Bernanke’s New Helicopter Money Plan – Sheer Destructive Lunacy

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

If you don’t think the current central bank driven economic and financial bubble is going to end badly, recall a crucial historical fact. To wit, the worldwide race of central banks to the zero bound and NIRP and their $10 trillion bond-buying spree during the last seven years was the brain child of Ben S Bernanke.

He’s the one who falsely insisted that Great Depression 2.0 was just around the corner in September 2008. Along with Goldman’s plenipotentiary at the US Treasury, Hank Paulson, it was Bernanke who stampeded the entirety of Washington into tossing out the window the whole rule book of sound money, fiscal rectitude and free market discipline.

In fact, there was no extraordinary crisis. The Lehman failure essentially triggered a self-contained leverage and liquidity bust in the canyons of Wall Street, and it would have burned out there had the Fed allowed money market interest rates to do their work. That is, to rise sufficiently to force into liquidation the gambling houses like Lehman, Goldman and Morgan Stanley that had loaded their balance sheets with trillions of illiquid or long-duration assets and funded them with cheap overnight money.

There would have been no significant spillover effect. The notions that the financial system was imploding into a black hole and that ATMs would have gone dark and money market funds failed are complete urban legends. They were concocted by Wall Street to panic Washington into massive intervention to save their stocks and partnership shares.

The same is true of the claim that corporate payrolls would have been missed for want of revolving credit availability and that the entirety of AIG had to be bailed out to the tune of $185 billion in order to protect insurance and annuity holders.

In fact, the entire problem of the collateral call on AIG’s bogus CDS insurance was contained at the holding company. The latter could have been liquidated with less than $60 billion of losses distributed among the world’s 20 largest banks. These were mostly state-backed European behemoths—-like Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas—-that between them had balance sheet footings of $20 trillion. The loss would have amounted to a couple of quarters net income and a big dent in year-end bonuses for top executives. Nothing more.

The most important point, however, is that there was never any danger of a run on main street banks by retail customers. To be sure, there would have been a temporary disruption in the real economy owing to the necessary curtailment of unsustainable activities related to the housing bubble and due to a downshift of household consumption that reflected unsustainable borrowing.

But as I demonstrated in detail in the Great Deformation, the necessary liquidation of excessive inventories and labor that had built-up during the housing boom had exhausted itself by September 2009. That was long before there was even a remote hint that Bernanke’s wild money pumping had caused households and business to increase their borrowing levels.

Stated differently, the US economy was already at peak debt, meaning that the credit channel of monetary policy transmission was broken and done. The modest recovery that did occur thereafter was due to the natural regeneration capabilities of capitalism and the restoration of economic and financial balance in the main street economy.

The recovery did not depend on Wall Street. Bernanke and his merry band of money printers had virtually nothing to do with the restart of jobs growth and GDP expansion after June 2009.

But far be it for the Fed and the gaggle of Washington politicians to realize, let alone admit, that they actually caused the housing and credit bubble, but had nothing to do with the modest recovery that ensued after it burst.

Bernanke has actually made a career out of claiming just the opposite. Namely, that he alone had the insight and acumen to diagnose the purported onrushing depression and the “courage” to, well, run the printing presses white hot in order to stop it in its tracks.

The fact is, Bernanke has been a charlatan and intellectual lightweight all along – going back to his alleged scholarship on the Great Depression. He was no such thing. He simply zeroxed Milton Friedman’s mistaken theory that the Fed failed to go on a bond-buying spree during 1930-1932 and that this supposed error turned the post-1929 contraction into a deep, sustained depression.

No it didn’t. The 1930s depression was the consequence of 15 years of wild credit expansion—-first during the “Great War” to fund the massive expansion of US food and arms production and then during the Roaring Twenties to finance the greatest capital spending binge in history prior to that time. The depression was not a consequence of too little money printing during 1930-1932, but too much speculative borrowing and investment by business and households after the Fed discovered its capacity to print money during the war and the decade thereafter.

In any event, behold Bernanke’s latest contribution to the history of monetary crankery. The very idea that the Fed would set up a “loan account” that our already incurably profligate Washington politicians could tap at will is so nutty as to be virtually impossible to paraphrase. So let the man’s words do the dirty work:

Ask Congress to create, by statute, a special Treasury account at the Fed, and to give the Fed (specifically, the Federal Open Market Committee) the sole authority to “fill” the account, perhaps up to some prespecified limit. At almost all times, the account would be empty; the Fed would use its authority to add funds to the account only when the FOMC assessed that an MFFP of specified size was needed to achieve the Fed’s employment and inflation goals.

