Summer Epocalypse Countdown: Trump Turmoil Takes Top Off Trump Rally

The following article by David Haggith was published on The Great Recession Blog:

By DonkeyHotey (Donald Trump and Mike Pence - Caricature) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://ift.tt/KcQbXG)], via Wikimedia Commons

When financial Armageddon arrives, it can hit in a flash like a dangerous rogue wave — the kind that rises up when two big waves from different storms intersect and merge into a single wave big enough to capsize a ship. The global Wannacry warware attack and endless waves of Trump turbulence came together with just such damaging synergy last week, knocking the top off the Trump rally.

 

Black swans unite and strike stocks

 

On Wednesday of last week, the stock market fell 370 points because of all the turmoil Trump has been brewing — its worst day in eight months. Globally, equities lost almost a trillion dollars in a single day. Part of this was the political crisis in Brazil, and part was the Wannacry virus, but the biggest part nearly everyone agreed was the political crisis in the US that constantly embroils President Trump.

US equity funds saw $8.9 billion in outflows for the week up to Wednesdays’ close while European equity funds added one billion. US financial stocks took the brunt of the hit. Then the market recovered somewhat on Thursday and Friday, but more Trump turbulence took back a sizable piece of Friday’s attempted recovery.

Friday’s drop from its high point of the day hit immediately upon a double-whammy in the Washington Post and the New York Times, wherein the Post announced that a White House official is now a significant person of interest in the Russiagate scandal, and the NYT alleged via two anonymous (their new standard) government sources that Trump told the Russians at his meeting with the Russians and Kissinger that he had “just fired the head of the FBI; he was crazy, a real nut job,” also telling them that doing so had taken off a lot of pressure that was on him because of Russia and that he was “not under investigation,” as if not being under investigation resulted from the firing … in his opinion at the time.

Naturally, these big ups and downs in the market mean volatility, which had remained uncannily placid for weeks (typical of the final-euphoric run-up of a stock market before it crashes) is back, shooting up the most it has since Brexit. (It’s odd to me that many investment advisors say the end of the bull market can not be here because markets are usually very low in volatility, and volatility just spiked. What a peculiar thing to say. Volatility is low just before the end (and it’s rarely been lower than lately), but there is nothing low about volatility when the end hits.)

 

“The market will revert to much higher volatility and this could be the start of it,” said Richard Haworth, chief investment officer of 36 South Capital Advisors, a London-based hedge fund which bets on rising price swings. “The sharp move this week reflects how short volatility the market was – how complacent.”  (Zero Hedge)

 

The VIX, which is a measure of volatility, made its second largest daily move ever seen. Complacency got jarred but is already returning to its normal lull. That complacency is so hard to break completely only means that when it does, the panic will be all the greater. US Bonds, the traditional instrument of safety saw interest rates plunge as investors clearly fled to safety.

 

“What has been setting in over the course of the day [Wednesday] is that political uncertainty is something that’s likely going to be with us for a significant amount of time,” said Dennis Debusschere, Evercore ISI’s head of portfolio strategy and quant. “We may be looking at a higher volatility backdrop with a trending lower market for the next couple of months.” Wall Street finally took notice of political wrangling in Washington as investors began to question the Trump administration’s ability to focus on policy as it careens from one crisis to another. Many of the trades sparked by the president’s shock election have reversed in recent days…. “If he’s preoccupied defending himself and if it goes a lot further, then any hope of his legislative agenda coming to the fore is going to be reduced,” John Stopford, the London-based head of fixed-income at Investec Asset Management Ltd. (Newsmax)

 

Since last winter, I have been saying this  is exactly what the Trump Rally is poised to do by early summer as reality sinks in that the rally was all built on irrational exuberance — hopes about things that were never likely to actually happen. The market is now being jolted back into seeing reality, instead of viewing everything through rose-colored glasses where ideally everything Trump promised works as he promised.

 

The biggest stock market drop in eight months marks the end of the so-called Trump rally rather than the type of plunge that would accompany the president’s ouster, according to Guggenheim Partners Chief Investment Officer Scott Minerd.

 

“We have no indication now that this is Watergate,” Minerd, who oversees more than $260 billion, said Wednesday at a forum on fixed-income investing in Beverly Hills, California. “But at this stage in Watergate, we had no idea it was Watergate.”

