Triumph the Insult Comic Dog Poops on Campus Political Correctness

“Can I hump your leg? I know I look like a dog, but I identify as a shinguard.”

That’s how Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, of Conan fame, addressed a female University of New Hampshire (UNH) student in a segment about campus political correctness for Triumph’s Election Special 2016, which streams on Hulu.

The state university was a natural choice to be pooped on not only for its relevance to the presidential primaries but also for its short-lived but self-parodic “Bias-Free Language Guide,” which declared words like “American,” “mothering,” and “healthy” to be beyond the pale of civilized discourse. 

Triumph’s alter ego, Robert Smigel, has described his puppet character as a parody of a Borscht Belt hack comedian, akin to a less-charming Don Rickles. For the better part of two decades, the rubber puppet has been “punching down” at hapless victims of his rapier wit, such as the “nerds” waiting in line for a Star Wars premiere. But he has likely never encountered a more humorless group than the dozen or so UNH undergrads in this video. 

I won’t ruin the microaggressive jokes by transcribing them, but near the end of the segment, a completely over-the-top walking stereotype of a flamboyantly gay African-American man walks into the room, and you can practically see the smoke emanating from the heads of the students as they try to find a non-problematic way to describe him.

These earnest college kids are clearly trying to do what they’ve been conditioned to believe is the right thing, which is to avoid stating things in plain and understandable language in order to spare hurting anyone’s feelings. But the effort is both futile and absurd, which might be the point.

As Smigel told Ben Collins at The Daily Beast:

I told the kids, “Act like you believe in what you’re doing and saying,” so they might have actually gone a bit too far. I can’t tell how that one actually plays because usually people laugh when they’re being made fun of. These kids were trying to hold it in. 

This quote indicates that the UNH students might not actually be as uptight as they appear in the video, which is a good thing! Laughing at yourself isn’t “punching down,” is it?

Reason TV recently asked students at Occidental College how they feel about the school’s proposed system for reporting microaggressions. Watch below.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1V1itag
via IFTTT

Deutsche Bank Is Terrified: “What Needs To Be Done” In Its Own Words

It all started in mid/late 2014, when the first whispers of a Fed rate hike emerged, which in turn led to relentless increase in the value of the US dollar and the initial plunge in the price of oil.

The immediate implication of these two concurrent events was missed by most, but we wrote all about it in November of that year in “How The Petrodollar Quietly Died, And Nobody Noticed.” The conclusion was simple: Fed tightening and the resulting plunge in commodity prices, would lead (as it did) to the collapse of the great petrodollar cycle which had worked so effectively for 18 years and which led to petrodollar nations serving as a source of demand for $10 trillion in US assets, and when over would result in the Quantitative Tightening, initially documented last summer which has been unleashed by not only most emerging markets but most notably China, and whose impact has been to not only pressure stocks lower but bring economic growth across the entire world to a grinding halt.

The second, and just important development, was observed in early 2015: in March we wrote that “The Global Dollar Funding Shortage Is Back With A Vengeance And “This Time It’s Different” and followed up on it later in the year in “Global Dollar Funding Shortage Intensifies To Worst Level Since 2012” a problem which has manifested itself most notably in Africa where as we wrote recently, virtually every petroleum exporting nation has run out of actual physical dollars.

The point is, it all started with the rising dollar and the ensuing global dollar shortage, and thus, the Fed embarking on what may be the biggest central bank error of all time. To be sure, the consequences are wide ranging: from the collapse in crude, to the tremors and devaluations in China, to the tightening financial conditions, to the (manufacturing) recession in the U.S., and most recently, to whispers that Deutsche Bank, the bank with $60 trillion in notional derivatives, may be the next Lehman Brothers.

Which, incidentally, brings us to none other than one of Deutsche Bank’s most respected credit analysts, Dominic Konstam, who clearly has an appreciation of the existential risk he finds himself in, not only career-wise, but in terms of the entire financial structure. We know this, because after reading his email blast from this morning we realize just how vast the fear, if not sheer terror, is among those who truly realize just how broken the system currently is.

We have reposted his entire letter below, because it represents the most definitive blueprint of everything that is about to be unleashed – especially since it comes from the perspective of one of the people who is currently deep inside Deutsche Bank and realizes just how close to the edge the German bank is.

