel’s repeated brutal occupations of the Shiite regions of southern Lebanon is what brought Hezbollah into existence, and at length has made it the largest political party in this religiously fractured country.

In that context, the main reason Iran supplies Hezbollah with arms is to deter a US/Israel attack; and also because like any other sovereign nation it is allowed to have a foreign policy, including one based on shared confessional ties.

We remonstrate on these matters because when it comes to Iran the Donald’s new War Cabinet is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bebe Netanyahu. Bolton and Pompeo are absolutely rabid in their desire to make war on Iran, and Mad Dog Mattis is not far behind.

Yet it cannot be stated strongly enough: Iran proposes no military threat to the American homeland whatsoever; it has never been involved in a terrorist incident or even plot against America or Europe for that matter; and its religious and political quarrel with the Saudis is absolutely none of Washington’s business.

As we have frequently observed, it really doesn’t matter who controls the vast hydrocarbon deposits surrounding the Persian Gulf—-Sunni or Shiite, dictators or democrats, Arabs or Persians. That’s because they all desperately need the revenue. And if oil prices should temporarily spike due to local wars or political upheaval, the cure for high prices is the global free market, not the US fifth fleet.

The truth of the matter is that a unilateral US military attack on Iran would be tantamount to a war crime—as the Nuremberg trials defined “wars of aggression”. And that is why the Donald’s mindless and groundless conviction that the Iran nuclear accord is the worst deal ever made by the US government is so pregnant with danger.

To a person, his new War Cabinet will be in the business of scratching and clawing the Donald’s itch. Their modus operandi will be to sabotage the greatest breakthrough for world peace in decades on May 12 when the next certification of Iranian compliance arrives.

Once the nuclear deal is ash-canned, in turn, the War Cabinet will revive their historically false claims that the Iranian’s are on the verge of gaining nuclear weapons. That’s even if they merely restart their enrichment plant at Natanz, which they would have every right to do in the event of Washington’s unilateral abrogation.

From there the war drums would start beating loudly in Imperial Washington for a pre-emptive attack to stop them—a speciously Nuremburg compliant attack, as it were.

Regardless of how this scenario plays out in concrete detail and time frame, one thing is certain. A rising crescendo of tensions and confrontations with all of the War Cabinet’s targets—-Iran, Syria, Russia, China and North Korea—is fast coming down the pike. And that means an even larger burst in defense spending is not far behind.

All the while, of course, the Freedom Caucus stumbles around helping to slash tax revenues to 16.6% of GDP—the lowest level since the late 1940s—even as it welcomes the Donald’s War Cabinet and kvetches about soaring entitlements and the Horribus appropriations bill that a good portion of its membership acquiesced to.

And they are the purported fiscal good guys!

Yes, it is a doom loop and there is not a chance in the hot place of avoiding the fast arriving bond market “yield shock” that will make mincemeat out of today’s incorrigible dip buyers.

via RSS https://ift.tt/BmFLWB Tyler Durden

Netanyahu Rushed To Hospital With “High Fever, Cough”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been rushed to a hospital with a fever and for tests after an illness, local media reported, and a spokesman for the Prime Minister confirmed.

Netanyahu’s symptoms include high fever and coughing but this time they are not the result of what the UK has already decided is a Kremlin mandated nerve gas, but are apparently due to complications of a streptococcal throat infection, and is also undergoing additional tests on the advice of his doctor.

“The prime minister is suffering from a high fever and is coughing,” a spokesman for the 68-year-old Netanyahu, said in a text message.

According to the spokesman, Netanyahu’s personal doctor, Ariel Berkowitz, believes the prime minister had not fully recovered from an illness two weeks ago and therefore decided he should undergo further tests at hospital, the spokesman said.

Netanyahu has recently been embroiled in one of the biggest scandals of his career, with the Israeli police recommending last month that Bibi be indicted for bribery.

via RSS https://ift.tt/EcxxDE Tyler Durden

Rep. Thomas Massie: ‘Anybody That Voted for the Omnibus Committed an Appalling Act’

Rep. Thomas Massie thinks the congressional leadership has turned America into a banana republic. In a long, aggrieved interview with Conservative Review, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican stresses the absurdity of requiring representatives to vote on something they had no chance of understanding.