 

U.S. stocks lost roughly 40 percent during the Watergate corruption scandal between early 1973 and the market’s low point after the resignation of President Richard Nixon the following year….

 

“The Comey memo is the first time that we have any sort of potential direct implication of bad acts by the president or the administration…. Markets may come to realize that the Trump rally is long on promise and short on delivery….” (Newsmax)

 

The trigger for the initial sell-off was an anonymously leaked report that James Comey had sent out memos to key staff, noting that Trump had pled with him to terminate the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and after the first Republican (Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.)) joined in talk of impeachment if the reports of Trump pressuring Comey are true.

 

That plea, if relayed accurately, could veer dangerously close to criminal activity, according to national security attorney Brad Moss. “Even if there is some legal nuance that the President could rely upon to save himself here from an obstruction charge, the allegation (if true) is politically devastating…. The President didn’t just walk up to the line, he stepped over it without a moment’s hesitation….” (The Daily Beast)

 

Then, assuring that the Russiagate story will dominate the news for months to come, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein finally appointed a special prosecutor to head the investigation — former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III. Rosenstein took this action without consulting Atty. Gen Jeff Sessions or the White House because Sessions had recused himself from the matter. Mueller is a former federal prosecutor who served as U.S. attorney in San Francisco under President Clinton and was named FBI director by President George W. Bush. He is widely respected as being impartial by both Republicans and Democrats. Mueller worked closely with Comey who succeeded him as head of the FBI. He was praised on Wednesday by Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and former President Bush’s AG, John Ashcroft.

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein … who knows Mueller well from his years in the Bay Area, her base, said there was “no better person who could be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and ability to do the right thing….”

 

“It’s impossible to think about Washington without politics blowing people off course,” Ashcroft said. “But if anyone can stay on course and not be deterred by the whims of politics, it’s Bob Mueller.” (The LA Times)

 

This is only the second time in history that special counsel rules allowing the Department of Justice to hire and fund special counsel from outside the department have been invoked. Pat Buchanon who worked for Nixon in the Watergate days explains what this means in real political terms:

 

Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation….

 

Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done.

 

As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller’s investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

 

All that time, there will be a cloud over Trump’s presidency that will drain his political authority. Trump’s enemies will become less fearful and more vocal. Republican Congressmen and Senators in swing states and marginal districts, looking to 2018, will have less incentive to follow Trump’s lead, rather than their own instincts and interests. Party unity will fade away.

 

And without a united and energized Republican Party on the Hill, how do you get repeal and replacement of Obamacare, tax reform or a border wall? Trump’s agenda suddenly seems comatose….

Markets had soared with Trump’s election on the expectation that his pro-business agenda would be enacted. If those expectations suddenly seem illusory, will the boom born of hope become a bust? (Buchanan.org)

 

While there has not been any party unity to fade away since Trump was elected, the point of my recent articles about Trump has been that all of this stuff about Trump and Russia is going to grow, not fade, and that is going to impact the stock market. I have been certain of that because Trump’s actions (whether he is guilty or innocent. See “BOMBSHELL: CNN News Flash Inadvertently Confirms Trump’s Innocence in Russiagate Story.”) constantly stir controversy and tend to make him look guilty (whether he is or not). Firing Comey particularly stirred things up (whether Comey deserved it or not) because it resulted in the appointment of special prosecutor.

 

Russia has become the administration’s unintended but self-imposed mood music and narrative arc — sucking bandwith, draining esprit, looming as a potential calamity.

 

The price and opportunity cost have already been high — in time, in credibility, in possibility.

 

And it may just be starting. Legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out on Fox News that the Mueller miniseries may run for years.

 

The mood among some top Republicans is turning to anger: So much has been squandered.

 

“The damage to the agenda is permanent,” said a Republican working to pass Trump’s plans. (Axios)

 

My interest in all of this has never been to prove or disprove the guilt of Trump, but to say this is exactly the reason Trump’s promises, which the rally was built on, are anything but certain to happen. The constant turmoil from all of this means Trump will (whether innocent or guilty) continually lose more and more of the already limited support he has in his own party as they try to distance themselves from him. He has also handed tons of ammo to his Democratic opponents. Foreseeing all of that as being extremely likely, given Trump’s character and the way he ran his campaign, is a major part of why I have been predicting for months that the stock market will crash in early summer. That is about how long I figured it would take before all of this turmoil starts to wash over Trump.

