The World Economy Wreckers Of Beijing

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The desperate suzerains of the Red Ponzi are incorrigible. There appears to be no insult to economic rationality that they will not attempt in order to perpetuate their power, privileges and rule.

So now comes the most preposterous gambit yet. Namely, a veritable tsunami of state handouts to foster, yes, capitalist entrepreneurs!

That’s right. As described by Bloomberg, Premier Li Keqiang  gave the word, and, presto, nearly $340 billion poured into an instantly confected army of purported venture capital funds run by local government officialdom all over the land.

China is getting into the venture capital business in a big way. A really, really big way.

 

The country’s government-backed venture funds raised about 1.5 trillion yuan ($231 billion) in 2015, tripling the amount under management in a single year to 2.2 trillion yuan ($340 billion), according to data compiled by the consultancy Zero2IPO Group. That’s the biggest pot of money for startups in the world and almost five times the sum raised by other venture firms last year globally, according to London-based consultancy Preqin Ltd.

Really? These are the same folks who built themselves a 1.2 billion ton steel industry in less than two decades, representing double what they can actually use and far more capacity than the rest of the world combined. That freakish industrial eruption is now tumbling into a red hole of losses, decay, abandonment and waste, but never mind. Now the Beijing comrades are going to seed venture capitalists at 5X the rate of the entire planet?

It puts you in mind of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, which endeavored to put a steel furnace in every Chinese farmer’s back yard. Of course, when they melted down their plows and hoes for scrap, the resulting leap was not exactly forward.

The only difference is that today’s Chinese leaders wear business suits, speak the lingo of western finance and dye their hair black.  Yet the very idea that Beijing could wave a wand and launch 1,600 high-tech incubators for start-ups within a few months time and mobilize 2.2 trillion yuan ($340 billion) of venture capital is a measure of the incendiary lunacy which has gripped the Red Ponzi:

The money’s in what are known as government guidance funds, where local and central agencies play some role. With 780 such funds nationwide and a lot of experimentation, there’s no set model for how they’re managed or funded. The bulk of their capital comes from tax revenue or state-backed loans.

 

The money is part of Premier Li Keqiang’s effort to bolster the slowing Chinese economy through innovation and reducing its dependence on heavy industry. The country began a campaign to support entrepreneurship in 2014 and has since opened 1,600 high-tech incubators for startups.

 

Somehow Bloomberg did manage to find one sane commentator on this colossal farce who minced no words. Gary Rieschel, founder of Qiming Venture Partners, suggested that this huge influx of cash raises the possibility of a boom-and-bust cycle like the government-led investment in China’s solar and wind power sectors, among others:

…..“They have a fantasy that if they give everyone money they’ll create entrepreneurs,” he said. But inexperienced or corrupt managers are likely to invest in dozens of regional copycats unable to get big enough to be profitable, he said. “What it will result in is catastrophic losses for the government.”

The point is, an unhinged central bank printing press and a limitless spigot of state funds will eventually create waste, not wealth. Indeed, the stated rationale for this latest burst of madness is the proof of the pudding. They are trying to shove risk capital were private venture investors won’t go——which is to say, in exactly the wrong places.

The cash is meant to “overcome the failure of pure market-oriented allocation of venture capital,” by steering investment into seed and early stages, according to Zero2IPO. The government wants to attract money to riskier startups shunned by private investors who chase quicker and surer returns in late-stage bets, Wu Qing, a researcher for the State Council Development and Research Center, told the China Youth Daily.

Indeed, the evidence that the Red Ponzi has entered a final delirious blow-off stage accumulates by the day. This Bloomberg story noted that private equity is also exploding in China. At present the are apparently 15,900 limited partnerships with nearly $1.0 trillion under management. The speculative excesses being fostered must be truly mind-boggling.

But don’t tell the gamblers still left in the Wall Street casino. They persist in the preposterous delusion that China is a $10 trillion growth miracle with transition challenges that will be deftly taken to the next level of consumption and services-based growth by the deft managers in Beijing.

No it won’t. China is an economic doomsday machine heading for a crash landing, and this latest venture capitalist gambit is just further proof.

The truth is, there is no real capitalism in China at all; it is a quasi-totalitarian nation gone mad digging, building, borrowing, spending and speculating in a magnitude that has no historical parallel.