 

Should the Fed act, under this proposal, the next step would be for the Congress and the Administration—through the usual, but possibly expedited, legislative process—to determine how to spend the funds (for example, on a tax rebate or on public works)……Importantly, the Congress and Administration would have the option to leave the funds unspent. If the funds were not used within a specified time, the Fed would be empowered to withdraw them.

Let’s see. Does he think the boys and girls of Capitol Hill would ever not spend 100% of their allowance?

More importantly, does the man really think that you can get something for nothing? That real wealth can be created not through the sweat of labor, or entrepreneurial invention and managerial innovation or the sacrifice of current consumption in favor of savings and future returns, but simply through hitting the “send” button on the Fed’s electronic printing presses?

The rest of Bernanke’s post is too imbecilic to even quote or reprint, but the gist of it is that the US economy is wanting for some non-existent ether called “aggregate demand”. And that this ether is something the Fed can easily create by handing an open-ended spending account to politicians, and one that would never have to be repaid or even serviced with interest!

It puts you in mind of the medieval theologians who endlessly debated as to the number of angels which could fit on the head of a pin. The trouble is, there is not such thing as angels.

Nor is there any such thing as economic growth or wealth that can be conjured by politicians spending Bernanke’s utterly counterfeit money.

via http://ift.tt/1Siat7O Tyler Durden

Crude Craters Through NYMEX Close As Stock Short-Squeeze Ends

Party’s over?

Crude clubbed into and through the NYMEX close…ahead of tonight’s China GDP

 

And as JPMorgan’s trading desk notes, March brought the heaviest net covering seen by the Prime Brokerage in several years. Activity was skewed towards single names but ETF activity also was strong. All sectors experienced net covering, with Energy and Consumer, Cyclicals in the lead.

And the huge squeeze of the last 2 days has ended today…

 

With VIX and USDJPY used to desperately keep S&P green

 

Still plenty of time left in the day yet for a late-day buying panic.

via http://ift.tt/23yWzDC Tyler Durden

$14 Billion In Junk Bond Defaults Push April Total To Highest Since 2014

Following yesterday’s bankruptcy of Peabody Energy and today’s Chapter 11 filing of XXI Energy, defaults among American junk bonds just topped $14 billion in April, the highest monthly volume in two years according to Fitch calculations, and that is only for the first two weeks.

April’s surge in bankruptcy filings is not unexpected: according to JPM’s default tracker, the number of bankruptcies was on a tear in both the month of March and the first quarter.

In the past month alone seven companies defaulted totaling $16.4bn, including $12.3bn in high-yield bonds and $4.1bn in leveraged loans. This marked the third highest monthly volume since the last default cycle, trailing only April 2014’s $39.5bn (TXU) and December 2014’s $18.3bn (CZR). With two weeks left in the month, April may well surpass March.

For context, during the last default cycle in 2008/2009, monthly default volume exceeded the March total only six times. By comparison, nine companies defaulted in February totaling $9.7bn (upwardly revised as UCI International totaling $400mn in bonds was added), which followed five defaults totaling $5.25bn in January and five defaults totaling a 2015-high $8.2bn in December. Default activity has clearly picked up over the last several months, with March marking the fifth consecutive month of greater than $5bn in default volume and the seventh $5bn month from the past ten. Further evidencing the recent pickup in activity, an average of $6.8bn has defaulted per month over the last eight months, compared with a $2.1bn average over the prior seven months and a modest $1.6bn monthly average from 2010 through 2014 (excluding TXU and CZR).

In the first quarter of 2016, already 21 companies have defaulted with debt totaling $31.4bn ($24.1bn in bonds and $7.2bn in loans), making 1Q16 the fifth highest quarterly default total on record. Notably, the four largest quarterly default volumes were $76.6bn in 1Q09, $55.0bn in 2Q09, $40.2bn in 2Q14 (with TXU), and $37.9bn in 4Q09.

For context, there were only eight defaults totaling $4.8bn in 1Q15. And as a reminder, 37 companies defaulted in 2015 with debt totaling $37.7bn ($23.6bn in bonds and $14.1bn in loans). In addition, while not incorporated into our main default statistics, distressed exchange activity continues to play an increased role in the default environment. Year to date, there have been five distressed actions totaling $1.1bn. For context, there were 25 distressed exchanges totaling $16.6bn in 2015, compared with only eight distressed exchanges totaling $3.0bn during all of 2014.

