This is What Really Happens in the Drone Program from an Insider

Over the weekend, Heather Linebaugh wrote a powerful Op-ed in The Guardian newspaper lamenting the lack of public understanding regarding the American drone program. Heather should know what she’s talking about, she served in the United Stated Air Force from 2009 until March 2012. She worked in intelligence as an imagery analyst and geo-spatial analyst for the drone program during the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here are some key excerpts from her article:

Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them a few questions. I’d start with: “How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?” And: “How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?” Or even more pointedly: “How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?”

Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.

I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from the mosque.

What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is not usually clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited cloud and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: “The feed is so pixelated, what if it’s a shovel, and not a weapon?” I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian’s life all because of a bad image or angle.

Moreover, the many civilians being incinerated without a trial are not the only victims here. So are the actual drone operators themselves, many of whom end up committing suicide. Recall my article from December 2012: Meet Brandon Bryant: The Drone Operator Who Quit After Killing a Child. Of course, our so-called political “leaders” never get their hands dirty, other than to take a lobbyist bribe that is. Now more from Heather:

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/12/30/what-really-happens-in-the-drone-program-from-someone-on-the-inside/
via IFTTT

Meet The Minimum-Wage Homeless Who Are “Cleaning Up” Fukushima (For The Yakuza)

We’re an easy target for recruiters,” one homeless man explains. “We turn up here with all our bags, wheeling them around and we’re easy to spot. They say to us, are you looking for work? Are you hungry? And if we haven’t eaten, they offer to find us a job.” As Reuters exposes, 3 years after the earthquake and tsunami that caused the meltdown at Fukushima’s nuclear facility, Northern Japanese homeless are willing to accept minimum wage (from yakuza-based entities) for one of the most undesirable jobs in the industrialized world: working on the $35 billion, taxpayer-funded effort to clean up radioactive fallout across an area of northern Japan larger than Hong Kong.

 

 

Via Reuters,

Seiji Sasa hits the train station in this northern Japanese city before dawn most mornings to prowl for homeless men.

 

He isn’t a social worker. He’s a recruiter. The men in Sendai Station are potential laborers that Sasa can dispatch to contractors in Japan’s nuclear disaster zone for a bounty of $100 a head.

 

“This is how labor recruiters like me come in every day,”

 

 

It’s also how Japan finds people willing to accept minimum wage for one of the most undesirable jobs in the industrialized world: working on the $35 billion, taxpayer-funded effort to clean up radioactive fallout across an area of northern Japan larger than Hong Kong.

 

 

In January, October and November, Japanese gangsters were arrested on charges of infiltrating construction giant Obayashi Corp’s network of decontamination subcontractors and illegally sending workers to the government-funded project.

 

In the October case, homeless men were rounded up at Sendai’s train station by Sasa, then put to work clearing radioactive soil and debris in Fukushima City for less than minimum wage, according to police and accounts of those involved. The men reported up through a chain of three other companies to Obayashi, Japan’s second-largest construction company.

 

Obayashi, which is one of more than 20 major contractors involved in government-funded radiation removal projects, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. But the spate of arrests has shown that members of Japan’s three largest criminal syndicates – Yamaguchi-gumi, Sumiyoshi-kai and Inagawa-kai – had set up black-market recruiting agencies under Obayashi.

 

We are taking it very seriously that these incidents keep happening one after another,” said Junichi Ichikawa, a spokesman for Obayashi. He said the company tightened its scrutiny of its lower-tier subcontractors in order to shut out gangsters, known as the yakuza. “There were elements of what we had been doing that did not go far enough.”

 

 

Reuters found 56 subcontractors listed on environment ministry contracts worth a total of $2.5 billion in the most radiated areas of Fukushima that would have been barred from traditional public works because they had not been vetted by the construction ministry.

 

 

If you started looking at every single person, the project wouldn’t move forward. You wouldn’t get a tenth of the people you need,” said Yukio Suganuma, president of Aisogo Service, a construction company that was hired in 2012 to clean up radioactive fallout from streets in the town of Tamura.