What Konstam makes clear, in no uncertain terms, is that the the problem is the one we laid out back in November 2014: “It is not oil, it is not in the banks, it is a run on central bank liquidity, especially dollar based and there needs to be much more ($) liquidity.”

His solution? It’s actually quite disturbing to all those who thought that all our warnings that cash would be outlawed were nothing but a joke. For those pressed for time jump straight to the “What needs to be done section” – it’s a doozy.

Strategy Update:

 

What we need….Main point is still policymakers need to recognize the problem and have a total rethink of strategy…Yellen is a detail in the grand scheme of things if its more of the same about risks to the outlook but labor mkt strong, blah blah Even Draghi has clear re-think issues.. no longer about more negative rates in the way they have been doing it but cutting thru the incipient financial crisis.

 

All of these though are symptoms of the wider problem — the collapse in global liquidity that  is on going in the post Fed qe phase, reflected in an overly strong dollar/loss of reserves and end user deleveraging from china to opec to credit. It picks off the weaker links and makes people think that that is the “problem”. So about 3 weeks everyone was saying if only oil would stabilize.. and “it has”.. but that wasn’t the solution; Now it’s if only euro bank credit stabilizes, and no doubt there will be a level when that happens.. but that won’t be it.. The PCA analysis from Jerome was neat becos it captures the investor base-plus running on the hampster wheel thinking it’s found the problem. The very fact that the weightings have shifted from oil to euro financials doesnt mean the problem is different now then it was, it’s the same problem but PCA can’t find it– by definition. (Correlation is not causality). It merely captures the menu du jour.

 

Soon enough the “problem” will be equities generally or maybe core rates dropping “too low”, these weightings invariably will rise — and thats why its very dangerous to use the last year’s correlation to determine which markets have over or under reacted to the best proxy of the problem, at any particular time. For example rates look too low in the PCA now but that’s precisely becos they were almost invariant to lower oil late last year.

 

The refrain from the customer base last year if you recall was that rates don’t rally when there’s risk off.. that must be becos of loss of reserves or investor too long etc (George’s QT). But now they are moving and the correlation is becoming stronger. I would posit that instead of a low correlation dissauding investors from hedging with rates they are actually needing to get super long to make up for poor performance on risk assets becos it is they only thing that comes close to a proper hedge. So the mother of all rate rallies will be driven by investors going way over long on the either side UNLESS or UNTIL policymakers do the right thing…

 

Our traders have been debating whether the market trades long or not with idea that there seems to be better selling.. but CoT got shorter last week and even on the open interest adjment Alex Li did, it still looks to us that the market trades short — or not long enough..And that means we do not want to fade this move absent the policy shift,.. and that means why can’t 10s test the old lows. On the euro financial issue itself.. our equity analysts have got a lot of attention around the specifics of the euro fincl issue from the concerns over exposures to commodities/china.. the inability to earn in a low for long/negative yield world to the overreach of regulation with limitations on capital raising/bail in issues..

 

One of the main issues we would argue is that policymakers need to be break what wd become a liquidity issue for banks in the status quo. TLTROs had poor take up becos banks were capital constrained and didn’t want to lend — that now limits their access to liquidity going forward so if the exposure/bail in concerns force banks to the ECB there better be an open door. In the xtreme the ECB cd buy the (sub) debt but the politics probably don’t allow that — better might be to simply offer cheap liquidity for alternative vehicles to do so or better yet have unconditional LTROs — either way it is probably not the time to go deeper negative on rates. The exposure issue has been downplayed but make no mistake banks are heavily exposed to Asia/MidEast and while 10% writedown might be worst case for China but too high for the whole, it is what investors shd and do worry about — whole wd include the contagion to banking hubs in Sing/HKong..

 

and for the record BIS data is as follows for countries’ bank exposures — we’ll give China first, whole second.. Australia: 32bn/74bn; france 43bn/226bn; germany 28bn/120 bn; japan  70 bn/367bn; uk 169bn/657bn; US 87bn/409bn. Note according to Fed rough proxy of US bank capital is over 1.5 tn so in worst case scenario it would “only” be 3% of capital.. a lot but managable.. but that’s then becomes the problem for UK, French banks in particular,,ironically not obviously Germany so much..altho Europe has the issue of earning the capital that US banks are better able to do.

