Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

As the immigration debate goes on, many commentators continue to sloppily ignore the difference between the concept of naturalization and the phenomenon of immigration. 

While the two are certainly related, they are also certainly not the same thing. Recognizing this distinction can help us to see the very real differences between naturalization, which is a matter of political privilege, and immigration, which simply results from the exercise of private property rights. Immigration results naturally from allowing persons to exercise their property rights. Naturalization, on the other hand, is a political act. 

Naturalization Is about Politics, not Property

Naturalization is the process by which persons become citizens and gain access to political institutions. This is a distinct phenomenon from the process of migration. Certainly, an immigrant can relocate without any intent of going through the naturalization process, as is the case for many immigrants to the US today. Those familiar with migrant worker programs in the US, for example, are well aware that there are many workers who work in the US but do not begin the naturalization process. 

Much of the confusion in the US stems from the lax nature of US naturalization laws. Thanks to "birthright citizenship" in the United States, it is assumed in the modern US that even if a person never becomes naturalized, his or her children will automatically become citizens if born on US soil. 

In many parts of the world, however, simply being born within the boundaries of a certain state does not guarantee naturalization. 

Switzerland, for example, provides a much clearer picture of how immigration and naturalization can be viewed as quite distinct. Indeed, in Switzerland, the naturalization process can take many years for adults, and citizenship is by no means guaranteed even to the children of non-Swiss citizens on Swiss soil. For an example of this, we need look no further than this recent article in The Atlantic which outlines the story of one Nancy Holten who has lived as a non-citizen in Switzerland for 34 yeas. Recently, she was rejected for citizenship for the second time. This doesn't mean Switzerland is a closed economy, of course. Non-citizen permanent residents are numerous in Switzerland, making up nearly one-quarter of the total population. The lack of citizenship, however, is not a barrier to owning property or entering into employment contracts. 

This reality reminds us that citizenship and political participation — i.e., naturalization — are not the same thing as the free exercise of property rights. 

Property Rights vs. Political "Rights" 

Immigration, on the other hand, can — and should — occur outside the sphere of state power. In order for immigration to take place, the state merely need take no action and leave the matter to private employers, workers, and landowners.1

In other words, if a person can find someone willing to rent or sell him real estate, and if the migrant can secure income through employment or some other voluntary means, then the immigrant will be free to relocate — thanks to the invitation of private owners and employers. 

Thus, in a system where income and access to other resources must be procured largely through private means, immigration — when it occurs — is simply the natural outcome of the exercise of private property rights. Unfortunately, most modern states cloud this picture by extending the welfare state to migrants. This, in turn, changes migration from a voluntary agreement between private parties into a matter of "public" funds and political action. The answer to this, of course, is to end the subsidy — not to intervene in the private economy. 

Moreover, political problems that arise from imprudent policies on naturalization and welfare state spending do not justify government intervention in private property.  After all, unlike political "rights" such as voting, private property rights are universal and are not rendered moot by a change of government policy or a change in government jurisdiction. 

By moving from one jurisdiction to another, a person does not suddenly forfeit the right to rent an apartment freely offered to him by a landlord. He does not lose the right to take a job freely offered by an employer, and he does not lose the right to sell goods and services to persons who freely offer to buy them. 

Unlike the political privileges conferred by naturalization, these property rights remain the same always and in every location. Any interference by the state into these voluntary market activities would be rightly considered a violation of basic human rights. 

Nevertheless, in spite of states can and do engage in a variety of activities intended to hamper, prohibit, or regulate the exercise of private property rights based on whether or not a private party travels over an international boundary to conduct business. 

Often, these efforts to limit property rights take the form of preventing buyer and seller from engaging in commerce. This can be done through physical barriers or by acts of a legislature intended to impose prohibitions on certain types of employment and other voluntary contracts. 

In many cases, employers will only be allowed to employ persons with the correct government paperwork. Those who do not have the right paperwork, however, are in violation of government laws and may not be hired. In some cases, landlords are even prevented from renting their own property to potential renters who lack the correct arbitrary government designation. 

In this, of course, we see little difference from regulatory regimes such as the war on drugs in which some plants are declared to be legal, while other plants are deemed illegal and verboten. 