Massie insists he learned more about the mess of a spending bill from reporters’ tweets than from the party leadership. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), he notes, straight-up refused to answer specific questions from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) about elements of the omnibus.

This disempowerment is deliberate and explicit, Massie says:

before we vote on every bill in the House, there’s an early procedural vote that precedes the vote on the bill. It’s called “the rule vote.” Now it’s ironic they call it “the rule vote.” What the rule vote does is it suspends our rights as members that are preserved in the rule book that we have—Jefferson’s manual, if you will.

The rule vote says, “We’re going to limit debate, we’re going to limit amendments, we’re going to do this to you, we’re going to do that to you, we’re going to suspend all points of order that you could otherwise make.” And it just shocks me that most of my Republican colleagues will vote to subvert their own power by voting for that rule vote….

[A]s soon as you’re sworn in to Congress, they take you over to the corner and say, “Listen. There’s one rule here. Never vote against the rule that comes out of the Rules Committee.”

And of course, they will try to take away [National Republican Congressional Committee] funding for your race, if you have a close race. In fact, after this rule vote happened, you could see our leadership with a print-out of the 25 Republican members who dared to vote to have some say in this bill. And they were scouring it, they were sitting over there at the leadership table just going through the list. I’m sure they have lots of nasty stuff planned for us.

Massie finds it interesting that many members felt free to vote for an omnibus that violates various GOP promises after the deadline for possible primary challenges has passed. He thinks the bill will likely function as, quoting an unnamed colleague, “the GOP voter suppression act of 2018.”

“It’s going to depress enthusiasm” of any small-government minded Republicans out there, Massie says, adding that “my enthusiasm is diminished for supporting my colleagues who come back and vote for this kind of crap.” Massie notes with pride that he never voted for Ryan for leadership, and he says people should “start paying attention to how their congressmen voted on these procedural votes.” He knew all along, Massie insists, that Ryan was lying when he promised to be more punctilious about letting congressmen understand what they had to vote on.

That doesn’t mean you can fix the problem just by booting Ryan. “The speaker of the House does what he does, not just because people allow him to do it, the rank and file members, they literally vote every week to be abused by the rules,” Massie laments. “It’s like Stockholm syndrome. So, you could change the speaker, and he may not run again. But until you have congressmen who don’t just blindly hand the leadership their voting card on every rule vote, you’re not going to get any changes. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is.”

“Anybody that voted for the omnibus committed an appalling act,” Massie says. And when it comes to a Republican-controlled federal government, “Absolutely nothing good will happen between now and the election. And the most that you can hope for is that nothing will happen.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2IXLUuL
via IFTTT

Kim Jong Un Leaves Beijing After Surprise Visit

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s first foreign trip to Beijing since coming to power in 2011 has ended, and the distinctive green locomotive that reportedly ferried Kim has departed the Beijing Railway Station…

A little over two hours after the armored express was reported to have pulled out, it was business as usual, according to South China Morning Post.

Reuters, citing reports from South Korean media, also reported that Kim had in fact been part of the delegation of North Koreans that traveled to Beijing for a whirlwind series of meetings ahead of a tentatively planned summit between President Trump and the North Korean leader in May.

South Korea’s left-leaning press Hankyoreh also reported Kim had traveled to Beijing for meetings with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday afternoon before leaving for a “third location” on Tuesday. It did not cite specific sources. The third location could be in China, but other media reports said the train was on its way to Pyongyang.

Kim

Two sources, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the mystery guest was Kim.

“It wasn’t his sister, it was Kim himself,” one said.

The Chinese foreign ministry has yet to confirm the visit by Kim or any North Korean delegation, which is standard practice.

The agenda of Kim’s visit – his first foreign excursion since coming to power in 2011 – is still unknown.

However, it’s notable that the meeting took place against a backdrop of easing tensions on the Korean peninsula, after officials from the North and South agreed to hold talks, and US President Donald Trump gave the green light for direct negotiations with the head of the restive state.

