How Much Government Debt Rests Upon Your Shoulders?

With the U.S. National Debt closing in on the $20 trillion mark, there has been a lot of conversation in Washington about debt and its role in government. And most of that conversation right now revolves around President-elect Donald Trump.

On one hand, the Trump campaign had early rhetoric in the Presidential campaign that the elimination of the deficit and existing government debt would be paramount if elected. The Trump administration has also been highly critical of the Federal Reserve, saying that the Fed’s policies create a “false economy”. As a result, some see Trump embracing the unique opportunity to put his stamp on how the Federal Reserve does business in early 2017.

On the other hand, even many conservative think tanks are concerned about what Trump policies mean for government debt. Rebuilding infrastructure is not cheap, and widely-cited estimates see the national debt increasing by anywhere from $5.3 trillion to $11.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT DEBT IS ON YOU?

While giant numbers like $20 trillion sound abstract and meaningless, Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes that converting them to debt-per-capita can make things more intuitive. The per-capita amount shows the amount of debt that exists per citizen, and makes things plain and simple.

Today’s infographic from HowMuch.net, a cost information site, shows government debt-per-capita in every country in the world, including the United States.

 

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

 

Here are the countries where people owe the most debt per person:

  • Japan: $85,694.87 per person
  • Ireland: $67,147.59 per person
  • Singapore: $56,112.75 per person
  • Belgium: $44,202.75 per person
  • United States: $42,503.98 per person
  • Canada: $42,142.61 per person
  • Italy: $40,461.11 per person
  • Iceland: $39,731.65 per person
  • Australia: $38,769.98 per person
  • United Kingdom: $36,206.11 per person

Of course, debt-per-capita isn’t the only lens to view government debt.

We’ve previously shown global debt by percentage per country, government debt compared to tax revenues, accumulated debt compared to markets and the money supply, and a map scaled to debt-to-GDP ratios.

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

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax (Or How The Pilgrims Ended Socialism 400 Years Ago)

Submitted by Richard J.Maybury via The Mises Institute,

Each year at this time, schoolchildren all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America, and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620–21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hard-working or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his History of Plymouth Plantation, the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years because they refused to work in the field. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened? After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that were most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a markets, and that was the end of the famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609–10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty. Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a relatively free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth.

via http://ift.tt/2fd9Dfg Tyler Durden

Meet The “Gardening Blogger” Who May Have Overcharged Americans Billions For Supermarket Chicken

Billions of dollars worth of chicken are sold in the United States each year through various supermarket chains.  Given the shear volume of chicken sales, most Americans simply take for granted that the prices are set based a transparent, competitive marketplace of buyers and sellers.  Certainly, before now, not many would have guessed that their grocery bills for poultry were being determined by a single, self-described “gardening blogger” from the Georgia Department of Agriculture.  Unfortunately, it’s looking increasingly like that is exactly what happened and it likely resulted in Americans being overcharged billions of dollars for chicken purchased in supermarkets.

When it comes to chicken pricing, there is very little infrastructure and processes in place to determine a truly “market price” for poultry.  Per the Washington Post, a significant portion of chicken sold to retailers is actually priced off an index maintained by the Georgia Department of Agriculture which is frequently referred to as the “Georgia Dock” price.  And while that may sound “official,” we’re now finding out that the Georgia Dock price has been unilaterally set by a single, untrained, “gardening blogger” based on a survey of just a couple local producers who refused to provide backup for their pricing.

While many chicken companies and retailers are secretive about how they set prices for buying and selling chicken, some very large players have acknowledged that the Georgia Dock is the basis of, or a factor in, the price they pay for chicken.

 

“Over time, most retail grocery customers and their suppliers have come to trust the Georgia Dock whole bird price quoted weekly by the Georgia Department of Agriculture as the most reliable reflection of the supply and demand dynamics of the fresh chicken market,” officials at Sanderson Farms, one of the nation’s largest chicken producers, wrote to the SEC earlier this year.

 

For all but one of Sanderson’s supermarket customers, the price is based on the Georgia Dock. Tyson Foods said a small portion of their supermarket contracts is “connected” to the Georgia Dock. A spokesman for Pilgrim’s Pride said that less than 5 percent of its sales are currently tied to the Georgia Dock, but company officials have repeatedly referred to the price index in calls with investors and analysts.

 

Among supermarkets, Walmart, Safeway and others confirmed using the Georgia Dock, as well as other factors, when negotiating chicken prices.

Arty Schronce, our gardening blogger and chicken price czar, was apparently the one to blow the whistle on his own pricing index after writing a memo to the Georgia Department of Ag saying that he had come to “question the validity of some of the information provided” by local producers.  The full private memo was obtained by the media and can be viewed here (it is also included at the end of this post).

The root of the trouble with the Georgia price estimate, as Schronce sees the matter, is that it is based on a price survey of eight anonymous chicken companies in the state, and he raised doubts whether those companies have been giving him accurate information. The chicken companies are not asked to show receipts or other documentation proving that their figures are accurate.