So doing, It has fashioned itself into an incendiary volcano of unpayable debt and wasteful, crazy-ass overinvestment in everything.  It cannot be slowed, stabilized or transitioned by edicts and new plans from the comrades in Beijing. It is the greatest economic trainwreck in human history barreling toward a bridgeless chasm.

And that proposition makes all the difference in the world. If China goes down hard the global economy cannot avoid a thundering financial and macroeconomic dislocation. And not just because China accounts for 17% of the world’s $80 trillion of GDP or that it has been the planet’s growth engine most of this century.

In fact, China is the rotten epicenter of the world’s two decade long plunge into an immense central bank fostered monetary fraud and credit explosion that has deformed and destabilized the very warp and woof of the global economy.

But in China the financial madness has gone to a unfathomable extreme because in the early 1990s a desperate oligarchy of despots who ruled with machine guns discovered a better means to stay in power. That is, the printing press in the basement of the PBOC—-and just in the nick of time (for them).

Print they did. Buying in dollars, euros and other currencies hand-over-fist in order to peg their own money and lubricate Mr. Deng’s export factories, the PBOC expanded its balance sheet from $40 billion to $4 trillion during the course of a mere two decades. There is nothing like that in the history of central banking—–nor even in economists’ most febrile imagings about its possibilities.

China Foreign Exchange Reserves

The PBOC’s red hot printing press, in turn, emitted high-powered credit fuel. In the mid-1990s China had about $500 billion of public and private credit outstanding—hardly 1.0X its rickety GDP. Today that number is $30 trillion or even more.

Yet nothing in this economic world, or the next, can grow at 60X in only 20 years and live to tell about it. Most especially, not in a system built on a tissue of top-down edicts, illusions, lies and impossibilities, and which sports not even a semblance of financial discipline, political accountability or free public speech.

To wit, China is a witches brew of Keynes and Lenin. It’s the financial tempest which will slam the world’s great bloated edifice of central bank fostered faux prosperity.

So the right approach to the horrible danger at hand is not to dissect the pronouncements of Beijing in the manner of the old kremlinologists. The occupants of the latter were destined to fail in the long run, but they at least knew what they were doing tactically in the here and now; it was worth the time to parse their word clouds and seating arrangements at state parades.

By contrast, and not to mix a metaphor, the Red Suzerains of Beijing have built a Potemkin Village. But they actually believe its real because they do not have even a passing acquaintanceship with the requisites and routines of a real capitalist economy.

Ever since the aging oligarch(s) who run China were delivered from Mao’s hideous dystopia by Mr. Deng’s chance discovery of printing press prosperity, they have lived in an ever expanding bubble that is so economically unreal that it would make the Truman Show envious. Any rulers with even a modicum of economic literacy would have recognized long ago that the Chinese economy is booby-trapped everywhere with waste, excess and unsustainability.

That is, the Red Ponzi is not indicative of a just a giddy boom; its evidence of a system that has gone mad digging, hauling, staging and constructing because there was unlimited credit available to finance the outpouring of China’s runaway construction machine. The fact that China consumed more cement in three years than did the US during the entire 20th Century is just one indicator of its madcap excess.

 

The point is that the great paving and construction tsunami did not happen in a vacuum. All that cement consumption required the production of hundreds of thousands of cement trucks, for example, which in turned required the fabrication of of truck mounted cement mixers in even greater numbers.

But when China’s frenzy of pyramid building finally slowed—–to say nothing of stopped—here is what was left behind. That is, a vast empty cement mixer factory with unfinished product at far as the eye can see.

Old fashioned free market economists used to call that malinvestment. Yes, it is.

Empty factories like the above—–and China is crawling with them—–are a screaming marker of an economic doomsday machine. They bespeak an inherently unsustainable and unstable simulacrum of capitalism where the purpose of credit is to fund state mandated GDP quota’s, not finance efficient investments with calculable risks and returns. The relentless growth of its aluminum production is just one more example.

Image result for graph on growth of china's shipbuilding industry

But the mother of all malinvestments sprang up in China’s steel industry. From about 70 million tons of production in the early 1990s, it exploded to 825 million tons in 2014. Beyond that, it is the capacity build-out behind the chart below which tells the full story.

To wit, Beijing’s tsunami of cheap credit enabled China’s state-owned steel companies to build new capacity at an even more fevered pace than the breakneck growth of annual production. Consequently, annual crude steel capacity now stands at nearly 1.2 billion tons, and nearly all of that capacity—-about 65% of the world total—— was built in the last ten years.