And now, the conclusion we’ve all been waiting for:

So back to the  original question WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. Simple?
 

  1. Recognize the problem. It is not oil, it is not in the banks..it is a run on central bank liquidity, especially dollar based and there needs to be much more ($) liquidity. Keynes said to deal with overinvestment boom you cut you don’t raise rates. QE is impractical but getting the dollar down would greatly lift dollar based liquidity. So for a starter Fed shd stop raising rates and clearly signal an extended time out.
  2. Draghi shd follow up with a one 2 punch, not to get rates down but open the refi spigot to banks and ease liquidity concerns.
  3. China needs to come clean. Devalue, stabilize reserves and then allocate 1 tn+ to short up strategically important institutions. Stop intervening in equity markets.
  4. And Basel 3 (?4) should be delayed specifically regarding leverage ratios and threat of higher. As a token move there shd be deemphasis of the SSM/bail in rules until there is clarity from the ECB on liquidity sources for stressed banks.
  5. how about some fiscal stimulus
  6. on negative rates — instead of making them punitive on the banks allow the banks to earn the spread, make them punitive to savers.. Cash shd be charged interest put the micro chip in large denom notes/tax cash withdrawals.. encourage spending not saving .. mortgage rates can be negative and banks can still earn a spread. The spread is the problem not the rate.

The existential fear is tangible, as is the implied threat: “don’t do these things, and if Deutsche Bank and its $60 trillion in derivatives blow up, it will be on you.”

And now we check to the central bankers who will do precisely as instructed, because Deutsche Bank is simply too vast and too systemically important to fail: in fact its failure would be orders of magnitude more costly and more destructive for modern capital markets than Lehman.

As a result, we expect all of Konstam’s suggestions, from a major China devaluation, to a halt to negative rates, to a Yellen relent (perhaps as soon as tomorrow), to negative rates being passed on to savers, to the taxing of cash withdrawals “to encourage spending not saving”, and all the other bullet points. Unless, of course, someone is intent on seeing Deutsche Bank liquidate, as was the case with Lehman.

That said, Konstam’s final sentence is the most ominous:

“Austria July 31 1932 was a great success; Sept 1 1933 beginning of the end (see Worgl experiment, Gesell).”

He is referring to the “Miracle of Worgl“, when during 1932 – in the middle of the Great Depression – the Austrian town unleashed a monetary experiment in which “Certified Compensation Bills” were issued, a form of currency commonly known as Scrip, or Freigeld, one influenced by the monetary theories of the “hyper-Keynesian” Silvio Gesell.

Why does Konstam bring up scrip as the solution to not only Dutsche Bank’s problems, but the entire problem of a run on central bank liquidity?

Because it’s coming.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mqh4hq Tyler Durden

Former Fed President Demands Negative Rates To Combat “Terrible” Fiscal Policy

Narayana Kocherlakota is a funny guy.

Before abdicating his post at the Minneapolis Fed to former Goldmanite/TARP architect Neel Kashkari, Kocherlakota was the voice of Keynesian “reason” for the FOMC.

Although his pronouncements never measured up to the power of the Bullard, Kocherlakota did call on a number of occasions for MOAR dovishness, noting that if the US economy were to decelerate (which it has), more asset purchases may be warranted.

He’s also suggested on a number of occasions that if the government wants to help the Fed out, it will issue more monetizable debt, thus giving Janet Yellen more paper to buy in a world where central bankers are increasingly bumping up against the limits of Keynesian insanity. 

In October, following the Fed’s “clean relent”, Kocherlakota suggested that the time has come for NIRP in the US. As a reminder, here are the bullets: 

  • KOCHERLAKOTA SAYS FED SHOULD CONSIDER NEGATIVE RATES
  • KOCHERLAKOTA: TAPERING ASSET PURCHASES LED TO SLOWER JOB GAINS
  • KOCHERLAKOTA SAYS JOBS SLOWDOWN ‘NOT SURPRISING’ GIVEN POLICY
  • KOCHERLAKOTA: TAPERING ASSET PURCHASES LED TO SLOWER JOB GAINS

On Tuesday, Kocherlakota is back at it, calling for the FOMC to be “daring” and take the NIRP plunge. “Going negative is daring, but appropriate monetary policy,” he wrote Tuesday on his website. However, it’s necessary because fiscal policy makers have made “a terrible policy failure.”

