Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4-4 decision in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. At issue was whether public-school teachers may be forced, as a condition of government employment, to pay mandatory union fees, even when the teachers are not union members. The upshot of today’s decision is that the mandatory union fee scheme remains firmly in place.
After the January oral arguments in this case, most Court watchers expected a different outcome, predicting that California teacher Rebecca Friedrichs would prevail on First Amendment grounds. As Friedrichs and her lawyers argued, and as a majority of the justices seemed ready to agree, “just as the government cannot compel political speech or association generally, it cannot mandate political speech or association as a condition of employment.”
But that was before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. With Scalia gone, the balance in this case likely shifted from 5-4 in Friedrich’s favor to an even 4-4 split. And when the Court splits 4-4, the result is that the lower court ruling in the case is affirmed. In this case, that means the California Teachers Association’s victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remains standing.
Today’s decision is therefore a bitter defeat for critics of public-sector unionism.
Click below to watch Reason.tv’s interview with Rebecca Friedrichs.
Whenever the establishment is seriously threatened, they respond with assassination. This is historically the normal in all cultures. One of the more credible conspiracies about the Kennedy assassination centers on the fact that he was against expanding the military and opposed starting the Vietnam War. After Lyndon Johnson approved the war, he latter commented how it was a staged event and that the Vietnamese never fired on Americans to begin with. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on a “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf. Then, the North Vietnamese boats followed up with a “deliberate attack” on a pair of U.S. ships two days later. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson commented,“For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” The military wanted war, regardless of the facts. They lied to the American people and took the lives of more than 50,000 boys.
The standard operation is always to assassinate the outsider who resists the establishment, be it military or political.
Of course there are plenty of examples like Martin Luther King insofar as activists are concerned. However, proof that the Ukrainian Revolution was real, and not some CIA plot that the communist mafia running Ukraine has spread as propaganda, is the fact that when Ukraine was winning its independence. Those in Parliament at the time were still in the communist mafia and were stealing everything they could from the national production. Viacheslav Chornovil (1937-March 25, 1999) was a political activist who the people turned to as their first independent president. He was very prominent as a Ukrainian dissident in the Soviet Union and was arrested multiple times in the 1960s and 1970s for his political views. A long-time advocate of Ukrainian independence, he was paving the way for contemporary independence in Ukraine. He became known as a dissident after documenting the illegal imprisonment of some Ukrainian intellectuals. They did everything they could to imprison him on non-political allegations. In April 1980, they paid off a girl to claim Chornovil raped her and he was arrested for “attempted rape” since she could not prove he actually did anything. Chornovil was sentenced to five years in prison.
When it became clear he would win the election against the incumbent President Leonid Kuchma, the “former” Communist Party leader in the 1999 presidential election, Chornovil died with his aid in a very convenient car crash on March 25, 1999. The official investigation carried by the Ministry of Internal Affairs naturally proclaimed it was just an accident. He was a national hero and on August 23, 2006, Viktor Yushchenko, the previous president of Ukraine, unveiled a monument to Chornovil and ordered a new investigation into his death, which of course never blamed anyone in power.
Then there was the case of Galina Starovoitova (1946-1998) who began her political career in 1989 when the tide was turning. In the USSR Congress, she became a member of the reformist faction. In April 1998, she became the leader of “Democratic Russia,” which became a registered official party. She was preparing for the State Duma elections that were to be held in December 1999. Galina Starovoitova tried to prevent the old guard from coming to power. Starovoitova opposed the direction of Russia moving from a communist to oligarchy state and made this part of her political platform in “Democratic Russia.” Starovoitova was gunned down in the entryway of her apartment building in St. Petersburg on November 20, 1998. At first, the spin was she was really a puppet of a “western financier,” who was supposed to be me simply because her son worked in our London office.
The point is, those in power will NEVER surrender their power willingly. Donald Trump is flying in the face of people so corrupt that they would not hesitate to have him assassinated somehow, be it a plane or car crash or under the pretense of some minority who gets amazing access.
This is standard operatingprocedure and it is dominant throughout history from ancient times to the present. They will stop Donald Trump one way or another. They cannot afford to lose control of their money machine. The press is part of the establishment, for you can see they have received their orders to portray Trump as dangerous. They should be nominated for an Oscar at the Academy Awards. This is why there is ultimately revolution. No individual can reverse the direction of corruption. Yet the practice of assassination is historic.