 

 

There are many unknown entities getting involved in decontamination projects,” said Igarashi, a former advisor to ex-Prime Minister Naoto Kan. “There needs to be a thorough check on what companies are working on what, and when. I think it’s probably completely lawless if the top contractors are not thoroughly checking.”

 

 

I don’t ask questions; that’s not my job,” Sasa said in an interview with Reuters. “I just find people and send them to work. I send them and get money in exchange. That’s it. I don’t get involved in what happens after that.”

 

 

“The construction industry is 90 percent run by gangs.”

It would seem, perhaps, that France (and the US) need their own nuclear accident to unleash an employment boom…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kpHZRldbvBs/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Meet The Minimum-Wage Homeless Who Are "Cleaning Up" Fukushima (For The Yakuza)

We’re an easy target for recruiters,” one homeless man explains. “We turn up here with all our bags, wheeling them around and we’re easy to spot. They say to us, are you looking for work? Are you hungry? And if we haven’t eaten, they offer to find us a job.” As Reuters exposes, 3 years after the earthquake and tsunami that caused the meltdown at Fukushima’s nuclear facility, Northern Japanese homeless are willing to accept minimum wage (from yakuza-based entities) for one of the most undesirable jobs in the industrialized world: working on the $35 billion, taxpayer-funded effort to clean up radioactive fallout across an area of northern Japan larger than Hong Kong.

 

 

Via Reuters,

Seiji Sasa hits the train station in this northern Japanese city before dawn most mornings to prowl for homeless men.

 

He isn’t a social worker. He’s a recruiter. The men in Sendai Station are potential laborers that Sasa can dispatch to contractors in Japan’s nuclear disaster zone for a bounty of $100 a head.

 

“This is how labor recruiters like me come in every day,”

 

 

It’s also how Japan finds people willing to accept minimum wage for one of the most undesirable jobs in the industrialized world: working on the $35 billion, taxpayer-funded effort to clean up radioactive fallout across an area of northern Japan larger than Hong Kong.

 

 

In January, October and November, Japanese gangsters were arrested on charges of infiltrating construction giant Obayashi Corp’s network of decontamination subcontractors and illegally sending workers to the government-funded project.

 

In the October case, homeless men were rounded up at Sendai’s train station by Sasa, then put to work clearing radioactive soil and debris in Fukushima City for less than minimum wage, according to police and accounts of those involved. The men reported up through a chain of three other companies to Obayashi, Japan’s second-largest construction company.

 

Obayashi, which is one of more than 20 major contractors involved in government-funded radiation removal projects, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. But the spate of arrests has shown that members of Japan’s three largest criminal syndicates – Yamaguchi-gumi, Sumiyoshi-kai and Inagawa-kai – had set up black-market recruiting agencies under Obayashi.

 

We are taking it very seriously that these incidents keep happening one after another,” said Junichi Ichikawa, a spokesman for Obayashi. He said the company tightened its scrutiny of its lower-tier subcontractors in order to shut out gangsters, known as the yakuza. “There were elements of what we had been doing that did not go far enough.”

 

 

Reuters found 56 subcontractors listed on environment ministry contracts worth a total of $2.5 billion in the most radiated areas of Fukushima that would have been barred from traditional public works because they had not been vetted by the construction ministry.

 

 

If you started looking at every single person, the project wouldn’t move forward. You wouldn’t get a tenth of the people you need,” said Yukio Suganuma, president of Aisogo Service, a construction company that was hired in 2012 to clean up radioactive fallout from streets in the town of Tamura.

 

 

There are many unknown entities getting involved in decontamination projects,” said Igarashi, a former advisor to ex-Prime Minister Naoto Kan. “There needs to be a thorough check on what companies are working on what, and when. I think it’s probably completely lawless if the top contractors are not thoroughly checking.”

 

 

I don’t ask questions; that’s not my job,” Sasa said in an interview with Reuters. “I just find people and send them to work. I send them and get money in exchange. That’s it. I don’t get involved in what happens after that.”

 

 

“The construction industry is 90 percent run by gangs.”

It would seem, perhaps, that France (and the US) need their own nuclear accident to unleash an employment boom…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/kpHZRldbvBs/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Poll: Obama, Hillary Clinton the Most Admired People in 2013

President Obama
and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been named the
most admired people among Americans for the sixth year in a row in
a survey conducted by Gallup, although both of their ratings have
taken a hit compared with last year.