Right. It’s all the fault of an inept Congress, the universal central banker scapegoat for all that ails the global economy. If only they’d issue more debt (because $19 trillion clearly isn’t enough), the FOMC would be free to buy still more bonds, but because lawmakers are recalcitrant, the Fed apparently needs to go negative in order to put the faltering US economy back on the right track and point inflation back to a “healthy” 2%. 

It’s too bad Narayana’s opinion no loger officially matters, because as we’ve seen in Europe and Japan, NIRP is exceptionally effective at banishing the deflationary impulse, boosting wage growth, and restoring growth. 

*  *  *

Full post from Kocherlakota’s website

Negative Rates: A Gigantic Fiscal Policy Failure

Since October 2015, I’ve argued that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should reduce the target range for the fed funds rate below zero.   Such a move would be appropriate for three reasons:

  1. It would facilitate a more rapid return of inflation to target.
  2. It would help reduce labor market slack more rapidly.
  3. It would slow and hopefully reverse the ongoing and dangerous slide in inflation expectations. 

So, going negative is daring but appropriate monetary policy. But it is a sign of a terrible policy failure by fiscal policymakers.

The reason that the FOMC has to go negative is because the natural real rate of interest r* (defined to be the real interest rate consistent with the FOMC’s mandated inflation and employment goals) is so low.   The low natural real interest rate is a signal that households and businesses around the world desperately want to buy and hold debt issued by the US government.   (Yes, there is already a lot of that debt out there – but its high price is a clear signal that still more should be issued.)  The US government should be issuing that debt that the public wants so desperately and using the proceeds to undertake investments of social value.

But maybe there are no such investments?  That’s a tough argument to sustain quantitatively.  The current market real interest rate – which I would argue is actually above the natural real rate r* – is about 1% out to thirty years.  This low natural real rate represents an incredible opportunity for the US. We can afford to do more to ensure that all of our cities have safe water for our children to drink. We can afford to do more to ensure that our nuclear power plants won’t spring leaks.  We can afford to do more to ensure that our bridges won’t collapse under commuters.

These opportunities barely scratch the surface.  With a 30-year r* below 1%, our government can afford to make progress on a myriad of social problems.  It is choosing not to. 

If the government issued more debt and undertook these opportunities, it would push up r*.  That would make life easier for monetary policymakers, because they could achieve their mandated objectives with higher nominal interest rates. But, more importantly, the change in fiscal policy would make life a lot better for all of us. 

I don’t think that Chair Yellen will say the above in her Humphrey-Hawkins testimony tomorrow – but I also think that it would be great if she did.  

N. Kocherlakota

Rochester, NY, February 9, 2016


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

Bob, I got a bad feeling on this one.

“Bob, I got a bad feeling on this one.
All right?
I mean I got a bad feeling!
I don’t think I’m gonna make it outta here!
D’ya understand
what I’m sayin’ to you?”

The global markets are clearly in turmoil…again.  I thought I would start a quasi-open thread here on ZH, where we can ask questions and share concerns or strategies with one another. 

So, like my asteroid article from last year, let’s have a little more fun, and use this as a test of our financial-armageddon preparedness. 

First, a definition or two

The normalcy bias, or normality bias, is a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster and its possible effects. This may result in situations where people fail to adequately prepare and, on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations.

 

The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred, it never will occur. It can result in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.

 

The opposite of normalcy bias would be overreaction, or “worst-case thinking” bias,in which small deviations from normality are dealt with as signaling an impending catastrophe.

 

Our “worst-case thinking” test scenario is that we have a repeat of 2008, only an order of magnitude worse, and this time it is truly global, with no markets or fiat currency unaffected.  The trigger is that at 4:00 pm Eastern, today, a coordinated revolutionary attack destroys the FRBNY, BIS, BofJ, and the BofE.   The banks and markets simply do not re-open.

Let’s start by having everyone answer four questions:

1) Are you at all prepared to survive even one month without ANY financial intermediaries?
2) What is one immediate action you would take, NOW, to improve your chances?
3) Are you going to stay put, or likely need to go somewhere?
4) What is your single biggest knowledge gap?

