Even The Fed Is Flashing A Recession Warning

After The Cleveland Fed's warning of "significant stress" in the financial markets, we find none other than Dovish-hawk Jim Bullard's St.Louis Fed growing increasingly fearful of the "r" word.

The last two times, financial stress was this "significant," The Fed unleashed QE1 and Operation Twist…

 

 

And now, as Mises Institute's Mark Thornton notes, this little known chart (below) is the St. Louis Fed's attempt to anticipate a recession in the US economy.

The latest reading from last November is higher than all but 3 months (in the last 50 years) when a recession did not immediately proceed.

As you can see by the chart, there were false starts in early 1978 and 1979 prior to the recessions of 1980 and 1981/82. As well as a false start in September of 2005.

We will see if this time is different…

According to the Fed's website (FRED):

Smoothed recession probabilities for the United States are obtained from a dynamic-factor markov-switching model applied to four monthly coincident variables: non-farm payroll employment, the index of industrial production, real personal income excluding transfer payments, and real manufacturing and trade sales.

Given the broadness of the data used to create this indicator, we can't help but wonder – if the "recession risk" was this high in November, why did The Fed hike rates in December?

 

Source: FRED


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Vvl50n Tyler Durden

EIA Oil Report Analysis Feb. 20, 2016 (Video)

By EconMatters

 

 

Demand Economics are working, but Supply Economics are not working properly right now to reduce overall supply in a meaningful way. OPEC needs to get serious and start cutting production, and not freezing production at record levels of production. Shale Players need to go out of business in a major way the next three months as U.S. Oil production is still too damn high right now given the price dynamics in the market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Q0JgjB EconMatters

Broad Market Index Testing Broken “Must Hold” Level

Via Dana Lyons Tumblr,

The broad NYSE Composite stock market index is testing the level we deemed “must hold” – that broke in January.

Back on January 8, we posted a chart illustrating that the broad NYSE Composite was at a “must hold” level, in our view. Signifying the confluence of 3 major post-2009 bull market Fibonacci Retracement lines, we considered the area around 9600 to be critical for the NYSE to hold. Specifically, these lines lay in the vicinity:

  • The 23.6% Fibonacci Retracement of the 2009-2015 rally
  • The 38.2% Fibonacci Retracement of the 2011-2015 rally, and
  • The 61.8% Fibonacci Retracement of the rally from the early 2013 breakout level to the 2015 high

And while our analysis identified significant potential support, there were 2 things that suggested to us that, sooner or later, that “must hold” level would fail to hold. First, the NYSE had tested that level already in August and September, holding successfully. That event had likely “softened” up the potential support at the 9600 level.

Secondly, earlier in the week, on January 6, we witnessed what we considered to be a key day in the market as a number of major indices suffered consequential breakdowns. The levels broken by those indices were similar in nature to the one being tested by the NYSE. Thus, we concluded “we would not be surprised to see the level hold again, temporarily…before eventually failing as other indices are doing.” Well, the NYSE’s attempt to hold lasted a whole 3 days before the 9600 area broke.

We identified the next major potential downside support level to be around 8575, which was another 10% of risk below there. The NYSE got as low as 8938 – in about 3 days –, a drop of nearly 7%, before bouncing on January 20. In late January, the NYSE rallied back up to test the “must hold” 9600 level, failing in its attempt. After testing the January low again last week, the index is back to test the 9600 level again.

 

image

 

The reaction of this  broad market index at this level could be key for the stock market as a whole. In our view, the market is likely in the early stages of a cyclical bear market. However, in the intermediate-term, should the NYSE (and similar indices) find success in overcoming their respective “must hold” levels which they broke in early January, it could buy them some time, and upside, in the immediate-term.

If the NYSE successfully reclaims the 9600 area, we could see another possible 7% of upside in the index over the intermediate-term prior to a potential new leg down. Of course, if the index fails here, that 8575 area remains at risk. This will be a development that we’ll be monitoring closely for tactical investment guidance in the near-term.

*  *  *

More from Dana Lyons, JLFMI and My401kPro.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1QrT8bA Tyler Durden

Sex-Trafficking Arrests on the Rise, But Conviction Numbers Are Still Small

In the first part of a new Department of Justice-funded study, we learned that state laws ratcheting up criminal penalties for human trafficking have no impact on the number of trafficking arrests or prosecutions in the state. The second part of the study looks at what happens to those who are arrested under state or federal anti-trafficking laws—a population that included 3,225 people from 2003 through 2012. 

Sex-Trafficking Arrests Rise While Labor-Trafficking Arrests Fall

During this period, researchers noted “a strong upward trend in the number of arrests for human trafficking” in the U.S., with arrests for sex trafficking far outnumbering labor-trafficking arrests. The combined number of federal and state arrests for (all) human-trafficking offenses skyrocketed over this period, from 41 arrests in 2003 to 686 in 2012.

Labor-trafficking arrests actually rose and then dropped dramatically over these years, according to researchers, going from nine arrests in 2003 to a peak of 88 arrests in 2009, then down to just 24 by 2012. The number of sex-trafficking arrests, however, jumped from 17 in 2003 to 226 arrests in 2009 and then continued steadily upward, with 567 arrests for sex-trafficking offenses in 2012.

Arrests Far Outpace Prosecutions

Throughout the study period, the number of arrests for human trafficking of any kind far outpaced the number of human trafficking prosecutions by state or federal law enforcement.

Of the 686 trafficking suspects arrested in 2012, for instance, 52 percent had all trafficking-related charges dismissed prior to adjudication. Of the 579 people arrested in 2010, 48 percent had all trafficking-related charges dismissed. In 2008, it was 68 percent.

In 2003, just seven human trafficking suspects wound up prosecuted on human trafficking charges, although 90 percent were ultimately prosecuted for some other offense. 

State Data on Traffickers

Researchers looked in more detail at state-level human trafficking suspects from 2003 through 2012. To identify these suspects, they relied on their own searching and a survey of state attorneys general, 90 percent of whom replied. A majority of the attorneys general reported that no human trafficking cases had been prosecuted in their state. 

Ultimately, 589 people charged with a state human trafficking offense were identified, representing about 18 percent of all human trafficking charges over the 10-year period. 