 

“Earnings have provided a good fundamental base for the market, but I’m beginning to wonder if this news item is the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said David Schiegoleit, managing director of investments at U.S Bank Private Client Reserve…. “If special prosecutors are hired or there is more talk about obstruction of justice being an impeachable offense, one can kiss the tax plan, health care plan, and fiscal stimulus plan goodbye for 2017,” Andy Brenner, head of international fixed income securities at National Alliance Securities, said in a note Monday. (The Hill)

 

Done. Special prosecutor hired, and market falls … like clockwork. (This isn’t the crash, but the shocks are clearly now taking a major toll on the market each time they hit, and my point is that this proves how vulnerable the market is to this political crisis.)

A special prosecutor assures that the Trump turmoil isn’t going away. Thus, Trump’s economic plan is likely to unwind … well … about now. It is now beginning to dawn across the the entire stock market that the Trump rally was built on baseless euphoria — rosy hopes of the 100% success when nothing in politics and particularly in Trump politics is ever certain. The only thing that is predictable with Trump is turmoil (whether his fault or everyone else’s around him).

 

“We’ve seen the Trump agenda derailed and try to get back on track several times. It’s registering with more investors that its going to be hard to get back on track with the latest allegations,” Michael O’Rourke, chief market strategist at JonesTrading in Greenwich, Connecticut. “Prior to the election investors expected Trump to represent uncertainty,” he said. “The market is now recognizing that some of the fears they had back in October are coming to fruition.” (Newsmax)

 

How bad can this get economically? One of Trump’s CEO colleagues, who was no fan of the Obama administration, criticized his management sharply last week and forecasted how his management style could lead to a market sell-off:

 

Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric who has President Donald Trump’s ear, told CNBC on Wednesday that an impeachment would crush the stock market. “An impeachment proceeding would blow the market away,”Welch said on “Squawk Box.” Welch also said Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director was a “rookie mistake.” He added, “You don’t make any friends doing it the way [Trump] did it. I think without question we have a guy that’s on the right agenda with crappy management practices,” Welch said, giving the president a “D minus” on his management skills.

 

Yet, management skills were supposed to be Trump’s greatest asset. So, if is greatest asset is proving in the eyes of CEO’s who are in good with Trump and who didn’t like Obama to be a detriment, what is the rest of Trump going to bring?

 

Trump turmoil is the shape of things to come

 

The fact that the sell-off was particularly great among financial stocks, indicates fear that the Trump turmoil will overshadow everything now and prevent passage of Trump’s much ballyhooed tax plan.

 

Major investors are “somewhat cautious” as they wait to see whether President Donald Trump and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill can deliver on promises of lower taxes and massive business deregulation, Starwood Capital Group founder Barry Sternlicht told CNBC on Monday. “If we don’t succeed, the backlash could be significant. It all really needs to succeed. I just hope [Trump] stays on the main script, which is the business script.” (CNBC)

 

“The obvious point we’ve made before repeatedly is that Trump now has much less political capital to spend in the Capitol, and that makes Trumpflation far less likely. Yet things seem to be rapidly moving beyond that point, opening up other scenarios,” [Rabobank strategist Michael Every] said. He was referring to the threat of impeachment. (Zero Hedge)

 

What happens in the weeks ahead if the Russian backstory continues to sideline the main script of tax reform and we get a few more simultaneous events like Wannacry now that the market has begun to tremble and fall? The wall will weaken with each blow of the ram. Trump’s controversies are black-swan events, in that no one can even guess what he’s going to do next or when. And, yet, they are predictable in the sense that he loves to create controversy and almost certainly will create a lot more, and they’re predicable in the sense that the press loves to jump all over him.

Clearly not even his own staff has a clue as to when the next controversy will come and what it will be. They have stumbled all over themselves trying to keep up. While a black-swan event, by definition, means an unpredictable negative event, what is predictable is the odds the many of these unpredictable negative hits are bound to keep piling on. While I cannot tell what the next one will be or when, I can be reasonably sure it will not be far off. Months back I could see the high probability of things falling apart badly under Trump and could see that it wouldn’t take long for that to start to break up the Trump rally.

None of this is about whether or not he’s guilty, but about how is erratic nature has always been part of my basis for saying the economy and stock market will hit the rocks by early summer. Besides Trump’s own penchant for controversy, it’s easy to see that draining the swamp would certainly create huge turmoil if done properly and destruction of the presidency if done wrongly, as Trump was assured to have few friends and many enemies in very powerful places if he tries to start removing swamp creatures. From a market standpoint, I looked at this this: Just as the Fed is trying to keep raising interest rates, all kinds of uncertainty is going to bombard the market every week.