In all cases, of course, state enforcement of these arbitrary designations relies on the imposition of stiff fines and draconian prison sentences for many involved. This was certainly true in the case of William Hadden, a property owner who rented an apartment to non-government-approved persons:

The 69-year-old landlord was arrested and charged with dozens of crimes, including harboring fugitives and conspiracy — because his property manager rented to illegals. Although acquitted by a jury, he could have spent the rest of his life in prison, and been forced to forfeit the 60 or so units he owned jointly with his son to the State of Kentucky.

In his article "The Tragedy of Immigration Enforcement," Lew Rockwell noted that "If you give government a job to do, even one that seems justified in the abstract, it will use its power to make a terrible mess in practice." Rockwell goes in on in the article to note the many ways that federal control of immigration has empowered federal agencies to regulate, monitor, and control countless small business and employers across the US who have committed the "crime" of entering into employment contracts without federal approval. 

Indeed, in recent decades, countless small business owners have been ruined by federal intervention in these voluntary employment contracts, while countless others have been driven into black and gray markets in attempts to exercise what should be regarded as unassailable property rights. 

Those who advocate for this type of government control over private property often rationalize their position on the grounds that private owners and employers must be imprisoned, fined, harassed, and impoverished in the name of preventing immigrants from accessing the political system or the public purse. 

Unfortunately, this sort of thinking confuses the issue of naturalization and immigration. If it is a concern — for whatever reason — that immigrants have access to political institutions and public funds, then the correct response is to directly limit that access. 

Stealing the property of landlords and employers, on the other hand, — as part of a circuitous effort to stick it to immigrants — only destroys the free exercise of property rights while refusing to directly confront the issue at hand — a bloated welfare state and a broken system of naturalization.

via http://ift.tt/2mSistW Tyler Durden

In the wake of the terror attacks in England, France, Germany and elsewhere, can we finally admit that the war on terror is an utter and complete failure?

10 Ways to Reduce Terrorism

So if the war on terror has failed, what should we do to stop terrorists?

I. Stop Overthrowing the Moderates and Arming Crazies

We know it’s a difficult concept to grasp, but if we want to stop terrorism we should – (wait for it) – stop supporting terrorists.

Specifically, we’re arming the most violent radicals in the Middle East, as part of a really stupid geopolitical strategy to overthrow leaders we don’t like (more details below). And see this, this, this, this and this.

We’re directly arming and supporting folks who are committing summary execution, torture, kidnapping, and imposing Sharia law at the point of the gun.

But – strangely – we’re overthrowing the moderate Arabs who stabilized the region and denied jihadis a foothold.

U.S. allies are directly responsible for creating and supplying ISIS.

If we want to stop terrorism, we need to stop supporting the terrorists.

II. Stop Supporting the Dictators Who Fund Terrorists

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.

According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers (see section VII for details). And declassified documents only amplify those connections. And the new Saudi king has ties to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis).

And the Saudis – with U.S. support – back the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible for 70 years. And selling them massive amounts of arms. And kept them off of the list of restricted countries for immigration.

In addition, top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east – like Saudi Arabia – is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists.

U.S. and NATO-supported Turkey is also massively supporting ISIS, provided chemical weapons used in the massacre of civilians, and has been bombing ISIS’ main on-the-ground enemy – Kurdish soldiers – using its air force.

The U.S.-backed dictatorships in Qatar and Bahrain also massively fund ISIS.

So if we stop supporting the tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Bahrain, we’ll get a two-fold reduction in terror:

(1) We’ll undermine the main terrorism supporters

 

And …

 

(2) We’ll take away one of the main motivations driving terrorists: our support for the most repressive, brutal Arab dictatorships

III. Stop Bombing and Invading When a Negotiated Settlement Is Offered

The U.S. rejected offers by Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to surrender … and instead proceeded to wage war against those countries.

Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.

For example, James K. Feldman – former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies – and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism. University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – agrees.

Indeed, the leaders of America and the UK were warned that the Iraq war would increase terrorism … before they pulled the trigger.

Negotiating peaceful deals whenever possible will drain the swamp of terrorists created by war and invasion.

IV. Prioritize Stopping Terrorists Over Stopping the “Shia Crescent”

As U.S. actions in Syria demonstrate, our politicians are focused on curbing Russian and Iranian geopolitical influence much more than actually stopping ISIS and other terrorists.

The U.S. has inserted itself smack dab in the middle of a religious war … choosing violent  Sunni Muslims to counter the influence of Iran and the “Shia Crescent”.