Researchers were able to obtain court records for 479 suspects. Fully half had been charged under a state law regarding both labor and commercial sex, and most of the others were charged under sex-trafficking specific statutes. Only two percent were charged under a law specifically addressing labor trafficking. Thirty-three percent of the cases involved suspects charged under laws specific to sex trafficking of a minor, while 14 percent were under laws regarding sex trafficking of an adult. 

More than three-quarters of all trafficking suspects were male, while 21 percent of those arrested were female. The gender imbalance was slightly more pronounced for labor trafficking, where just 10 percent of suspects were women. The average age of all suspects was 32 years old. 

After the Arrest

In the 409 cases where final info was available, 52 percent of those arrested on state human trafficking charges subsequently saw these charges dismissed. Thirty-five percent of state suspects ultimately pled guilty, while 13 percent took their chances at trial. 

Broken down by charge: 

  • Labor-trafficking specific charges—a group that included just 10 suspects—were dismissed 70 percent of the time. Two suspects pled guilty, and one was found guilty at trial. 
  • General human trafficking charges—a group that included 224 suspects—were dismissed 63 percent of the time. Twenty-seven of these cases resulted in guilty pleas. Seven percent of suspects were found guilty at trial, and three percent were found not guilty at trial. 
  • Juvenile sex-trafficking charges—a group that included 150 suspects—were dismissed 48 percent of the time. Thirty-nine percent of suspects plead guilty, 11 percent were found guilty at trial, and two percent were found not guilty at trial. 
  • Sex-trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion charges—a group that included 51 suspects—were dismissed 41 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent of suspects plead guilty, 18 percent were found guilty at trial, and six percent were found not guilty at trial. 

“When cases do go to trial,” researchers noted, “defendants face significantly more severe penalties than when cases are adjudicated through a guilty plea.”

The average prison sentence for those who plead guilty to any human trafficking offense was about five years and four months, but the average sentence for those found guilty at trial was nearly 23 years (both totals include time sentenced under human trafficking and any corresponding charges). Those who plead guilty to sex trafficking a minor got an average of four years and six months in prison, while those found guilty at trial were sentenced to an average of 29 years.

In cases where the information was available, 67 percent of human trafficking suspects were represented by public defenders. Those represented by public counsel were more likely to be convicted on trafficking charges than those who had private counsel (47 percent versus 34 percent). 

Pimping and Prostitution Charges Common

Although human trafficking suspects were convicted of trafficking charges just 45 percent of the time, they were convicted of some state crime in 72 percent of the cases studied. This is because human trafficking suspects were initially charged with an average of five state offenses. The offenses most likely to accompany human-trafficking charges were pimping and prostitution. 

Forty-one percent of those charged with human trafficking were also charged with pimping. Thirty-two percent were also charged with prostitution, and 29 percent were also charged with sexual abuse. 

Other accompanying charges included kidnapping (in 18 percent of cases), compelling prostitution (8 percent) assault (six percent), false imprisonment (5 percent), conspiracy (5 percent), child abuse (3 percent), and drug possession or distribution (3 percent).

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1ReB7e2
via IFTTT

How to Fix ‘One of the Most Segregated Public School Systems In the Nation’

International Charter School of New York |||

New York is “home to the largest and one of the most segregated public school systems in the nation,” noted an influential 2014 report from UCLA’s Civil Right’s Project. New York City’s Department of Education, which serves about a million kids, has been experimenting with different strategies to bring more diversity to its system, including a new pilot program that will allow seven schools to set aside seats for English learners, low-income students, and children whose families are on welfare.

A story about the new program that appeared in The New York Times on Tuesday included the mixed reaction of one parent who fears these set asides could take a spot away from his child:

The idea of keeping the school diverse “totally jibes with my politics,” said Mark Schwartz, the owner of a liquor store in Prospect-Lefferts Garden, Brooklyn, who also has a kindergartner at the school. “But what if it means we lose out on this opportunity?”

What the story doesn’t mention is that there are a growing number of charter schools that have made diversity part of their core mission. These schools specifically recruit and weight their admissions processes to ensure a mix of kids from different backgrounds. An advantage to this approach is that charters aren’t assigned to a geographical area, so parents who moved to a neighborhood for access to a local school are less likely to feel resentful.

And if parents make the choice to send their kids to diverse schools, they’re more likely to be on board with that mission. “Diversity is something that everybody should value, but if you force parents to value it then they don’t,” says Matthew Levey, who’s the executive director of the International Charter School of New York (ICS), which specifically targets diversity in its recruitment process.

I recently profiled ICS for Reason TV and looked at how rezoning traditional district schools to promote diversity can stoke resentment. Watch that video below:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/215kTMh
via IFTTT

A Furious Turkey Says US Is “Acting Like An Enemy,” Demands Washington Brand Kurds “Terrorists”

As you might have noticed, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is about to lose his mind with the situation in Syria.

To be sure, the effort to usurp the Bashar al-Assad government wasn’t exactly going as planned in the first place. Regime change always takes time, but the conflict in Syria was dragging into its fifth year by the time the Russians got directly involved and although it did indeed look as though the SAA was on the verge of defeat, the future of the rebellion was far from certain.

But to whatever extent the rebels’ fate was up in the air before September 30, the cause was dealt a devastating blow when Moscow’s warplanes began flying sorties from Latakia and while Ankara and Riyadh were initially willing to sit on the sidelines and see how things played out, once Russia and Hezbollah encircled Aleppo, it was do or die time. The supply lines to Turkey were cut and without a direct intervention by the rebels’ Sunni benefactors, Moscow and Hassan Nasrallah’s army would ultimately move in on Aleppo proper and that, as they say, would be that.

The problem for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar is optics. That is, everything anyone does in Syria has to be justified by an imaginary “war on terror.” Turkey can’t say it’s intervening to keep the rebels from being defeated by the Russians, and similarly, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, France and everyone else needs to preserve the narrative and pretend as though this all doesn’t boil down to the West and the Sunnis versus the Russians and the Shiites.

Here’s what we said earlier this month: somehow, Turkey and Saudi Arabia need to figure out how to spin an attack on the YPG and an effort to rescue the opposition at Aleppo as an anti-ISIS operation even though ISIS doesn’t have a large presence in the area.