This is what a new default cycle looks like.

Going back to April, Fitch writes that this month’s default rate for coal companies is expected to come close to 70% while the oil and gas exploration and production sector is anticipated to reach 23% and metals and mining will climb to almost 20%.

Quoted by Bloomberg, Eric Rosenthal, Fitch’s senior director of leveraged finance, said that “the second quarter will not see a reprieve in defaults.”

Which is a problem for both energy companies desperate to issue more debt, and for banks who remain on the hook for secured loans and uncommitted revolvers. 

According to Fitch, despite a recent rally in oil, 57% of exploration and production companies with ratings of B- or lower are still struggling to sell their debt in the secondary market, with bids falling below 50 cents. The problem is unlikely to be alleviated while prices remain below break-even production costs. This means that for the sake of at least the existing equityholders of shale companies, the Doha meeting better not disappoint.

As for oil production, as we noted earlier, while company balance sheets may restructure, that does not mean that they will actually reduce oil production. Quite the contrary.

via http://ift.tt/1Sa4e0z Tyler Durden

A Take On How Negative Interest Rates Hurt Banks That You Will Not See Anywhere Else

The Bank of Japan and the ECB are assisting me in teaching the world’s savers, banking clients and corporations about the benefits of blockchain-based finance for the masses. How? Today, the Wall Street Journal published “Negative Rates: How One Swiss Bank Learned to Live in a Subzero World“:

Alternative Bank Schweiz AG late last year became Switzerland’s first bank to comprehensively pass along negative rates to all of its customers. Violating an almost religious precept in the financial world, ABS informed its clients that they would have to pay a charge of at least 0.125% to maintain their accounts at the bank starting in 2016.

This is the first time that I know of that a retail commercial bank is charging its customers to borrow their money. Wait, it gets better…

In the first two full months after ABS’s October negative-rate announcement, 1,797 clients had left the bank, but 1,830 new accounts had been opened—for a net gain of 33. Fresher data for January and February, the most recent available, showed that ABS was still net positive on accounts, with its gain expanded to 59.

That’s right, thus far the bank has had a slight net gain in depositors – or people that are willing to pay a bank to lend the bank their hard earned cash.Now this banks caters to a decided lower than national average clientele (I’m assuming this because it is located in a economically disadvantaged area), but I’m quite sure the banks clientele can count. This is exactly how it went down…

At ABS, total account balances fell by 4%, or 54 million Swiss francs ($56.5 million), between last October’s negative-rate announcement and February, as clients shifted money from cash holdings at the bank into investments. However, overall assets under management remained steady, ABS said.

This implies that the savers were forced out of their savings accounts due to being charged to put their money there, thus ran to investment accounts where they summarily lost their money anyway. You know 100% plus 4% should equal 104%, but came out to flat ~100%.

ABS is charging its clients because their its central bank, the Swiss National Bank, brought rates negative rates in 2014, currently -0.75%, with the risk of moving lower (reference Monetizing The Spear That The Swiss National Bank Hurled At Swiss Banks and Insurers). The European Central Bank went NIRP in 2014, and then went double NIRP recently, slashing rates to -0.4% in an apparently ineffective attempt to create inflation without organic economic demand. The ECB and Switzerland are joined by Denmark, Sweden and Japan in the NIRP (negative interest rate policy)parade, reference Stab, er… I Mean… Beggar Thy Neighbor – It’s ALL OUT (Currency) WAR! Pt 2. This of course, puts material profit margin pressure on banks, reference The Next European Banking Crisis Looks to Be Upon Us and As I Promised, the Nordic States’ Central Bank QE Program Slides Backwards and Starts To Collapse

The stated purpose of NIRP is to drive down the desirability of keeping funds in safe(r) investments, with the hope of forcing them into riskier investments (ex. stocks) and into the consumer economy (ex. forcing people to spend their savings on stuff). Of course, if you aren’t comfortable spending your savings on stuff, chances are you are not going to do it. This 4th grade revelation seems to be lost on many central bankers.

The WSJ says the big boys in Switzerland, such as UBS Group AG, are also charging negative rates on to large clients. 

