San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick became the country’s latest collective objet d’obsession when he refused to stand for the national anthem at a pre-season game this weekend. Kaepernick said he had stopped standing for the anthem at the beginning of the pre-season but that it was only noticed now.
He said he had made the decision because the lack of accountability for police officers who kill in the line of duty. Kaepernick pointed to the fact that most officers are placed on paid leave in such situations (due in large part to collectively bargained union contracts), as well as to videos circulating of violent police encounters and violent encounters involving police officers and veterans (in response to a question about veterans who might feel “disrespected” by people not standing for a flag).
Later in the post-game interview, responding to questions about timing (some sports observers speculate Kaepernick is looking for an out at the tail-end of his contract while Kaepernick insists sitting for the anthem wasn’t something he planned ahead of time), Kaepernick also pointed to the woeful 2016 presidential race. “I think the two presidential candidates that we currently have also represent the issues that we have in this country right now,” Kaepernick told reporters.
Asked to elaborate, Kaepernick cited Hillary Clinton’s reference to black teenagers as “super-predators” (in the context of pushing tough on crime measures while her husband was president in the 1990s) and called Donald Trump “openly racist” (although did not offer specifics). “I mean, we have a presidential candidate who deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate,” Kaepernick noted. “That doesn’t make sense to me. Cuz if that was any other person you’d be in prison, so what is this country really standing for?”
It’s heartening to see Kapernick avoid falling for the left’s suggestion that the Clinton email scandal was no big deal or somehow a product of anti-Clinton sentiment and not of her own reckless actions. Federal prosecutors have already rejected a “Hillary defense” put up by a U.S. sailor facing charges for taking classified photos on a nuclear submarine. Democrats, meanwhile, killed criminal justice reform over their opposition to just the kind of mens rea deference the FBI afforded Clinton, declining to prosecute her because of a lack of clear criminal intent. Holding Democrats accountable for thwarting criminal justice reform would be an excellent place for Kaepernick to start what he says will be his continued advocacy.
Watch the entire interview (relative comments start at 16:33) below:
While some of these incredibly accurate friend suggestions are amusing, others are alarming, such as this story from Lisa*, a psychiatrist who is an infrequent Facebook user, mostly signing in to RSVP for events. Last summer, she noticed that the social network had started recommending her patients as friends—and she had no idea why.
“I haven’t shared my email or phone contacts with Facebook,” she told me over the phone.
Judicial Watch announced on its website today that it has submitted a list of 25 questions to Hillary Clinton regarding her email practices while serving as Secretary of State. Pursuant to a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, Hillary has 30 days to respond, under oath, to the questions. Per federal law, Judicial Watch was limited to a total of 25 questions.
All 25 questions are included in their entirety below (we’ve highlighted some of the particularly amusing ones):
Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
Describe the creation of your clintonemail.com email account, including who decided to create it, when it was created, why it was created, and, if you did not set up the account yourself, who set it up for you.
When did you decide to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and whom did you consult in making this decision?
Identify all communications in which you participated concerning or relating to your decision to use a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business and, for each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
In a 60 Minutes interview aired on July 24, 2016, you stated that it was “recommended” you use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business. What recommendations were you given about using or not using a personal email account to conduct official State Department business, who made any such recommendations, and when were any such recommendations made?
Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned, was it ever suggested, or did you ever participate in any communication, conversation, or meeting in which it was discussed that your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business conflicted with or violated federal recordkeeping laws. For each instance in which you were so advised, cautioned or warned, in which such a suggestion was made, or in which such a discussion took place, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the advice, caution, warning, suggestion, or discussion.
Your campaign website states, “When Clinton got to the Department, she opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience.” What factors other than convenience did you consider in deciding to use a personal email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer whether you considered federal records management and preservation requirements and how email you used to conduct official State Department business would be searched in response to FOIA requests.
After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, how did you manage and preserve emails in your clintonemail.com email account sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business, and what, if anything, did you do to make those emails available to the Department for conducting searches in response to FOIA requests?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?