Amazingly, the U.S. military described terror attacks on the U.S. as a “small price to pay for being a superpower“:

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to make it a priority.

V. Stop Imperial Conquests for Arab Oil

The U.S. has undertaken regime change against Arab leaders we don’t like for six decades. We overthrew the leader of Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Iraq twice, Afghanistan twice, Turkey, Libya … and other oil-rich countries.

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa yet again in 1991.

Top American politicians admit that the Iraq war was about oil, not stopping terrorism (documents from Britain show the same thing). Much of the war on terror is really a fight for natural gas. Or to force the last few hold-outs into dollars and private central banking. For example, see this email to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

We’ve fought the longest and most expensive wars in American history … but we’re less secure than before, and there are more terror attacks than ever (update).

Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country. And the West’s Iraq war directly led to the creation of ISIS.

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to stop overthrowing Arab leaders and invading Arab countries to grab their oil.

VI. Stop Drone Assassinations of Innocent Civilians

Top U.S. warfighting experts say that American drone strikes INCREASE terrorism (and see this).

And yet Trump has increased drone strikes by 432%.

If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop the drone strikes.

VII. Stop Torture

Top U.S. terrorism and interrogation experts agree that torture creates more terrorists.

Indeed, the leaders of ISIS were motivated by U.S. torture.  For example, Charlie Hebdo-murdering French terrorist Cherif Kouchi told a court in 2005 that he wasn’t radical until he learned about U.S. torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

And the Secretary of Defense any many other top military and intelligence experts say that torture doesn’t do anything to keep us safer.

If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop torturing … permanently.

VIII. Stop Mass Surveillance

Top security experts agree that mass surveillance makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorists.

Indeed, even the NSA admits that it’s collecting too MUCH information to stop terror attacks.

In virtually every recent terror attack – in Boston, Paris, San Bernadino, Orlando, etc. – the suspect was already on a terror watch list, known to authorities, previously interviewed by the FBI, or the like. They were already known to authorities.

Mass surveillance simply doesn’t keep us safer.  Indeed, instead of focusing on known bad guys and their associates, the government is flooded with surveillance data from spying on everybody. So they can’t do their job to stop terrorists.

Stop it.

IX. Stop Covering Up 9/11

Government officials agree that 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism … they just disagree on which state was responsible.

Because 9/11 was the largest terror attack on the U.S. in history – and all of our national security strategies are based on 9/11 – we can’t stop terror until we get to the bottom of what really happened, and which state was behind it.

Many high-level American officials – including military leaders, intelligence officials and 9/11 commissioners – are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations to date.

The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “permanent 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Bob Graham) said that the Paris terror attack, ISIS, and other terrorist developments are a result of failing to stand up to Saudi Arabia:

Again, others have different ideas about who was behind 9/11. But until we get to the bottom of it, terror attacks will continue.

X. Stop Doing It Ourselves

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

(audio here).

The Washington Post reported in 2010:

The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.

Wikipedia notes:

Chomsky and Herman observed that terror was concentrated in the U.S. sphere of influence in the Third World, and documented terror carried out by U.S. client states in Latin America. They observed that of ten Latin American countries that had death squads, all were U.S. client states.

 

***

 

They concluded that the global rise in state terror was a result of U.S. foreign policy.

 

 

In 1991, a book edited by Alexander L. George [the Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University] also argued that other Western powers sponsored terror in Third World countries. It concluded that the U.S. and its allies were the main supporters of terrorism throughout the world.

Indeed, the U.S. has created death squads in Latin America, Iraq and Syria.

Some in the American military have intentionally tried to “out-terrorize the terrorists”. As Truthout notes:

Both [specialists Ethan McCord and Josh Stieber] say they saw their mission as a plan to “out-terrorize the terrorists,” in order to make the general populace more afraid of the Americans than they were of insurgent groups. In the interview with [Scott] Horton, Horton pressed Stieber:

“… a fellow veteran of yours from the same battalion has said that you guys had a standard operating procedure, SOP, that said – and I guess this is a reaction to some EFP attacks on y’all’s Humvees and stuff that killed some guys – that from now on if a roadside bomb goes off, IED goes off, everyone who survives the attack get out and fire in all directions at anybody who happens to be nearby … that this was actually an order from above. Is that correct? Can you, you know, verify that?