So either they rig the convention, or they create an accident. The “establishment” does not appear willing to accept Trump under any conditions.
A yuuge surge in stocks – amid collapsing earnings and GDP expectations – appears to have enabled a modest bounce off 2-year lows for consumer confidence. The Conference Board’s index ofconsumer confidence increased to 96.2 in March from 94 a month earlier – but still below January's levels. The bounce was driven purely by "hope" as expectations for the future rose and current conditions dropped to 4-month lows. At the same time Gallup's consumer confidence survey plumbes new depths to its lowest since 2015.
For now, Stocks helped to blind 'consumers' to the economic collapse…
“Consumer confidence increased in March, after declining in February,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board.
“Consumers’ assessment of current conditions posted a moderate decline, while expectations regarding the short-term turned more favorable as last month’s turmoil in the financial markets appears to have abated. On balance, consumers do not foresee the economy gaining any significant momentum in the near-term, nor do they see it worsening.”
And while the below-the-surface data is not as bullish, Gallup's most recent survey of Economic Confidence shows more weakness.
Americans' confidence in the economy dipped last week, with the U.S. Economic Confidence Index averaging -13 for the week ending March 27. This score is down from -9 the previous week.
Since July, Americans' economic confidence has remained fairly steady, apart from a couple of exceptions in late August and mid-January. Before falling back to -13 last week, index scores in recent weeks began to show signs of improving confidence. The terrorist attacks in Brussels last week could have shaken Americans' confidence in the long-term stability of the global or U.S. economy. Confidence remains below where it was in early 2015, when weekly index scores were positive or just slightly negative.
Gallup's U.S. Economic Confidence Index is the average of two components: how Americans rate current economic conditions and whether they feel the economy is improving or getting worse. The index has a theoretical maximum of +100 if all Americans say the economy is doing well and improving, and a theoretical minimum of -100 if all Americans say the economy is doing poorly and getting worse.
For the week ending March 27, the current conditions score of -5 was on the lower end of the range for this component so far in 2016. This score was based on 24% of Americans rating the current economy as "excellent" or "good," and 29% rating it as "poor." The economic outlook score was -20, resulting from 38% of U.S. adults saying the economy is "getting better" and 58% saying it is "getting worse." The -20 score represents a six-percentage-point drop from the prior week's reading of -14 on this component.
Bottom Line
The attacks in Brussels cast a dark shadow over last week, which could perhaps have tainted Americans' optimism in their views of more than just their physical safety — such as their country's financial stability. The Dow Jones industrial average also suffered in the aftermath of the attacks but has since begun to recover.
Meanwhile, the low gas prices Americans have enjoyed for months have started to climb back up. Although Americans largely stashed the savings they received at the pump in recent months, that doesn't make saying goodbye to low prices any easier. It's quite possible that Americans had become so accustomed to cheap gas that any sign of a price increase could influence their assessment of the economy. However, it is unclear whether Americans expect seasonal changes in gas prices or if they attribute those increases to a problem with the economy.
It has been so long, we forgot what it’s like for the “smart money” (hedge funds, private clients and institutional clients) to put money to work into the market instead of rushing to unload their exposure to corporations buying back their stock (in near record amounts).
Just last week, when we looked at the most recent Bank of America data, we said that “this is unprecedented” because as BofA revealed, insiders had sold stocks for 2 straight months, or 8 consecutive weeks, essentially confirming that the recent market rebound was nothing more than a central bank-goosed bear market rally, and that those who could take advantage of it, did so… by selling.
Earlier today we got the latest weekly client flow update from BofA’s Jill Hall, and drumroll, not only has nothing changed but we can now tack on one more week of selling: the selling has now continued for a whopping nine consecutive weeks.