During your tenure as Secretary of State, did State Department personnel ever request access to your clintonemail.com email account to search for email responsive to a FOIA request? If so, identify the date access to your account was requested, the person or persons requesting access, and whether access was granted or denied.
At the time you decided to use your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business, or at any time thereafter during your tenure as Secretary of State, did you consider how emails you sent to or received from persons who did not have State Department email accounts (i.e., “state.gov” accounts) would be maintained and preserved by the Department or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests? If so, what was your understanding about how such emails would be maintained, preserved, or searched by the Department in response to FOIA requests?
On March 6, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Eric J. Boswell wrote in an Information Memo to your Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, that he “cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars.” A March 11, 2009 email states that, in a management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the “IM” and that you “get it.” Did you review the March 6, 2009 Information Memo, and, if so, why did you continue using an unclassified BlackBerry to access your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Copies of the March 6, 2009 Information Memo and March 11, 2009 email are attached as Exhibit A for your review.
In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?” Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry. A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.
Email exchanges among your top aides and assistants in August 30, 2011 discuss providing you with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or State Department email address. In the course of these discussions, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull wrote, “[W]e are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued BlackBerry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).” Similarly, John Bentel, the Director of Information and Records Management in the Executive Secretariat, wrote, “You should be aware that any email would go through the Department’s infrastructure and [be] subject to FOIA searches.” Did you request a State Department issued Blackberry or a State Department email account in or around August 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your personal device and clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business instead of replacing your device and account with a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email account? Include in your answer whether the fact that a State Department-issued BlackBerry or a State Department email address would be subject to FOIA affected your decision. Copies of the email exchanges are attached as Exhibit C for your review.
In February 2011, Assistant Secretary Boswell sent you an Information Memo noting “a dramatic increase since January 2011 in attempts . . . to compromise the private home email accounts of senior Department officials.” Assistant Secretary Boswell “urge[d] Department users to minimize the use of personal web-email for business.” Did you review Assistant Secretary Boswell’s Information Memo in or after February 2011, and, if so, why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business? Include in your answer any steps you took to minimize use of your clintonemail.com email account after reviewing the memo. A copy of Assistant Secretary Boswell’s February 2011 Information Memo is attached as Exhibit D for your review.
On June 28, 2011, you sent a message to all State Department personnel about securing personal email accounts. In the message, you noted “recent targeting of personal email accounts by online adversaries” and directed all personnel to “[a]void conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after June 28, 2011, when you were advising all State Department Personnel to avoid doing so? A copy of the June 28, 2011 message is attached as Exhibit E for your review.
Were you ever advised, cautioned, or warned about hacking or attempted hacking of your clintonemail.com email account or the server that hosted your clintonemail.com account and, if so, what did you do in response to the advice, caution, or warning?
When you were preparing to leave office, did you consider allowing the State Department access to your clintonemail.com email account to manage and preserve the official emails in your account and to search those emails in response to FOIA requests? If you considered allowing access to your email account, why did you decide against it? If you did not consider allowing access to your email account, why not?
After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit? If not, why not?
In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.” After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used? A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.
After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed? If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.
Identify all communications between you and Brian Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in your clintonemail.com email account, including any instruction or direction to Mr. Pagliano about the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of emails in your account when transferring the clintonemail.com email system to any alternate or replacement server. For each communication, identify the time, date, place, manner (e.g., in person, in writing, by telephone, or by electronic or other means), persons present or participating, and content of the communication.
After last week's surprise crude build (biggest in ~4 months) and builds across the entire complex, API reported a crude build of 942k barreles (just shy of expectations of +1.5mm) and while Cushing and Gasoline saw draws, Distillates saw a major 3mm barrel build (+275k exp). The initial reaction in crude was to extend the day's losses, back below $46.50…
API
Crude +942k (+1.5mm exp)
Cushing -620k
Gasoline -1.6mm (-1.25mm exp)
Distillates +3mm (+275k exp)
Another Crude build but the big news was a major Distillates build…
And the reaction in crude after a down day was an initial kneejerk lower…
Is Clinton’s Lead Over Trump as Large as Advertised?