Stieber answered:

“Yeah, it was an order that came from Kauzlarich himself, and it had the philosophy that, you know, as Finkel does describe in the book, that we were under pretty constant threat, and what he leaves out is the response to that threat. But the philosophy was that if each time one of these roadside bombs went off where you don’t know who set it … the way we were told to respond was to open fire on anyone in the area, with the philosophy that that would intimidate them, to be proactive in stopping people from making these bombs …”

Terrorism is defined as:

The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

So McCord and Stieber are correct: this constitutes terrorism by American forces in Iraq. And American officials have admitted that the U.S. has engaged in numerous false flag attacks.

Indeed, many top experts – including government officials – say that America is the largest sponsor of terror in the world … largely through the work of the CIA. And see this.

Stop Throwing Bodies In the River

Defenders of current government policy say: “we have to do something to stop terrorists!”

Yes, we do …

But we must also stop doing the 9 things above which increase terrorism. We have to stop “throwing new bodies in the river.”

But the powers-that-be don’t want to change course … they gain tremendous power and influence through our current war on terror strategies.

For example, the military-complex grows rich through war … so endless war is a feature – not a bug – of our foreign policy.

Torture was about building a false justification for war.

Mass surveillance is about economic and diplomatic advantage and crushing dissent.

Supporting the most radical Muslim leaders is about oil and power … “a small price to pay” to try to dominate the world.

A leading advisor to the U.S. military – the Rand Corporation – released a study in 2008 called “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida“. The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).

As a press release about the study states:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”

We, the People, have to stand up and demand that our power-hungry leaders stop doing the things which give them more power … but are guaranteed to increase terrorism against us, the civilian population.

via http://ift.tt/2mWrC9J George Washington

Antonio Lee, “an American entrepreneur” and “world renowned artist,” can be described as almost anything except humble…”scam artist” fits pretty well.  According to his official bio, Lee began his career in the cosmetology field, “as a barber”, but quickly decided he was better suited to raise a $1 trillion “art investment fund.”

Antonio Lee (born Antonio Luis Winters; July 14, 1984) is an American entrepreneur, world renowned artist, and YouTube celebrity specializing in acrylic painting. He is well known for his work in the field of Scientific and Performance Art. Lee is the grandson of renowned African-American artist, Annie Lee. Lee credits inspiration to Pablo Picasso, Leonardo Da Vinci, Annie Lee, Jean Michel Basquiat and Damien Hirst.

 

For the early part of Lee’s professional life he worked in the field of real estate and cosmetology, as a barber. However, he was severely injured during a case of police brutality. After much rehabilitation therapy Antonio Lee was able to regain mobility, but he is now limited in his range of motion as well as tolerance for sitting and standing.  Lee is the father of three girls Malia Lee, Naima Lee, & Ziya Lee. He married in 2011, however, due to marital hardships, he and his wife divorced in 2013. This injury took a toll on Lee, causing him to suffer from major depressive episodes.

 

In 2013, Lee founded YNoFace Holdings, a Wisconsin company, the first art investment fund created by an artist, that has offered the first issuer- issued private offering under the Jobs Act.

If fact, for those among our readership who would like more information, here is brief overview of the “YNOFACE Holdings” art fund that “acquires, markets, and holds original art as a capital appreciation investment based off the fundamental metrics”…seems solid.

YNOFACE Holdings Inc. acquires, markets, and holds original art as a capital appreciation investment based off the fundamental metrics. We are the first investment art fund created by an artist, world renowned scientific artist Antonio Lee. In addition we are made up of 17 independent contractors and growing. We will upload and share our 41 city global art tour and performances right here on YouTube for your enjoyment! We will showcase our art and the art of the world from a different perspective! Enjoying and Appreciating All That Exists!

And while all of the above from YNOFACE Holdings would seem odd enough, things took a turn for the truly bizarre recently when Lee decided to post an official 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission announcing the sale of his art fund to Google for $3.6 trillion, making him easily the wealthiest man in the world.  Per Bloomberg:

A few hours after the New York market close on Feb. 1, an obscure Chicago artist by the name of Antonio Lee told the world he had become the world’s richest man.

 

The 32-year-old painter said Google’s parent, Alphabet Inc., had bought his art company in exchange for a chunk of stock that made him wealthier than Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Warren Buffett and Amazon.com Inc.’s Jeff Bezos — combined.