Needless to say, it’s a sheer impossibility to expand efficiently the heaviest of heavy industries by 17X in a quarter century.

steelgrowth

This means that China’s aberrationally massive steel industry expansion created a significant increment of demand for its own products. That is,  plate, structural and other steel shapes that go into blast furnaces, BOF works, rolling mills, fabrication plants, iron ore loading and storage facilities, as well as into plate and other steel products for shipyards where new bulk carriers were built and into the massive equipment and infrastructure used at the iron ore mines and ports.

That is to say, the Chinese steel industry has been chasing its own tail, but the merry-go-round has now stopped. For the first time in three decades, steel production in 2015 was down 2-3% from 2014’s peak of 825 million tons and is projected to drop to 750 million tons next year, even by the lights of the China miracle believers.

The fact is, China will be lucky to have 500 million tons of true sell-through demand—-that is, on-going domestic demand for sheet steel to go into cars and appliances and for rebar and structural steel to be used in replacement construction once the current one-time building binge finally expires.

For instance, China’s vaunted auto industry uses only 45 million tons of steel per year, and consumer appliances consume far less. So its difficult to see how China will ever have steady-state demand for even 500 million tons annually, yet that’s just 40% of its massive capacity investment.

And it is also evident that it will not be in a position to dump its massive surplus on the rest of the world. Already trade barriers against last year’s 110 million tons of exports are being thrown up in Europe, North America, Japan and nearly everywhere else.

This not only means that China has upwards of a half-billion tons of excess capacity that will crush prices and profits, but, more importantly, that the one-time steel demand for steel industry CapEx is over and done. And that means shipyards and mining equipment, too.

That is already evident in the vanishing order book for China’s giant shipbuilding industry. The latter is focussed almost exclusively on dry bulk carriers——-the very capital item that delivered into China’s vast industrial maw the massive tonnages of iron ore, coking coal and other raw materials. But within in a year or two most of China’s shipyards will be closed as its backlog rapidly vanishes under a crushing surplus of dry bulk capacity that has no precedent, and which has driven the Baltic shipping rate index to historic lows.

Accordingly, the outward forms of capitalism are belied by the substance of statist control and central planning. For example, there is no legitimate banking system in China—just giant state bureaus which are effectively run by party operatives.

Their modus operandi amounts to parceling out quotas for national GDP and credit growth from the top, and then water-falling them down a vast chain of command to the counties, townships and villages below. There have never been any legitimate financial prices in China—all interest rates and FX rates have been pegged and regulated to the decimal point; nor has there ever been any honest financial accounting either—-loans have been perpetual options to extend and pretend.

Thus, we now have the absurdity of China’s state shipping company (Cosco) ordering 11 massive containerships that it can’t possibly need (China’s year-to-date exports are down 20%) in order to keep its vastly overbuilt shipyards in new orders. And those wasteful new orders, in turn will take plate from China’s white elephant steel mills:

This and other state-owned shipyards are being kept busy by China Ocean Shipping Group, better known as Cosco, the country’s largest shipper by carrying capacity, which ordered 11 huge container ships last year. Caixin, the financial magazine, reported that the three ships ordered from Waigaoqiao would be able to carry 20,000 20ft containers, making them the world’s largest.

 

The weakening yuan and China’s waning appetite for raw materials have come around to bite the country’s shipbuilders, raising the odds that more shipyards will soon be shuttered.

 

About 140 yards in the world’s second-biggest shipbuilding nation have gone out of business since 2010, and more are expected to close in the next two years after only 69 won orders for vessels last year, JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts Sokje Lee and Minsung Lee wrote in a Jan. 6 report. That compares with 126 shipyards that fielded orders in 2014 and 147 in 2013.

 

Total orders at Chinese shipyards tumbled 59 percent in the first 11 months of 2015, according to data released Dec. 15 by the China Association of the National Shipbuilding Industry. Builders have sought government support as excess vessel capacity drives down shipping rates and prompts customers to cancel contracts. Zhoushan Wuzhou Ship Repairing & Building Co. last month became the first state-owned shipbuilder to go bankrupt in a decade.

It is not surprising that China’s massive shipbuilding industry is in distress and that it is attempting to export its troubles to the rest of the world. Yet subsidizing new builds will eventually add more downward pressure to global shipping rates—-rates which are already at all time lows. And as the world’s shipping companies are driven into insolvency, they will take the European banks which have financed them down the drink, as well.