Once upon a time, political polls tended to be pretty accurate (there were occasional exceptions to this rule, but they were few and far between). Recently there have been a few notable misses though. One that comes to mind is the Brexit referendum. Shortly before the vote, polls indicated the outcome would be a very close one, while betting markets were indicating a solid win of the “remain” vote. The actual result was around 52:48 in favor of “leave”, so this was quite a big miss.
Polarizing candidates – one of whom has already managed to confound election forecasters in the nomination race.
Another case that confounded even the most seasoned forecasters was the race for the Republican nomination. See for instance this article by Mish from January, in which he rightly berates famous election forecaster Nate Silver for vastly underestimating Trump’s chances to win. Silver held them to be around 12% to 13% at the time, which turned out to be a miss of truly monumental proportions. He kept missing the mark for many more months to come (essentially until the point in time when Trump had made the transition to “inevitable nominee”).
We currently follow press coverage on the presidential election only cursorily, for lack of time, and also because it seems both very superficial and one-sided. The mainstream media bias in this election seems astonishingly blatant. To quote Stefan Molyneux, there is apparently no mud one cannot sling at the orange-haired maniac. We are of course well aware that Donald Trump has an uncanny ability to put his foot into his mouth, but it seems almost as if little else is discussed (skim through a few MSM articles at random and see how much you learn about his policy proposals – good luck).
On the other hand, it is not as if Hillary Clinton were widely considered an angel. The woman has spent decades mired in scandals, from her credulity-stretching career as a cattle futures trader in the 70s, to the Whitewater affair, Travelgate, the harassment of women pointing fingers at her philandering husband, to the recent questions about the Clinton foundation, the gigantic speaking fees she gets for mouthing platitudes at corporate gatherings for 20 minutes a stretch, the e-mail server controversy (and not to forget, her sociopathic streak)… and we’re sure we have left a few things out.
In short, she is just as polarizing a figure as Trump is widely held to be. Then there is the fact that Donald Trump continues to draw huge crowds wherever he goes to speak, a feat Hillary Clinton is not known for. Perhaps this is merely a sign that Trump voters are more energized for their candidate – but that seems quite an important factoid by itself. Remember the Brexit post mortem in this context: the “remain” camp mainly failed because it was unable to create even the slightest bit of excitement for its cause.
All of this made us wonder why Hillary Clinton is so solidly ahead in political polls. Below is a chart of the NYT’s “national polling average”, which concludes that her current lead boils down to an “89% chance of winning the presidency”. Really? That sounds a bit like Nate Silver judging Trump’s chances to win the Republican nomination back in January, i.e., it is a bit hard to believe.
The NYT national polling average asserts that Clinton’s chance to win the election is 89%. That strikes us as wishful thinking along the lines of “Trump will never get the nomination” – click to enlarge.
If one looks at the list of polls the NYT uses to construct this average, one can see that Clinton’s lead actually varies quite widely among them. Some of the organizations and/or media conducting the polls either have a known political bias, or a known bias in this particular election. The reported size of her lead seems to be correlating rather closely with these known biases. This is slightly mystifying, is it not?
Voter Excitement
Most of these polls are conducted via telephone, but there is also an online tracking poll by UPI/CVoter. Its margin of error cannot be calculated because the participants are self-selecting, but UPI mentions a credibility interval of 3 percentage points (apparently based on the Bayesian approach to quantifying uncertainty). This particular poll has fluctuated in quite a wide range, but at the end of last week, Trump has overtaken Clinton again for the first time since July:
UPI online poll: it seems Trump is beating Clinton on the intertubes again – click to enlarge.
Once again, it is possible that Trump voters are simply more engaged and more likely to self-select for this poll. Trump certainly packs more internet punch than Clinton through his Twitter feed, Facebook and You-tube presence (even though his tweets occasionally land him in hot water). As noted above, Trump has something in common with the erstwhile Democratic rival of Clinton, Bernie Sanders: he is generating genuine excitement among his supporters.