The second most admired man was George W. Bush and the second
most admired woman was Oprah Winfrey. Former Texas Congressman Ron
Paul tied with Clint Eastwood and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as the
eighth most admired man of 2013. 

From
The Hill
:

President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
were named the most-admired people in 2013 for the sixth year in a
row, according to a Gallup survey. 

The open-ended poll released Monday found 16 percent of people
named Obama as the most-admired man, while 15 percent named Clinton
as the most-admired woman. Both scores, however, have dropped
significantly since 2012.  

In 2012, 30 percent of people named Obama as the most-admired
man, while 21 percent named Clinton the most-admired
woman. 

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don’t forget you
can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us
at @reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/poll-obama-hillary-clinton-the-most-admi
via IFTTT

Guest Post: The End Of Pretend

Submitted by James H. Kunstler of Kunstler.com,

If being wealthy was the same as pretending to be wealthy then people who care about reality would have a little less to complain about. But pretending is a poor way for a society to negotiate its way through history. It makes for accumulating distortions which eventually undermine the society’s ability to function, especially when the pretending is about money, which is society’s operating system.

The distortion that even simple people care about is that the gap between the rich and the poor is as plain, vast, and grotesque as at any time in our history — except perhaps during slavery times in Dixieland, when many of the poor did not even own their existence. We’ve had plenty of reminders of that in pop culture the last couple of years, including Quentin Tarantino’s fiercely stupid movie Django Unchained and the more recent melodrama 12 Years a Slave. But you have to wonder what young adults weighed down by unpayable college debt think when they go to see them, because without a rebellion that millennial generation will not own their own lives either. They must know it, but they must not know what to do about it.

The pretense and distortions start at the top of American life with a President who broadcasts the message that some kind of “recovery” has occurred in the economic affairs of the country. Either he just wants the public feel better, or he is misled by the people and agencies in his own government, or perhaps he just lies to keep the lid on. To truly recover from the dislocations of 2008, we would have to make a consensual decision to start behaving differently in the process of adapting to the new circumstances that the arc of history is presenting to us. We’d have to decide to leave behind the economy of financialization, suburban sprawl, car dependency, Wal-Mart consumerism, and prepare for a different way of inhabiting North America.

The dislocations of 2008 when the banking system nearly imploded were Nature’s way of telling us that dishonesty has consequences. The immediate dishonesty of that day was the racket in securitizing worthless mortgages ­— promises to pay large sums of money over long periods of time. The promises were false and the collateral was janky.  It got so bad and ran so far and deep that it essentially destroyed the mechanism of credit creation as it had been known until then, and it has not been repaired.

Since then, we have pretended to repair the operations of credit by falsely substituting bank bailouts and Federal Reserve “quantitative easing” (QE) or digital money-printing for plain dealing in borrowed money between honest brokers at the local level. The unfortunate consequence is that in the process we have distorted — and possibly destroyed — the value of our money and the various things denominated in it, especially securities, bonds, stocks and other money-like paper.

The crash of the mortgage racket occurred not just because of swindling and fraud among bankers; in fact, that was only a nasty symptom of something larger: peak oil. I know that many people have come to disbelieve in the idea of peak oil, but that is only another mode of playing pretend. Peak oil, which essentially arrived in 2006, undermined the basic conditions of credit creation in an advanced techno-industrial society dependent on increasing supplies of fossil fuels. Most people, including practically all credentialed economists, fail to understand this. There is a fundamental relationship between ever-increasing energy supplies > economic growth > and credit-based money (or “money,” if you will). When the energy inputs flatten out or decrease, growth stops, wealth is no longer generated, old loans can’t be repaid, and new loans can’t be generated honestly, i.e. with the expectation of repayment. That has been our predicament since 2008 and nothing has changed. We are pretending to compensate by issuing new unpayable debt to pay the interest on our old accumulated debt. This pretense can only go on so long before our economic relations reflect the basic dishonesty of it. Reality is a harsh mistress.