WSJ further reports:

Mr. Rohner said ABS had a spirited internal debate about its decision. He and his management team considered whether or not passing on negative rates was fair to clients, and if it might spur a flood of complaints. Yet, the significant amount of deposits held at ABS (and, in turn, parked by ABS at the central bank), relative to its loans and investments, meant that not making the move could have wiped out profits.

Let’s not forget one of my favorite titles – “Fu$k the Fundamentals!”: Negative Rates In EU Will Absolutely Wreck the Very System the ECB Sought to Save.

Martin Janssen, a professor emeritus of finance at the University of Zurich, thinks it’s a matter of time until more banks—with a less clearly defined ideology and client base than ABS—have to start following suit. “If the negative interest rates persist for two or three years, many banks will go that way,” he said.

 How asinine can negative rates get? Well, we don’t know yet, but the progress thus far is rather promising, no?

In Denmark, Some Get Paid to Have a Mortgage:

AALBORG, Denmark— Hans Peter Christensen got some unusual news when he opened his most recent mortgage statement. His quarterly interest payment was negative 249 Danish kroner. Instead of paying interest on the loan he got a decade ago to buy a house in this northern Denmark city, his bank paid him the equivalent of $38 in interest for the quarter. As of Dec. 31, his mortgage rate, excluding fees, stood at negative 0.0562%.

Germany: Where Negative Rates Are Lethal

German regulators are so concerned about the impact of negative interest rates on the country’s life insurers that they have said they can only be sure the sector is safe through 2018. Even today, half the industry would be short of capital without the help of special measures. …The German life industry is particularly badly affected by very low or negative interest rates because companies have historically offered what now look like high levels of guaranteed returns over very long periods. Some insurers need to earn a continuing investment yield of more than 5% to meet guarantees to their policyholders, a report from Germany’s central bank found in 2014. In a world where 10-year German government bonds yield less than one-quarter of 1%, that looks very hard to achieve.

Falling interest rates also increase the size of the liabilities on insurers’ balance sheets, which can reduce their capital if assets don’t increase in valuation enough to match. 

Large European insurers such as Allianz, AXA, Assicurazioni Generali SpA and Munich Re all have big German life businesses, but regulatory concerns are more immediately focused on smaller insurers mainly unknown outside of the country. German life insurers earned gross written premiums of €89.9 billion ($102 billion) in 2014, according to the most recent statistics from German financial regulator BaFin.

Munich Re, whose unit Ergo Leben is Germany’s seventh-largest life insurer with €3 billion in gross written premiums, is watching monetary policy “with great concern,” said CEO Nikolaus von Bomhard.

“What is dangerous is that the return on many investments is no longer reflective of the underlying risk involved,” Mr. von Bomhard told The Wall Street Journal. “Many investors feel forced into taking higher risks.”

Exactly! This is what I have coined “Return-free Risk”!

Some policyholders are already losing out on money they should be getting, according to an association representing customers, because of the regulator’s efforts to bolster the companies’ balance sheets and survival prospects.

So, what does this have to do with Veritaseum and blockchain-based finance? In the comment section of one of the articles that I wrote yesterday, someone asked me what the difference was between Ethereum and Bitcoin, and which was better. The differences are myriad, but in a nutshell:

  • Ethereum is more programmable (with a built-in full turing programming language), theoretically more scalable and smaller confirmation times.
  • Bitcoin is proven more secure, less programmable (but still fully programmable with its non-turing scripting language – this is lost on most) and has longer times.
  • Bitcoin has a significant lead in its demand side network effect. This is also significantly lost on most.

Most people ask which is better. At such an early stage in each platform’s development life cycle, it’s really too early to tell. They take different approaches to a problem most didn’t even know they had. I’d like to note that while Veritaseum is currently built on the Bitcoin blockchain, it is actually blockchain agnostic. We’re not in the business of picking winners on the tech side. While this is an oversimplification, there are two points that are always lost in the debate. Points which the SNB and ECB will likely bring to light as they bring their financial systems towards the brink in their search for this mystical inflationary demand sans the demand – the Purple Unicorn! 

  1. Bitcoin is the most ubiquitous, secure and time tested blockchain-based network in existence, and by a wide margin. That means it is already spread far and wide and has remained 100% hack-proof for 7 years.
  2. Bitcoin is quite programmable, and advanced smart contracts can be made through the right systems, cue in Veritaseum
  3. and number three… Hold your booty hairs… Bitcoin is currently more price stable than the Brazilian real, gold, and from a cost perspective approaches parity to the yen and the euro. 