Beijing

Beijing remains a key economic backer of the North Korean regime, even though  Kim was reportedly frustrated at China’s decision to back UN Security Council sanctions against its restive neighbor.

The return to normal security levels on Tuesday was in marked contrast to the scenes in Beijing on Monday, when motorcades and roadblocks were seen across the city. Security has also been intensified on the China-North Korea border.

The first hint that the mystery guest was Kim was the appearance of the green train of the type favoured by North Korea’s senior leadership, which was seen travelling from the border city of Dandong to Beijing.

The roads around the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, where foreign dignitaries usually stay, were cordoned off on Monday and local people were told to avoid the area.

Reporters were held back behind a cordon a couple of hundred metres away, as a convoy of vehicles accompanied by police motorbikes left the compound about 9.30am on Tuesday and returned about two hours later.

 

 

Later, the motorcade was spotted passing by Tiananmen Square, apparently en route to the railway station.

The North Korean delegation arrived on Sunday, Reuters reported.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2pLHsXg Tyler Durden

Bernanke Beliefs Busted: New Research Foretells QE Domination

Authored by Daniel Nevins via FFWiley.com,

The title refers to a consensus-shattering paper that was unveiled at the University of Chicago last month before a Who’s Who of economists and central bankers.

Paul Krugman gave the keynote, but the meeting’s focus was on the paper’s authors – two Wall Street big shots, Morgan Stanley’s David Greenlaw and Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Ethan Harris, and two academics, James Hamilton and Kenneth West. To keep it simple, I’ll call them GHHW.

The paper more or less shredded former Fed chief Ben Bernanke’s favorite defense of his quantitative easing (QE) programs – that QE lowered Treasury yields.

In fact, if you believe in the accuracy of the type of analysis GHHW conducted, QE may have actually increased Treasury yields. By parsing data and financial news more thoroughly than in prior studies, the authors found that yields rose, on average, when bond traders were presented with news about QE. (I recommend Hamilton’s blog write-up for a quick summary, although if you’re also looking for key charts, see Exhibits 4.11 and 4.12 on page 82 of the paper.)

But despite having the data to fully reverse the findings of other researchers, GHHW didn’t take it quite that far. (They were too polite for that.) Up against a strongly pro-QE crowd, they settled on the less ambitious conclusion that “the Fed’s balance sheet is a less reliable and effective tool than as perceived by many.” Between the lines, though, they painted a picture of QE being about as powerful as the host city’s passing game. (To save you the trouble of looking it up, Daaa Bears ranked last in the NFL.)

As far as pre-GHHW “perceptions,” the authors described a consensus that QE lowered 10-year Treasury yields by about 100 basis points, an amount they then refuted. That 100 basis point consensus is consistent with a few different literature reviews, as pointed out by GHHW, and also with claims by FOMC members. It went undisputed by the attendees in Chicago who published their comments. (Three Fed regional bank presidents, an ECB Executive Board member and a few others delivered formal responses.)

The new research is important, in my opinion, not so much for academic reasons but because I think it foretells the future. Before I explain why, though, I need to insert a disclaimer about the likely accuracy of any study that attributes yield changes to QE news of one type or another.

That is, methods for establishing how much QE moved the bond market are essentially guesswork, even after GHHW’s improvements. Bond prices respond to traders and investors not only establishing new positions but also unwinding or rebuilding prior positions in combinations unknowable and for reasons derived from all past fundamental and technical information and ultimately also unknowable. Trades may occur because prices have gone up in the past, because they’ve gone down in the past, because the market is overbought or oversold, because a different market has become more or less attractive, because traders seek opportunities to lock in profits or cut losses, and for countless other reasons. As such, it’s easy to jump to the wrong conclusion by attaching a single fundamental cause to every price change—there’s no such thing as a sequence of single-cause price changes, and even if there were, we could only guess at the causes.