As a reminder…

Acknowledge that nobody really knows if, what, when, or how anything in the future is going to happen…it is all just speculation.  Finally, always remember that, “on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero,” so don’t get too worked up, or go into debt, just because of this little exercise in paranoia.

BONUS: If you answered no to question one, have you considered that you may be betting your life on a bunch of bankers?


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1LeuovS hedgeless_horseman

It’s Not Just China And Oil Anymore: Here Are The Two New Concerns Weighing On Risk

While the following summary of key recent headlines suggests a broad array of issues leading to the worst start of the year since 2008…

 

… in broad terms, the biggest worries challenging that bull case in January were twofold: China and commodities, mostly oil. However, over the past week, two new big concerns appear to have emerged. Here, ironically, is Deutsche Bank explaining what these are (for those confused, “tightening in financial conditions in European financial credit” is a euphemism for plunging DB stock among others):

The year continues to be bruising for risk assets and recent attempts at stabilisation have been unsuccessful. After a mild rebound, equities and US credit spreads are again close to their year’s worst levels.

 

In addition to the initial concerns about China and energy, two new issues further weigh on risk sentiment: the slowdown in US growth momentum and the tightening of financial conditions especially in European financial credit.

 

Macro data in the US have been weaker than expected and have raised questions about the sustainability of the recovery. Consumer spending and the services sector, which had been the drivers of growth, have decelerated. Fundamentals there still look sound, but weakness may persist and we have revised our below consensus growth forecasts further down. The Fed turned more dovish in response to the slower momentum and market volatility, and we no longer expect a rate rise in March. Indeed, at this stage it is difficult to see the Fed hiking more than once this year.

 

The Fed was not alone in this dovish turn. The Bank of Japan surprised markets by cutting rates into negative territory, and we actually expect a further cut later this year. As for the ECB, more easing should be forthcoming in March. A deposit rate cut seemed like the best course of action in response to purely external risks, but if the tightening of financial conditions does not subside an increase in the size of the QE purchase programme may be necessary.

 

Our macro outlook for 2016 is broadly unchanged so far, uninspiring but not a disaster – but downside risks have risen both in the US and in Europe. Meanwhile, the absence of new news has moved attention away from China, but the underlying problem remains unresolved. As for oil, volatility is becoming less relevant for macro and markets.

 

Despite this monetary policy support, until US growth, European financial conditions, China and oil concerns are put aside, markets will remain volatile and a sustained change in risk appetite is difficult. Fundamentally, we see 15-20% upside to equities, US credit spreads fairly priced and still believe in the stronger dollar story – but risks remain for all these views. Expectations for a drift higher in rates have not materialised, and dovish central banks and lingering macro concerns will continue to delay this normalisation.

And here is the matrix breaking down all the recent conditions weighing on risk. We wish we could be as optimistic as DB that monetary support from central banks which are now running on fumes in terms of credibility, and that oil, which continues to gyrate with grotesque daily volatility, are “supportive.”

In fact, we are confused that DB is optimistic on central bank support: after all it was, drumroll, Deutsche Bank, which over the weekend warned against any more “easing” from central banks whose NIRP is now weighing on the German bank’s profitability, something the market has clearly realized judging by the price of its public securities.

 


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

New Hampshire’s Free State Project Eschews Presidential Primaries While Changing State Politics

This past weekend, a group of about 100 Carla Gerickemembers of the Free State Project (FSP) gathered for one of their regular meetings in Manchester, New Hampshire. But this particular confab was different, because it was held just days after FSP hit its more-than-a-decade-in-the-making target to get 20,000 liberty-inclined citizens to pledge to move to New Hampshire in the hopes of creating a significant political force in the Live Free or Die State. While over 2,000 Free Staters have already moved to New Hampshire, the rest of the signers will begin migrating over the next few years. 

As Brian Doherty noted after the milestone was reached last week, FSP already has a long list of accomplishments in the state, including “getting 15 of their brethren in the state Housechallenging anti-ridehail lawsfighting in court for outre religious libertywinning legal battles over taping copsbeing mocked by Colbert for heroically paying off people’s parking metershosting cool anything goes festivals for libertariansnullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists.”

Though the first-in-the-nation presidential primaries were just days away and hundreds of journalists had been hovering for weeks around the mostly quiet northern New England communities, few of the Free Staters I spoke with had a preferred presidential candidate, if they even were interested in voting at all. 

