Category: zerohedge

By EconMatters

Bonds, Stocks, Credit and Risk are all mispriced right now in Fed and Central Bank enabled financial markets – you can just see the money managers begging for the Fed not to hike rates on their enabled asses. A 4.7% unemployment rate and the Fed still cannot hike rates – 8 years is a complete business cycle folks.

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

via http://ift.tt/1Y6QEkK EconMatters

Hillary Clinton had a speech yesterday to discuss foreign policy, pardon, to stand at a podium and do nothing but criticize Donald Trump.

Clinton rattled off a bunch of random one-liners, which makes sense because the Clinton camp admitted earlier that it hadn't been able to determine just how to attack Donald Trump so it was simply going to try a bunch of things and see what caught on – yesterday was the ultimate platform for that strategy.

Criticisms leveled at Trump included things such as not wanting Trump to have access to the nuclear arsenal just in case "somebody got under his very thin skin", and belittling his actual foreign policy experience by calling it "dangerously incoherent", and saying "he says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia."

At one point Clinton said "Donald Trump's ideas are not just different, they are dangerously incoherent. They're not even ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies" which is all ironic if anyone watched the speech…

Trump's initial response was a quick ping on twitter…

Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 2, 2016

However later at a rally in San Jose, California (which turned nasty as anti-trump protesters resorted to violence against Trump supporters because… tolerance), Trump hit back at Hillary, and hit back hard.

"Hillary Clinton is missing 30,000 emails, they've been deleted. And remember I said I was a counter puncher, I am. After what she said about me today in her phony speech, it was a phony speech, that was a Donald Trump hit job. I will say this, Hillary Clinton has to go to jail ok, she has to go to jail. That was a phony hit job. She's guilty as hell."

"Remember Hillary Clinton used to hate Obama, she used to hate him. Bill Clinton hated him, Bill Clinton hated him. He called Bill Clinton a racist do you remember that? And Hillary Clinton hated Obama, now it's yes sir Mr. President sir, what would you like, what would you like me to say here sir?"

"The only reason she's behaving like this, and the only reason she's been dragged so far left, believe me, is she doesn't wanna go to jail over the emails ok. Believe me, that's the only reason – one simple reason."

* * *

Hillary just angered The Donald…

* * *

It also turns out that there are a lot of people interested in whether or not Hillary will be doing jail time as well…

 

via http://ift.tt/1WzuU1e Tyler Durden

Submitted by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

A report from Pew Research Center reveals that between the third quarter of 2000 and the same period of last year, wages across the U.S. rose by 7.4 percent in real terms, driven largely by the oil and gas industry.

Wages in energy-dependent communities rose by the most, in some cases more than twofold, such as in Texas. This shouldn’t be surprising as the period reviewed coincides with the peak of the shale boom in the country, even though it also covers two periods of recession.

But those positive effects are starting to disappear. The energy industry is cutting spending, and it has very little need for new personnel, to say the least. Even if crude rebounds to $60, which some analysts say will happen before the year’s end, E&Ps and their associates from oilfield services will most likely tread cautiously. The industry, in other words, is dealing with its very own depression and will hardly be able to continue to drive wage increases in the short- or medium-term.

Does it matter that the energy industry drove the wages increase between 2000 and 2015? Historically, yes. This is important data, revealing patterns and trends in the U.S. economy made possible by an unprecedented advance in oil and gas production. Does it matter for the future? Not really, besides perhaps in predictive modeling.

First of all, the data only covers the third quarter of every year until September 2015, to avoid the risk of having the calculations skewed because of seasonal wage patterns, as Pew Research explains. Secondly, and more importantly, the data used only focuses on those who are employed, therefore it doesn’t shed any light on downsizing policies, which have been an essential part of the energy industry’s coping mechanisms since mid-2014 and have certainly affected wage fluctuations. So the average wage might have increased, but fewer people may be employed. Wage data can’t capture these negative effects.