 

“I have come to question the validity of some of the information provided,” he wrote in September in preparation for a meeting at the Georgia Department of Agriculture. “I do not think I am getting actual weighted average prices from some companies.”

 

Schronce indicated in his memo that he had been contacted by an investigator from the antitrust division of the Florida attorney general. Moreover, in recent months, the USDA discontinued publishing the Georgia figure, citing its inability to verify the information.

Schronce apparently grew suspicious of his own pricing index after receiving questionable feedback on his pricing surveys like “just keep ’em the same.”  Certainly, a quick comparison of the Georgia Dock price to the USDA composite seems to confirm Schronce’s concerns.

GA Dock

 

Schronce’s memo was brutally honest about his own capabilities saying that his “training was inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes in error”….but no big deal, just setting the official price for billions of dollars worth of commodity sales.

“My training was inadequate, inconsistent and sometimes in error,” Schronce wrote of his preparation for calculating the Georgia Dock.

 

Moreover, the companies he was required to survey were surly and sometimes unresponsive.

 

“I often received lackadaisical and rude responses to my requests for information,” Schronce wrote. Sometimes his calls were not returned, and sometimes the companies simply responded to his price questions with “just keep ’em the same.”

Of course, as the Wall Street Journal points out, whether this is a case of blatant incompetence or intentional market rigging, several publicly traded chicken companies are likely to face substantial fines… 

Sanderson’s exposure is particularly high. Last fiscal year, a little under half of its processing capacity by weight was set up for the smaller birds sold to supermarkets. In 2015, when suspicions first emerged, the Georgia Dock index averaged about 24 cents a pound higher than the competing Urner-Barry index, calculated using verified sales to a different type of customer. From 2002 to 2014, the Georgia Dock index averaged 6 cents more than Urner-Barry, with a range from 12 cents less to 24 cents more.

 

If about 30% of overall sales were based on the Georgia Dock, then the impact of a 20-cent-a-pound difference in 2015 might have cut Sanderson’s $216 million net profit by about two-thirds, according to Wall Street Journal estimates. Individual contracts can be complex, and the company itself hasn’t broken out its exposure.

 

Whether the uproar over pricing turns out to be a matter of sloppy calculations or something more serious, the financial implications for meat companies may be more than just chicken feed.

and the stocks have already started to price in the downside.

Chicken Stocks

 

Meanwhile, the Georgia Department of Agriculture released a statement defending their index saying that they trust the companies they work with and that they “don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful”…sure, aside from the billions in extra profits…no reasons at all.

Schronce did not respond to invitations to comment. But the Georgia Department of Agriculture defended the accuracy of the influential price estimate and said that it is addressing the issues raised by his critique.

 

“All of the concerns addressed in the document are now being addressed internally,” spokesperson Julie McPeake said in a statement. “It is our responsibility at the Georgia Department of Agriculture to report the data we have received from the companies consistently and accurately.”

 

McPeake said the Georgia Dock index reflects prices of a distinct type of bird and customer. For that reason, the index could have rightfully diverged from other chicken prices.

 

“We trust the companies we work with,” Alec Asbridge, director of regulatory compliance at Georgia Department of Agriculture, said earlier this month. “We don’t see any reason they would submit information that wasn’t truthful.”

Poor Arty, we think it may be time for you to get back into the garden blogging business…it looks like a lot of fun:

 

Here is the full internal memo written by Arty Schronce:

via http://ift.tt/2fd4ZOb Tyler Durden

Let’s Expand The Electoral College

Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Far from being outdated and past their time, the ideas behind the electoral college are greatly underutilized. The electoral college is thought by many to be somehow uniquely American, but this is not the case. Similar mechanisms — sometimes called "double-majority" systems — have been used in many different times and places in political history. 

The current confusion about the mechanics of the electoral college appear to be largely a function of the fact that it is now widely forgotten that the United States is intended to be collection of independent states, and not a unitary political unit. 

For an illustration of why a system like the electoral college is so essential, we can look to the European Union. Consider, for example, if the European Union were to hold a union-wide election for a single chief executive. (The EU does not hold such an election, however, because the EU is controlled by appointees, and because there is no president in the conventional sense.)

If the EU were to do this, we would immediately notice that a small handful of large and populous member countries could dominate election and policy decisions union-wide. Without some sort of mechanism to even out these disparities, smaller states wold continually be at the mercy of the larger ones. 

For instance, Germany, France, and Italy by themselves constitute 47 percent of the population of the European Union (not counting the UK). The member countries with interests at odds with the large dominant states would be at a lopsided disadvantage. Small countries like the Czech Republic, for example, contain a mere two to five percent of the EU population and would be largely irrelevant to building a majority coalition in any sort of majority-rule system. 

In the US, there is a similar imbalance with the 4 largest states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida) constituting one-third of the US population. The top-ten largest states total 54 percent of the US population. Thus, a citizen of, say, New Mexico, might find himself in a similar situation to the Czech voter if ever national political trends go against local needs and preferences. 