 

The election of President Trump is eclipsed only by the 9/11 terrorist attack and the battle over the fiscal cliff in 2011 in terms of generating doubt about future economic policy, according to the Economic Policy Uncertainty Index. Increases “in policy uncertainty foreshadow declines in investment, output, and employment in the United States,” the three professors who created the index wrote…. While the EPU index has come off its high from the November election, it remains elevated, coming in month after month of the Trump presidency well above its long-run average…. The daily index spiked twice in the past week with allegations the president had divulged secrets to the Russians and allegations that he may have interfered with an FBI investigation. (CNBC)

 

It’s an investing aphorism that the market hates uncertainty, and uncertainty levels have only been this high following the 2008 financial crisis and 1987’s Black Monday.

Wannacry was also the kind of black swan event people have seen coming, but no one knows exactly how or when it will happen — just that the world is increasingly loaded with such prospects so that sooner or later some are going to happen. The likelihood of cyberwar began brewing in the final Obama days as Obama declared cyberwar on Russia. (Did he really think they wouldn’t fight back secretly with their own barrage of cyber attacks?)

So, while these cyber events are also completely unpredictable, what is predictable is that the odds of very damaging ones went up with the advent of Obama’s cyberwar against Russia (which Obama declared as a countermeasure) and with the release by Wikileaks of the NSAs very powerful viral software and knowledge of how it can be used to hack into networks. Wannacry proves how unprepared and vulnerable the entire modern world remains after years of opportunity to prepare and knowledge that we needed to prepare.

Now we sit at D-day in that both kinds of events are happening together. The Wannacry virus is already mutating, and the US government’s most powerful spyware has been sent to everyone in the world to use. At the same time, even a Republican or two is now talking of impeachment. Add to that the kind of violent protests I expected to see for this year, and one almost defies the Federal Reserve to risk raising rates in June now that the kind of chaos I predicted for this year is intensifying so rapidly.

The Epocalypse will take months to fully develop, but the initial breakup of the ice sheets of market complacency will become evident this summer. In fact, they are already starting to crack as euphoric hopes begin to melt. You’ve probably noticed that the post-election Trumphoria is entirely gone. Even Trump’s supporters are waiting with bated breath, many major supporters now openly wondering if Trump will turn on all of his promises, and many hopeful investors are getting nervous that their bets were misplaced.

via http://ift.tt/2qSk5LX Knave Dave

Trump’s Diminishment of the Presidency Is Healthy, Not Scary

Writing in The New York Times, University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner and journalist Emily Bazelon identify one positive aspect of Donald Trump’s “serial recklessness” as president: He has forced the other two branches of the federal government to assert themselves, constraining executive powers that his two predecessors worked hard to expand. Except that Posner and Bazelon bizarrely view that development as ominous, warning that the checks on Trump “may ultimately diminish the power of the office,” leaving it “too weak for future presidents to be able to govern effectively.”

Posner and Bazelon cite two main ways in which Congress and the courts have challenged Trump: the congressional investigations of Russian meddling in last year’s presidential election, including the Trump campaign’s possible involvement, and the judicial decisions that so far have prevented Trump’s executive orders restricting admission to the United States from taking effect. Posner and Bazelon seem to view both responses as understandable but regrettable, not so much because they are legally unsound but because they may have a lasting impact on presidential power—as if that would be a bad thing.

There is no real dispute about whether Congress has the authority to investigate Russian attempts to hurt Hillary Clinton and thereby help Trump by hacking embarrassing emails or spreading disinformation. It now looks like the House and Senate probes will take a backseat to the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but his appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was itself at least partly a consequence of congressional pressure.

There is more room for debate about the decisions blocking Trump’s executive orders. The legal objections to the first version of the order, which explicitly mentioned religion as a criterion for admission and applied to legal permanent residents and current visa holders as well as people seeking permission to visit the United States, were stronger than the legal objections to the revised order, which temporarily bars admission of visitors from six Muslim-majority countries. The case against the narrower order hinges mainly on whether it amounts to a “Muslim ban” by another name, which in turn depends on viewing it in light of statements that Trump and his advisers have made rather than the text of the order itself.