As of the start of February, layoffs in the U.S. energy industry had reached 100,000. The people who remained in employment may have continued to get fat paychecks, but there were a lot fewer of them. To add some scale, global energy industry layoffs have been calculated at a little over 350,000 since the start of the price rout. That’s a conservative estimate, but even so, U.S. energy layoffs accounted for almost a third of all job cuts in the industry as of February 2016.

E&Ps and oilfield service providers are planning more job cuts this year. In the wider economy, a survey from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that this April saw the highest unemployment numbers since 2009, at the height of what many now refer to as the Great Recession. That’s worrying, seeing as the U.S. economy is supposed to have largely recovered from the fallout.

Pew Research Center said that the wage growth trend observed between 2000 and 2015 was the greatest increase historically. This can only make the sting from the current depression in oil and gas sharper. And things are not exactly looking rosy for the future, either. The price of crude may be up, but the increase is not as substantial as the drop has been.

The Fed is preparing for the next interest rate hike, which could come as soon as this month. This will push up the dollar and most probably weigh on crude oil, which is internationally priced in the greenback, hence less attractive for buyers operating in other currencies. In short, $50 is the new $120 for oil.

In such an environment, the energy industry is in no position to maintain its place as the wage growth driver. On the contrary. At the moment, oil and gas production is driving layoffs and most likely wage cuts in a host of other industries, from steelmaking to real estate. It’s only logical: oil is the most abundant and most widely used commodity in the world. What happens in oil has a direct or indirect effect on pretty much every other industry. So when the oil domino falls, all the rest will follow.

via http://ift.tt/1ZkeBU6 Tyler Durden

After Puerto Rico defaulted on its $422 million debt payment in May, governor Padilla begged congress to step in and help out, which happened shortly thereafter when a House committee cleared legislation that provided Puerto Rico with a way forward on restructuring its debt.

As it turns out, on the day the House announced that it planned on taking up the Puerto Rico bill next week, a 17 member audit commission found that two debt issues worth $4.4 billion of the $72 billion in debt outstanding were unconstitutional.

Said otherwise, the government may now just declare the bonds invalid. It's a handy development for governor Padilla, since the two debt issues were expected to default on July 1. Also helpful is the fact that it would be one less item for Padilla to worry about since he proposed a budget for 2016-2017 that provides for only $209 million of the $1.4 billion in current debt service cost.

As MarketWatch explains

An audit report published on Thursday suggests that debt-laden Puerto Rico may be able to void some of its borrowing because politicians exceeded constitutional debt limits and their own authority.

 

The report, shared with MarketWatch, states that some of Puerto Rico’s debt may have been issued illegally, allowing the government to potentially declare the bonds invalid and courts to then decide that creditors’ claims are unenforceable. The scope of the audit report, issued by the island’s Public Credit Comprehensive Audit Commission, covers the two most recent full-faith-and-credit debt issues of the commonwealth: Puerto Rico’s 2014 $3.5 billion general-obligation bond offering and a $900 million issuance in 2015 of Tax Refund Anticipation Notes to a syndicate of banks led by J.P Morgan.

 

Money for those debt payments is not in the commonwealth’s proposed budget, either. On Tuesday Puerto Rico’s governor, Alejandro García Padilla, sent a proposed 2016-17 budget to the island’s legislature that provides for only $209 million of the $ 1.4 billion of current debt-service cost. As García Padilla told reporters at a news conference: “This is simple: either we pay Wall Street or we pay Puerto Ricans. If the legislature decides we pay Wall Street more, well, each has his responsibility. I will continue defending Puerto Ricans. Money I send to Wall Street, I do not have to provide services here.”

 

Puerto Rico defaulted May 1 on a portion of its $72 billion in outstanding debt, but the commission’s audit covers two debt issues expected to default on July 1. The report’s conclusions may allow the commonwealth to pursue a strategy with even more dire consequences for bondholders. The commission’s report says that Puerto Rico may have violated its constitution by borrowing to finance deficits, borrowing beyond its debt ceiling and using a refinancing technique called the “scoop and toss” to effectively exceed bond-duration limits.

Specifically the constitution contains a balanced-budget clause that explicitly prohibits borrowing to finance operating deficits.