See below…

chart 1

Now, on a gross basis, the euro is ever so slightly more stable than bitcoin. Alas, if you keep your euro in a bank (ex. a Swiss bank) that actually charges you a negative rate 0.125% and a bank account fee of at least that, we’re talking very close to parity to two of the deepest and most liquid currencies (USD is #1) on the planet. 

What does this mean? It means BTC is gaining utility as a store of value, while maintaining three of its core attributes:

  1. Zero trust transactions
  2. Programmability
  3. It’s very own, built-in, very low cost, transmission network

So, when you create applications out of bitcoin, you don’t even need to include a money or currency component. It’s already there. As a matter of fact, that money and currency component is getting more and more stable over time (reference the downward sloping chart) as the competing fiat currencies are getting less and less stable over time, reference:

So, why isn’t everybody moving to the bitcoin blockchain platform? I truly believe they don’t know what it’s capable of. Keep in mind that the biggest banks in the world have come together to collaborate on this technology – reference:

What do all of these examples of Wall Street’s use of the tech have in common? For one, they are all still highly centralized yet attempt to use the peer-to-peer attributes of the bitcoin blockchain tech. Secondly, despite having a lot of capital and fanfare in the media, they are relatively late to the party. Veritaseum cleared its first swap through the blockchain in 2013, and has patent applications on the tech filed years before these announcements were made.

Hey, I’ve even done swaps directly on ZeroHedge in the past..oil short via USDEUR pair

Most importantly, the very need and existence of the entities doing the tests using blockchain technology is called into question by the mere fact that the blockchain technology actually works. If you can successfully use P2P technology to make your back-end infrastructure work more smoothly to charge your clients for services, why should your clients utilize you instead of the P2P technology directly? 

Therein lies the rub. The currency is now becoming stable (expect some bumps in the road, though). The infrastructure is being proved, and the platform is truly programmable.

Anyone interested in knowing more should contact me directly (reggie AT veritaseum.com. We have a lot to talk about.  

via http://ift.tt/1Sa4bln Reggie Middleton

Young Women Care As Much About Gun Rights As They Do About Abortion

That young women dig Bernie Sanders and tend to lean left isn’t too surprising. But would you have guessed that gun rights rank as high as abortion access and “equal pay” among their concerns? Or that young conservative women are almost as worried about economic inequality as are their liberal counterparts? These findings and more—both expected and idiosyncratic—come courtesy of a new national poll of millennial women from ABC News and Refinery 29. 

When asked about political affiliation, the most popular label among these 18- to 35-year-olds was “Independent,” claimed by some 40 percent of respondents. Thirty-eight percent called themselves Democrats and just 16 percent identified as Republican.

Party ties aside, 38 percent described themselves as “liberal,” 30 percent as “moderate,” and 26 percent as “conservative.” Compared to older women, millennial ladies who identify as “conservative” are 12 points less likely to call themselves Republican. 

Top Issues for Millennial Women

The septuagenarian socialist from Vermont led young women’s presidential picks, with a little more than a third of respondents naming Sanders as their top candidate. Twenty-five percent named Hillary Clinton as their top choice for the Oval Office. The Republican candidates combined earned a mere 21 percent of the potential vote, while 18 percent of those surveyed said they had no preference. 

Support for Sanders skewed young—nearly half of 18- to 21-year-olds preferred him, compared to just 27 percent of the oldest millennial women. Among respondents who strongly identified as feminists, Sanders was also the preferred candidate by a wide margin: 56 percent, compared to 25 percent for Clinton and 9 percent for GOP candidates.

Republicans were the preferred choice of 27 percent of respondents who said they were not feminists, while 24 percent of this group favored Clinton and 24 percent favored Sanders.

Less than half of all the women surveyed said they identify as a feminist, while 53 percent said they are not feminist and two percent had no opinion. Pollsters followed up with those who didn’t identify as feminist by asking if it’s due to disagreement with “the goals of feminism” or “because you dislike the word feminist but agree with the goals?” Almost half (49 percent) said they merely disliked the word, while around a third disagreed with feminist goals. 

Asked to say which of seven issues they found most important, millennial women were most likely to be concerned about “economic inequality” and student loan debt. The next biggest issues, with 11 percent each, were “protecting gun rights,” “equal pay for women,” and “preserving access to abortion.” Eight percent listed “lowering taxes” as their top concern and 4 percent chose “strengthening the military.” 