“Judges are normally unwilling to look beyond the text of an executive order to divine the motivations of the president, espe cially in the areas of national security and immigration, where his powers are at their zenith,” Posner and Bazelon write. But it is well established that a facially neutral government action can violate the First Amendment if it is aimed at disadvantaging a particular religion, and statements by its supporters are surely relevant in making that determination. Whether Trump’s revised order is an example of such unconstitutional discrimination is a matter of dispute, and I have my doubts, although I think the order is bad policy. But the issue has not been definitively resolved yet, and it is perfectly appropriate for the courts to consider it.

The other judicial intervention that Posner and Bazelon mention, temporarily blocking Trump’s executive order aimed at punishing sanctuary cities by withholding federal funds from them, seems even less objectionable. Depending on how it is interpreted, that order may very well amount to unconstitutional “commandeering” of local law enforcement officials, coercing them into implementing the president’s immigration policies. Implicitly recognizing the problem, Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday offered a “clarification” saying the order affects only a small slice of federal funds and applies only to jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply” with a law that says local governments may not prevent police from sharing information about people’s immigration status with federal agencies.

In short, Congress and the courts are doing what they are supposed to do by checking the president’s powers. It is hard to see why Trump’s critics would be worried rather than reassured by that, unless they are invested in an expansive view of presidential power and holding out for a time when someone they like better will get to exercise it. That does seem to be what Posner and Bazelon have in mind:

For decades, the power of the executive branch has been growing, a trend that Congress has encouraged, both actively and by default. And the courts, the other check on the executive, have often been willing to defer to the president’s prerogatives….

But President Trump’s words and actions are straining the relationship between the executive and the other branches of government in ways that may ultimately diminish the power of the office. By showing he’s unworthy of the trust that a president customarily enjoys, Mr. Trump has essentially been daring Congress, the courts and even the bureaucracy to act against him….

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama flexed their executive muscles. Mr. Bush enhanced the president’s control over national security after the Sept. 11 attacks by opening Guantánamo, trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals, and authorizing warrantless wiretapping. Mr. Obama took unilateral aggressive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reform immigration.

They left the office stronger than when they arrived. Although their policies were controversial, both presidents were given deference because they made their judgments conscientiously and led the government professionally.

And that, according to Posner and Bazelon, is how things should be: The president grabs power, while Congress and the courts acquiesce. Those of us who are less enamored of unencumbered executive power may draw a different lesson: By alienating and alarming so many factions of goverment, the current president has provided a much-needed corrective, reacquainting people with the value of enforcing constitutional limits, regardless of which party and which politician happens to control the White House.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2qg2H1n
via IFTTT

Trader “Appalled” At Market Reaction To Manchester Bombing “There’s More To Life Than Next Few Basis Points”

Remember Paris

And London in March…

At the time of the London attack, Bloomberg's Paul Dobson reminded readers that were wondering about the sanguine response to the breaking news, that terrorist incidents including the one in Paris in 2015 and London bombings in 2005 spurred equity selloffs that were erased in the following days and weeks.

And sure enough traders decided the bombing and murder of 22 kids in Machester was the perfect opportunity to panic buy stocks…

 

And this, rightly so, has pushed Bloomberg's Richard Breslow to the edge…

It’s always a tough decision when debating a subject with someone whether you speak to the issues that you think are the important ones or lower yourself to their level in the hopes of being heard. Few things are more discomfiting than listening to people talking at cross-purposes.

 

So I’m going to do both. I thought the market reaction to the bombing in Manchester was appalling. And an indictment of a system that rewards, time and again, through official reaction functions, utter callousness and obliviousness to events.

 

Everything may have become a buy-the-dip opportunity. But it shouldn’t be. It’s why nothing ever changes.

 

You would be very hard pressed to find the “early risk-off bid” in European markets, let alone U.K. ones, if you weren’t searching to find the evidence. Then it was off to PMIs and rehashing Lael Brainard’s comments. Let’s buy some stocks, it must be good for business. It’s quite the perversion that when bad things happen commentators who have otherwise rather dour views on the world start searching for all the good things out there.

 

If ever there was a time crying out for central banks to be less predictably in thrall to financial conditions, it’s now. The negative externalities, on countless fronts, have become too great. The same people looking for the good investing news in catastrophe are only too willing to cling to crisis rate pricing for the same reasons.