The Puerto Rican constitution contains a balanced-budget clause that explicitly prohibits borrowing to finance operating deficits, but its politicians borrowed to cover deficit financing in its 2014 General Obligation Bond Offering, according to the commission’s initial review. The March 2014 General Obligation Bond states that the proceeds would be used in part to cover deficits that had accumulated and that were expected to occur in the year of the offering. The documents include a chart showing deficits financed with borrowing during the past and that were expected to recur.

 

In addition, Puerto Rico did not inform bondholders that its constitution forbids it from using debt to finance deficits. That, the commission’s report says suggests “substantive” noncompliance with the letter of the constitution.

The US courts have precedent for this argument in Litchfield v. Ballou, and most recently the argument was used by Detroit when it filed its bankruptcy, although that case was settled prior to trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in the Litchfield v. Ballou case and, more recently, in litigation related to Detroit’s bankruptcy that borrowing above a debt ceiling may allow the issuer to declare debt invalid and, therefore, unpayable. Detroit went to court to invalidate $1.45 billion in certificates of participation, debt issued by two shell companies called “service corporations.” The parties settled before the case went to trial, but, while refusing two initial proposed settlements, the judge stated that Detroit’s argument had “substantial merit” and that the suit would have had a “reasonable likelihood of success.”

 

Melissa B. Jacoby, a professor of law at the University of North Carolina who specializes in distressed debt, noted that the negotiations have been complicated by claims that certain bonds are special and have priority over debt held by other creditors. “But if some debt was issued illegally, then, at the very least, those creditors’ claims of priority are dramatically weakened,” said Jacoby. “Indeed, they would be lucky to get anything at all.”

* * *

If bondholders were angry with Puerto Rico before, they'll surely be pissed now that there is a reasonable chance that they'll end up with nothing at all. The Federal Reserve will be forced to buy Puerto Rico's debt in the future however, since, if this finding is upheld, credit markets will not be kind in the future.

Then again, maybe Goldman will invest in Eaglevale Partners and at least someone will be willing to invest in junk bonds.

via http://ift.tt/1VC5QWe Tyler Durden

Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Clinton to Paint Trump as a Risk to World Order.”

Thus did page one of Thursday’s New York Times tee up Hillary Clinton’s big San Diego speech on foreign policy.

Inside the Times, the headline was edited to underline the point:

“Clinton to Portray Trump as Risk to the World.”

The Times promoted the speech as “scorching,” a “sweeping and fearsome portrayal of Mr. Trump, one that the Clinton campaign will deliver like a drumbeat to voters in the coming months.”

What is happening here?

As Donald Trump is splitting off blue-collar Democrats on issues like America’s broken borders and Bill Clinton’s trade debacles like NAFTA, Hillary Clinton is trying to peel off independents and Republicans by painting Trump as “temperamentally unfit” to be commander in chief.

Clinton contends that a Trump presidency would be a national embarrassment, that his ideas are outside the bipartisan mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and that he is as contemptuous of our democratic allies as he is solicitous of our antidemocratic adversaries.

In portraying Trump as an intolerable alternative, Clinton will find echoes in the GOP establishment and among the Kristol-Kagan neocons, many of whom have already signed an open letter rejecting Trump.

William Kristol has recruited one David French to run on a National Review-Weekly Standard line to siphon off just enough votes from the GOP nominee to tip a couple of swing states to Clinton.

Robert Kagan contributed an op-ed to a welcoming Washington Post saying the Trump campaign is “how fascism comes to America.”

Yet, if Clinton means to engage on foreign policy, this is not a battle Trump should avoid. For the lady has an abysmal record on foreign policy and a report card replete with failures.

As senator, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to attack and invade a nation, Iraq, that had not attacked us and did not want war with us.

Clinton calls it her biggest mistake, another way of saying that the most important vote she ever cast proved disastrous for her country, costing 4,500 U.S. dead and a trillion dollars.

That invasion was the worst blunder in U.S. history and a contributing factor to the deepening disaster of the Middle East, from which, it appears, we will not soon be able to extricate ourselves.

As secretary of state, Clinton supported the unprovoked U.S.-NATO attack on Libya and joked of the lynching of Moammar Gadhafi, “We came. We saw. He died.”