One Free Stater who moved from Dallas in 2009, Rep. Amanda Bouldin, is now a state legislator (and a registered Democrat to boot), representing 3,300 people in the Manchester area. She says she’s voting for Vermin Supreme, the black boot-headed performance artist who is also a presidential candidate on the Democratic ballot.

Like most of the Free Staters we spoke with, Bouldin is disinterested in the dog-and-pony show of the presidential pageant, but as legislator, she’s not at all cynical about the political process. She was one of the driving forces behind a bill that made Narcan, a drug that reverses the effects of a heroin overdose, legally available to anyone with a prescription. Previously, Narcan was only available to EMTs and police officers in New Hampshire. 

Addressing other Free Staters at the gathering Bouldin said, “I’m 31, haven’t done much, but goddammit, I’ve done something to help save lives. Not a lot of people in politics can say that.”

Bouldin told me that her efforts to make Narcan accessible to the public in a state with an overdose epidemic were “an uphill battle all the way.” She added, “About half of the people on the legislature are retired and about half of the criminal justice committee is made up of retired police. Their eyes bug out of their heads when you propose a bill to arrest fewer people.”

Amanda B. Johnson, who writes and hosts the cryptocurrency web show The Daily Decrypt, said she doesn’t vote at all because it’s a “coercive technology of the past, where governance is assigned to where you happen to live rather than you making a choice in the market of how you’d like to be governed.”

Johnson told me about another alternative form of governance she was able to experience since moving to New Hampshire: “I went to my first mediation session last month. It was a real competitive alternative to the super-expensive, super-unfair state court system.” 

Carla Gericke, president of the Free State Project, told me that signers are committed to moving within five years, but she’s not hung up on that technicality. “We know that thousands are moving here and we’re affecting change,” she says. 

Gericke is proud of the 40 Free Staters who have been elected to state government in the past decade and of the many others investing in real estate and creating businesses as part of the movement to “expand liberties on social and economic fronts.” She added, “New Hampshire was the first and only state where a state legislature totally decriminalized marijuana, and that was vetoed by a Democratic governor. We’ve done well pushing some successful bills, but then they get killed because the bad guys are in charge.”

Regarding all the 2016 presidential hoopla (there was a Republican debate in Manchester that very night), Gericke opined, “The presidential field looks pretty gnarly. On the one hand we’ve got the oligarchy, Bush and Clinton, and on the other we’ve got the bread and circuses with Trump and Bernie.” Of the presidential pratfalls of the family Paul, she offered that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did some great things, his NSA filibuster among them, but he played politics and couldn’t generate the excitement among the liberty base that his father did. “Rand assumed his father’s base would be there,” says Gericke, “but Ron was authentic, even if he was a crappy politician.” 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has made it clear he wants what remains of the “liberty vote” left in the wake of Paul’s departure from the Republican presidential race. “I personally couldn’t vote for Ted Cruz, no way,” says Gericke. “I think most Free Staters don’t care as much about presidential politics. They think it’s a shell game and we can be more effective on a local level. Let’s work on our own backyard first.”

Coming up later this month on the FSP agenda is their annual four-day Liberty Forum, featuring keynote speaker Edward Snowden, who will appear from Russia via a live link.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1T3Qs2R
via IFTTT

The Economy In Pictures: We’ve Seen This All Before

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Last week, I gave a presentation discussing the current market environment and the economy. As I was preparing the slide presentation, I noted some concerning similarities to a presentation that I gave in 2007. At that time, I was regularly discussing the potential onset of an economic recession, and then like now, I was dismissed as being a “perma-bear.” There was no inverted yield curve, the vast majority of the media saw no recession in sight, and the Federal Reserve continued to tout a “Goldilocks” economy. Yet, a year later, it was quite evident. 

Currently, there is a plethora of commentary strongly suggesting that the U.S. economy is nowhere near recession currently. That may very well be the case, however, by the time the data is revised to reveal the recession it will be far too late for investors to do anything about it. The market, a coincident indicator of economic recessions historically, may already be revealing future economic data revisions will eventually disclose.

With the economy now more than 6-years into an expansion, which is long by historical standards, the question for you to answer by looking at the charts below is:

“Are we closer to an economic recession or a continued expansion?”