 

On the one hand, the global economy is said to be doing fine. Somewhere between building momentum and becoming healthy. Yet bank after bank has spent the last week lowering their rate forecasts. This has far more to do with belatedly getting onside with the latest twist in U.S. politics than a serious reevaluation of how far the mandates are from being met.

 

This time around, it hasn’t been the Fed that’s gotten it wrong, but the analysts who became mesmerized by asset price reaction to the election. Especially the S&P financial sector index.

 

Meanwhile, the German two-year bond just made a new year-to date high in yield today. And that after a poor Schatz auction that was supposed to be a no-brainer. Proving that there’s at least one market that chose to not ignore reality. In Europe, the discussion of negative externalities is getting seriously started, even if it’s been around for ever. Academics meeting real life. The campaign to name Mario Draghi’s successor is officially launched. And this with two years left to go on his tenure.

 

Look around you. It’s high time central bankers, politicians and, even, investors realized that there’s more to the world than the next few basis points.

We could not agree more!

 

via http://ift.tt/2q7e4NY Tyler Durden

Law Firms Are Making a Killing Off Madoff Victims’ Recovery Funds

We all are familiar with the $64b in lost capital by Madoff, which was the worst ponzi scheme loss in history. But did you know that only $17.5b in principal was lost? Of that principal, most of it has been recovered — $9 through Picard and another $4b through Breeden. I am not here to suggest that losing $4.5b isn’t dreadful — because it is. But most people still believe that people were totally wiped out by Madoff, who is currently serving a 150 year sentence in prison.

The big winners in all of this, naturally, are the lawyers who are administrating the victim funds via billable hours.

Through a Bloomberg FOIA request, we’ve learned that the DOJ hired Breeden to distribute $4b in recovered funds to Madoff victims, of which ZERO has been paid to date. Breeden, on the other hand, has racked up $38.8m in fees.
 

“It’s very frustrating that people are making money off us like this, using money that was recovered for victims,” said Daphne Brogdon, a Food Network personality, whose family lost about $5 million in the Madoff scam. “They’re eating away at whatever percentage we could possibly get.”

 
The other big recovery fund, managed by Irving Picard, has paid out more than $9b since 2009. The recovery effort was rigorous, via his firm’s aggressive litigation actions, netting as much as $1b in billable hours.

One-fucking-billion for Baker and Hostetler LLP.

Picard called it a “very good return on an investment.”

Unlike Breeden, his fees are paid for by Securities Investor Protection Corp., not the victims.
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

 

via http://ift.tt/2qRRPZR The_Real_Fly

Europe’s Blinkered Leaders: Shielding Themselves From Reality Again

Authored by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy.

  • Why do the citizens of Europe need to 'broaden their horizons,' while the people in power protect themselves from the reality they themselves imposed on everyone else? This attitude, far from democratic, borders on the atmosphere prevalent in Europe during the bygone days of Europe's absolute monarchs.

  • While it is true that "everyone knows about our prosperity and lifestyle," the answer to that problem is not fatalistically to sit back and wait for the migrant influx. The answer is, based on a new starting-date, to change Europe's outdated and unsustainable welfare policies, which stem from a pre-globalization era, and in this way actively work to make it less attractive for millions of migrants to venture to the European continent in the first place.

When the G7 heads of state arrive in Taormina, Sicily, for the G7 meeting on May 26, they will find themselves in an embellished, picture-postcard version of European reality. Italy, the host of the G7 meeting, has announced that it will close all harbors on the island to ships that arrive with migrants ( mainly from Libya) for the duration of the two-day meeting. The reason for the closure of the Italian island to migrants is to protect the G7 meeting from potential terrorist attacks. According to Italian reports, "the Department of Public Safety believes that the boats with illegal immigrants could be hiding an Islamist threat".

G7 meetings are, of course, always subject to a host of high-level security measures. However, shielding heads of state from seeing the consequences of the policies that they themselves have forced on the entire European continent represents a staggering new level of hypocrisy. Literally altering reality in order to present a whitewashed picture of the influx of migrants into Europe, which happens largely through Italy, is a Potemkin measure, regardless of terror risks. Heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whom Italy seeks to protect from a terrorist risk, seem not to care particularly about the very real terrorist risks that European citizens are forced to live with daily thanks to the migrant policies of these heads of state.