In the meantime, we amuse ourselves with fairy tales about “the shale oil revolution” and “the manufacturing renaissance.” 2014 could be the year that the forces of Nature compel our attention and give us a reason to stop all this pretending.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/BB4QIf0fKYI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Yellen Draghi Carney Wrecking Ball Cometh … Prepare

Draghi’s ECB and Carney’s BoE have put in place plans for bail-ins and deposit confiscation. Yellen’s Fed is quiet allowing the FDIC to do the controversial bail-in ‘dirty work’ by stealth. Bail-ins cometh … Prepare … http://info.goldcore.com/protecting-your-savings-in-the-coming-bail-in-e…

Bail-Ins


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/7CNsOwoiKNU/story01.htm GoldCore

Can the Libertarian Republican and the Non-Libertarian Republican Be Friends?


Identity is not destiny
Ross Tilchin at The
Brookings Institution has collated poll data about the leanings of
the various factions with the Republican Party. As libertarian
philosophy becomes a growing influence within the party, Tilchin
wonders how well libertarian Republicans might work with
conservative Christians and Tea Party Republicans. Tilchin thinks
that
libertarians may see limits to their influence
within the party
because religion tends to play much less of a role in their lives
than in the lives of the other two factions:

While these groups are similarly conservative on economic
matters (indeed, libertarians are further to the right than white
evangelicals or Tea Partiers on some economic issues, such as
raising the minimum wage), they are extremely divided by their
views on religion. Only 53% of libertarians describe religion as
the most important thing or one among many important things in
their lives. By comparison, 77% of Tea Party members say that
religion is either the most important thing or one among many
important things in their lives, and – not surprisingly – 94% of
white evangelicals say that religion is either the most important
thing or one among many important things in their lives. A full 44%
of libertarians say that religion is not important in their lives
or that religion is not as important as other things in their
lives. Only 11% of Tea Party members and 1% of white evangelicals
say that religion is not important in their lives.

Additionally, libertarians are among the most likely to agree
that religion causes more problems in society than it solves (37%
total: 17% completely agreeing, 20% mostly agreeing); the least
likely to agree that it is important for children to be brought up
in a religion so they can learn good values (35% total: 13%
completely disagree, 22% disagree); and the least likely to think
it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have
good values (63% total: 30% completely disagree, 33% mostly
disagree).

These stark differences in attitudes toward religion help
explain the large difference in view between libertarians and other
conservatives on social issues such as abortion, physician-assisted
suicide, and marijuana legalization. Given their positions on these
contentious social matters, it is very difficult to envision
Libertarians gaining the support of socially conservative voters in
the Republican Party.

Read the whole piece
here
. It also explores the simple mathematical problem of
libertarians being outnumbered by the other two factions of the
Republican Party in all regions of the country.

I take slight issue with the analysis, though perhaps not the
conclusion. What’s left out is the very libertarian idea that just
because libertarians don’t see religion as an important component
to their own lives, that doesn’t mean we would object to others who
decide otherwise. And believing that “religion causes more problems
in society than it solves” should not be taken to mean that a
libertarian believes the government should implement policies in a
pursuit to “fix” these problems.

Obviously there is disagreement, but it’s not actually,
literally about faith. The disagreement is about the extent of and
justifications for the use of government force. To say that
religious beliefs should not be used to determine whether it should
be legal to get an abortion or get married is not to say
that people shouldn’t use religion to make these decisions for
themselves in their own lives.

Given the libertarian rejection of government coercion, who else
is better suited to even approach these issues with social
conservatives? Who outside of libertarians is arguing in favor of
same-sex marriages getting the same legal recognition as
heterosexual marriages, while at the same time arguing that no
church should be obligated to recognize them, nor should any
business be
dragooned
into providing goods and services for them?

Make room! Coming through!Rather than seeing libertarians in opposition to
social conservatives, it’s more helpful to see libertarians as
allies in protecting the civil liberties of the religious even as
they lose cultural influence. Libertarians may not be able to “take
over” the Republican Party (not that they should stop trying), but
the party itself may be in deep trouble if these factions cannot
find points of agreement.

Over at The American Conservative, W. James Antle III
today takes note
at how Sen. Rand Paul is attempting to promote
noninterventionist messages and drug policy reform ideas to
Christian conservatives.