Still, the fact that China is exporting yet another downward deflationary spiral to the world economy is not at all surprising. After all, China’s shipbuilding output rose by 11X in 10 years!

Folks, this doesn’t happen in a world anchored in economic sanity.

But there is a larger picture. This is not just an “economic trainwreck in one country”, to paraphrase the edict of Joseph Stalin, that doesn’t matter to the rest of the world.

The astonishing foolishness of the Beijing regime has now become a clear and present danger to the entire global economy. It is a veritable fount of deflationary tidal waves that are being exported to the rest of the world and which are bringing about a global CapEx depression and a thundering collapse of profits throughout the global chain of industrial production.

Image result for images of excess steel capacity in china

As Donald Trump speeds toward the White House, the mainstream media will soon be gumming vigorously about how American politics became so unhinged.

They need look no further than the Red Suzerains of Beijing. It is their monumental foolishness that has made The Donald possible.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Tx75G3 Tyler Durden

Today’s Market’s “Explained” In Just Two Headlines

Ten days ago, when we were struggling to find the answer for the biggest March 1 rally in history, especially after abysmal economic data, we resorted to the following two Reuters headlines which made it all clear, first this:

 

Following in under two hours by this.

 

* * *

Fast forward to today when in the aftermath of the ECB’s announcement in which Draghi “pulled out all stops with rate cuts, stimulus boost“, the market first soared then tumbled. Here is the “explanation” once again courtesy of Reuters:

First this:

 

And then, when the market U-turned, so did the “explanatory” narrative, as per this:

 

To summarize: Stocks soared when Mario Draghi “pulled out all the stops with rate cuts, stimulus boost, then promptly sank when “all the stops” were clearly not enough.

And now you “know” all there is to know.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1UiwqSL Tyler Durden

The Most Ridiculous Argument for Clinton You’ll See Today

There’s a thin line between political passion and a traumatic brain injury, and Jonathan Alter may have just crossed it:

The problem here isn’t Alter’s worry that the Donald might start a war. For all his sporadic anti-war rhetoric, I can certainly see why you wouldn’t want a man with Trump’s thin skin and hot temper to have access to nuclear weapons. But rallying around Clinton because you want to avoid a war is like rallying around Sanders because you want to avoid a corporate tax hike. Of all the major candidates still in the running, only Marco Rubio rivals her in his eagerness to use armed force.

nom nom nomHillary Clinton has backed every major American military conflict of the last quarter century. She was among the architects of one of those wars—the bombing campaign in Libya—and she still defends it despite its disastrous consequences. Her most notable difference with the current administration is her belief that it should have intervened earlier in Syria. If Sanders fans “will have blood on their hands” if they fail to rally around Hillary Clinton, just what red substance will be dripping from their fingers if they do put that woman in office?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Ra4uLq
via IFTTT

Memo to Presidential Hopefuls of Both Parties: Guest Worker Programs Are Not Indentured Servitude

Historically speaking, awfulness on immigration is neither party’s sole province. But in this election cycle there isBorder Wall no question that Republicans have set new lows from a libertarian perspective.

No candidate, Republican or Democrat, has a perfect record on this issue. Both sides pander to their respective bases. But at least Democratic candidates seem to be in a virtuous cycle toward more rational, humane and liberty-enhancing immigration policies. Republican candidates, on the other hand, are in a vicious downward spiral of ever more mean, insane and police-state expanding measures. Indeed, whereas Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are beating each other up for being insufficiently nice to immigrants in the past, Republicans are beating each other up for being insufficiently harsh.

During last night’s Democratic debate, Sanders called out Clinton for derailing New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s efforts to provide drivers licenses to undocumented aliens and turning away unaccompanied minors from war-torn Latin American countries. Clinton, in turn, accused Sanders of voting against President George Bush’s 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill (that would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens) and, weirdly, supporting Minutemen, border vigilantes who took it upon themselves to capture illegal border crossers, which Sanders angrily denounced as a “horrific” and “unfair” statement. Both pledged to end workplace raids and deportations of undocumented children and anyone without a criminal record.

By contrast, thanks to Donald Trump’s viciousness, all the major Republican contenders are turning into border pitbulls. The person who has fallen the most on this issue (with no effect on his poll numbers that are falling even more rapidly) is Marco Rubio: Instead of proudly defending his participation in the Gang of Eight immigration bill — a flawed effort that would nevertheless have given some relief to the undocumented population — he has all but repudiated the bill. He is pledging now to push no reform effort till the border is hermetically sealed. And both he and Ted Cruz are vowing to match the Great Border Wall of Trump, brick for brick. Rubio may have fallen the most on immigration, but Cruz is arguably the worst, worse even than Trump.