In both the US and in our theoretical EU, double majority requirements have been — or could be — constructed to enhance the importance of small and medium-sized states. Wyoming's population for example — because of the way the electoral college is constructed — is more than four times more influential in the electoral college than in a nationwide popular vote. While being a small minority is always a problem when it comes to projecting political power, a system like the electoral college lessens the minority's disadvantage. Voting schemes like the electoral college, in other words, function as a check on overwhelming numerical advantages while giving a nod to geographical, cultural, and economic diversity across a large confederation.

Not surprisingly then, double-majority systems (or variations on the theme) have long been used to prevent the centralization of political power. A current example is the double-majority system used in Switzerland. Under the Swiss system, voter ballot initiatives must win both an electoral majority, and a majority vote in more than half of the member states (i.e., cantons). 

Were such a system employed in the US, for example, any winning candidate would have to win both a popular majority and more than 25 states (or D.C.). 

As it is, the electoral college rests on a modified "multiple-majority" system which nonetheless somewhat evens out population differences between small states and large states. 

This could, of course, be extended to the states themselves. Politics would be quite different in California, for example, if gubernatorial candidates had to win both a popular majority and a majority of the state's counties. 

Expand the Electoral College to Other National Contests 

Double-majority and multiple-majority systems mandate more widespread support for a candidate or measure than would be needed under an ordinary majority vote. 

Unfortunately, in the United States, it is possible to pass tax increases and other types of sweeping and costly legislation with nothing more than bare majorities from Congress which is itself largely a collection of millionaires with similar educations, backgrounds, and economic status. Even this low standard is not required in cases where the president rules via executive order with "a pen and … a phone."

In response to this centralization of political power, the electoral college should be expanded to function as a veto on legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court rulings. 

For example, if Congress seeks to pass a tax increase, their legislation should be null and void without also obtaining a majority of electoral college votes in a manner similar to that of presidential elections. Under such a scheme, the federal government would be forced to submit new legal changes to the voters for approval. The same could be applied to executive orders and treaties. It would be even better to require both a popular-vote majority in addition to the electoral-vote majority. And while we're at it, let's require that at least 25 states approve the measures as well. 

Those laws, regulations, and treaties that fail to obtain widespread geographical approval from a large number of states will automatically fail, and the elites in Washington will take to condemning elections and public political engagement as "cumbersome," "costly" and contrary to the wise decisions of the "experts" who know better.

 

via http://ift.tt/2ftu4zC Tyler Durden

Is This The Reason Why Gold Prices Are Plunging?

While the optics of a soaring stock market and crashing safe-havens (gold and bonds) fits nicely with the election of Donald Trump as the next US president, a closer look shows gold prices beginning to break hours earlier. As India unleashed its demonetization scheme, local retail gold prices began to surge as rumors began to spread of an Indian gold import ban. As rumors have continued, precious metals prices have plunged as the 700 tons of gold imports to India would be a major demand shock for the bullion market.

As MarketWatch reports, back in August 1971, President Nixon shocked the world by taking the dollar off the gold standard. The dollar had been on gold standard since Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. The biggest bombshell for gold investors in 45 years since Nixon announcement may be ahead. That bombshell is a potential ban on import of gold into India. If this happens, there is a high probability of a one-day drop in gold that could reach $200.

The chart shows how Modi selling overcame Trump buying…

Source: TheAroraReport.com

And kept going as rumors of an Indian gold import ban increased…

As a reminder, India’s Modi has directed that 500 and 1000 rupee notes be banned. These notes represent 20% of the cash value in circulation and 80% of cash outstanding. MarketWatch’s Nigam Arora explains

To understand the heavy gold selling from India on Modi’s move, one has to understand the underground economy in India that runs on black money.

 

Estimates have been that the underground economy in India is about 20% to 25% of the total economy; the point is that it is very large.

 

The most common method to convert black money into white money over the past 50 years has been to slowly buy gold by paying cash using large bills. Converting black money into white money has been a major source of demand for physical gold. Now that large bills used to buy gold are worthless, demand for physical gold will decline.

Indian imports are a huge deal…

On average, India imports about 700 tons of gold each year.

 

This is an enormous quantity. An abrupt reduction in demand of this magnitude, if there is a ban on Indian imports, will be a major shock to the gold market.

As The Arora Reports notes, even though the media in much of the Western world is mostly still oblivious to this major potential development ahead, they now feel comfortable publishing this for three reasons…

First, the premium on gold being sold in India has jumped to $12 per ounce, the highest premium since November 2014. We see this jump in premium as tangible proof that the rumor is taking hold and affecting gold price.

Second, Indian Bullion & Jewellers Association has informed its members that they are hearing from certain circles of a potential ban on gold imports. Subsequent to our earlier information, this has now become public.

Third, social media in Asia is abuzz with these rumors.