Well it turns out that’s an impossible task and so, Turkey has resorted to Plan B: a possible false flag bombing and the old “blame the Kurds” strategy.

The attack on military personnel in Ankara this week was claimed by The Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (an offshoot of the PKK) in retaliation for Turkey’s aggressive campaign in Cizre (as documented here), but Erdogan has taken the opportunity to remind the world that the PKK and the YPG are largely synonymous. That is, they’re both armed groups of non-state actors and if one is a terrorist organization, then so is the other. 

Erdogan’s anti-Kurd stance is complicated immeasurably by the fact that both the US and Russia support the YPG out of sheer necessity. The group has proven especially adept at battling ISIS and has secured most of the border with Turkey. As we noted way back in August, it was inevtiable that Washington and Ankara would come to blows over the YPG. After all, the US only secured access to Incirlik by acquiescing to Erdogan’s crackdown on the PKK, but some of the missions the US was flying from Turkey’s air base were in support of the YPG. The whole thing was absurd from the very beginning.

Well now, Turkey is not only set to use the fight against the YPG as an excuse to intervene in Syria on behalf of the Sunni rebels battling to beat back the Russian and Iranian advance, but Ankara is also demanding that the US recognize the YPG as a terrorist group. If Washington refuses, “measure will be taken.” 

“If the Unites States is really Turkey’s friend and ally, then they should recognize the PYD — a Syrian branch of the PKK — as a terrorist organization. If a friend acts as an enemy, then measures should be taken, and they will not be limited to the Incirlik Airbase, Turkey has significant capabilities,” Erdogan advisor Seref Malkoc told Bugun newspaper.

So yeah. Turkey just threatened the US. It’s notable that Malkoc specifically said actions would go “beyond Incirlik,” because pulling access to the base would be the first thing any regional observers would expect from Ankara in the event of a spat with Washington. For Turkey to say that measures will go beyond that, opens the door for Erdogan to become openly hostile towards his NATO allies. 

The only thing we expect from our U.S. ally is to support Turkey with no ifs or buts,” PM Ahmet Davutoglu told a news conferenceon Saturday.”If 28 Turkish lives have been claimed through a terrorist attack we can only expect them to say any threat against Turkey is a threat against them.”

In other words, Turkey is explicitly asking the US to support Ankara’s push to invade Syria and not only that, Erdogan wants Washington to sanction attacks on the YPG which the US has overtly armed, trained, and funded. “The disagreement over the YPG risks driving a wedge between the NATO allies at a critical point in Syria’s civil war,” Reuters wrote on Saturday. “On Friday, a State Department spokesman told reporters Washington would continue to support organizations in Syria that it could count on in the fight against Islamic State – an apparent reference to the YPG.

Right. “Washington will continue to support organizations in Syria that it can count on in the fight against Islamic State.” So we suppose that means the US will support Russia. And Iran. And Hezbollah. But most certainly not Turkey, who is the biggest state sponsor of the Islamic State on the face of the planet.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/21gBhpH Tyler Durden

The World Is Red

Authored by GlobalGold's Claudio Grass, via Acting-Man.com,

With a Gloomy Start to 2016, a Bust Seems just Around the Corner

Markets have corrected substantially since the beginning of the year as most of the gains of the past two years have been erased. According to Bloomberg, 40 out of the largest 63 markets have dropped over 20%. The image below shows the performance of markets word-wide since their most recent peaks. Most markets are in a bear market phase or are at best experiencing a strong correction. The world is red!

Where do global markets stand?

 

1-world_red

A heat map of global stock markets by Bloomberg – click to enlarge.

China’s economy is slowing down and oil prices have slumped to a new multi-year low. Is this the bust phase of the cycle that started in 2008? In our ‘Clean Slate’ report about Austrian Business Cycle Theory, we explained that there appear to be short-term cycles in operation, which last approximately 7 years, but also long-term cycles with a duration of around 50 years.

Those familiar with the bible are aware of the term “jubilee”, which signifies the end of a 50-year long-term debt cycle, when all outstanding debts are annulled and slaves are freed. But before the “jubilee” of our time happens, things are likely to get worse. Governments are apt to take measures that will constrain our liberties further. Their objective is to maintain an artificially centralized system by force – however, eventually this system will fall apart.

Past recessions, such as the oil shock of 1973, the double-dip recession of 1980-81, the stock market crash in 1987, the bond market crash in 1994, the dot-com bubble’s demise in 2001 or the 2008 financial crisis were all busts operating within short-term cycles. We believe that we are approaching the end of the current 7-year cycle.

In a report we published at the end of 2014, we expected a sharp correction in equities (and other inflated assets) within two-to-three years, and it appears we may have been right. Although we have reason to believe that we will not witness a hard landing of international markets in 2016, we are convinced that the bust of our current money-printing induced cycle will come very soon.

 

China’s Slowdown is no Surprise

Many believe a slump in China’s economy will be the start of a chain reaction that will take the world into the next global recession. Global investor Felix Zulauf believes that the slowdown in China will present a threat similar to the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the last financial crisis. One can imagine the potential global impact of such an event.

The emerging crisis in China is a logical consequence of the long boom of the past 20 years. In 2010 China registered GDP growth of 10.4%. Only a couple of years later this growth rate has deteriorated to an estimated 6.9%. We don’t necessarily believe in government statistics – especially those provided by China – and we assume that the growth rate is in reality much lower.

The problem is not the deceleration itself, but the reason for the deceleration: the boom was not characterized by consumer demand growth, but rather by investment growth. Many of these investments wouldn’t have been undertaken without debt accumulation and an expansionary monetary policy. The chart below shows the exponential growth of the money supply and bank lending in China.

 

2-china_banks_loans_2001_2015

Growth of China’s broad money supply aggregate M2 and bank loans since 2001 – click to enlarge.

 

It was Chinese investment (50% of GDP) and rather than consumption (40% of GDP), which has driven this lengthy, enormous boom. The Chinese invested in excess: excess real estate, excess infrastructure construction and excess manufacturing. Real estate-related activity, including related industries such as steel, cement, etc. represents 25-30% of GDP!

The erection of all this overcapacity went hand in hand with staggering credit growth. China’s policymakers have set a credit bubble in motion with the overall debt-to-GDP ratio estimated to have climbed to more than 240% in 2015 from a mere 160% in 2007.