He is trying to outdo Trump’s plan to restore the notorious Eisenhower-era program called Operation Wetback that created special federal squads to round up millions of undocumented workers and throw them out of the country. “Of course we should deport them,” he crows. “That’s what ICE exists for.” But he wouldn’t just stop at that. He insists that, in contrast to Trump who’ll let these workers back in legally, he’ll permanently ban them from re-entering, even if that means separating them permanently from their American children and forever breaking families apart. (How is that for a God fearing, family-values conservative?) And then there is the matter of his support — actually, authorship — of the Expatriate Terrorist Act that would strip, without due process, Americans of their citizenship if they are suspected of supporting government-designated terrorist groups

But one wrong-headed trope that is becoming increasingly popular among both parties is that guest worker visas such as H-1Bs for high-skilled workers and H-2A/Bs for unskilled workers are akin to “servitude” (Bernie Sanders) or slavery (various right-wing restrictionists, including at the National Review) and therefore should be scrapped. But this is just pandering to working-class special interests dressed up as altruism for foreign workers.

There is no question that these guest worker programs are hugely flawed. The worst aspect of both the high skilled and low skilled guest visas is that they tether foreign workers to the employer who sponsored them. In the case of H-1B visas, this wasn’t a huge deal till the mid-1990s when converting these visas to green cards took only a couple of years. Foreign techies would grin and bear it, even though they couldn’t switch jobs without having to begin the process all over again and their spouses weren’t allowed to work in the interim. Since then, thanks to country-based ceiling on green cards, a multi-decade backlog has developed for countries such as India and China that supply the vast majority of foreign techies. Since these folks can’t take up better jobs, they become subject to exploitation and abuse by employers. Indian and Chinese techies routinely end up stuck in horrible, dead-end jobs for much of their peak productive years.

The situation is even worse for H-2 unskilled workers because they are on non-immigrant visas, which means that they can’t apply for green cards. Hence, often they end up staying in the country illegally, which makes them even more subject to employer abuse.

In the case of H-1Bs, the logical and humane fix would be to affix these visas to employees not employers (which would make them portable across jobs) and to remove the annual country-cap on green cards to expedite the permanent residency process. Likewise, the solution to H-2 abuse would be to not only make these visas portable but also convert them to immigrant visas so that low skilled foreign workers too could apply for green cards, just like high-skilled workers.

But to equate these visas with slavery or servitude is to torture a metaphor till it loses all meaning. And to demand their elimination is to pile injustice on top of abuse and call it principle.

The essence of slavery is to expropriate a worker’s labor against his will. This means reducing his work options to just one from which he can neither quit nor switch. But guest worker visas do the opposite of slavery: They give workers more options. And having more options, even bad and suboptimal ones, is always better than having fewer options. Indeed, the only reason that foreign workers would put up with a bad work situation in the United States given that they can always quit is that their alternatives at home are even worse.

By all means, well-meaning people interested in justice and liberty ought to push policies to empower these workers, improve the trade offs that they confront, so that they don’t have to put up with abuse. But taking away their existing options is to offer a cure worse than the disease.

The jihad against guest worker programs is ultimately about labor protectionism — no matter how much Republicans and Democrats try and dress it up in the language of human rights.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1LeJxTL
via IFTTT

Cleveland Preps For GOP Convention by Ordering 2,000 Sets of Riot Gear

The city of Cleveland is prepping for its Cleveland rocks.role as host of July’s Republican National Convention in July by ordering 2,000 sets of riot gear.

Thanks to an earmark folded into last year’s federal omnibus appropriation bill, both Cleveland and Philadelphia (as host of the Democratic National Convention) will receive $50 million in federal security funds to be used for public safety during each city’s respective convention. 

Andrew J. Tobias reports at Cleveland.com:

The city this week posted to its contracting website a notice seeking bidders to provide the gear. City documents refer to the “Elite Defender” riot-control suit manufactured by HWI Gear and a 26-inch baton manufactured by Monadnock, plus 2,000 bags to carry them.

The city also wants to buy 310 sets of riot-control gear — long-sleeve jackets, gloves and shin guards —  that would be suitable for use by police riding bicycles. 