In 2015, when asked how Europe could be protected against Islamization, Merkel, who does not move without her own personal security team consisting of 15-20 armed bodyguards, carelessly said: "Fear is not a good adviser. It is better that we should have the courage once again to deal more strongly with our own Christian roots." In December 2016, she told members of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who were asking how to reassure the public about the problem of integrating migrants, "This could also broaden your horizons."

Why do the citizens of Europe need to 'broaden their horizons,' while the people in power, who forced them to do that, protect themselves from the reality they themselves imposed on everyone else? This attitude, far from democratic, borders on the atmosphere prevalent in Europe during the bygone days of Europe's absolute monarchs.

Being confronted with the results of their policies by seeing the migrants as they arrive in Sicily could be helpful in bringing these heads of state back to reality in Europe.

Migrants, who crossed from Libya, disembark the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) 'Phoenix' vessel on May 20, 2017 in Trapani (Sicily), Italy. (Image source: Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

According to the UNHCR, there were 362,753 Mediterranean migrant arrivals in Europe in 2016 – compared to more than a million people who arrived in Europe in the record year 2015, when Merkel invited asylum seekers to come to Germany.

Out of these migrants, the majority, 181,436, crossed the Mediterranean into Italy in 2016 and another 173,450 crossed the Mediterranean into Greece. According to the UNHCR, 55,374 migrants have already arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean, between January 1, 2017 and May 19, 2017. The majority (almost 46,000) have arrived in Italy, but some also arrived in Spain (3,200) and Greece (6,100). The most common nationalities of these migrants are Nigeria (17%), Bangladesh (10.7%), Guinea (9.7%), Cote d'Ivoire (9.1%), Gambia (6.6%), Syria (6.1%), Senegal (5.9%), Morocco (5.6%) and a total of 10% from "unspecified" countries. Most of these arrivals, evidently, are not refugees, but economic migrants.

Nevertheless, as Soeren Kern writes, Europe is unrelenting in pursuing its old, dysfunctional policies. On May 2, 2017, Dimitris Avramopoulos, EU Commissioner in charge of Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, urged the EU:

"take the last concrete steps to gradually return, as we have repeatedly said many times before, to a normal functioning of the Schengen Area. This is our goal, and it remains unchanged. A fully functioning area, free from internal border controls".

What he seems to be saying, in other words, is that the EU would like to see a return to the complete border chaos that reigned in Europe in 2015, until several EU nations reinstated pre-Schengen border controls. Avramopoulos "notably recommended" that Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway phase out "the temporary controls in place at some of their internal Schengen borders over the following six months". These are the countries that experienced the most chaos from migrants eager to reach those wealthy countries' borders, after Angela Merkel invited asylum seekers in.

It seems inconceivable to European politicians, evidently, that the answer to the large wave of migrants seeking a better economic future for themselves on the European continent (eight to ten million migrants could be on the way), might be countered by something other than open arms and a continuation of the old welfare policies.

While it is true, as said by German Development Minister Gerd Müller, that "In our digital age with the internet and mobile phones, everyone knows about our prosperity and lifestyle," the answer to that problem is not fatalistically to sit back and wait for the migrant influx. The answer is, based on a new starting-date, to change Europe's outdated and unsustainable welfare policies, which stem from a pre-globalization era, and in this way actively work to make it less attractive for millions of migrants to venture to the European continent in the first place.

In addition, European leaders appear not to care that their continuing migration policies and welfare systems support an entire industry of human traffickers, who prey on the desire of hopeful migrants to reach Europe; the traffickers are making billions.

According to the [Europol] report, migrant smuggling in 2015 earned crime bosses up to £4.9billion (€5.7billion), with profits dropping to around £1.7billion (€2billion) last year as the number of people entering the EU illegally fell to around 510,000.

 

Europol said: "Migrant smuggling has emerged as one of the most profitable and widespread criminal activities for organised crime in the EU.

 

"The migrant smuggling business is now a large, profitable and sophisticated criminal market, comparable to the European drug markets."

European politicians are indirectly responsible for the existence of this industry.

Italy may think that it is protecting G7 leaders such as Angela Merkel from potential terrorist attacks during the G7 meeting in Taormina by closing Sicilian harbors to migrants. But by shielding from reality politicians who are already solidly detached from it, they are exposing the European citizenry — whom those politicians are supposed to protect — to even greater risks.