 

3-china_debt_gdp_2005_2015

China’s astonishing debt binge

 

The recent slowdown will have consequences for both China’s domestic market and the world at large. A recession or massively lower growth rates and a halt in industrial development appear likely in China. Against the backdrop of a weaker renminbi, imports to China will decline while Chinese exports will become cheaper.

International markets will be challenged by cheap Chinese exports. More problematic though are capital outflows: China’s total capital outflows have climbed to USD 1 trillion in 2015, a number that is growing along with negative investor sentiment on the Chinese economy. China’s government is trying to support its currency by deploying its foreign exchange reserves, which have dropped to USD 3.23 trillion, according to Bloomberg the first annual decline recorded since 1992.

This creates the threat of China “exporting deflation”. A particularly strong impact on already heavily indebted economies such as the U.S., Europe and Japan would have to be expected. We believe that central banks will fight price deflation by any means possible. Central banks, including the Fed, are therefore likely to keep interest rates low, or may increasingly resort to imposing negative interest rates.

Yes, we all should be concerned – but we definitely should not be surprised. As Steen Jakobsen has put it:

“China is the easy scapegoat, but seriously if anyone is surprised about China’s growth slow-down and its needs to buy time for changing its economic mix-up, they need their school money back.”

China’s slowdown is just confirming what should be obvious: bubbles driven by credit expansion are bound to burst.

 

The Decline in Oil Prices may be More Meaningful than Previously Thought

The world is also concerned about a major industrial commodity: crude oil. The oil price recently broke briefly below USD 30, to the lowest level in more than a decade. Everyone is wondering what this means, and whether the price will go even lower. According to former Congressman and freedom activist, Dr. Ron Paul, the slump in oil prices has major implications for the international economy. It signifies the end of an era – a potential paradigm shift in the international monetary system that we’ve known since Nixon closed the Gold Window. As Ron Paul remarks:

“The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or euros. The sooner the better.”

 

4-WTIC crude, April 2016

WTI crude, April 2016 futures contract – there have been two dips below the $30 level recently – click to enlarge.

 

Let me take this opportunity to talk more about Ron Paul’s perspective: The U.S. dollar became the world’s premier reserve currency with the implementation of the Bretton Woods system after WW 2. In 1971, Richard Nixon closed the Gold Window to stop pressure on the Treasury’s gold reserves, as an increasing number of foreign countries, most notably France, began converting dollars into gold.

The closing of the Gold Window meant that governments could no longer convert dollars into gold at the promised fixed exchange rate which implied declining demand for dollars and accordingly a weaker dollar on world markets. This was of course unacceptable to the U.S., government. So it needed to create demand for the dollar and motivate countries to hold and use dollars.

This is where oil comes into play. Oil became the commodity that would guarantee strong international demand for the dollar. And this guarantee was achieved by a classic political-strategic alliance with mutual benefits between the US and Saudi Arabia, the holder of the largest oil reserves and leading OPEC member. This was a milestone for US interests; in essence the era of the petrodollar has allowed the US government and its citizens “to live beyond their means”, according to Dr. Paul.

Americans managed to live beyond their means, as their government felt comfortable to pursue an expansionary monetary policy (after all, who would not need to buy oil?), which in turn encouraged American citizens to accumulate more and more debt and consume aggressively.

 

nixon-2

Richard Nixon: his decision to default on the gold-dollar convertibility promise gave birth to the completely unanchored fiat money system still in place today – which has led to a historically unique explosion in global debt.

What we have now is an entire monetary system essentially built on a political alliance, an alliance that is currently on shaky grounds for a number of reasons, including growing instability in the Middle East. This system may well be on the verge of collapse, and if it does collapse, a major factor underpinning dollar demand will be gone. As a result, the dollar could lose its status as an international reserve currency.

Domestically, peoples’ wealth would be severely impaired in this case. How so? The government would likely resort to desperate measures: capital controls, wealth confiscation, price and wage controls, the nationalization of pension plans, etc. The dollar’s fate is closely linked to oil and the petrodollar system. Its failure would threaten the wealth of American citizens, who would find it difficult to protect themselves against a state that is no longer able to finance itself with ease.

 

The Euro Zone Crisis Keeps Festering

The euro zone remains in crisis conditions – not only because of the refugee crisis, which will most likely accelerate due to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, but also due to weak oil prices. More people are bound to flee their home countries. The open-border policy of the “Schengen Area” is collapsing and certain countries in Europe have already begun to reintroduce national border controls, which are opposed by Brussels.

Economic growth is nowhere to be seen and in real terms investment in the euro zone has fallen tremendously since 2008. The ECB has announced that it will inject as much liquidity as needed and is purchasing all sorts of bonds (sovereign bonds, agency bonds, ABS and covered bonds). Constant redistribution from the northern to the southern nations is necessary to keep the euro zone together.

 

come and go

Some leave, some stay …

This, in combination with a possible exit of the U.K. From the EU, could be the trigger that will tear the euro zone apart. Therefore, we expect to eventually see a flight out of the euro, as a logical consequence of all these uncertainties. The idea of a centralized plan for Europe has failed and until it actually does fall apart, wealth redistribution from the North to the South is bound to go on and will continue to undermine the middle class.

 

We are Approaching a Great Shift

With a global slowdown triggered by China, and the potential demise of the petrodollar system, we believe that the game is changing fundamentally, and with it, the rules. We expect the bust to begin in the foreseeable future, but not necessarily in 2016. However, we are certainly getting closer to a great shift: a crisis of the monetary system that may pave the way for a free market economy and a transformation of the global currency system. The crisis is inevitable. Ludwig von Mises said:

“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

Many investors and individuals fear the words “bust” and “recession” and their implications. What will happen before we hit rock-bottom? The answer is simple: massive defaults and deflation. Asset prices that have been propped up with artificially created liquidity are going to correct massively. Economies will temporarily come to a standstill.

That will leave us with one of two options: 1) attempt another temporary fix, which will not solve the root of the problem, but only postpone the inevitable bust that will then hit even harder than it would now; and, 2) accept and endure the “correction”. The correction needs to be seen as something positive, as it will correct the mismanagement and mistakes of the boom and rectify the associated imbalances. This correction is inevitable anyway and has been a long time coming.