The convention itself is expected to draw about 50,000 attendees and the city wants to prepare itself for the possibility of up to 100,000 protesters. 

Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association President Steve Loomis told Cleveland’s local Fox affiliate that RNC’s are typically “violent” and “a lot more troublesome for the police departments.” Loomis added, “I’ve never been to the RNC so I don’t know, but I have to take the word of the guys training police across the country for these events.”

The city also intends to purchase three miles worth of “Blockader”-branded steel barricades and an additional 3,250 worth of barricades that would rise to over six feet above street level. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1TwUQcv
via IFTTT

U. of Arizona Marginalized Students Demand Trigger Warnings, Censorship, Half a Million Dollars

ArizonaThe Marginalized Students of the University of Arizona have published their demands: like a lot of student-activists at other colleges, they want mandatory trigger warnings, sanctions for microaggressors, and obligatory cultural sensitivity training. They also want half a million dollars. For diversity. 

This group—a veritable coalition of the downtrodden—includes representatives from the Adalberto & Ana Guerrero Center, African American Student Affairs, Asian Pacific Student, Affairs, the LGBTQ Resource Center, Native American Student Affairs, the Women’s Resource Center, and other campus organizations. They note that their demands are just that: demands, not requests. 

Demands common to all oppressed participants include mandatory trigger warnings, which should be present in all classrooms in order to preempt “potentially problematic material.” Alternative assignments must be made available to any and all students who are made unsafe by the regularly scheduled curriculum. 

The marginalized also want mandatory cultural sensitivity training for nearly everyone on campus: residence hall staff, members of Greek Life, and even the staff of the student newspaper, The Arizona Daily Wild Cat. 

The Provost for Diversity and Inclusion would receive a budget of $500,000 to sponsor new diversity initiatives. 

The list of demands also includes specific items from each group. The Latino/Latina student group wants to prohibit Border Patrol recruitment on campus; the Black Lives Matter group wants separate and additional sensitivity training; and the Asian-American students want everyone on campus to recognize that “we’re not all the same.” The LGBT student-group had a lengthy list of demands including more staff for their center, mandatory preferred pronoun usage in classes, and a redefinition of violence to include “emotional violence.” 

All groups want their own unique safe space on campus for members of their identity group. 

The College Fix attempted to interview a student about the demands: the student replied, “You’ll never understand a marginalized student’s experience unless you are one, have experienced these things, or surround yourself with other individuals who have.” 

To recap: members of an organized movement that includes a half dozen activist communities are demanding unlimited funding for their narrow left-wing goals, mandatory re-education of those who disagree with them, and censorship of dissenters. I don’t know if these students can properly be described as “marginalized,” but if they are, everyone who values free expression at U. of A should hope they remain that way.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1M9rOry
via IFTTT

Why Saudi Arabia Has No Intention To End The Oil Glut

Submitted by Dwayne Purvis via OilPrice.com,

In the geopolitical and oligopolistic global oil market, purely financial supply and demand has often been a secondary force, acting when it is allowed to act. It is the strategic behavior of the producing titans, not their talk or the slow-motion supply-demand balance, which has the real power to move markets. That is the case in the last two years and remains the case in 2016.

The behavior of Saudi Arabia since 2014 has demonstrated the intent to increase both capacity and supply, a pattern not yet mitigated despite a distracting news feed from OPEC and the kingdom.

(Click to enlarge)

Figure 1: Rig counts in US (oil-directed) and Saudi Arabia.

Figure 1 shows the rig counts in Saudi Arabia and the United States from 2009 to last week. (footnote: The U.S. count is oil-directed rigs while it is the total rig count in Saudi Arabia which produces mainly associated gas and exports none.) The data is shown on two different scales in such a way that the curves are equivalent during 2012 and 2013 as this was a relatively stable baseline with Saudi running 80 to 85 rigs, and 1300 to 1400 were drilling for oil in the US. What is most interesting are the actions since then.

As the shale oil revolution had sustained momentum at prices near $100 /bbl, Saudi Arabia began the second most rapid rig count expansion in its history starting in late 2013. During 2014, while the potential for oversupply was clearly known and even as prices turned sharply down in the latter half of the year, Saudi continued ramping up its rig count.

In late November 2014, the semi-annual OPEC meeting turned dissentious, and the group closed without even the pretense of a target production volume. Starting in November and continuing through March, the Saudi rig count grew in its third largest expansion in history, increasing 15 percent in four months.