 

Of course, none of it was true. Yet, on that day, Lee managed to issue his fabricated report in the most authoritative of places: The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Edgar database — the foundation of hundreds of billions of dollars in financial transactions each day.

All of which, of course, simply serves as a reminder that pretty much anyone, including a former barber turned trillionaire art collector from Chicago, can dupe the SEC.

For more than three decades, the SEC has accepted online submissions of regulatory filings — basically, no questions asked. As many as 800,000 forms are filed each year, or about 3,000 per weekday. But, in a little known vulnerability at the heart of American capitalism, the government doesn’t vet them, and rarely even takes down those known to be shams.

 

“The SEC can’t stop them,” said Lawrence West, a former SEC associate enforcement director. “They can only punish the filer afterward and remove the filing from the system.”

 

After the fraudulent Avon filing, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and former chairman of the Finance Committee, told the SEC it must review its posting standards.

 

“This pattern of fraudulent conduct is troubling, especially in light of the relative ease in which a fake posting can be made,” Grassley wrote in a letter to the agency.

 

In response, Mary Jo White, who then chaired the SEC, said it wouldn’t be feasible to check information. She noted that there were on average 125 first-time filers daily in 2014, and the agency was studying the strengthening of its authentication process.

In fact, as Reuters pointed out last fall, Lee’s February filing with the SEC wasn’t even his first act of securities fraud as it was preceded by another fraudulent filing in which he purported to have acquired a modest $88 billion stake in BAML.

In the latest apparent spoof on a U.S. securities regulator’s online filing system, a Chicago-area artist with a fondness for inspirational quotes claimed to have acquired about $88 billion worth of Bank of America Corp shares on Wednesday.

 

While the SEC did not respond to a request for comment and Bank of America declined to comment, securities experts said there was no doubt the filing was a hoax.

 

In it, a company called YNOFACE Holdings Inc purportedly run by Antonio Lee said it had acquired 798.4 million Bank of America shares in an exchange on Aug. 15, and purchased another 4.2 billion common shares and 100 million preferred shares on Sept. 22.

 

The common shares alone would represent nearly half the bank’s total market cap. Bank of America’s largest shareholder, The Vanguard Group, has roughly 610 million shares, a stake of less than 6 percent.

 

In an earlier filing, YNOFACE said it had implausibly raised over $1 trillion for an art fund.

So, caveat lector — let the reader beware.

via http://ift.tt/2n8TPLq Tyler Durden

Authored by Stephen McBride via GarretGalland.com,

Before yesterday, the S&P 500 and DJIA hadn’t seen a 1% drop since October 2016. For some perspective, Hillary Clinton was the presidential frontrunner the last time markets fell 1%. This was the longest such streak for both indices in over 20 years.

In February, the DJIA recorded its longest “winning streak” since 1987. It closed 2,000 points above its 200-day moving average for the first time ever.

Also in February, the combined market cap of the S&P 500 topped $20 trillion for the first time. Its market cap has increased by over $2 trillion since the election—staggering.

Like we discussed last month, with a proliferation of “record” highs in 2017, where are market valuations at today? The five charts below paint the whole picture best.

Chart #1: S&P 500 Price/EBITDA

Today, the S&P 500 price/EBITDA sits at an all-time high.

Source: The Credit Strategist

This tells us that the current rally can be largely attributed to “valuation expansion.” Indeed, around 60% of the gains since 2009 have come from this source. At the same time, earnings growth has been anemic.

From 2012–2016, annual earnings growth was just 0.49%. In comparison, from 1995–1999, growth was 9.5%.

Chart #2: CAPE

Another commonly used metric is the cyclically adjusted, price-to-earnings ratio (CAPE).

Currently, the CAPE is 73% above its mean. Besides its reading before the 1929 crash and dot-com bubble, the ratio is at its highest level on record.

Source: Robert Shiller

Chart #3: Total Market Cap/GDP

Warren Buffet’s favorite valuation metric, total market cap relative to GDP, currently stands at 130%—a 129% increase since 2009. This rise also brings the ratio to its highest level since 2000.

Source: Gurufocus

Chart #4: NYSE Margin Debt

High levels of margin debt lead to increased volatility as more people are forced to sell due to margin calls.

In January, margin debt hit another record high. The two previous tops were one month and three months prior to the respective 2000 and 2008 market crashes.