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

A.M. Links: Manchester Terror Attack Kills 22, British Police Arrest 23-Year-Old in Connection with Manchester Bombing

  • Speaking in Bethlehem, President Trump said he would do “everything I can” to secure peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  • “President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.”
  • Last night’s terrorist attack at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena has killed at least 22 people and injured 59. British officials say the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber.
  • British police have arrested a 23-year-old man in connection with the Manchester attack.
  • Former FBI Director James Comey’s planned appearance this week before the House Oversight Committee has been postponed.
  • Two men were publicly caned in Indonesia as official punishment for having gay sex.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2rwgNAw
via IFTTT

OPEC Is Studying The Following Three Options Ahead Of Thursday’s Meeting

Last week, ahead of the OPEC meeting, BofA commodity analyst Francisco Blanch said the oil cartel faced three specific choices ahead of its May 25 meeting in Vienna, when it is widely expected to extend the production cut:

  1. First, OPEC could cut production beyond the 1.2mn b/d agreed in December and encourage non-OPEC members to deepen the cuts.
  2. Second, OPEC could increase output aggressively and restart the oil price war.
  3. And third, OPEC could keep the cuts at the current levels for the next 6 to 9 months and hope for oil market demand conditions to improve.

For clarity, BofA also presented the following table adding the proposed likelihoods of any given choice of action, of which a simple deal extension had the highest probability of occuring.

It appears that BofA was right, because on Tuesday morning, Bloomberg reported, citing delegates, that the OPEC committee is currently studying three deal extension options: a 6-, 9- and 12-month extension.  Bloomberg also notes that OPEC’s Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee will be studying these three options and will meet one day before the general meeting – ie on Wednesday. Committee members include Algeria, Kuwait and Venezuela, and non-members Russian and Oman.

Separately, confirming that further cuts will most likely not be announced, the Kuwait oil minister said today that OPEC is not considering deeper cuts, as they’re not “necessary right now.”

As a remember, yesterday OPEC’s secretary general said that consensus is building around a 9 month extension, which is also the base case of most sellside firms. Saudi has also voiced support for such a move: on Monday there were headlines that Saudi’s energy minister was en route to Iraq to try to sway Iraq from a 6m to 9m view, with Iraq allegedly agreeing to the proposal. As a result, an announcement of anything different would likely provoke a market reaction.

Finally, for a detailed take on what OPEC’s motive is – or should be – yesterday Goldman published an extensive note explaining why OPEC’s target with the upcoming deal revision is not to push the price of oil higher, which would prove self-defeating as even more production comes online, but to push the oil strip deeper into backwardation, removing funding for US shale companies.

There has not been a notable move in the price of WTI on the news.

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

Rand Spikes After South Africa’s ANC Reportedly Looking To Ouster President Zuma

The Rand spiked towards 13/USD – its highest in a month – after reports that South Africa's ruling African National Congress’s National Executive Committee will discuss option of the party removing President Jacob Zuma at May 26-28 meeting, according to two members of the decision-making panel who declined to be identified because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

As Bloomberg reports, the option to remove Zuma to be raised as part of discussion on no-confidence motion called by opposition parties in president in parliament, one of the people says.

While the official denial has been issued

While the NEC’s agenda will only be agreed at its meeting, the matter of Zuma’s removal won’t be discussed, ANC spokesman Zizi Kodwa says by phone.

USDZAR has not stalled its move yet.

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

Will Florida Ban Fracking? New at Reason

Florida produces very little oil and natural gas. According to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, it has just 64 wells in operation, which gave the world a total of 2 million barrels of oil and 20 billion cubic feet of natural gas in all of 2016. None of those were drilled using fracking techniques.

So why did the Florida Senate consider a ban in March? It turns out that familiarity breeds acceptance, according to a January 2017 working paper by the Oregon State University sociologist Hilary Boudet and her colleagues. In the Sunshine State, the inverse seems to be true.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2q6W2eU
via IFTTT

CBS Reports Suspected Manchester Attacker Is 23-Year-Old Salman Abedi

While unclear if this is an official release – recall, earlier in the day UK PM Theresa May said authorities knew the name of the Manchester attack suspect but were not disclosing it until they were certain – moments ago CBS reported that the suspect behind the Manchester attack is 23-year-old Salman Abedi. As CBS also adds, he was known to authorities.

As a reminder, earlier on Tuesday morning, ISIS claimed responsibilty for the Manchester bombing.

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