Here are the details from BofA:
Last week, during which the S&P 500 fell 0.7%, BofAML clients were net sellers of US stocks for the ninth consecutive week, in the amount of $1.2bn. As we noted last week, this is the longest selling streak in five years, with cumulative net sales of $11bn over the last nine weeks. Clients may doubt the sustainability of this rally, given the lack of fundamental support (S&P 500 profits remain in a recession and revision trends remain negative). For the fifth week in a row, all three client groups (institutional clients, hedge funds and private clients) were net sellers, led by institutional clients. Institutional clients have also been the biggest net sellers of US stocks in 1Q16 (year-to-date). Large, mid and small caps all saw net sales last week; but year-to-date cumulative flows into small and mid caps are still in the black. Buybacks by our corporate clients slowed last week to a five-week low, but the multi-week average remains healthy. Year-to-date, cumulative buybacks of $12bn are tracking 40% above the $9bn we saw in 1Q of last year, though below the record $18bn we saw in 1Q of 2014.
Which, together with the latest data from Credit Suisse, lets us summarize the four key reasons why no investors believe this rally is for real.
The “smart money” have been net sellers of US stocks for the ninth consecutive week. This is the longest selling streak in five years. “Clients may doubt the sustainability of this rally, given the lack of fundamental support: S&P 500 profits remain in a recession and revision trends remain negative.”
Investors are positioning for a market reversal based on leveraged positions in volatility funds. As the WSJ noted yesterday citing Morningstar data, assets in the ProShares Trust Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and the VelocityShares Daily 2x VIX Short-Term ETN, have both more than doubled to almost $1.5B from the beginning of March through Thursday, something we highlighted as well.
Oil bulls never jumped on board the latest rally. As crude has soared more than 50 percent since Feb. 11, the number of bets on increased prices has barely budged. Instead, the upward pressure on prices came from traders covering bearish positions at a record pace. The liquidation of short positions during the last seven weeks covered by data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission was the largest on record.
The CS Fear Barometer remains elevated – The skew being elevated is really a function of the upside calls being sold broadly in the market
And while we now know this “rally” was one which nobody actually believed in, it remains an open question what will catalyze the market resuming its sell off, and sliding back to that all important 1812 level in the S&P500 at which the Fed clearly brings out the artillery and says (if not does)everything in its power to prevent further selling.
“Energy needs lower prices to maintain financial stress to finish the rebalancing process; otherwise, an oil price rally will prove self-defeating as it did last spring,” Goldman’s Jeffrey Currie recently wrote, on the outlook for crude going forward.
The rally off the lows has largely stemmed from the market’s hopes for an output freeze from Russia, the Saudis, and everyone else who isn’t Iran. Producers will meet in Doha next month to try and hammer out an agreement, but as we’ve documented exhaustively, the whole effort is farcical at best.
Moscow and Riyadh (among others) are already pumping at record levels, and it’s not at all clear why “freezing” output at all time highs is bullish. Indeed, as we noted last week, Russian crude exports are set to rise going forward. “The discussion is only about freezing production. And not exports,” Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak told reporters earlier this month.
Throw in the fact that a recalcitrant Iran is in no mood to freeze anything now that international sanctions have finally been lifted and you have a decidedly bearish fundamental backdrop for crude, and that, in turn, should be expected to pressure the rest of the commodities complex which has for years struggled to deal with slumping Chinese demand and a global deflationary supply glut.
For their part, Barclays thinks the bullish sentiment around commodities could shift abruptly in the not so distant future, leading the “herd” straight off a cliff.
“Investors have been attracted to commodities as one of the best performing assets so far in 2016,” analyst Kevin Norrish begins. “However, in the absence of any concerted fundamental improvements, those returns are unlikely to be repeated in Q2, making commodities vulnerable to a wave of investor liquidation that we estimate could, in a worst case scenario, knock as much as 20- 25% from current price levels.” Here’s more:
Given that recent price appreciation does not seem to be very well founded in improving fundamentals and that upward trends may prove difficult to sustain, the risk is growing that any setback will result in a rush for the exits that could again lead commodity prices to overshoot to the downside.
Key commodities markets such as oil and copper already face overhangs of excess production capacity and inventories, but also now face another obstacle in the recovery process, that of positioning which is now approaching bullish extremes.
Net flows into commodity investor products totaled over $20bn in January-February (the strongest start to a year since 2011), futures positioning in key markets such as copper and oil has switched rapidly from bearish to bullish extremes in a few short weeks and there is evidence of a surge in investment flows into Chinese commodity markets as well.
The risk for commodities is that investors seek to liquidate long positions quickly and in unison, with potentially highly negative consequences for prices. There are several reasons to believe that a short-term turning point for investor flows might be close.