Source: Advisor Perspectives

Chart #5: The Complacency Index

Margin debt making another “all-time high” signals the cycle is in late stages when complacency takes hold. And surprise, surprise, that too is at all-time highs.

Source: Bloomberg

In the past, when the complacency index was high, stocks invariably saw big corrections shortly thereafter.

By most metrics, equities look pricey. But even with the bull market now eight years old, sentiment continues to be extremely bullish. So, what are the takeaways from these lofty valuations?

Lower Future Returns and Higher Downside Risk

To quote Warren Buffet, “The price you pay determines your rate of return.” In a nutshell, this sums up what today’s valuations mean for investors.

High valuation metrics aren’t indicative of an imminent market crash. What they do tell us is that we must lower our expectations of future returns.

While the correlation isn’t perfect, this chart shows a higher CAPE ratio usually means lower future returns.

Source: Bloomberg

With the stunning run-up in markets since 2009, investors can’t reasonably expect returns to continue at double the long-term average. At a time of exuberance, it’s important to remember markets are cyclical.

The other takeaway from today’s valuations is that when the drawdown does come, it will be severe. As this chart from Star Capital shows, downside risk tends to increase as market valuations become excessive.

Source: Star Capital

Given current market levels, investors may want to lower their future expected returns. It’s important to note that “record highs” are records for a reason. It’s where previous limits were reached.

With that in mind, how should investors approach the markets today?

Adopt a Contrarian Investment Strategy

While markets continue to make new highs, investors should proceed with care. This is the second-longest period in stock market history without a 10% correction. As detailed above, the higher valuations go, the worst the subsequent drop.

The average decline during the last five bear markets was 33% – the next one could be much worse. Of course, markets could rise another 50% from here before falling. But given their run-up since 2009—is it a risk worth taking?

*  *  *

Learn More About the Contrarian Value Strategy in Our Free Report, 3 Proven Strategies to Invest in Uncertain Markets Like These – In this report, we detail three strategies investors can use to find value in today’s generally overpriced markets. Click here to learn more about this proven investment system that will change how you invest forever.

via http://ift.tt/2mS8w3m Tyler Durden

California, a state infamous for its environmental protections, including a $65 billion tunnel project being pushed by Governor Jerry Brown so as not to disrupt the habitat of a tiny, non-native fish species, may be facing a lead poisoning crisis more severe than Flint, Michigan. 

According to blood test data obtained by Reuters, rates of childhood lead poisoning in several California cities surpass those measured in Flint, Michigan, with one Fresno locale showing rates nearly three times higher.

In fact, in Fresno’s downtown 93701 zip code, nearly 14% of children tested showed lead levels at or above 5 micrograms per deciliter of blood, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current threshold for an elevated reading.  As the CDC noted, no level of lead exposure is safe, but children who test that high warrant an immediate public health response.

In all, per the map below, Reuters found at least 29 California neighborhoods where children had elevated lead tests at rates at least as high as in Flint.  “It’s a widespread problem and we have to get a better idea of where the sources of exposure are,” said California Assembly member Bill Quirk, who chairs the state legislature’s Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. 

And while elevated lead levels in children was found to be a fairly widespread issue across California, the poorer regions of the Central Valley where the majority of California’s crops are grown were found to be particularly at risk.

In all, Fresno County had nine zip code areas where high lead levels among children tested were at least as common as in Flint. The Reuters article in December documented nearly 3,000 locales nationwide with poisoning rates double those found in the Michigan city along the Flint River.

 

The city of Fresno battles high poverty rates and problems with substandard housing, both risk factors for lead exposure. Some locals are also concerned with drinking water, after unsafe levels of lead were detected in at least 120 Fresno homes last year.

 

Fresno County’s lead poisoning prevention program conducts outreach across the city, and a program health educator, Leticia Berber, says exposure remains too common.

 

Still, she expressed surprise at the area’s high rate. “We haven’t looked at it that way compared to Flint,” Berber said.

Of course, California’s Public Health Department attempted to downplay the results saying that comparisons between the state’s blood lead testing results and those from other states aren’t warranted. It said California tests children deemed most at risk for lead exposure, such as those enrolled in Medicaid or living in older housing.  “Testing of at-risk children, and not all children, skews California results to higher percentage of children tested showing lead exposure,” the state said.

But, as Reuters points out, testing that targets at-risk children is common across much of the country. 