Yet, even Barack Obama now agrees the Libyan war was started without advance planning for what would happen when Gadhafi fell. And that lack of planning, that failure in which Clinton was directly involved, Obama now calls the worst mistake of his presidency.

Is Clinton’s role in pushing for two wars, both of which resulted in disasters for her country and the entire Middle East, something to commend her for the presidency of the United States?

Is the slogan to be, “Let Hillary clean up the mess she helped to make?”

Whether or not Clinton was complicit in the debacle in Benghazi, can anyone defend her deceiving the families of the fallen by talking about finding the evildoer who supposedly made the videotape that caused it all?

Even then, she knew better.

How many other secretaries of state have been condemned by their own inspector general for violating the rules for handling state secrets, for deceiving investigators, and for engaging, along with that cabal she brought into her secretary’s office, in a systematic stonewall to keep the department from learning the truth?

Where in all of this is there the slightest qualification, other than a honed instinct for political survival, for Clinton to lead America out of the morass into which she, and the failed foreign policy elite nesting around her, plunged the United States?

If Trump will stay true to his message, he can win the foreign policy debate, and the election, because what he is arguing for is what Americans want.

They do not want any more Middle East wars. They do not want to fight Russians in the Baltic or Ukraine, or the Chinese over some rocks in the South China Sea.

They understand that, as Truman had to deal with Stalin, and Ike with Khrushchev, and Nixon with Brezhnev, and Reagan with Gorbachev, a U.S. president should sit down with a Vladimir Putin to avoid a clash neither country wants, and from which neither country would benefit.

The coming Clinton-neocon nuptials have long been predicted in this space. They have so much in common. They belong with each other.

But this country will not survive as the last superpower if we do not shed this self-anointed role as the “indispensable nation” that makes and enforces the rules for the “rules-based world order,” and that acts as first responder in every major firefight on earth.

What Trump has hit upon, what the country wants, is a foreign policy designed to protect the vital interests of the United States, and a president who will — ever and always — put America first.

via http://ift.tt/1XWFcHY Tyler Durden

From hope to nope and back to hope…

Treasury yields continue to push to the lows of the day and stocks push back higher…?? Again!

 

With bunds at record low yields and 2Y yields collapsing at the fastest since 2009…

Crushing The Fed’s credibility… even more than when they folded in Sept 2015

And even FX carry is not playing along…

 

So what happens next? Well it is Friday.

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/1r5JrUx Tyler Durden

Ever since WalMart decided to increase its minimum wage and then give all employees a 2% pay raise, it has been forced to slash guidance and move forward with mass layoffs in order to cut costs (it had to offset the multi-billion dollar short-term PR investment somehow). The next phase of the cost cutting efforts will now be to replace workers with drones.

At a recent demonstration of how a drone will be utilized in WalMart distribution centers, it was noted that the drones could help catalog in as little as a day what it now takes employees about a month to accomplish.

From the NYT

Walmart, the country’s largest retailer, is testing the use of flying drones to handle inventory at its large warehouses, which supply the thousands of Walmart stores throughout the nation. In six to nine months, the company said, the machines may be used in one or more of its distribution centers.

 

At a demonstration on Thursday at a dry goods distribution center here, a drone moved up and down an aisle packed nearly to the ceiling with boxes, taking 30 images per second. Shekar Natarajan, the vice president of last mile and emerging science, explained that the machines could help catalog in as little as a day what now takes employees about a month.

 

Walmart applied to the Federal Aviation Administration for permission to begin testing drones last year.

 

Walmart workers now manually scan pallets of goods with hand-held scanning devices. The drone’s methodical, vertical movements would essentially mimic the path of a person in a forklift who might be inspecting labels and inventory.

 

While a Walmart employee may handle the drone, the technology could “potentially” mean fewer workers would be needed to take stock or replace missing items, Lorenzo Lopez, a spokesman, said. Mr. Lopez emphasized that those workers could be deployed in other areas of the warehouse.

Deployed to "other areas" meaning the unemployment office.