We wonder what it takes for Democrats to get excited over the prospect of voting for a woman who bears a large share of responsibility for turning an entire country into a war-torn failed state overrun by terrorists and is showered with money by Wall Street (note: she not only gets serious money for her probably sleep-inducing speeches from the likes of Goldman Sachs, she has actually received 2,550 times more money from hedge funds than Trump).
Presumably many are clinging very strongly to the “lesser evil” fantasy, but surely they realize that she stands for business as usual (including more war) – the quintessential representative of the cronyism characterizing Washington.
What Might be Skewing the Polls?
One thing that occurred to us already during the nomination process was that certain Trump supporters were likely to refrain from identifying themselves as such, given the steady drumbeat of condemnation of their man in the media.
What we didn’t know was that the phenomenon actually has a name, which a friend recently pointed out to us. It is called the “Bradley effect” (you can read all about it here), named after the supposedly winning (but actually losing) candidate in the 1982 gubernatorial election in California. Even the exit polls turned out to be wrong in this case.
A short while ago we have come across another possible explanation. Below is a video in which Stefan Molyneux speaks with Bill Mitchell. It has to be pointed out that Mitchell is a Trump supporter, so his views are presumably colored by his own bias to some extent. Nevertheless, he presents very interesting arguments.
Apart from mentioning some of the things we discuss above (e.g. the enthusiasm Trump generates), and the likelihood that independents and currently still undecided voters will overwhelmingly vote for Trump (which incidentally would also be in line with the “Bradley effect”), he notes that there are certain technical problems with the polls.
Specifically, he points out that the polls are skewed because Democratic voters are generally oversampled and the results are not corrected for that. He mentions a few counter-examples that seem to confirm this (note that we have not fact-checked these assertions).
While the term “social mood” isn’t mentioned in the course of the conversation, Mitchell does point to it when he says that (we are paraphrasing) “Trump is just riding the wave of an already existing trend”. This trend is noticeable all over the world as we have previously discussed (see e.g. “Incumbents Swept from Office Around the World”). Here is the video – it is well worth watching:
Stefan Molyneux speaks to Bill Mitchell about the polls and Trump’s chances
Part of the “Bradley effect” would also consist of demographics that are thought to be overwhelmingly favoring Clinton containing more Trump supporters than is generally thought. And there may well be many who are prepared to reassess their views when Trump tries to reach out to them – which he appears to be doing of late, once again employing a theme tied to the current social mood.
Consider this brief video clip from a speech he recently delivered at a rally in Michigan, in which he explains why African-Americans should consider voting for him. His argument is basically: you have it bad now, so what do you have to lose? Better vote for change (in the form of Trump), instead of voting for the status quo again.
Trump asks African-Americans to consider voting for him
This idea may have unexpected appeal, considering that blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Obama and have lost a great deal of ground economically under his administration. During his presidency, black home ownership has declined from 46.1% to 41.9%, while black food stamp recipients have soared from 7,393,000 to 11,699,000 people. One statistic that was improving – namely unemployment, and specifically youth unemployment – has come undone again after the introduction of higher minimum wages, rising from 28.1% to 40.1% in a single month.
Conclusion
There seems to be a lot of smug certitude that Trump is definitely destined to lose the election. We are not so sure. At the very least we would think that the race between Trump and Clinton is far tighter than it appears according to recent polls. This bring us back to a point we mentioned last week: the market is not pricing in the “risk” of an election upset.
We happen to think that presidents cannot change as much as is widely thought, or as they would perhaps like to – the one area in which they can actually make a difference is foreign policy. This is probably also the main reason why Trump is vilified so extensively, as he has repeatedly stressed that he would alter the US approach to foreign policy, which is seen as a threat to the greatest racket of all time.
R&B singer and convicted domestic abuser Chris Brown was engaged in a standoff with the LAPD and a SWAT team at his Los Angeles house today after a woman called 911 to report that Brown had pulled a gun on her.