At this time, it is very important for gold investors to stay plugged into sources knowledgeable about gold in India and be alert to any further signs that an import ban may be in the offing. Investors should review their precious-metal holdings to make sure they are comfortable just in case there is a big downdraft.

*  *  *

One can’t help but wonder if efforts to block ‘black money’ being reallocated to gold will not further excerbate capital flight and ironically lead to an export boom as people try to move assets offshore… as opposed to spiking local gold prices (as India’s traditional demand meets considerably limited supply). Certainly seems like time to stock up on condoms and lube as smuggling looks set to be the new growth business in Asia.

via http://ift.tt/2gm5Egi Tyler Durden

Trump Pushes Apple CEO To Manufacture In US; Promises “Very Large Tax Cuts”

Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,

While speaking with the New York Times, President-elect Donald Trump said that he received a call from Apple’s Tim Cook on Monday in which he pushed the CEO about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

“I got a call from Tim Cook at Apple, and I said, ‘Tim, you know one of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you’re making your product right here.’ Trump told the NYT on Tuesday.

Trump said that Cook understood. He also mentioned that his incentive plan, which includes a “very large tax cut” and “substantial regulation cuts” for corporations, will bring Apple into the U.S. to manufacture.

‘I think we’ll create the incentives for you, and I think you’re going to do it. We’re going for a very large tax cut for corporations, which you’ll be happy about.’ But we’re going for big tax cuts, we have to get rid of regulations, regulations are making it impossible. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, I mean I could sit down and show you regulations that anybody would agree are ridiculous. It’s gotten to be a free-for-all. And companies can’t, they can’t even start up, they can’t expand, they’re choking.

Recent reports have suggested that Apple may have some interests in exploring a manufacturing facility in the United States.

Key Apple assembler Foxconn Technology Group has been studying the possibility of moving iPhone production to the U.S., sources have told the Nikkei Asian Review.

“Apple asked both Foxconn and Pegatron, the two iPhone assemblers, in June to look into making iPhones in the U.S.,” the source said. “Foxconn complied, while Pegatron declined to formulate such a plan due to cost concerns.”

Foxconn chairman Terry Gou is unenthusiastic over Apple’s request, saying “Making iPhones in the U.S. means the cost will more than double.”

The Next Web reports:

Would anyone buy a $1,500-plus iPhone?

 

While we don’t have concrete cost figures (and Apple will never provide them), analysts predict the iPhone 7 costs approximately $224.80 to make in China. Here’s the part that you can’t overlook:

 

The total cost of the build, according to data from IHS Markit, adds up to $219.80. Once you factor in labor costs, estimated at $5 per phone, the total build runs $224.80 for the base model, 32GB iPhone 7. The company claims that this is an increase of $36.89 per unit, as opposed to the $187.91 iPhone 6s base model from last year.

Good luck getting labor down to $5 a unit in the US.

Apple CEO Tim Cook also put a grim outlook on the chances of Apple making products in the U.S. last year when he told 60 Minutes he believes the U.S. likely does not possess the skilled labor force capable of matching overseas output.

China put an enormous focus on manufacturing. In what we would call, you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The U.S., over time, began to stop having as many vocational kind of skills. I mean, you can take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in a room that we’re currently sitting in. In China, you would have to have multiple football fields.

Trump’s optimism and willingness to provide tax cuts and deregulation for manufacturers is exactly what needs to happen for the U.S. to get on the path to produce goods again, but unfortunately, the reality of the situation is not all that simple.

via http://ift.tt/2fK9wDX Tyler Durden

Is Nigel Farage Moving To The US

Donald Trump nearly sparked a diplomatic scandal earlier this week when he tweeted that Nigel Farage, the interim UKIP leader and the lead Brexit campaigner, would be great as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, a suggestions which Theresa May’s government quickly dismissed saying there was “no vacancy” as Kim Darroch is currently serving as ambassador to Washington, and leading to an outpouring of protests from the UK press accusing Trump of meddling in sovereign affairs.

When asked by ITV television about Farage’s ambassadorial ambitions, finance minister Philip Hammond said if he ever needed advice from the leader of the UK Independence Party, he had his telephone number. “Tell him not to hold his breath,” he added.

However Farage – a long-time supporter of Donald Trump – appears to have enjoyed the barb, and as Reuters reports, he taunted PM May with a mock ambassador’s reception complete with
chocolate and champagne. At a party at London’s Ritz hotel, Farage was cheered by his financial backers before offering guests pyramids of Ferrero Rocher chocolates, “a joking reference to a long-running and much-lampooned ‘ambassador’s reception’ TV advert in which the gold-foiled confection is cast as the delicacy of choice for diplomats.”

Farage praised what he called “the political revolution” that had brought Brexit and then the election of Trump.  “For those that are here who aren’t particularly happy with what’s happened in 2016, I’ve got some really bad news for you: It’s going to get a bloody sight worse next year,” Farage told guests from a staircase at the Ritz to laughs and cheers.