As we noted above, the drive to cut costs, despite what the company line may be on it, is driving WalMart to find more efficient ways to do things in order to stay competitive in an already difficult space.

The test is occurring as Walmart is under intense pressure to grow amid an onslaught of low-cost competition, particularly from Amazon, the online shopping giant. Walmart has committed to spending $2.7 billion on labor, technology and other investments, including improving its website and e-commerce business. Last quarter, Walmart beat expectations with $115.9 billion in revenue, but even Doug McMillon, its president and chief executive, acknowledged that the 7 percent growth of Walmart’s e-commerce business was “too slow.”

WalMart operates 190 distribution centers in the United States, and each one services 100 to 150 stores according to the NYT – that's a lot of future cost savings to be had after the drone systems are firmly in place.

As a reminder, if keeping up with Amazon is one of the strategic goals that WalMart has for itself, the company is nearly 3 years behind on the drones.

via http://ift.tt/1Zk5N0w Tyler Durden

When Obama made another TV appearance earlier this week, taking credit for the Fed’s reflation of the stock market as somehow indicative of an economic “recovery” (“fiction peddlers” not allowed in the crowd), he once ignore the underlying “facts” behind said recovery: here is another way of showing the unprecedented transformation in the US labor pool: since December 2014, the US has added 455,000 waiters and bartenders, while losing 10,000 manufacturing workers.

Behold: “Obama’s recovery.”

… which we find curious in light of all the recent “hirings” of robots to replace minimum-wage workers who are demanding higher wages. Something tells us the BLS’ goalseeking model will be in for a major shock one day when it finds just what the underlying picture behind the US “water and bartender recovery” truly is.

In any event, here is the longer-term picture, going back to the start of the crisis in December 2007: please do not “peddle fiction” upon seeing this chart.

via http://ift.tt/1X2VuQh Tyler Durden

Submitted by Soren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on "hate speech" is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU's definition of "hate speech" and "incitement to violence" is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU's code of online conduct — which requires "offensive" material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with "counter-narratives" — as "Orwellian."

The "code of conduct" was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

"By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

"The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking."

Excerpts of the "code of conduct" include:

"The IT Companies share the European Commission's and EU Member States' commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

"The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

"While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

"The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

• "The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.
• "The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.
• "The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking."

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of "trusted reporters" in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that "promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct."

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, V?ra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

"The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary."

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU's plans "rest on a vague definition of 'hate speech' and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion." It added:

"The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring 'atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content' after false 'mass reporting' by 'cyber Jihadists.' They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being 'banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'"

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

"Far from tackling online 'cyber jihad,' the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague 'hate speech' rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is 'hate speech,' particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists."

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

"Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what 'illegal hate speech' is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

"It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won't. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

"There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes."

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that "we do not have confidence in the ill-considered 'code of conduct' that was agreed." A statement warned:

"In short, the 'code of conduct' downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the 'leading role' of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

"This means that this 'agreement' between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech."

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: "It's Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live."

Even before signing on to the EU's code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

In January 2016, Facebook launched an "Online Civil Courage Initiative" aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward "fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet."

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook's assault on "racist" speech "appears to include anything critical of the EU's current catastrophic immigration policy." He wrote:

"By deciding that 'xenophobic' comment in reaction to the crisis is also 'racist,' Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel's policies) into 'racist' views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as 'racist.' This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

"It's still a matter of censorship. They decide what's acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can't criticize Arab governments anymore?"

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic." In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

"After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone's readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook's heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid's account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid's video more attention.

 

"Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they're deadly serious about stopping ideas they don't like. They'll be back."

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic."

via http://ift.tt/1PrHxJw Tyler Durden

Just as we expected, based on lagged oil prices, the US oil rig count rose this week. The oil rig count rose 9 to 325 – the biggest increase since Dec 2015. This is the second week in a row with no decline in rigs as the market’s self-defeating fears of a production resurgence drive oil prices lower on the news.

and the reaction is back to the lows of the day…

 

Did The OPEC fail spike mark the cycle rebound highs?

via http://ift.tt/1t6H1a7 Tyler Durden