First, the kind of commodity investment that is taking place currently is not the long-term buy- and-hold strategy for portfolio diversification and inflation protection that underpinned the huge inflows of the previous decade. It is much more short term and opportunistic, as is clear from the relatively short holding period for ETP buyers in oil. Many have been liquidating on the recent move up in prices, having held their positions for only 5-6 weeks.
Second, commodities are among the few assets that have generated a positive return in Q1 and, as quarter-end approaches, that may make investors keener than they would usually be to close out long positions and lock in profits.
Third, the risk rally set in place by the previous week’s more dovish-than-expected FOMC statement is already starting to fade, as several Fed policymakers came out last week with more hawkish statements. Part of the problem with recent Fed-driven risk rallies is that they most often result from a run of poor economic data usually for the US, though recent Fed comments suggest it is becoming increasingly conscious of the growth path in emerging markets as well. Unfortunately, that means that any commodity price gains that result tend to be transitory because they are not supported by any underlying improvement in demand fundamentals; that seems to be the case again this time.
“How bad could it get?,” Barclays asks? “A very simple analysis of the relationship between investor positioning and recent price movements in oil suggests the potential for a 20-25% move down in prices if positioning were to return to the average levels of the past few months. The potential downside in copper is similar,” the bank says, answering its own question.
So that puts copper in “the low $4,000s” and as for crude, we’re looking at the low $30s. In short, still suppressed demand, quarter-end profit taking, and the possibility that the Fed will turn more hawkish thus curtailing risk appetite and sparking a USD rally could cause a violent reversal. And as we noted just this morning, things are already starting to unravel:
But don’t worry, as long as everyone gathered in Doha next month agrees to freeze production at the current record-setting pace which, if it keeps up, will soon result in every backyard swimming pool in the world being filled to the brim with black gold, everything should be fine.
For those who need a visual of where Barclays thinks this is heading, consider that the note excerpted above is entitled “Buffalo Jump,” an allusion to Native Americans driving herds of bison off cliffs…
It’s looking like the Tuesday-morning hijacker of an Egypt Air plane bound for Cairo was motivated more by personal than political reasons. The hijacker, who claimed to be wearing a bomb, ordered the plane diverted to the island of Cyprus, several hours from Egypt—and the home of his ex wife. Egyptian media reports that he threw a letter from the plane once it landed at the airport in Larnaca, asking that it be delivered to his former spouse. Others, however, say he wanted the release of some female Egyptian prisoners. Whatever his motives, the hijacker—identified by the Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Seif Eldin Mustaf—surrendered and was arrested, and the plane’s passengers and crew have been released with no injuries. The explosives strapped to his chest didin’t even turn out to be real.
The mood on Twitter and cable news quickly turned from fear to aww, shucks jokes about the lengths this man went to for love. (Well, with the exception of Fox News, which was reporting that it’s unknown if the explosives were real long after other media said they weren’t; suggesting that maybe the hijacker didn’t voluntarily surrender but was ”overtaken” by passengers and crew, when nothing has suggested that; and questioning whether we need to up security measures at airports.) There were also a good deal of people celebrating that a skyjacking has, for a change, ended without anyone hurt or any major catastrophes. But skyjackings that don’t end in tragedy are actually much more typical than those that have.
As Bredan Koerner noted in his 2013 book The Skies Belong to Us Crown, skyjackings were once quite common. Between 1961, when the first plane hijacking in American airspace occurred, and 1972, 159 commercial flights were hijacked in the United States alone.
The 1961 hijacking involved a Miami electrician who diverted a flight from Key West to Cuba so he could warn Fidel Castro about an imaginary assassin. “The man was arrested upon arrival, the passengers were treated to lunch in Havana, and the flight was delayed by three hours before landing safely in Key West,” reports Jessica Loudis at The New Inquiry in a review of Koerner’s book. More from Loudis:
Once Kennedy finally made skyjacking a capital offense, in the fall of 1961, the designation led to a lull in hijackings that would last until 1965, when a 14-year-old boy commandeered a plane in Hawaii. After that, Cuba proved to be by far the most popular destination for hijackers: By 1968, regardless of their destination, all airplanes were outfitted with charts of the Caribbean sea in the event of a rerouting to Havana. For several years, hijacked planes were a source of extra income for the Castro regime, which charged airlines an average of $7,500 to retrieve their aircraft. To dissuade would-be hijackers, the State Department proposed offering free one-way flights to Cuba to anybody who wanted them—a measure the Cuban government rejected.