“I suspect there is another big seismic shock in British politics, perhaps going to come at the next election,” Farage said after complaining that Britain was still ruled by “the career professional political class.”

Farage also told CNN he wanted a closer relationship between Britain and the United States and that he would like to act as a middle-man to improve relations.

But the biggest surprise of the day came from an article in the Times, which reported that Nigel Farage planning to move to the U.S., regardless if he is appointed ambassador or not.  According to The Times, Farage and his wife, Kirsten, are planning to leave the U.K.

Insiders told the newspaper that Farage has had a long-held interest in the U.S. and would feel “freer” from public attention living abroad.

Farage was spotted entering Trump Tower on a Saturday earlier this month. “We’re just tourists,” he told reporters when asked if he was invited there by President-elect Donald Trump or if he was helping with the transition. Farage was the first international diplomat to meet with Trump after the election, and took a photo to memorialize the occasion..

Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, later said that the president-elect and Farage had a “very productive” meeting. “I think they enjoy each other’s company, and they absolutely had an opportunity to talk about freedom and winning and what this all means for the world,” she said.

Farage has said that he would welcome a role in the Trump administration and floated the idea of being Trump’s ambassador to the European Union.

The interim UKIP leader himself hinted at a possible move to the US when he said he would be open to moving to the United States as a go-between if the British government wanted to follow Trump’s suggestion: “It’s up to the British government.”

Meanwhile, UK bookmaker Paddy Power, which infamously paid off over $1 million in bets on a Hillary Victory three weeks before the election…

…a decision which ended up costing the bookie $4.5 million, has decided to make a cottage industry out of bets on what Farage does next. In a note on its blog, Paddy Power writes that the interim UKIP leader is “planning to move to America to start a new life, potentially working with new buddy, President-elect Donald Trump. Despite the government’s best attempts, rumours continue that Farage could become ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary for the US – with Paddy Power pricing it at 6/1.

More from the blog post:

We have opened a market on Farage’s next job, with options including a role in Trump’s first administration (10/1), an on-air position with Fox News (33/1), and chat show host on American TV (12/1).

 

We are also offering a price on Farage becoming UK Prime Minister before the end of 2025 (40/1), such is his political influence in the country.

 

Spokesman Paddy Power said: “Surely Theresa May isn’t going to let Nigel Farage become Britain’s ambassador to America. That would be as ridiculous as making Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary, or putting David Davis in charge of the Brexit process.

 

“Still, if 2016’s taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen, even the most unlikely. So Nigel making a triumphant return in a few years to be PM really can’t be ruled out.”

NIGEL FARAGE NEXT JOB SPECIALS

6/1       To be the next UK ambassador to the USA
10/1       To be given a role as part of the first Trump administration
12/1       Host his own chat show on American TV before 2018
33/1       To take up an on-air role with Fox News before 2018
33/1       Dancing With The Stars contestant
40/1       To be Prime Minister before the end of 2025
50/1       The host the US Apprentice before 2018
100/1     ITV’s US showbiz correspondent
200/1     Become a construction worker on the Mexican Wall project

For those willing to bet, the full list of Nigel Farage “specials” can be found here.

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

Keep It Simple, Stupid…Why Oil & Commodity Demand Is Set To Fall Indefinitely

Submitted by Chris Hamilton via Econimica blog,

Following James Carville's sage advice, I will attempt to explain to president-elect Trump, Fed-head Yellen, and the average American why global oil, commodity, and consumer demand is set to collapse using the Carvillian principle…"keep it simple stupid".

 

The combined 35 OECD wealthy nations (list HERE) plus China, Russia, and Brazil represent 70% of global oil consumption while they represent about 40% of global population (chart below).  In comparison, Africa and India (combined) make up 8% of oil consumption despite being 33% of global population (& nearly 100% of all present and future net population growth).

The chart below shows the EIA (Energy Information Administration) historic and estimated global oil consumption by OECD vs. China+Russia+Brazil vs. India+Africa vs. RoW.

From 2015 to 2040, the EIA anticipates global oil consumption to increase by over 27 million barrels a day.  Of that, the OECD to represent 2% of the growth, China+Russia+Brazil 25%, India+Africa 27%, and the RoW 46%.

I'd like to focus (below) on the population with all the income, savings, and access to credit…the combined OECD, China, Russia, Brazil population.  Specifically, the chart below shows global oil consumption growth from 1985 through 2015 (per five year periods) vs. the change in the combined OECD, China, Russia, Brazil 15-64yr/old core population.  The correlation in the growth of oil consumption to the change in global core population has been very strong…however, once core population growth began decelerating in the '05-'10 period, the correlation has broken down.

The chart below is the UN estimate from 2015 through 2040 for population growth vs. the EIA estimate for global oil consumption growth.  There is simply no relation of the below estimations to the previous period?!?