At the same time, U.S. rig count was falling. Slowly at first in 2014, the rig count responded modestly to reductions in price. After the November 2014 OPEC meeting, though, the U.S. rig count began its freefall, retracing the path of the 2008 downturn. The contrast shows boldly in Figure 1. As the U.S. imploded, Saudi Arabia was ramping up.

For comparison, Saudi Arabia had a couple of times in history, though not always, reduced its rig count as the U.S. rig count dropped. Most notably, Saudi Arabia reduced then stabilized its rig count following its price war of 1986. For most of the 1990s and early 2000s the Saudi rig count tracked the same kind of pattern as the oil-directed rigs in the U.S. During the collapse of 2008-2009, Saudi Arabia again curtailed its rig count.

Of course, rig count alone doesn't mean nearly as much in the Saudi command-based supply; rig count reveals more about intent and planning than current action. The real test is how the presumed increased capacity is used. Figure 2 shows that behavior, tracing Saudi production alongside oil prices. The market, presumably watching the implosion of rig count, responded by lifting WTI oil prices back into the $60s/bbl, and Saudi Arabia then responded by promptly increasing its supply, sending prices back down again. Even as prices slowly descended close to inflation-adjusted, long-term lows, the Saudi rig count slowly ramped up, and moderated its production only somewhat.

(Click to enlarge)

Figure 2: Oil production by Saudi Arabia and WTI spot market price as a proxy for world oil prices.

Talk of a consensus action to freeze production was rumored in January, and word of a partial agreement including Russia and Saudi Arabia hit the news in mid-February, marking the beginning of a rally in prices. It is ironic that news of a cap on further increases should be a signal for price increase in a widely oversupplied market with slow changes in demand and U.S. production. A cap on production would possibly shorten the extended period of oversupply, but certainly not alleviate it anytime soon.

Perhaps influenced by short-covering by financial speculators and perhaps influenced by dropping exchange rates for the dollar, the rally does not, in any event, mark a change to the outlook for either supply-demand fundamentals or strategic behavior of the titans. The behavior of all parties is likely to follow the thinking explained recently the Kuwaiti oil minister—if Iran doesn’t participate, then they plan to produce at full capacity. Iran has called the idea of a cap on increases “ridiculous,” and, even if they were to agree to a cap, the Saudi oil minister says rightly that there is little trust among OPEC members.

In the meantime, the rig count suggests that Saudi Arabia continues to plan for higher levels of supply. While Saudi Arabia and OPEC have talked intermittently about increasing demand and decreasing supply, about minute increases for use during Ramadan and even about the possibility of caps on production, their actions have not always comported with the distracting, laissez-faire attitude suggested by their commentary. The February rig count was only one rig shy of the kingdom's all-time high set in December, an increase of four rigs over its January count. And its January production was higher than December by a volume roughly equal to the downward effect of all of the forces of supply and demand on U.S. production.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1LUff8C Tyler Durden

“It’s A Bloodbath” – Dow Dumps 300 Points, US Equities At One-Week Lows

“Everyone is offside,” exclaimed one trader we talked to, noting the swings in EURUSD and stocks have tagged stops everywhere. Dow futures are now down 300 points from Draghi highs with S&P futures breaking below the crucial 1980 trendline support. As the trader concluded, “it’s a bloodbath.”

Not what everyone was expecting…

 

Ramp is over…

 

Ironically, while a 300 point swing in The Dow is worth noting, the sentiment shift of the last 3 weeks has once again enabled this “nothing can go wrong” attitude and panicced many weak hands today. It seems a rally built on the biggest short-squeeze in history may not be sustainable after all… just like in Nov 2008… 

 

And with gold soaring and bonds and stocks tumbling, it suggests the age of central banker omnipotence is at an end…


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QPhO8U Tyler Durden

Why US Automaker Stocks Are Underperforming (In 1 Simple Chart)

Since the end of 2013, US automaker stocks have dramatically underperformed the market.

This bewildered many as auto sales surged on the back of easy credit and the entire industry was proclaimed a great success. However, the reason for the underperformance is simple – stock investors discount the future and with a mal-investment-driven excess inventory-to-sales at levels only seen once before in 24 years, they know what is coming next.

 

 

And worse still, used car prices starting to fade rapidly (biggest Feb drop since 2008)

 

Falling used car prices means pressure on new car prices as well, which would be a shock to America's booming auto market.