Reason has frequently debated where libertarians fit in the
political world of the reds vs. the blues.
Here’s a discussion from 2010
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/can-the-libertarian-republican-and-the-n
via IFTTT

Americans React To End Of Jobless Benefits: “I Just Don’t Know What To Do, Except Pray”

"It's going to put my family and me out on the streets," is a perspective shared by many of the 1.3 million Americans about to lose their emergency unemployment claims. The program, started during the recession, was intended to help jobless people after they exhausted state benefits, typically lasting six months. House Republicans resisted continuing the benefits without budget cuts elsewhere to cover the cost. As Bloomberg reports, opponents say the extended benefits discourage the unemployed from accepting jobs and that the program should be curtailed, given the recovery in the nation’s labor market.

Via Bloomberg,

It lacks compassion for the victims of the recession and, economically, it’s shooting ourselves in the foot,” said Lawrence Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, which backs policies that help low-income workers. “The timing is very premature. The evidence is that people who want work can’t find it.”

 

 

The economy has now been out of a recession for more than four years,” said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute in Washington, which argues for scaling back the role of government. “These unemployment benefits are emergency benefits, but the economy is no longer in an emergency situation. People can find jobs if they are willing to moderate their wage demands and make compromises.”

 

 

“Not all of us have savings and a lot of us have to take care of family because of what happened in the economy,” said Walker, of Santa Clarita, who said she has applied for at least three jobs a week and shares an apartment with her unemployed son, his wife and two children. “It’s going to put my family and me out on the streets.”

 

 

There were 3.9 million job openings across the U.S. at the end of October, according to the Labor Department. That same month, 11.3 million people were looking for work but couldn’t find it, a gap advocates say underscores the need to keep benefits flowing.

 

 

Failure to extend the program will affect 1.9 million people who are forecast to use up their state benefits in the first half of 2014 before they can find work, according to the White House.

 

 

The effect will be especially pronounced in the most-populous U.S. states. In New York, 102,700 people were expected to lose their benefits on Dec. 28, said Chris White, a spokesman for the state’s labor department. In New Jersey, about 90,300 will do the same, according to estimates from Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. More than 222,000 Californians will likewise see their benefits disappear.

 

 

“I understand the government doesn’t want to pay for people who are taking advantage of it,” she said. “But I am not, and many other people are not.”

 

“I just don’t know what to do, except pray.”

Of course, as we discussed in detail previously, this will mean a notable drop in the unemployment rate (for what that is worth)…

 

This has profound implications for the oh-so-important unemployment rate that  the Fed is so dependent upon…

JPM's Feroli: One observation that could set an upper bound on thinking about a participation effect is to hypothesize that all 1.3 million EUC claimants exit the labor force after benefits expire in 1Q (again, should Congress allow that to happen). In that case, the unemployment rate would fall by 0.8%-pt, obviously an extreme example. Some of the Fed studies can help to narrow the range of outcomes.

 

One of the more recent works (Farber and Valletta from the San Francisco Fed) indicates that about a fifth of long-term unemployment is due to extended benefits. With just over 4 million long-term unemployed recently, this would imply that the absence of extended UI benefits could lower the unemployment rate by 0.5%-pt.

This will directly impact the Fed's credibility to manage the economt in a "data-dependent" manner:

JPM's Feroli: Setting aside the normative aspect of whether from a public policy perspective this is a desirable or undesirable outcome, such a fall in the unemployment and participation rates could create some tricky choices for Fed policymakers as they assess the health of the labor market.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/e0VPsSXtibw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Public Domain

Here’s some
mostly good news
in the world of intellectual property law:

Sherlock Hound is still under copyright.A federal judge has issued a declarative
judgment stating that Holmes, Watson, 221B Baker Street, the
dastardly Professor Moriarty and other elements included in the 50
Holmes works that Arthur Conan Doyle published before Jan. 1, 1923,
are no longer covered by United States copyright law, and can
therefore be freely used by others without paying any licensing fee
to the writer’s estate.