And below, the full series.  The shrinking population with all the income, savings, and access to credit plus driving technological innovation further reducing demand for oil.  But simple minded central bankers have determined that this is a "transitory" issue and that lower interest rates and the resultant higher debt and leverage will get us through?!?

I have previously shown that nearly all present and future population growth will take place in Africa while the rest of the world simply gets older (HERE).  A fast growing poor sub-Saharan African population absent robust global import markets is sadly set to remain poor.

Of course, you could run the same population projections against nearly all commodities or general consumer growth demand and see the central bankers and politicians are building a bridge to nowhere.  Alas, none of this matters so long as "markets" are "coaxed" to new all-time highs and I'm very wrong that any of this matters until I'm (sadly) very right.

And a final attempt to KISS…core population growth by region vs. oil consumption growth.

and then this (below)…the population figures aren't estimates as this population is already born and will simply move into the working age population…now, the oil estimates, seemingly pure fiction.

Since '03, China has driven global oil and commodity demand with a moonshot of credit vs. a decelerating core population to build infrastructure and entire cities for a population that is never coming

Finally, context why a combined India / Africa will never replace the credit supernova that was China (below).

via http://ift.tt/2glV9JO Tyler Durden

Indian Currency Crashes To Record Low As Cash Exchange Of Old Notes Suspended

It appears the social unrest, economic collapse, and currency crisis sparked by Indian PM Modi's decision to demonetize "corrupt" high-denomination bank-notes was not enough.

As the Rupee crashed to a record low overnight, officials announced a suspension of the exchange of 'old notes' as of tomorrow to, in their words, "encourage people to deposit old notes in their bank accounts." With as much 60% of banknotes still un-exchanged, we suspect chaos will be the operative word for the immediate future.

Those with old notes will still be allowed to deposit them into their bank accounts until Dec. 31, but not permitted to do outright exchanges.

As Bloomberg reports, the Indian government had observed a declining trend in exchange of old notes over the counter, according to a statement from the state-run Press Information Bureau.

And so the decision to end OTC exchange of notes was to encourage people to deposit old notes in their bank accounts.

Government allows certain exemptions for use of old notes until Dec. 15, with only 500 rupee denomination currency notes accepted for such transaction:

  • Old 500-rupee notes can be used for payment of school fees with limit; utility dues; payment of road toll fees
  • Foreigners permitted to exchange foreign currency up to 5,000 rupees/week

Furthermore, as CNBC reports, the Indian government is set to impose a 45% tax (haircut) on any suspicious deposits.

This is a major problem as only 40% of banknotes have been exchanged according to local reports.

We suspect the sudden urge to force citizens to deposit/exchange their old banknotes is due to the increasing prevalance of "illegal workarounds" across the nation… (as The Wall Street Journal reports)

Unable to spend or deposit their sackfuls of large bank notes amid India’s crackdown on hoarding cash, business owners across the country are paying employees months of salary in advance, ringing up bogus sales and even buying gold they can smuggle overseas to get rid of stashed money or conceal its source.

 

Such illegal workarounds are threatening to undercut Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s move this month to cancel India’s highest-denomination rupee bills, which was meant to punish tax evaders and other criminals and bring more of the nation’s $2 trillion economy out of the shadows.

 

If Mr. Modi’s unprecedented social-engineering project fails to net too many of the biggest tax cheats, he risks further incurring the wrath of Indians already frustrated with the pain and economic dislocation the experiment has brought about in its first two weeks.

 

Requiring Indians to exchange their big bills at banks for newly created ones—or suffer a quiet, potentially catastrophic financial loss—was Mr. Modi’s way of forcing hidden riches to the surface. There, authorities would be watching, ready to examine large cash deposits.

 

Millions of Indians have heeded the call. Since Mr. Modi’s Nov. 8 announcement more than $80 billion in old bills has been exchanged or deposited. That is around 40% of the value of all large rupee bills in circulation. The deadline for turning in canceled bills was Dec. 30.

Meanwhile capital flight is very evident…

 

Sending the Rupee crashing to a record low against the dollar.

“Continued outflows along with dollar strength have undermined the rupee,” said Gao Qi, a Singapore-based foreign-exchange strategist at Scotiabank. “The rupee may outperform some regional currencies such as the Malaysian ringgit and Indonesian rupiah on account of the central bank’s intervention and low foreign position in Indian financial assets.” Bloomberg reports that the central bank will take appropriate action to deal with the currency’s decline, a government official said earlier Thursday, asking not to be identified, citing rules. State-run lenders sold dollars, probably on behalf of the central bank, as the rupee approached its record low, three Mumbai-based traders said, asking not to be named. The RBI has maintained that it doesn’t target a specific rupee level and intervenes only to curb undue volatility in the currency market.

But, as WSJ adds, India has to do more than void notes if it wants to wean itself off cash. It also has to target the underlying reasons for which businesses amass paper money, such as the need to pay officials who demand bribes.

Politics in India is another big cash business. Because the country’s electoral rules don’t require political parties to disclose the sources of small donations, companies regularly use cash to buy influence. Parties then use the cash to buy votes ahead of elections.