Even the Bank of International Settlement has come out in support of this view in a 2013/14 report:

“To return to sustainable and balanced growth, policies need to go beyond their traditional focus on the business cycle and take a longer-term perspective – one in which the financial cycle takes center stage. They need to address head-on the structural deficiencies and resource misallocations masked by strong financial booms and revealed only in the subsequent busts. The only source of lasting prosperity is a stronger supply side. It is essential to move away from debt as the main engine of growth.”

Since 2008, total credit has increased from USD 140 trillion to USD 200 trillion. USD 60 trillion have been artificially created by central banks worldwide to bail out the banking system. It is clear that nothing has helped to truly rectify the situation – all this money was only a temporary fix to avoid what should have happened in the first place: enduring the painful but urgently needed “correction”. It is gratifying to see that more and more people are coming to understand how flawed the current system is.

 

5-global debt

Global debt-to-GDP ratios by sectors and countries, as of Q1 2015

 

Timing is always the big uncertainty. As we have mentioned above, we believe interest rates will stay low. The Fed has only increased its administered interest rate by 0.25% so as to fool the masses into believing that the situation is normalizing, with the aim of keeping them invested in paper securities. Once people realize that we will not see higher interest rates in the future, they may start shifting into hard assets. These have stronger potential upside in such an environment, as they no longer have to compete against yield, and are scarce compared to paper and computer digits created out of nothing.

Regarding equity markets, we believe that volatility in financial markets will continue to be elevated, however based on the actual price/earnings ratio of the S&P 500, stocks do not seem to be extremely overvalued yet. At the moment, the ratio is about 20 and in 2001 we stood at 45 and in 2008 at 28 – so there may still be some room for equity markets to move higher. We cannot rule out a possible recovery of the stock market in the near future. However, we believe people should use this as an opportunity to prepare for the worst.

 

Are You Prepared for the Bust?

In a number of countries policymakers appear to have realized some time ago already that the dollar is just an artificial currency that is not backed by any tangible value. And even though practically everyone has been stuck in this artificial monetary system, they sought to support their countries with the highest quality asset out there: Gold! Central banks seem well aware of the need to prepare for a downturn and have been active buyers of the metal,building up their gold reserves, particularly since 2010. China and Russia have been the top buyers up to early 2015.

 

6-Central Bank Gold Demand

Central bank gold demand over the past decade, net

 

We are convinced that 2016 will be a good year for gold. It is possible that the price of gold might come down in the next couple of months, however several trustworthy gold analysts that we follow see upside of around 20% for gold in the second half of the year. We also find the acceleration of physical demand for gold and silver coins, especially in the retail market, such as in the U.S., Germany, but also in Switzerland, very interesting. It shows that more and more people understand that gold and silver act as protectors of property rights and that current prices are very attractive.

Gold is not only an inflation hedge. Even in a deflationary environment people will want to shift their investments to high quality assets with little or no counter-party risk. In short, it is a flight to quality and the hardest currency for the past few thousand years has been and still is gold. Conversely, in a boom, or inflationary environment, people will tend to move their money toward high-risk assets.

Today’s uncertain situation calls for capital preservation. Gold serves as a hedge in an uncertain economic environment with negative interest rates. In fact, gold is a better option than bond investments. In comparison to bonds, gold tends to be much more volatile, nevertheless it is the only asset without any form of counter-party risk and it has been considered valuable for millennia. Gold is an investment that takes one away from financial institutions and government intervention. In essence, it serves as protection from governments and the vagaries of financial markets. We cannot predict the future with certainty, but we can certainly prepare for it!

We would suggest one should begin to accumulate precious metals, as we are likely at the beginning of the next phase of the bull market. If you believe the system will crash, you need gold; or, if you believe that saving money makes sense because you don’t trust the government’s promises that it will take care of you in coming years, holding gold makes sense as well.

Gold is your insurance and you need to own it physically. We advise you to store some of your gold outside the jurisdiction you live in as your personal "Plan B."

 


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1KyvS9H Tyler Durden

Muslims Should Be Executed With Bullets Dipped In “Pig’s Blood,” Trump Says

Donald Trump has no filter – and that’s served him well.

Much to the chagrin of the GOP establishment and much to the horror of voters who believe America’s commander-in-chief should aspire to some modicum of political correctness, an endless stream vitriol emanates from Trump’s mouth and none of it, no matter how inflammatory, dents his poll numbers.

Over the last nine months, Trump has called Mexicans rapists, derided John McCain’s war record, accused Fox’s Megyn Kelly of asking unfair questions because she was “bleeding out of her wherever,” and called for a wholesale ban on Muslims. And his support has only grown. One anomalous WSJ poll released on Friday notwithstanding, Trump’s support at the national level among registered Republicans is unwavering with most forecasting a double-digit lead for the billionaire.

“I could go out into the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn’t lose voters,” Trump famously said.

Well on Friday, Trump took it up a notch in a rambling South Carolina speech that touched on a laundry list of seemingly unrelated topics from heroin to Haruhiko Kuroda to torture.

Is it torture or not? It’s so borderline,” he said, referring to waterboarding, which he claimssure he’ll bring back as president. “It’s like minimal, minimal, minimal torture.”

We’re not sure what “minimal” means in the context of “torture,” but Trump went on to explain that if America’s leaders would only get “tougher,” we wouldn’t have a terror problem.

What does Trump mean by “tougher,” you ask? Well for one thing, he likes the idea of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig’s blood. “He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump said, in an apparent reference to a myth about General John Pershing killing 49 Muslim prisoners in the Philippines. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, okay?

Okay.

He also suggested that if only the San Bernardino massacre had devolved into a shootout between Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik, and the dozens of public sector employees gathered for an office party, everyone would have been much safer. “If there were guns on the other side pointed at the other direction so the bullets are flying both ways you wouldn’t have had that happen,” he insisted. Well, yes, you would. Only instead of 2 people firing, you’d have 20.

While we certainly agree that on an individual level, being armed will improve your chances of survival in the event that you find yourself involved in a mass shooting, it’s not exactly clear why dozens of people firing handguns in all directions Wild West-style is a particularly desirable situation.