Why GHHW Upsets the Playing Field

All that said, let’s acknowledge that some researchers’ guesswork is better than others. I suspect GHHW are closest to the truth, partly because they were more careful than others, but also because a different type of result predicts their conclusions. I described that result in “QE’s Untold Story,” where I showed that commercial banks and broker-dealers extended credit between QEs by just as much as the Fed extended credit during QEs, and that the two sources of credit growth alternated depending on whether QE was “on” or “off.” Here’s the key chart from that analysis:

QE chart 2

As I described last year, the Fed grabbed the credit-growth baton for QE laps and returned it to commercial banks and broker-dealers for QE pauses, and whoever didn’t have the baton stood still, creating the “argyle effect” shown in the chart.

Unlike GHHW, “QE’s Untold Story” didn’t separate short and long rates (the data didn’t allow for that), but it challenges the orthodox narrative from a different direction. Namely, it says if you draw a circle around banks, broker-dealers and the Fed, the amount of credit supplied to everyone outside the circle appeared to be unaffected by QE. Whereas the orthodox narrative holds that those outside the circle were forced to chase a restricted credit supply, the data tell a different story.

Or, another way to say the same thing is that banks accepted reserves as an adequate replacement for assets transferred to the Fed—they didn’t seek to replace those assets on a like-for-like basis—and that decision would have diluted QE’s effects on yields. Some banks may have even welcomed the chance to replace long-term assets that were mismatched to their liabilities with different assets that carried no such mismatch risks.

Also, the federal government’s decision to lengthen its debt profile would have diluted potential QE effects as well, as noted by GHHW and others.

So plenty of other evidence shows why QE didn’t work as planned (it paints the bigger picture behind GHHW’s findings), it’s just that economists haven’t paid much attention to it. Macroeconomists, in particular, are known for reaching hasty and unrealistic conclusions, so it’s not surprising that they might paper over the holes in their QE studies or rely on theories that ignore the true mechanics of bank credit, which makes it difficult to grasp the relevance of the data in “QE’s Untold Story.” Getting banks right is especially important (see my articles “Learning from the 1980s” and “An Inflation Indicator to Watch” or for a fuller discussion, my book Economics for Independent Thinkers.)

As Hamilton wrote on his blog, “Our study raises a caution about the event study methodology. There is a potential tendency to select dates after the fact that confirm the researcher’s prior beliefs about what the effect was supposed to have been.”

In other words, economists tend to fit the “facts” to their theories rather than the other way around.

Who Might GHHW Have Been Thinking Of?

Hamilton didn’t name names, but consider that Ben Bernanke spent much of QEs 1, 2 and 3 selling the very conclusions GHHW debunked. Have a look at these excerpts from Bernanke’s speeches during his last few years at the Fed:

  • “Securities purchases by the central bank affect the economy primarily by lowering interest rates on securities of longer maturities.” (11/19/2010-1)

  • “The evidence suggests that such purchases significantly lowered longer-term interest rates in both the United States and the United Kingdom.” (11/19/2010-2)

  • “Purchases of longer-term securities have not affected very short-term interest rates, which remain close to zero, but instead put downward pressure directly on longer-term interest rates.” (2/3/2011)

  • “Generally, . . . research finds that the Federal Reserve’s large-scale purchases have significantly lowered long-term Treasury yields. . . . Three studies considering the cumulative influence of all the Federal Reserve’s asset purchases, including those made under the MEP, found total effects between 80 and 120 basis points on the 10-year Treasury yield. These effects are economically meaningful.” (8/31/2012)

  • “A growing body of research supports the view that LSAPs are effective at bringing down term premiums and thus reducing longer-term rates.” (3/1/2013)

  • “The preponderance of studies show that asset purchases push down longer-term interest rates and boost asset prices.” (1/3/2014)

To his credit, Bernanke was crystal clear in explaining what he was trying to achieve and why he believes it worked. That made him an easy mark when GHHW, whether they intended to or not, took direct aim at his published positions. Bernanke needed their meticulous analysis like the North Side Gang needed Al Capone.

And with that background in mind, let’s look to the future.

What to Expect in the Next Deleveraging

In the next severe economic downturn (whenever it occurs), central bankers are likely to embrace QE as readily as Bernanke did. They’ll first lower the fed funds rate as much as they can, but then they’ll feel the pressure to do more. (Sidenote: GHHW also disparaged negative interest rates.) They won’t say, “Look, the economy has too much debt and the best thing we can do is be patient and, well, do nothing more than we’ve already done.” That would violate the principles of today’s hyperactive interventionism – the chattering classes accept few excuses for policy inaction, and not knowing if a policy does more harm than good isn’t among them.