How you answer that question should have a significant impact on your investment outlook as financial markets tend to lose roughly 30% on average during recessionary periods.  However, with margin debt at record levels, earnings deteriorating and junk bond yields rising, this is hardly a normal market environment within which we are currently invested.


Leading Economic Indicators

LEI-Coincident-Lagging-012016

Durable Goods

Durable-Goods-020816

Durable-Goods-020816-2

Investment

GDI-Real-020816

Private-Investment-GDI-020816

GDI-SP500-020816

ISM Composite Index

ISM-Composite-020816

Employment & Industrial Production

Employment-Pop-Claims-020816

Capacity-Utilization-Production-020816

Retail Sales

Retail-Sales-012016

Retail-Sales-EconomicCycle-012016

PCE & Imports

PCE-Imports-012016

Corporate Profits As % Of GDP

SP500-NetProfit-Margins-012016

The Broad View

GDP-6-Panel-Chart-020816

If you are expecting an economic recovery, and a continuation of the bull market, then the economic data must begin to improve markedly in the months ahead. The problem has been that each bounce in the economic data has failed within the context of a declining trend. This is not a good thing and is why we continue to witness an erosion  in the growth rates of corporate earnings and profitability.  Eventually, that erosion combined, with excessive valuations, will weigh on the financial markets.

For the Federal Reserve, these charts make the case that continued monetary interventions are not healing the economy, but rather just keeping it afloat by dragging forward future consumption.  The problem now is the Fed has opted, by tightening monetary policy, to not “refill the punchbowl.” Eventually, when the drinks run out, the party comes to an end.

With the Fed hiking interest rates, and talking a tough game of continued economic strength, the risk of a “policy error” has risen markedly in recent months. The markets, falling inflation indicators, and plunging interest rates are all suggesting the same.


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

Tech/Gaming Journalist: ‘I think’ Hillary Clinton’s ‘war on video games’ was ‘well-intentioned’

"Well-intentioned." ||| ReasonIn my cover story this month about Hillary Clinton’s long war on free speech, I pointed out that professionals whose work relies on maximally free expression often end up supporting or at least sympathizing with the Democratic frontrunner anyway, even if they know full well how miserable and anti-constitutional her anti-media work has been. What explains the paradox? My stab at it: “Largely because the industries in her critical crosshairs—Hollywood, Silicon Valley, gaming—lean overwhelmingly Democratic, and Democrats care more about defeating Republicans and defending core progressive issues than having to fend off sporadic state meddling into their workplaces.”

As if to demonstrate this phenomenon, Paul Tassi, who writes for Forbes about “video games, technology, and the internet,” has a piece up titled “Can We Forgive Hillary Clinton for Her Past War on Video Games?” It is a remarkable exercise in simultaneously documenting a politician’s awfulness on a subject dear to the author’s heart, and waving away the topic as an area of active concern.

Tassi breaks down the comprehensive illiberalism of Clinton’s Family Entertainment Protection Act (which, as he notes, would have “criminalized” selling violent video games to minors), and points out that it was “almost exactly” like California’s video game ban that was later struck down by the Supreme Court on free-speech grounds. He embeds video of hysterical Clinton speeches, and unearths choice quotes like “We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography.”

And then he forgives her for it.

It’s pretty clear that video games are no longer on the forefront of Hillary Clinton’s mind, meaning that with a possible Clinton presidency, we won’t see the return of such an agenda. In the end, I think Clinton was well-intentioned, and not some Jack Thompson-type figure dedicating her life to destroying the games industry. […]

In a way, Hillary Clinton reminds me of my own mother (a conservative who will be horrified to hear that) in regards to her views on games. Growing up, games were banned in my house left and right, as my mom thought that they could be a potentially corruptive influence depending on their content and level of violence. But I snuck away to friends’ houses to play them anyway, and surprise, didn’t grow up to be a psychopath, or ever have any anger or aggression issues whatsoever. I know she meant well, and I don’t remain upset with her for banning these games, but it was just simply not the case that violent games ended up making me a violent person. And the same is true for millions of other gamers, despite this eternal rhetoric.

So, despite declaring a brief war on the kinds of games I love, I guess I won’t really hold it against Hillary Clinton either. […]

I think this will end up being the least of Hillary Clinton’s problems, but it’s kind of fascinating to look back at this, one of her oddest crusades.