At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Triump the Insult Comic Dog was on hand to cover the event for Hulu (or, as he pronounces it, “Hooolu”). Along with Reason TV producer Alexis Garcia, I had the opportunity to participate in a bold experiment inside Triumph’s “Free Speech Booth,” where our very souls were tested. We could either say whatever we wanted to say or read a script about Goldman Sachs for a crisp $50 bill. Click above to see what we end up doing. We show up one after the other around the 2:30 mark.
Shortly after that harrowing encounter, I talked with Triumph’s creator, Robert Smigel, who created a series of tremendous videos for Saturday Night Livebeginning in 1996. Click below to watch that Facebook Live stream, which updates Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” for a time when a grown man can make a living and create a cult following with a foul-mouthed (and incredibly funny) dog puppet.
When a powerful, unelected federal official says we need to have an “adult conversation” about the limits of federal authority as contrasted with the civil liberties of the people he allegedly works for, hold on to your butts.
Whenever somebody declares the need for an “adult conversation” in the first place, they are suggesting that one hasn’t already been happening, and often accomplishes little but to raise the hackles. It is a deliberate insult against those with opposing views. In this particular case, the person invoking the term is FBI Director James Comey, and it’s pretty much directed at the entire tech sector and privacy advocates who have been pushing back (for decades) against government attempts to tamper with and weaken encryption.
There’s something remarkably telling about the man saying we need to have an “adult conversation” on encryption limits primarily because he can’t just get whatever he wants. Isn’t that the child’s argument? The government wants this information. Give us this information!
Of course, as always, it’s couched in terms of the alleged threat of the Internet going “dark” and federal investigators worried they’re not able to track down alleged criminals and terrorists. Comey complained about it at a tech symposium today. The Associated Press reports:
“The conversation we’ve been trying to have about this has dipped below public consciousness now, and that’s fine,” Comey said. “Because what we want to do is collect information this year so that next year we can have an adult conversation.”
The American people, he said, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in houses, cars and electronic devices — but he argued that right is not absolute.
“With good reason, the people of the United States — through judges and law enforcement — can invade our public spaces,” Comey said, adding that that “bargain” has been at the heart of the country since its inception.
This is what he thinks is an “adult conversation.” While Comey wants to present this is a reasonably as possible, recall that when they found a phone in the possession by a terrorist that was protected with a password, what the Department of Justice thought was the reasonable, adult response was to try to use the courts to conscript Apple and to actually force it to compromise its own security systems to give the government access to the phone’s contents. The government wants things! Give the government those things! This is the “adult conversation” Comey’s side is having right now.
No, privacy is not absolute, but just because they government has the authority to pursue information related to crimes doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed access to it. I’ll dredge up an old example: A suspect may take a box containing evidence to a crime and bury it somewhere out in the desert. The government absolutely has the authority to try to track down that evidence and use any number of tools to do so. But they can’t order the desert to cough it up for them or command some desert experts to track it down for them (though they can certainly hire them).
The “adult conversation” that’s actually already happening is trying to get people like Comey to understand that there’s no magical system where the Department of Justice (or any other government entity) can get access to information to encrypted data that doesn’t leave the whole system vulnerable.
The “adult conversation” is about trying to get authoritarian senators like Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) to understand that the legislation they wrote to order tech companies to assist the government in cracking their own security was so bad—so childish, in fact—that it’s impossible to imagine any tech or privacy-minded adult trusting what they’ll suggest next. The “adult conversation” is “white hat” hackers showing how easy it is for a mistake to compromise the data of millions of computer users. The “adult conversation” is about understanding that oppressive governments will use these tools to punish and imprison their own citizens.
If Comey wants to have an “adult conversation,” we should maybe set encryption aside for now and talk about the absurdity of our government-sponsored drug war that will never, ever succeed any more than any other prohibition has ever succeeded and why the government still clings to the illogical, absurd (and childish) fantasy that illegal drug use can somehow be halted. Maybe if we had that “adult conversation” and brought it to its logical conclusion (ending this foolish war), we could actually then go back and determine how important it actually is for the FBI to be able to defeat encryption. Evidence shows the relentless drive to perpetuate this drug war is playing a major role in this encryption fight, not terrorism, as the feds would have us believe.