So the question is this: When tomorrow’s quantitative easers succumb to the pressure to act, how will they explain their actions? Actions require narratives, and with GHHW having toppled Bernanke’s narrative with Chicago-strength winds, policy makers will need a new one. So what will it be?

I would say one narrative is more likely than any other – that is, QE fell short of the objectives only because it wasn’t large enough, and to work properly it needs to be absolutely massive. Future Fed chiefs will argue that you can always bring yields under control if you just buy enough bonds, and to some degree they’re likely to be right. Their new motto will be “the bigger the better.”

Speculative?

Maybe so, but it’s also exactly what New York Fed President Bill Dudley told us to expect in his response to GHHW. He said, “If LSAPs are not as powerful as some of the event studies imply, the answer is not to simply discard the tool, but instead to look for ways to enhance its efficacy and use it more aggressively (emphasis mine).” Dudley then touted open-ended asset purchases, commonly known as QE infinity.

And that’s not all. Consider the charts and speech by ECB Executive Board Member Benoît Cœuré, also delivered in response to GHHW. Cœuré showed that the Fed’s QE left about half of total Treasury issuance in private hands after accounting for foreign central bank holdings, whereas the ECB has soaked up so many bonds that private investors are left with possibly less than 10% of all German Bunds. He then shared data suggesting that the ECB bossed Bund yields by more than the Fed bossed Treasury yields, as you might have expected. He argued that the key to QE success is to use the oldest trick in market manipulation – buy such overwhelming amounts that everyone else has to forage for a puny remaining supply. (Alright, he may not have called it market manipulation, but the rest is an accurate summary.) In other words, Cœuré’s GHHW response was to pen an ode to QE domination, which seems the natural endgame.

Conclusions

To be sure, the central banking gods may have written a bigger QE into our future long before their emissaries convened in Chicago, but now their plans are even more clear. Expect the Fed to follow the ECB and Bank of Japan in making sure the next time it expands its balance sheet, it’ll achieve total domination. You might imagine the Fed’s balance sheet blanketing the bond market in a thick, full-length coat (thick enough to withstand those Chicago winds), one that’ll make the current balance sheet look ragged and threadbare by comparison.

And you might also expect the irony to be lost on central bankers such as Dudley and Cœuré. Can the cautionary advice in a paper titled “A Skeptical View of the Impact of the Fed’s Balance Sheet” really lead to a more aggressive use of that balance sheet? In fact, I think it will.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DZuF8A Tyler Durden

Treasury Yield Curve Crushed To New Cycle Lows

Treasury yields are cratering today after spiking higher with stocks yesterday with the long-end dramatically outperforming, flattening the yield curve to near 10-year cycle lows…

Bond yields are well below yesterday’s lows, leading stocks lower…

 

The yield curve is plunging…

 

Set for the flattest close since October 2007…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Gd3Tjc Tyler Durden

Dead “Market Generals” Bounce Ends With A Bang

“The generals are dead,” warned hedge fund CIO Eric Peters over the weekend, noting that “I suspected that regulation would be the death of the current market’s technology generals…I was right.”

And while yesterday’s panic-bid melt-up off the S&P 500’s 200DMA briefly resurrected them, the ‘market generals’ are all plunging again today…

From worst to first, since Friday, Tesla is lagging, followed by FB and NVDA. GOOGL just gave up its 3.5% surge yesterday while AMZN and NFLX are tumbling hard, erasing yesterday’s huge gains while AAPL and MSFT are best… but fading fast…

As a reminder:

  • Amazon: 2018P non-GAAP EPS: $16.75; 2018 Adj. Net Income: $7.56BN; fwd P/E 189.9x

  • Netflix: 2018P non-GAAP EPS: $3.07; 2018P Adj. Net Income: $1.435BN; fwd P/E 116.4x