In 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration convened a special anti-hijacking task force to come up with a solution to the problem. The most popular suggestion (which was never acted upon) was to build a mock version of Havana’s Jose Marti Airport in South Florida to trick hijackers into thinking that they had reached Cuba.
By 1971, skyjackings had become so frequent that Lloyd’s of London started offering hijacking insurance to travelers in the U.S., guaranteeing “$500 per day of captivity, plus $2,500 in medical coverage, and $5,000 in the event of death or dismemberment” in exchange for a $75 premium per flight.
The era of skyjacking reached its apogee and conclusion in 1972. That year saw 40 separate hijackings and a coup-de-grace in which three men hijacked a plane over central Alabama and threatened to fly it into a nuclear power station. After realizing that airplanes could potentially be used as “weapons of mass destruction” the government finally mandated the use of metal detectors and armed guards at airports nationwide.
What seems “most archaic” about the early era of mass flight is how easily passengers moved about the airports, writes Koerner in the intro to The Skies Belong to Us. “Anyone could stroll onto a tarmac and queue for boarding without holding a ticket or presenting identification. Some flights even permitted passengers to pay their fares after takeoff, as if jets were merely commuter trains with wings. A generation of skyjackers evploited this naivete.”
Interestingly, Koerner “has no political axe to grind,” according to Loudis’ review, and treats the skyjacking wave as a “strange viral phenomena, opportunistic infections attacking a diseased airline system … an avenue of personal expression for his eccentric and unfailingly earnest subjects.”
One midcentury hijacker explained his impulse thusly: “It was better than eighteen years of therapy, or whatever. It just seemed like the answer.”
US Home prices rose 5.75% YoY according to Case-Shiller (the fastest rate since July 2014) as it appears the Chinese buyers are migrating south from Canada with Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco reported the highest year-over-year gains among the 20 cities with another month of double digit annual price increases. Home prices continue to climb at more than twice the rate of inflation amid a suply shortage as West Coast propertty markets become “Vancouvered.”
The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index, covering all nine U.S. census divisions, recorded a slightly higher year-over-year gain with a 5.4% annual increase in January 2016. The 10-City Composite is up slightly at 5.1% for the year. The 20-City Composite’s year-over-year gain is 5.7%. After seasonal adjustment, the National, 10-City Composite, and 20-City Composite rose 0.5%, 0.8%, and 0.7%, respectively, from the prior month.
Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco reported the highest year-over-year gains among the 20 cities with another month of double digit annual price increases.
Portland led the way with an 11.8% year-over-year price increase, followed by Seattle with 10.7%, and San Francisco with a 10.5% increase. Eleven cities reported greater price increases in the year ending January 2016 versus the year ending December 2015. Phoenix reported an annual gain of 6.1% in January 2016 versus 6.3% in December 2015, ending its streak of 12 consecutive months of increasing annual gains. The western part of the country saw the largest price gains in the past year; the northeast is the weakest region.
Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco home prices are now above 2006/2007 bubble highs…
“Home prices continue to climb at more than twice the rate of inflation,” says David M. Blitzer, Managing Director and Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices.
“The low inventory of homes for sale — currently about a five month supply – means that would-be sellers seeking to trade-up are having a hard time finding a new, larger home. The recovery of the sale and construction of new homes has lagged the gains seen in existing home sales. This may be starting to change: starts of single family homes in February were the highest since November 2007. The single-family-home share of total housing starts was 70% in February, up from a low of 57% in June 2015, and approaching the 75%-80% range seen before the housing crisis.
“While low inventories and short supply are boosting prices, financing continues to be a concern for some potential purchasers, particularly young adults and first time home buyers. The issue is availability of credit for people with substantial student or credit card debt. While rising home prices are certainly a factor deterring home purchases, individual financial positions are more important than local housing market conditions. One hopeful sign is that the home ownership rate, at 63.7% in the 2015 fourth quarter, may be turning around. It is up slightly from 63.5% in the 2015 second quarter but far below the 2004 high of 69.1%.”
Vancouver…
Coming to your West Coast real estate market soon.
For the second day in a row the Capitol is on lockdown.