What about John Cleese? Can we copyright John Cleese?The ruling came in response to a
civil complaint filed in February by Leslie S. Klinger, the editor
of the three-volume, nearly 3,000-page “New Annotated Sherlock
Holmes” and a number of other Holmes-related books. The complaint
stemmed from “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes,” a collection of
new Holmes stories written by different authors and edited by Mr.
Klinger and Laurie R. King, herself the author of a mystery series
featuring Mary Russell, Holmes’s wife.

Mr. Klinger and Ms. King had paid a $5,000 licensing fee for a
previous Holmes-inspired collection. But in the complaint, Mr.
Klinger said that the publisher of “In the Company of Sherlock
Holmes,” Pegasus Books, had declined to go forward after receiving
a letter from the Conan Doyle Estate Ltd., a business entity
organized in Britain, suggesting that the estate would prevent the
new book from being sold by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and “similar
retailers” unless it received another fee.

I call this mostly good news because the judge sided
with the Doyle estate when it came to elements of the Holmes mythos
introduced after 1923. Those are still under copyright protection
in the U.S., so if you want to publish a story that mentions, say,
Dr. Watson’s career as a rugby player, you still need to pay a fee
to Doyle’s heirs.

The court’s decision, which you can read
here
, discusses such topics as a precedent set by Amos ‘n’
Andy
and whether Watson’s second marriage is a copyrightable
“characteristic” or a non-copyrightable “event.” If you enjoy the
territory where legal and literary exegesis collide, you should
read it.

When I last wrote about
this case
, I posed some questions to Reason readers.
Now that the judge has released his ruling, I’ll offer them
again:

And for his next trick, the world's greatest detective will play "Flight of the Bumblebee" while juggling firecrackers atop a flagpole.Posts like this tend to set off
debates in the comments about whether copyright laws should exist
at all, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that they
should. Can anyone give me a good reason for applying copyright to
a character, as opposed to a story about that character?
It shouldn’t be difficult for the fans of, say, Star Wars
to tell which stories about Han Solo have George Lucas’ input or
blessing and which ones do not. Why shouldn’t you have the legal
right to circulate your own Han Solo films or novels on more than a
semi-clandestine
amateur basis
without asking permission first, competing head
to head with Disney to see who can tell the better stories about
the characters and settings that Lucas invented? I can see why
Disney’s shareholders wouldn’t like that, but why should their
preferences be law?

And suppose we agree that characters should be copyrightable. Why
on Earth should intellectual property law protect particular
characteristics of a public-domain character? Does it really make
sense to have a legal regime in which anyone can write a story
about Sherlock Holmes but you need to pay tribute to Arthur Conan
Doyle’s heirs if you allude to the
wrong elements
of the canon?

Bonus link:Ripping,
Mixing, and Burning Arthur Conan Doyle
.”

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/30/sherlock-holmes-and-the-case-of-the-publ
via IFTTT

Pending Home Sales Plunge At Fastest Pace Since April 2011

For the 5th month in a row, pending home sales missed expectations (though a silver lining is a positive print MoM – breaking a 5-month streak). Year-over-year, home sales collapsed at 4% – its worst drop since April 2011, and that even after prior data was revised lower. Still, despite this ongoing plunge, there is always hope – as engendered by NAR’s chief economist who states (somewhat unconfidently), “we may have reached a cyclical low.” Cylical low indeed – just don’t look at the chart?!!

Sure doesn’t look like a cyclical low…

 

as data misses for the 5th month in a row…

 

There is always hope… (via NAR)

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said the market is flattening. “We may have reached a cyclical low because the positive fundamentals of job creation and household formation are likely to foster a fairly stable level of contract activity in 2014,” he said. “Although the final months of 2013 are finishing on a soft note, the year as a whole will end with the best sales total in seven years.”

Total existing-home sales this year are expected to reach 5.1 million, a gain of almost 10 percent over 2012, but should stay at that level in 2014, and then rise to 5.3 million in 2015. The national median existing-home price for all of this year will be close to $197,300, up nearly 12 percent from 2012, but is projected to rise at a more moderate pace of 5 to 5.5 percent in 2014, and grow another 4 percent in 2015.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/a4g6wFPfNkI/story01.htm Tyler Durden