Conservative women were almost as likely as liberals, and more likely than those who described themselves as moderate, to see economic inequality as a top concern. They were less concerned about student loans (12 percent, versus 23 percent of liberals and 25 percent of moderates) but more concerned about gun rights (19 percent, versus nine percent of moderates and five percent of liberals). 

For whites, inequality slightly outpaced student loans as a concern but for black women, student-loan debt dominated, with almost a third of black respondents saying it was their top issue. Black women were much less likely than white or Hispanic women to list abortion access as a top concern (two percent, versus 15 and seven percent, respectively), while blacks and Hispanics were both more likely to be concerned with women’s pay. 

Overall, 49 percent of respondents said candidates are discussing issues that are important to them, while only one-third of black respondents said as much.

As far as which candidates young women find “scary,” Donald Trump was tops, spooking 63 percent of respondents. Clinton caused fear in a comparatively low 13 percent. 

Sanders was seen as the most “inspirational,” followed by Clinton. The Democrats were the most coveted companions at a hypothetical dinner, too, although 11 percent said they’d like to sit down with Trump. For both questions, the largest percentage of votes went to “none.” Thirty-nine percent of respondents said they would not like to have dinner with any of the candidates and 47 percent finds none of them inspiring. 

The ABC News/Refinery 29 poll was conducted March 2-22, 2016, and involved a random national sample of 566 women, the majority of whom—65 percent—are registered voters. Voter registration was much higher for the older-half of the cohort, rising to 72 percent. Almost half of the young women pollsters talked to were married and/or living with a partner, and 37 percent were parents. A small majority (53 percent) have full-time jobs. Among college graduates, 28 percent owed more than $25,000 in student loans, while five percent of non-graduates carry that much student-loan debt. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1p1LpUV
via IFTTT

Hillary Will Win New York, Because It’s Running A Banana Republic Primary

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 11.53.29 AM

While it might sound strange, a coronation of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary will mark the end of the party as we know it. There’s been a lot written about the “Sanders surge,” with much of it revolving around Hillary Clinton’s extreme personal weakness as a candidate. While this is indisputable, it’s also a convenient way for the status quo to exempt itself from fault and discount genuine grassroots anger. I’m of the view that Sanders’ support is more about people liking him than them disliking Hillary, particularly when it comes to registered Democrats. He’s not merely seen as the “least bad choice.” People really do like him.

 

The Sanders appeal is twofold. He is seen as unusually honest and consistent for someone who’s held elected office for much of his life, plus he advocates a refreshingly anti-establishment view on core issues that matter to an increasing number of Americans. These include militarism, Wall Street bailouts, a two-tiered justice system, the prohibitive cost of college education, healthcare insecurity and a “rigged economy.” While Hillary is being forced to pay lip service to these issues, everybody knows she doesn’t mean a word of it. She means it less than Obama meant it in 2008, and Obama really didn’t mean it.

 

– From the post: It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’ll know that New Yorkers go to the primary voting booths on April 19th. Unfortunately, only a small sliver of the population will actually be able to vote. First, it’s a closed primary, so you have to be registered as a member of one of the two corrupt political parties in order to participate. As the Guardian recently reported, 27% of New York state’s active voters were not registered in either party as of April 2016, meaning these people will have no say in the primary. Even worse, what about all those residents who aren’t active voters, but would very likely vote in this particular election given the increased turnout seen in other states? They’re iced out as well.

New York has one of the most archaic primaries in the nation. Not only is it one of only 11 states with closed primaries, but if you are a registered voter who wanted to change your party affiliation in order to vote in next week’s primary, you would’ve had to do it by last October. In contrast, if you weren’t yet a registered voter you had until March 25th to register under one of the two parties in order to vote in the primary. So if you live in New York and haven’t registered by now, you can’t vote. 

As the Guardian reports:

 

A lot has changed in the presidential primaries since 9 October 2015. Back then, a CBS News poll showed Hillary Clinton beating Bernie Sanders nationally by nearly 20 points; if Joe Biden had entered the race, the same poll suggested Clinton would beat Sanders by 24 points. She was, in the minds of many liberal voters, the inevitable Democratic nominee.

 

Quietly on that same day, the New York state board of elections’ deadline to change party affiliation passed, leaving any registered voters not identified as a Republican or a Democrat with no way to vote in the 19 April 2016 primary.