Obviously, the scariest part about all of the above is that consumers still have the pedal to the metal (pun fully intended) when it comes to leases, which means there's no end in sight to the off-leases and thus no way to determine, at this juncture, how big the residual writedown wave and deflationary auto industry calamity will ultimately end up being.

So, you know… "buckle up."

*  *  *

Simply put, any pricing power is lost (no matter how long the credit terms are extended) as they are forced to halt production and dump inventories in a vicious deflationary cycle…

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QPhMxS Tyler Durden

Gender Stereotypes Have Budged Little Since the Early ’80s

The good news? We’ve broken barriers in our cultural perceptions of postal workers and men’s legs. But in all sorts of other ways, Americans are still clinging to the same gender stereotypes they have since the 1980s. A new study finds few significant changes since then in people’s perceptions about gender roles and traits. 

It seems that despite high-profile transgender activism and the brave new world of gender-neutral pronouns, most Americans are still clinging to a binary, essentialist view of gender that ascribes agency and leadership traits to men and nurturing, emotional tendencies to women. The one significant, positive change found in the study was an increased belief that women are competent at assuming financial obligations and handling financial matters. Otherwise, the study—published online March 9 in the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ)—actually found more gender stereotyping now about female roles and behaviors than there was 30 years ago.

“Changes in the activities and representation of women and men in society have unquestionably occurred since the early 1980s,” notes the paper. “However, those changes apparently have not been sufficient to alter strongly held and seemingly functional beliefs about the basic social category of gender.”  

For the study, psychology researchers compared survey data collected in 1983 to data they gathered in 2014 using the same set of questions. The earlier data did not contain much demographic-info on participatns, but all were college students. The 2014 subset, by contrast, contained respondents as young as 19-years-old and as old as 73, with a mean age of about 39 years.

Worried the presence of older individuals in the second survey skewed overall beliefs more regressive, the study authors—Elizabeth L. Haines, Kay Deaux, and Nicole Lofaro—compared answers across age groups and found little difference between younger and older respondents. “It appears that the observed increase in female gender role stereotyping between the two time periods was not related to age differences between the two samples, nor did age show any systematic relationship to beliefs about gender characteristics,” the authors concluded. 

Male and female respondents were also equally susceptible to gender stereotyping—although, among 2014 respondents, men were more likely to subscribe to gender stereotypes about men and women were more likely to subscribe to gender stereotypes about women. 

Asked to say how likely a man, woman, or person of unspecified gender was to possess 25 individual behaviors, study respondents in 1983 attached significantly gendered weight to 21 out of 25 behavior categories. In 2014, it was 22 out of 25 categories. Interestingly, the specific behaviors perceived as gender neutral shifted over time.

In 1983, “defers to the judgements of others,” “source of emotional support,” and “plans for the future” were all deemed relatively gender-neutral descriptors. In 2014, the neutral categories were “assumes financial obligations,” “makes major decisions,” and “handles financial matters.” 

An analysis of 25 individual occupations also turned up highly gendered beliefs about who should hold them. In 1983, only “bookkeeper” had no significantly gendered connotations. In 2014, it was only “postal worker.” And respondents also perceived significant gender differences for most physical traits, with only one of 25 descriptors (“well built”) not differentiated in 1983 and only three—”physically fit,” “thin,” and “long legs”—in 2014.  

Thoughts about psychological or emotional trait differences likewise “remained consistent and strong between the two time periods,” the researchers found. Women continued to be rated higher on “communal” traits than men, while men continued to be rated higher for “agentic” traits. Across all trait categories, only “active” was not seen as much of gendered term in 1983. In 2014 respondents, the four traits that didn’t show much gender differentiation were “active,” “stands up under pressure,” “makes decisions easily,” and “never gives up easily.”

“Despite differences in samples and in time periods, there was virtually no difference in the degree to which beliefs about typical men and women were differentiated on agentic and communal traits, male gender roles, male and female occupations, and male and female physical characteristics,” the authors summarize. “The one exception was a significant increase in stereotyping on the female gender role; however, this change appears to have occurred because contemporary judgments on this component were less variable than they were in the past, rather than being due to any marked change in mean likelihood ratings.”

The authors believe that maintenance of gender stereotypes despite the increasingly similar social roles and behaviors of men and women comes down to “confirmation bias, cultural lag, backlash, and essentialist categorical beliefs.” 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1Wc8lfE
via IFTTT