  • Google: 2018P non-GAAP EPS: $12.11; 2018P Adj. Net Income: $8.55BN, fwd P/E 27.3x

  • Facebook: 2018P non-GAAP EPS: $8.388; 2018 Adj. Net Income: $24.65$BN; fwd P/E 25.6x

  • Apple: 2018P non-GAAP EPS: $11.51; 2018P Adj. Net Income: $58.5BN, fwd P/E 15.5x

And that is crushing NASDAQ…

 

And don’t forget, techs are the top hedge fund holdings this quarter.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2GvZTcS Tyler Durden

Bob Shiller Warns Of “Economic Crisis” Due To “Showman”-Trump’s “Chaos”

Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller warned that further escalation in US-China trade tensions would immediately result in an economic crisis and lambasted President Trump for causing this chaos.

Speaking in Beijing at the annual China Development Forum on Saturday, Shiller blasted the president as a “showman,” who “obviously relishes” celebrity, and whose actions are “totally unbecoming for a president.”

As CNBC reports, Shiller then got serious, warning that the “chaos” brought by a trade war could have a devastating impact.

The immediate thing will be an economic crisis because these enterprises are built on long-term planning, they’ve developed a skilled workforce and ways of doing things,” Shiller told CNBC.

“We have to rediscover these things in whatever country after the imports are cut off.”

Shiller then told CNBC that he did not believe there would be a significant inflationary effect to the U.S. from steel and aluminum tariffs, but he warned that heated trade rhetoric from both sides could send the American economy reeling into a recession.

“When you ask about the size of the impact on the economy, I think a lot of it is more psychological than direct, unless they really slam on tariffs,” he said.

The Yale economist pointed to the “most famous tariff war of all” during the Great Depression, which he said did not “plausibly, directly” affect economic growth “in a major degree,” but it may have helped “destroy confidence” and willingness to plan for the future.

“It’s exactly those ‘wait and see’ attitudes that cause a recession,” he explained, adding that…

It’s just chaos: It will slow down development in the future if people think that this kind of thing is likely.”

Shiller also questioned the fitness of others in the Trump administration, telling CNBC that president “has hired some extremist people.” He cited Peter Navarro, the White House trade advisor who wrote books called “Death by China” and “The Coming China Wars.”

“It seemed to me that no responsible president would give credence to that, but here we are. I think he’s a showman who is doing this for political reasons within the U.S.,” the economist said, pointing to the upcoming midterm elections and Trump’s own attempt to get re-elected in 2020.

 

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2urQaQ0 Tyler Durden

March for Our Lives Kids Don’t Know Their Schools Are Actually Really Safe: New at Reason

The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, have reenergized the national movement to restrict gun ownership following the tragic mass shooting that claimed 17 lives.

The culmination of this movement was the massive March for Our Lives Rally in Washington, D.C. on Saturday.

The students from Stoneman Douglas have earned praise for their leadership in demanding that Congress take decisive action. But there’s another consequence of this movement: the Parkland mass shooting seems to be stoking irrational fear about gun violence in schools.

You would have come away from the March for Our Lives Rally thinking there’s a school shooting epidemic in America. But what happened at Stoneman Douglas was an extremely rare occurrence. American schools are profoundly safe, and most likely getting safer: According to researchers at Northeastern University, shooting incidents involving students have actually decreased in recent years, and in the 1990s the overall crime rate was much higher than it is today. The rate of homicides from firearms in the U.S. has plummeted. In fact, students are orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car crash on their way to school than they are to be gunned down in their classrooms.

Yet the protesters were demanding more security in schools—a lot more—even if it means making armed guards a fixture of the lives of children.

Some kids live in constant fear of being shot in their classrooms. This latest hysteria over mass shootings and guns is leading to claims that we must relinquish our rights in the name of safety, which is a familiar story, from the drug war to the war on terror.

Teenagers have every right to fight for a cause they believe in, and the students from Stoneman Douglas are justifiably enraged about an event that claimed the lives of so many friends and classmates. But feelings shouldn’t trump facts—and we should never craft policies from a place of fear in the wake of tragedy.

Click here for full text, a transcript, and downloadable versions.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2pIWcG8
via IFTTT