For more “adult conversation,” read Andrea Castillo’s piece today about how the feds clearly prioritize the ability to snoop on us over the need to protect us from hackers.
The scenic mountain resort of Jackson Hole in Wyoming played snowy host this weekend to the world’s major central bankers, meeting in conclave to discuss their latest victories over the world economy.
Thronged by adoring savers, the so-called Ja’ss Holes (the J is silent) were quick to point out that they were nowhere near running out of fatuous experiments with untested monetary policies or making it up as they go along.
“We still have plenty of tools,” remarked a spokesperson: “Janet Yellen, Mark Carney, Andy Haldane, Mario Draghi – does any remote, unelected bureaucracy anywhere in the world have a bigger set of tools?”
The theme of the meeting is “What, if anything, will be left when we have finished?”
Given the Fed’s stated intention not to surprise financial markets, it is believed that the next 25 basis point rise in fed funds will come, as it did last year, in December – but as part of its forward guidance policy, the decision will be announced by means of a ‘policy dove’ that will be released at the end of the weekend, after a ritual of Native American dancing and hallucinogenic drug-taking, and sent circling around the world with its message of peace and extremely modest monetary tightening.
In the event that the ‘policy dove’ is incapacitated or shot out of the sky, it will be replaced by a ‘policy Elk’ from the National Elk Refuge nearby.
Although official interest rates seem low, a spokesperson said that was only if you looked at them from the perspective of numbers.
Viewed more holistically, from the vantage point of a numeric base system yet to be invented, or one that operates only through color, rates could actually be regarded as quite high.
In any event, the US central bank would not find itself out of weaponry if a new recession caused by the US central bank were to hit.
The US Federal Reserve has already commissioned a fleet of B2 Stealth bombers to initiate the next stage of its economic policy, codenamed ‘Obliterate hope’.
The intention is to bypass the introduction of so-called ‘helicopter money’ and fast forward instead to the endgame of a long, vicious carpet-bombing of North America’s major cities using napalm.
A spokesperson for the European Central Bank pointed out that ‘Obliterate hope’ had already been a key plank of ECB policy across the euro zone for some time, especially in periphery countries.
Determined not to be outflanked by its US rival, the Frankfurt- based organization indicated that it had its own plans for weaponizing its existing QE program, codenamed ‘Project Bubo’.
The ECB, in conjunction with the European Science Foundation, is believed to be planning to tackle the longstanding ‘savings glut’ by means of reintroducing Europe to the Black Death.
Economists believe that such a step could be a key means of boosting productivity, among the survivors.
Speaking to reporters, Mark Carney for the Bank of England pointed out that by comparison with the efforts of the US and the EU, the next phase of UK central banking stimulus would have to reflect Great Britain’s now more modest role in the world, post-Brexit.
He acknowledged that a coordinated aerial bombardment of the UK’s major cities “was certainly desirable”, but that in these more straitened times we might have to settle for a posse of Team GB Olympians jogging from town to town and assaulting random businessmen with socks full of wet sand.
Central bankers acknowledge that they were slow off the mark dealing with the last property bubble, and they point out that they have gone beyond the call of duty to fuel the current one and ensure that its collapse will be even more spectacular, given that interest rates are forecast to be close to minus 280% by then.
With years of monetary accommodation having inflated bond, equity and property prices to unsustainable levels, developed world economies are now beset by low productivity and weak levels of investment and impaired prospects for banks, insurance companies, pension funds, savers and investors.
Ms Yellen, however, piloting an experimental nuclear-powered leisure cruiser, the ‘Permanent Liquidity’, was proud to announce that she “saw no signs of problems ahead,” shortly before steering her yacht into the Teton Glacier where it immediately foundered with all hands.
Observers suggested that its shattered debris would likely stay at the bottom of the Snake River “lower for longer”.