In any event it doesn’t matter. Trump is on a roll and in the eyes of his supporters he can do no wrong. 

It’s only a matter of time before terrorists come and start chopping Christian heads off in the United States,” Trump supporter Eleanor Crume, 72, told MSNBC.

Right. But not if Trump executes them with bullets dipped in pigs blood first.

(pig’s blood comments begin at 33:00)


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Om9k6D Tyler Durden

The Silver Age Of The Central Banker (Ends Badly)

Submitted by Ben Hunt via Salient Partner's Epsilon Theory blog,

For the past six plus years, ever since the Fed launched QE1 in March 2009, we have lived in an era I’ve described as the Golden Age of the Central Banker, where the dominant explanation for why market events occur as they do has been the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence. By that I don’t mean that central bankers are actually omnipotent in their ability to control real economic outcomes (far from it), but that most market participants have internalized a faith that central bankers are responsible for all market outcomes.

As a result, an entire generation of investors (we investors live in dog years) has come of age in a market where fundamental down is up and fundamental up is down. What’s the inevitable market reaction to real world bad news – any bad news, regardless of geography? Why, additional accommodation by the monetary Powers That Be, united in their common cause to inflate financial asset prices through large scale asset purchases, must surely be on the way. Buy, Mortimer, buy! During the Golden Age of the Central Banker, monetary policy is truly a movable feast for investors.

But the Golden Age of the Central Banker has now devolved into the Silver Age of the Central Banker, and monetary policy is no longer the surefire tonic for investors it was even a few months ago. In less poetic terms, the Coordination game that dominated the strategic interactions of central banks from March 2009 to June 2014 is now well and fully replaced by a Prisoner’s Dilemma game in the long run and a game of Chicken in the short run. As a result, monetary policy is now firmly a creature of each nation’s domestic politics, and the Narrative of Central Bank Omnipotence is in turn devolving into a Narrative of Central Bank Competition.

Why the structural change in the Great Game of the 21st century? Because this is what ALWAYS happens during periods of massive global debt, as the existential imperatives of domestic politics eventually come to dominate the logic of international economic cooperation. Because this is what ALWAYS happens when global trade volumes roll over and global growth becomes structurally challenged.

Yes, that’s right, global trade volumes – not just values, but volumes, not just in one geography, but everywhere – peaked in Q3 or Q4 2014 and have been in decline since. That’s pretty much the most important fact I could tell you about this or any other period in global economic history, and yet it’s a fact that I’ve never seen in a WSJ or FT article, never heard mentioned on CNBC.

Using WTO data on seasonally-adjusted quarterly merchandise export volume indices, as of Q3 2015 (the last data point from the WTO), the US is off 1% from peak export volumes, the EU is off 2% (this is EU exports to rest of world, not intra-EU), Japan is off 3%, and China + Hong Kong is off 5%. That’s through Q3. Working from global trade value data, converting to local currencies, and making some educated guesses about price elasticity to estimate Q4 2015 volumes, I’m thinking that the US is now off 3% from peak volumes, the EU is off 2.5%, Japan is off 5%, and China + Hong Kong is off 7%.

Now those numbers probably don’t seem very large to you, and certainly in the Great Recession those numbers got a lot larger (about an 18% peak-to-trough decline in worldwide export volumes from Q2 2008 to Q2 2009). But it’s incredibly rare to see any sort of decline in export volumes, particularly a decline that’s shared by every major economy on Earth. In fact, you don’t get numbers like this unless you’re already in a recession.

For example, here’s a chart of quarterly US export data since 1993. Now this chart is showing total value of US exports, not volumes of US exports, but you get the idea. Over the past 20+ years, we’ve never had a peak-to-trough decline in exports like we’re seeing today that wasn’t part of a full-blown recession, and we’re getting close to a decline in values (but not in volumes) that rivals what we saw in the Great Recession. The next time someone tells you that there’s a 10% or 20% chance of a recession in the US in 2016, show them this chart. Export growth is THE swing factor in GDP calculations. I don’t care how consumer-driven your economy might be, it is next to impossible for a real economy to expand when your exports are contracting like this. The truth is that we are already in a recession in the US, and this notion that you can somehow divorce the overall US economy from the obvious recession that’s happening in anything related to global trade (industrials, energy, manufacturing, transportation, etc.) just drives me nuts. Yes, it’s a “mild recession” or an “earnings recession” (choose your own qualifier) because the decline in export values (i.e., profits and margins) has only started to show up as a decline in export volumes (i.e., economic activity and jobs). But it’s here. And it’s getting worse.

 

 
This is the root of pretty much all macroeconomic evils. If global trade volumes in Asia, the US, and Europe are contracting simultaneously, then global growth is contracting on a structural basis. Global contraction in trade volumes everywhere is exactly as rare as a nationwide decline in US home prices, and it’s exactly as mispriced from a risk perspective. The 2007-2009 nationwide decline in US home prices blew up trillions of dollars in AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed securities. A continued contraction in Asian, US, and European trade volumes will blow up whatever vestiges of monetary policy cooperation remain, and that’s a far bigger deal than US RMBS.
 
When global trade volumes contract, the domestic political pressure to raise protectionist barriers and seize a larger slice of a smaller trade pie becomes unbearable. That was true in the 1930s when protectionist policies took the form of tariffs and quotas, and it’s true today as protectionist policies take the form of currency devaluation and negative interest rates.
 
Here’s why. In Q4 of 2015, the value of German exports as measured in euros was actually up 0.5% over Q4 of 2014. But over the same time span the euro depreciated versus the dollar by more than 10%. As a result, the value of German exports as measured in dollars from Q4 2014 to Q4 2015 was also down more than 10%. But domestic German economic activity doesn’t take place in dollars, of course, it takes place in euros. In other words, the export-oriented sectors of the German economy felt okay in 2015, at least from a domestic political perspective. But if you had not enjoyed that euro depreciation against the dollar, German exports would have felt terrible, and there would have been significant domestic political consequences. We would all be reading today about “the industrial slowdown in Germany”, with scads of articles in the FT about how Merkel’s regime was losing popular support.
 