 

The currency replacement is just “a spring-cleaning exercise,” said Jagdeep Chhokar, co-founder of the New Delhi-based Association for Democratic Reforms, which advocates for greater transparency in party financing. “Unless we change our way of living, our house is not going to be clean. It is going to get dirty again every year.”

 

There has been widespread condemnation of Modi's actions. As former PM Manmohan Singh exclaimed, "Those who say demonetisation is good in the long run should recall quote "In the long run we are all dead".  Singh tore into his successor Narendra Modi's clampdown on the cash economy, calling it an "organized loot and legalized plunder" of the country. Singh – the architect of economic reforms that led to years of rapid growth – dubbed Modi's shock move to scrap 500 and 1,000 rupee banknotes a "monumental mismanagement" that could shave at least 2 percentage points off economic growth.

 "I do not disagree with the objectives of taking steps against terrorism and black money….

 

In the process of demonetisation, monumental mismanagement has taken place. What has been done can weaken and erode our people's confidence in the currency and banking system. I say so with all responsibility that we do not know what will be the full outcome.

This will hurt agriculture, small industry and everyone in the unorganised sector. My view is that GDP growth can fall by 2 per cent and that is an underestimate."

And from our soruce in India, the problems are escalating: ATMs lines are building once again.

 

But as the following image shows, there are no lines at The State Bank of India ATM, as these only have INR2000 notes:

As former PM Manmohan Singh raged today in the Rajya Sabha, "50 days is a short period but for those who are poor, even 50 days can bring about disastrous effects."

And, as we now know, it's less than 50 days.

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

Will The Swamp Swallow Trump?

Authored by Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

Permanently Skewed

TRUMP HOTEL, New York – Trump’s rambling army – professionals, amateurs, camp followers, and profiteers – is marching south, down the I-95 corridor. There, on the banks of the Potomac, it will fight its next big battle.

 

team-a

Lieutenants in Trump’s army: Bannon, Flynn & Sessions

 

Here at the Diary, we do not like to get involved in politics. But this is a special time in the history of our planet – a time when politics will decide what kind of disaster we face.

Simplifying, if Congress holds the line against Trump, we will have a deflationary disaster. If it goes along with him, the disaster will be more of the inflationary variety.   We are here at the Trump Hotel in SoHo to try to figure out which way it will go.

Until now, the feds used only one weapon in their fight to prevent a correction – monetary policy. They used it until the barrel melted and they ran out of ammunition.   That leaves fiscal policy – old-fashioned deficit spending.

According to standard Keynesian theory, the feds should run a “counter-cyclical” economic policy. When the economy runs hot, the feds should lean towards tight money (high-ish interest rates) and budget surpluses (tax more than they spend).

When the economy cools, or goes into recession, the feds should favor loose money (low to ultra-low interest rates) and generous deficits (spend more than they tax).

Over time, the interference should be neutral, merely flattening out the business cycle – economic expansions and recessions – but not altering the character of the economy nor its average growth rate.

In practice, the feds’ battalions are too slow to be helpful. They arrive after the battle is over, and their tendency to err on the side of loose money and deficit spending nullifies the whole theory anyway.

But with credit-based money to work with (Mr. Keynes theorized in a world of real money backed by gold), they’ve permanently skewed the entire economy toward debt and deficits.

 

economic-stimulus-comic

This cartoon shows the basic problem with the superficially so attractive notions pushed by Keynesianism. The government has no resources of its own – there is no Santa Claus. It just shuffles resources around. Every cent the government spends has to be taken from the private sector, whether by taxation, borrowing, or even worse, inflation. And every cent government takes from the private sector to fund its spending can no longer be allocated by the latter. In order to believe that this is somehow good, you have to subscribe to the idea that government bureaucrats are better at allocating scarce resources than the market. You might as well advocate for communism then.

Cartoon by Red Panels

 

Greatness, Redux

And now cometh to Washington Mr. Donald J. Trump. He has promised to “Make America Great Again,” with an annual GDP growth rate of 4% a major part of the greatness, redux. All across the heartland, people are counting on it.

But an economic growth rate of 4% is nearly four times the rate during the first half of the year. So, Trump’s team is going to have to get to work, blasting their way to a future that hasn’t been seen since the last century.

Field Marshal Trump is shuffling his generals, replacing his lieutenants, and dragging his disloyal captains behind the tent for execution. He knows he will need every man’s cooperation to face the enemy ahead. For in front of him are formidable foes: fiscally responsible Republicans on the right… bond market vigilantes on the left wing… and a mountain of debt in the center.

 

vigilantes

Lately the bond market vigilantes have actually come off the fence they have been sitting on – but it is still too early to tell if they really mean it.

Cartoon by Chad Crowe

 

Our friend David Stockman, who served as President Reagan’s budget adviser and whom we are going to discuss this matter with today, believes Mr. Trump will lose this battle. But we’re not so sure.