 

The deadline to register to vote for the first time in the New York primary passed on 25 March 2016; there is no in-person registration in the state, even to cast a provisional ballot.

 

As New York’s primary approaches, it is only now that many would-be voters are realizing they will be unable to vote next Tuesday.

 

New York is one of only 11 states with closed primaries – ie primaries in which only voters who are registered as Republicans or Democrats are allowed to cast ballots – and it is the only state in which currently registered voters must declare their party affiliation more than six months before a primary in order to vote.

 

More than 2.9 million of New York’s 10.7 million active voters were not registered Democrats or Republicans as of April 2016 – in part because at least some of them found out after 9 October 2015 that, beginning that day, they could not change their party affiliation until 15 November.

I am of the belief that Hillary Clinton will beat Bernie Sanders in New York in large part because of the above situation. She’ll win in New York the same way she’s won everywhere, by getting the votes of old people who’ve been registered as Democrats since the 60s. Fortunately for her, those are most of the people who’ll be voting next Tuesday.

So while we’re on the topic of the lack of democracy within the Democratic Party, take a watch of this short clip from MSNBC.

 

Mind-boggling that we put up with this nonsense.

via http://ift.tt/1p1GIKK Tyler Durden

Battery Charges Against Trump Campaign Manager Lewandowski Dropped – Live Webcast

When Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was charged with misdemeanor battery on March 29 for allegedly grabbing and pulling down former Breitbart employee Michelle Fields, it made all the headlines on March 29.

Not so much today when moments ago when Florida authorities decided they won’t proceed with their case against Lewandowski, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of attacking a reporter at a rally last month.

As a reminder, Lewandowski, 42, was charged with simple battery after Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields accused him of grabbing her as she attempted to ask Trump a question at a March 8 campaign event in Jupiter. But on Thursday, Palm Beach County prosecutors said in filings that while there had been probable cause for an arrest, “the evidence cannot prove all required elements of the crime alleged and is insufficient to support a criminal prosecution.”

According to NBC, “Fields said that the prosecutor’s office called her two weeks ago and that she agreed to a deal in which Lewandowski would issue her an apology. She said she hadn’t heard back about the arrangement, and a source familiar with the situation told NBC News that it wasn’t clear whether Lewandowski had accepted the proposal.”

Fields and three of her colleagues resigned from Breitbart after the site published an account questioning Fields’ allegations. “I can’t stand with an organization that won’t stand by me,” she said at the time.

Lewandowski remains Trump’s campaign manager, but it’s unclear whether he retains day-to-day control over the operation after veteran Republican operative Paul Manafort was recently appointed convention manager.

The Florida State Attorney is currently explaining why the charges were dropped in the video below:

via http://ift.tt/1ScNurI Tyler Durden

‘They’ Have Decided “We Can’t Handle The Truth”

It’s a fun conceit of science fiction to contemplate the existence of alternative universes.

As Bloomberg's Richard Breslow points out, when you think they exist in the same time and place, it leaves the realm of the paperback section of the airport newsstand and is better discussed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

If you need yet another stark example of the fantasy storytelling we amuse ourselves with, juxtapose today’s Monetary Authority of Singapore policy statement with the storyline that the Asian stock market rally intensified on renewed optimism over the global economy. Singapore is a proxy for trade and "economic growth ground to a halt last quarter."

We all know why equity markets are zooming. The Bernanke put is standard operating procedure: globally. Whatever is out there’s got central bankers spooked. To use the cliche, they’ve decided we can’t handle the truth. But it’s impossible to fight a manticore you can’t see.

 

The IMF just portrayed the global economy in decidedly downbeat fashion. Things really are looking much better in Canada, but Governor Poloz took the glass half-empty approach. For G-20 watchers, he also bemoaned the strengthening currency.

Back at the ranch, Fed speakers keep talking about the rate hike pipeline. It’s easy to talk tough when you’re standing behind your mother. And they wonder why futures traders just can’t believe them.

A 10-year Treasury bond yielding 1.76% is not normal. Should you take advice from bond bears or the blowout auction?

Appreciating currencies of negative interest rate economies that are threatening to do more, may be explained by the unintended consequence factor, but represent policy failure.

I’m the optimist. I think we can find a way to solve our problems. But it’ll never happen while we continue to dissemble and implement policies that aren’t working.

Source: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/1S9Xhwk Tyler Durden