To be sure, the depreciation of the euro versus the dollar made everything that Germany imported that much more expensive. So this isn’t necessarily some profits windfall for German exporters, and if you’re the German equivalent of Walmart it’s a big problem. I’ve read a number of economists and analysts (not so much in regards to Germany but definitely in regards to China) say that this economic downside serves as an effective deterrent against rampant and competitive devaluations. Unfortunately, that’s pure nonsense.
 
Thinking of national governments as just another big company (or, in slightly more academic terms, conflating national competitiveness with private sector profit margins) is a classic mistake that investors and economists make when they analyze politics. Neither the German government nor the Bundesbank care about corporate profit margins! They care about economic activity. They care about keeping the factories running, with real people making real things that can be sold in the real world. A depreciating currency is, by an order of magnitude, the most effective weapon in any modern government’s arsenal for keeping the factories running, and when global trade starts to contract this weapon will be employed by any means necessary, regardless of the P&L consequences for the private sector. That includes the P&L consequences for the banks, by the way.
 
Now everything I just wrote about the domestic political dynamics of Germany, multiply it by 10 for Japan. Multiply it by 100 for China. Both China’s export volumes and export values are declining, and no matter how much domestic credit and currency they pump in (and god knows they’ve tried), there is no possible way to stimulate the domestic economy enough to pick up the slack from a declining export sector. This is a domestic political disaster, and getting those factories humming again is a domestic political imperative. At least if there’s a regime change in Germany, Merkel and Schäuble and Weidmann can all retire to their respective comfy chalets and pick up however many millions they like by hitting the speaker circuit. Somehow I doubt that those retirement options are available for senior Politburo members rousted in the middle of the night by a new Chinese regime. To get the factories hiring you need to sell more stuff. To sell more stuff you need to cut your prices. To cut your prices you need to devalue your currency. This is why China is going to float the yuan. Not because George Soros or Kyle Bass said they have to. Not even because their foreign reserves are by no means the fortress balance sheet they’re made out to be. No, China is going to float the yuan because they want to, because it’s clearly the winning move from a domestic political perspective.
 
Just like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was clearly the winning move from a domestic political perspective in 1930. Just like the anti-free trade diatribes by both the Republican and Democratic presidential frontrunners are clearly the winning moves from a domestic political perspective in 2016. This is … ummm … not good.
 
It’s not good because these winning moves from a domestic political perspective do not occur in an international vacuum. To the degree that these monetary policy decisions impact other countries – and when global trade volumes are shrinking these decisions impact other countries a lot – other countries are going to respond with their own “winning” moves from a domestic political perspective, and before long you have a competitive death spiral of monetary policy decisions that sound good when you’re making the decisions, but end up putting everyone in a worse position and shrinking the global trade pie even further. 
 
But, Ben, our monetary policy leaders aren’t stupid. They know what happened in the 1930s just as well as you do. Don’t they see that there is a strategic interaction at work here – a game, in the formal sense of the word – that requires them to take into account other leaders’ decision-making within their own decision-making process, understanding (and this is the crucial bit for game theory) that the other leaders are making exactly the same sort of contingent policy evaluations?
 
Yes, of course the Fed can see that there’s a strategic interaction here, and of course they’re playing the game as best as they can. But they’re playing the wrong game. They’re still playing a Coordination Game, which is ALWAYS the game that’s played in the immediate aftermath of a global crisis like a Great War or a Great Recession. They have yet to adopt the strategies necessary for a Competition Game, which is ALWAYS the game that’s played after you survive the post-apocalyptic period.
 
Here’s what a Coordination Game looks like in the typical game theoretic 2×2 matrix framework. If you want to read more about this look up the “Stag Hunt” game on Wikipedia or the like. It’s an old concept, first written about by Rousseau and Hume, and more recently explored (brilliantly, I think) by Brian Skyrms. 
 
Fig. 1 Coordination Game (Stag Hunt)

 
The basic idea here is that each player can choose to either cooperate (hunt together for a stag, in Rousseau’s example) or defect (hunt independently for a rabbit, in Rousseau’s example), but neither player knows what the other player is going to choose. If you defect, you’re guaranteed to bag a rabbit (so, for example, if the Row Player chooses Defect, he gets 1 point regardless of Column Player’s choice), but if you cooperate, you get a big deer if the other player also cooperates (worth 2 points to both players) and nothing if the other player defects. There are two Nash equilibria for the Coordination Game, marked by the blue ovals in the figure above. A Nash equilibrium is a stable equilibrium because once both players get to that outcome, neither player has any incentive to change his strategy. If both players are defecting, both will get rabbits (bottom right quadrant), and neither player will change to a Cooperate strategy. But if both players are cooperating, both will share a stag (top left quadrant), and neither player will change to a Defect strategy, as you’d be worse off by only getting a rabbit instead of sharing a stag (the other player would be even more worse off if you switched to Defect, but you don’t care about that).
 
The point of the Coordination Game is that mutual cooperation is a stable outcome, so long as the payoffs from defecting are always less than the payoff of mutual cooperation. This is exactly the payoff structure we got in the aftermath of a Great Recession, as global trade volumes increased across the board, and every country could enjoy greater benefits from monetary policy coordination than by going it alone. As a result we got every politician and every central banker in the world – Missionaries, in game theory parlance – wagging their fingers at us and telling us how to think about the truly extraordinary monetary policies all countries adopted in unison.

 
But when global trade volumes begin to shrink, the payoffs from monetary policy defection are no longer always less than the payoff of monetary policy cooperation, and we get a game like this. 
 
Fig. 2 Competition Game (Prisoner’s Dilemma)

 
Here, the payoff from defecting while everyone else continues to cooperate is no longer a mere 1 point rabbit, but is a truly extraordinary payoff where you get the “free rider” benefits of everyone else’s cooperation AND you go out to get a rabbit on your own. It’s essentially the payoff that Europe and Japan got in 2015 by seeing the euro and the yen depreciate against the dollar, and it’s the payoff that China hopes it can get through yuan devaluation in 2016. Ultimately, every country sees where this is going, and so every country stops cooperating and starts defecting, even though every country is worse off in the end, as no one gets the +3 payoff once everyone starts defecting. To make matters worse, the “everyone defect” outcome of the bottom right quadrant is a Nash equilibrium – the only Nash equilibrium in a Competition Game like the Prisoner’s Dilemma – meaning that once you get to this point you are well and truly stuck until you have another crisis that forces you back into the survival mode of a Coordination Game. Sigh.
 