Behind his angry skirmishers in red caps, his big-spending Democrat allies and his precision-media artillery, President-elect Trump keeps his secret weapon. It is such a secret that not even he is aware of it. But it is the one thing that could bring him a sure victory – before, of course, the inevitable catastrophe.

 

Shovels and Pumps

After his victory over the forces of Hillary Clinton and the Establishment,  he has turned his face towards the nation’s capital. With nothing in his way, he will seize it in a matter of weeks.

Mr. Trump has surprised the nation twice. First, the amateur politician trounced Jeb Bush on the sand flats of Florida. Then, he outflanked Ms. Clinton in the upper Midwest.

Clinton was the odds-on favorite. But she fought an unimaginative battle with mercenary troops who had no stomach for real fighting. Mr. Trump called up citizen soldiers out of the hollows of West Virginia and the old industrial suburbs of Gary, Indiana.

They appeared on the battlefield as if out of nowhere, attacking the former secretary of state on her exposed flanks. They were “deplorables,” she had said, but they fought well. And now, with Washington’s two protective armies swept from the field, Mr. Trump advances.

 

ko

Oops! The undisputed favorite is knocked out by her opponent and his army of “deplorables”.  A case of getting unexpectedly unfriended by American voters.

 

“I will drain the swamp,” he has promised. Yesterday, we spent much of the day with someone who knows the swamp well.  David Stockman was a very young congressman from Michigan when Ronald Reagan called on him to dig drainage ditches as his chief budget engineer.

Reagan was an “outsider,” an actor from California, not a lifelong politician. He, too, had beaten the insiders’ man – President Carter. And he, too, brought shovels and pumps with him when he arrived in Washington.

“Yes, the parallels are certainly there,” Stockman told us.

“I’ve been in touch with the Trump team. I’ve even written a book about Trump. [Find it here.] But those guys are going to be surprised. They just have no idea what they’re up against.”

 

Dependent on Debt

But to back up a bit… we have an economy that depends on debt. Banks loan new money into the system ex nihilo – out of thin air. Without those new loans, the money supply falls as old debts are settled. Without more money, the economy stiffens.

Our friend and economist Richard Duncan estimates that credit (debt) must increase by at least 2% a year or the economy will fall into recession. For the last 35 years, interest rates have been coming down, to make borrowing easier. Now, there is plenty of debt in the system – $63 trillion in the U.S. alone – but not much room left for interest rates to go down.

 

debt-rates-and-gdp

An explosion in debt, an unprecedented decline in interest rates and very little economic output growth to show for it. This is a nigh intractable problem and governments definitely lack the competence to deal with it successfully. In fact, their policies have produced this boondoggle in the first place – click to enlarge.

 

“Monetary policy is exhausted,” says David. “Everybody knows that. What they don’t know is that fiscal policy is exhausted too.” [Note: Monetary policy attempts to stimulate the economy by setting the price of credit. Fiscal policy attempts to stimulate growth by increasing government spending.]

Donald J. Trump has promised to get the economy growing at a 4% annual pace. To do so, he will have to stimulate it somehow. The experts will tell him he has only two tools: monetary or fiscal stimulus. (He hasn’t asked us; we’d advise him to stay in New York.)

The “reflation trade” – betting on rising stock and commodities prices and falling bond prices – is a gamble on inflation; it is a bet that Mr. Trump will rotate from monetary stimulus to fiscal stimulus. Long term, we think it’s a good bet.

Inflation is what “The Donald” is promising. But fiscal stimulus requires congressional approval. He may not get it. That may be Mr. Trump’s biggest surprise of all. He may not drain the swamp. He may sink in it.

 

Swamp Gators

As noted above: Either Congress goes along with Mr. Trump and the credit bubble ends in an inflationary blow-up, or it holds the line – refusing further fiscal stimulus – and the result will be a deflationary disaster.

There are, of course, more twists, turns, and nuances in this plot. But that is the basic storyline. Stockman believes the swamp will swallow up Mr. Trump, his army, and his big budget plans.

 

hair-force-one

Will the new owner of Hair Force One succeed where all others before him have failed? It is highly doubtful, but what is certain is that an era of great entertainment lies directly ahead. We’ll take it – it is all we can realistically ask of politics.

Cartoon by Mark Knight

 

“I’ve seen it happen. There are alligators in that swamp,” says David, showing his scars. Each gator will fight for his own subsidy, his spending, his budget, his tax break, his job, his power, his agency, his pet project.

There will be splashing around… tails swinging wildly… body parts chewed off… and blood in the water up and down the Potomac.

Republicans will want cuts to social programs if they are going to approve more spending on infrastructure and the military. Democrats will refuse to go along with Trump’s spending unless social programs are preserved.

Every step the new president takes will bring him deeper into the swamp. The bottom line, says Stockman: “Ronald Reagan’s program didn’t survive. Neither will Mr. Trump’s.”

via http://ift.tt/2g8FzOL Tyler Durden