On the heels of a Monday incident that saw a self-styled “prophet from God” pull a gun before before ultimately being subdued and taken into custody, police are now investigating two “unattended packages” near the Capitol building. Here’s Reuters:
The Capitol was placed on lockdown for second day on Tuesday as authorities responded to a suspicious package, authorities said.
U.S. Capitol Police said a suspicious package was found but did not elaborate.
A Reuters witness reported a bomb squad was on the scene.
The lockdown came after a man was shot and wounded by police after he pointed what appeared to be a weapon at officers in the underground U.S. Capitol Visitor Center on Monday.
The greatest short-squeeze on record is over and now the great global oil glut in history, largest inventories since The Great Depression, and global growth demand collapsing fundamentals are being priced back in. WTI Crude is now down 10% from its highs a week ago, back to near 2-week lows and near a $37 handle.
Can we just get another random ‘Doha’ meeting headline…
Always remember who's selling whom, and who's in charge.
Everyone who isn't willfully blind knows that the Corporate (mainstream) Media doesn't give the same coverage to Bernie Sanders as it does to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Bernie's rallies go unmentioned, his victories are given short shrift and his personal narrative–practically ideal for media glorification–is mentioned in passing, if at all.
A media professional clued me into why the Corporate Media hates Bernie and will move Heaven and Earth to defeat him: Sanders is the only candidate who is seriously promoting campaign finance reform.
When a Super-PAC raises $100 million for Hillary, Jeb, et al., where does 90% of that money go? To the Corporate Media. Corporate Media gorges on political media buys every two years, and increasingly depends on this feasting on Super-PAC money for its outsized profits.
As more and more advertising dollars flow to digital media (online search, Facebook, etc.), traditional media dominated by a handful of corporate giants needs the massive influx of campaign dollars to offset its stagnating revenue model.
My source notes that there are rarely any discounts for campaign media buys–the super-PACs and candidate's campaigns pay full pop, and typically pay in cash: no 90 days receivables for campaigns.
Political campaign buys are almost pure profit, as there is minimal sales effort required and the campaign/super-PAC is paying full freight.
Real campaign finance reform would gut Corporate Media's profits. No wonder the Corporate Media downplays Sanders' campaign, his personal integrity and his chances to become president.
As for the firewall that supposedly divides editorial from advertising: it's there for show, of course, and everyone in the business solemnly declares it's a Great Wall that is never breached, but the reality is the editorial staff know very well who butters their bread–and it sure isn't the folks getting free media coverage when their competitors are buying tens of millions of dollars in advertising.
Nobody has to openly state that big advertisers are not going to get negative coverage; editorial staff know better than to even propose such a self-destructive notion. Stories are either buried ("this one needs more research") or they are never proposed due to self-censorship by editorial staff worried that their head will roll in the next downsizing.
The Corporate Media has a love/hate thing going with Trump: the editorial side (i.e. the newsroom) loves Trump, because readers /viewers /listeners will tune in just to see what new outrageous, offensive verbiage Trump has blurted in the last 12 hours, but the advert-revenue side hates him with a passion because thanks to his non-stop media coverage, he doesn't need to advertise much in the Corporate Media.
According to this estimate, Trump spent $10 million on advertising and received $1.89 billion in free coverage.Deep State Darling Hillary Clinton spent $28 million (is that all?) on adverts and skimmed $746 million in free coverage; Bernie Sanders also spent $28 million and received less than half of Hillary's free coverage ($321 million)–no bias here, folks, everything is fair and unbiased–and drop-out Jeb Bush spent $82 million and scored $214 million in free coverage.
So the editorial side concerned with attracting eyeballs loves loose-cannon Trump, but the real ruler of the media, the revenue side, hates him most passionately: this skinflint spends almost nothing and gets more free coverage than the rest of the candidates put together.
As you consume the coverage and the advertising this election cycle, always remember that 1) the mainstream media in the U.S. is all corporate-owned, 2) corporations exist to maximize profits, 3) profits flow from advertising, not free coverage, and 4) real campaign finance reform will negatively impact Corporate Media profits.
Always remember who's selling whom, and who's in charge: who is the Deep State selling? Who is the Corporate Media selling? Recall that the the Deep State gives the Corporate Media its marching orders: Hillary regains the momentum (New York Times, et al.)