Look, I understand why the Fed (and for that matter, important constituencies in the PBOC and ECB) want to keep playing the Coordination Game even when the writing is on the wall for a change in the game payoffs. It’s a much “nicer” game, where you’re baking a larger economic pie and everyone can be better off than they were before. Also (not to get too tinfoil hat-ish about all this), it’s the sort of game that academics and the Davos crowd love to play, as it allows them to gather in tony enclaves, congratulate each other on their intellectual prowess and service to mankind, and tut-tut about those pesky elections and benighted masses. Put in a less snarky way, the IMF and similar entities have an existential stake in promoting the Coordination Game. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
 
But it’s no accident that everything, from exchange rates to commodity prices to global trade volumes, started to go off the rails in Q3 of 2014. That was the start of monetary policy divergence – a $10 word that means competition – as Yellen’s Fed announced an outright tightening bias and Draghi’s ECB went in the polar opposite direction with balance sheet expansion and negative rates. And I’m sorry to say it, but once you leave the cozy confines of the mutual coordination Nash equilibrium, you can never go back. Instead, it’s an inexorable one-way street to the other Nash equilibrium, mutual defection. It’s just math. And human nature. I wouldn’t want to bet against that combination.
 

The Golden Age, per the original Greek myth, was an era of unblemished cooperation and great deeds. The Silver Age, on the other hand, was a pretty miserable time to be alive. Not as warlike as the Bronze Age, and not the war of all against all as in the Iron Age, but the spirit of the age was one of strife and competition. It ends badly. But it’s not a hopeless time. It’s a time to protect oneself and one’s family for the harder times to come, and it’s also a time to plant the seeds that will flourish when this cycle ends. What’s required is seeing the world for what it is, not what we might wish it to be. That’s not easy, whether you’re a central banker or a small investor, but it’s never been more important.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1SHNEK4 Tyler Durden

Did Twitter’s Orwellian ‘Trust and Safety’ Council Get Robert Stacy McCain Banned?

Robert Stacy McCainRemember a few days ago, when Twitter elevated anti-GamerGate leader Anita Sarkeesian to its “Trust and Safety Council,” an imperious-sounding committee with Robespierre-esque powers to police discussion on the social media platform? The goal, according to Twitter, was to make it easier for users to express themselves freely and safely.

One user who won’t be expressing himself at all is Robert Stacy McCain: a conservative journalist, blogger, self-described anti-feminist, and prominent GamerGate figure who was banned from Twitter on Friday night. Clicking on his page redirects to this “account suspended” message that encourages users to re-read Twitter’s policies on abusive behavior.

But as with other Twitter suspensions, it’s impossible to tell which specific policy McCain is accused of violating, or which of his tweets were flagged as abusive. McCain is an animated and uncompromising opponent of leftist views. His statements are extreme, and I don’t often agree with them, but I would be reluctant to label them as abusive (at least the ones I’ve seen).

In a response to his banning that is in many ways emblematic of his worldview and behavior, McCain explicitly blamed Sarkeesian and her crew:

This is why you can’t even state FACTS about these people on Twitter without being accused of “harassment.” Facts are harassment and truth is hate and Oceania Has Always Been at War With Eastasia. Sarkesian is anti-freedom because she is anti-truth. She and her little squad of soi-disant “feminists” are just hustlers looking for a free ride, and the only way they can get that ride is to silence anyone who speaks the truth about them and calls them out as the cheap bullshit artists they actually are.

McCain did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He concluded the above post with a statement, “fuck ‘social justice’.” He despises leftists and feminists, and doesn’t hold back his hate.

But there’s a difference between using strong language to disagree with people, and abusing them. If McCain has crossed that line, I’m not aware of it.

Twitter is a private company, of course, and if it wants to outlaw strong language, it can. In fact, it’s well within its rights to have one set of rules for Robert Stacy McCain, and another set of rules for everyone else. It’s allowed to ban McCain for no reason other than its bosses don’t like him. If Twitter wants to take a side in the online culture war, it can. It can confiscate Milo Yiannopoulos’s blue checkmark. This is not about the First Amendment.

But if that’s what Twitter is doing, it’s certainly not being honest about it—and its many, many customers who value the ethos of free speech would certainly object. In constructing its Trust and Safety Council, the social media platform explicitly claimed it was trying to strike a balance between allowing free speech and prohibiting harassment and abuse. But its selections for this committee were entirely one-sided—there’s not a single uncompromising anti-censorship figure or group on the list. It looks like Twitter gave control of its harassment policy to a bunch of ideologues, and now their enemies are being excluded from the platform.

Banning McCain wasn’t even Twitter’s only questionable activity last night. It seems that Twitter also suppressed the pro-McCain hashtag subsequently created by his supporters, #FreeStacy. After it started trending, Twitter made it so that the hashtag wouldn’t autocomplete when people typed it. “The #FreeStacy tag would be in the US top 10 now, but Twitter has scrubbed it,” wrote Popehat’s Patrick on Twitter.

Another Popehat author, Ken White, has been skeptical that Twitter’s censorship of certain conservative figures is actually coming from a place of malice. In response to Yiannopoulos getting de-verified, he wrote:

Big companies, even when run by ideologues, tend to make decisions like big companies, not like individuals. The decision-making looks less cinematic and more cynical. The focus tends to be on branding, but mostly on money-making, avoidance of unpleasantness, reduction of cost, and ease of use. Twitter’s line employees are almost certainly disproportionately liberal, and by assigning command-and-control of individual account decisions to them, the impact is probably that evaluations of abuse complaints will have a liberal bias. Similarly, if you make a corporate decision to police harassment (or at least pretend to), and the people doing the policing have a bias, then the results will have a bias. But that’s not the same as a deliberate decision to take sides; it’s a cost-driven, practicality-driven decision.

If Twitter wants to go full-on Ministry of Truth, it can. But its user have the right to raise hell about it—to call out the platform for punishing dissident alt-right figures while empowering their adversaries. I’m not convinced that’s what’s happening, but the exclusion of Robert Stacy McCain—a mere 10 days after the Trust and Safety council came into existence—is cause for concern.

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