With Lent around the corner, I begrudge no one their deployment of forgiveness. But Hillary Clinton’s war on video games was neither “brief” nor “odd” in the context of her long political career. And though Tassi is right to note that gaming crackdowns won’t be central to Clinton’s campaign or presidency, her censorial instinct already is.

First, on the alleged brevity of the video-game war: Clinton kicked off her campaign for the U.S. Senate in April 1999 with an angry speech calling for new crackdowns on video games and other youth-targeted media in the wake of the Columbine massacre. Sample:

[T]he constant exposure to violence—on television, in the movies, in the video games, in the music—does…have an effect on the way children see themselves and others. There is just too much evidence that children are desensitized, they lose empathy. There is increasing concern about the impact on vulnerable young people of video games that are interactive and that you win based on how many people you kill. […]

We are going to have to do some serious thinking in our country about how we will take more control over what our children see, and what they experience, and how they understand what they see and experience. […]

And I think we are going to have to be very honest about what kind of steps we are willing to take to do something about it.

The Family Entertainment Protection Act was not Sen. Clinton’s first legislative rodeo with video games and free speech. Her 2001 Media Marketing Accountability Act, also co-sponsored by her friend Joe Lieberman, would have imposed federal fines of up to $11,000 per day for “the targeted marketing to minors of adult-rated media,” including video games. As the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service warned, “The bill could impose a possible financial burden on speech, and that, as well as outright censorship, may violate the First Amendment.” Danny Goldberg, writing at The Nation in September 2001, lamented that “Lieberman and Clinton apparently believe that federal bureaucrats are the ideal arbiters of the appropriateness of entertainment for teenagers.”

Which brings me to Tassi’s claim that the video-game crackdown was one of Clinton’s “oddest crusades.” This is only true if you ignore her past support for speech-infringing regulations on television, the Internet, and politicking. You can see a long list of such activities in this Clinton administration memo assembled in the run-up to Hillary’s Senate campaign. She backed the 1996 Communications Decency Act (parts of which were struck down by the Supreme Court a year later on free speech grounds), the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in 2009 on free speech grounds), and the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010 on free speech grounds).

Given the theoretical underpinnings of her anti-media crusades—that children in particular “take those messages to heart like…little VCRs, and they play back what they have learned”—it is zero surprise that Hillary Clinton is campaigning right now on telling American social media companies to “take down” speech that so much as celebrates terrorist violence. Read all about that right here.

Is there any reason to believe that these actions were, to borrow Tassi’s phrase, “well intentioned”? Well, sure: Most people (even politicians!) support stuff they think will make the world a better place, even if they’re dead wrong about that. But more important than intentions are results, and the results of Hillary Clinton’s prejudices, if unchecked by the Supreme Court or the political process, would have been to reduce the legal scope of American free speech, over and over and over again. It’s hard to imagine commentators giving a Republican with this track record the benefit of the doubt (indeed, Tassi writes as part of his political full disclosure, “Hillary may be a robot, but tearing her down aids Republicans and rewards decades of their smears”).

From Reason TV, here are 10 dumb quotes about video games from pols and pundits.

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

Bill Clinton: “Sometimes I Wish We Weren’t Married”

Yesterday it was the irony of “sexist” Sanders’ claims. Today, Hillary’s husband is at it again – making headlines for all the wrong reasons…

As NBCNews reports, in his last appearance before the primary here on Tuesday, former President Bill Clinton said he wishes “sometimes” that he wasn’t married to Hillary Clinton because then he could speak more freely.

“Sometimes when I am on a stage like this, I wish that we weren’t married, then I could say what I really think,” Bill Clinton said before introducing his wife at a rally.

 

He quickly ‘saved’ himself but adding – just a week ahead of Valentine’s Day that – “I don’t mean that in a negative way. I am happy.”

 

At a rally earlier Monday in Manchester, in an apparent response to the attention his comments received, Bill Clinton admitted he had to be more cautious with his words.

 

“The hotter this election gets, the more I wish I were just a former president and, just for a few months, not the spouse of the next one because, you know, I have to be careful what I say.”

With the latest polls showing Hillary Clinton trailing Sanders by 10 or more points in the Granite State, some might argue Bill is doing more harm than good.


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