Blood tests can’t determine the cause of a child’s exposure, but potential sources include crumbling old paint, contaminated soil, tainted drinking water or other lead hazards.

Meanwhile, elevated exposure levels were also found to be a problem in larger neighborhoods surrounding San Francisco and Los Angeles as well.

Lead exposure is common in other East Bay areas, including large parts of Oakland, and nearby Emeryville and Fremont, the new data shows.

 

In January, Oakland city council members introduced a resolution that would require property owners to obtain lead inspections and safety certifications before renting or selling houses and apartments built before 1978, when lead paint was banned.

 

Emeryville’s city council this month proposed an ordinance to require proof that contractors will adhere to Environmental Protection Agency standards – including safe lead paint removal practices – before they renovate older housing.

 

Emeryville Vice Mayor John Bauters said paint exposure isn’t the only risk. A long history of heavy industry in the East Bay also left contaminated soil in some areas.

 

In the Los Angeles area, the prevalence of high blood lead tests reached 5 percent or above in at least four zip codes during 2012.

 

Since August, a sampling of children tested from the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Westlake, Koreatown and Pico Union revealed about 5 percent with high lead results, said Jeff Sanchez, a public health specialist at Impact Assessment, which helps Los Angeles run its lead poisoning prevention program.

 

“The more you look,” Sanchez said, “the more you find.”

Perhaps it’s time to divert some of those funds allocated to protect endangered fish and bees to actually help the taxpayers of your state, Governor Brown.

via http://ift.tt/2nDZeMU Tyler Durden

Authored by Alex Morey and Samantha Harris via TheFire.org,

In anti-intellectual email, Wellesley profs call engaging with controversial arguments an imposition on students

In an email to fellow faculty yesterday afternoon, a committee of Wellesley College professors made several startling recommendations about how they think future campus speakers should be chosen. If implemented, the proposals by the faculty Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity would have a profound impact on the quality and quantity of voices Wellesley students would be permitted to hear.

*  *  *

Full email below:

From: ?Michael P Jeffries? <?mjeffrie@wellesley.edu?>
Date: Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:43 PM
Subject: [FacStaffDiscuss] Statement from CERE faculty re: Laura Kipnis Freedom Project visit and aftermath
To: Faculty-Staff Discussion <?facstaffdiscuss@wellesley.edu?>

To: Wellesley Community
From: Faculty on Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity (CERE)
Re: Laura Kipnis visit and aftermath
3/20/17

Over the past few years, several guest speakers with controversial and objectionable beliefs have presented their ideas at Wellesley. We, the faculty in CERE, defend free speech and believe it is essential to a liberal arts education. However, as historian W. Jelani Cobb notes, “The freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered. The enlightenment principles that undergird free speech also prescribed that the natural limits of one’s liberty lie at the precise point at which it begins to impose upon the liberty of another.”

There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley. We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers’ presentations on Wellesley students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments. Students object in order to affirm their humanity. This work is not optional; students feel they would be unable to carry out their responsibilities as students without standing up for themselves. Furthermore, we object to the notion that onlookers who are part of the faculty or administration are qualified to adjudicate the harm described by students, especially when so many students have come forward. When dozens of students tell us they are in distress as a result of a speaker’s words, we must take these complaints at face value.

What is especially disturbing about this pattern of harm is that in many cases, the damage could have been avoided. The speakers who appeared on campus presented ideas that they had published, and those who hosted the speakers could certainly anticipate that these ideas would be painful to significant portions of the Wellesley community. Laura Kipnis’s recent visit to Wellesley prompted students to respond to Kipnis’s presentation with a video post on Facebook.

Kipnis posted the video on her page, and professor Tom Cushman left a comment that publicly disparaged the students who produced the video. Professor Cushman apologized for his remarks, but in light of these developments, we recommend the following.

First, those who invite speakers to campus should consider whether, in their zeal for promoting debate, they might, in fact, stifle productive debate by enabling the bullying of disempowered groups. We in CERE are happy to serve as a sounding board when hosts are considering inviting controversial speakers, to help sponsors think through the various implications of extending an invitation.

Second, standards of respect and rigor must remain paramount when considering whether a speaker is actually qualified for the platform granted by an invitation to Wellesley. In the case of an academic speaker, we ask that the Wellesley host not only consider whether the speaker holds credentials, but whether the presenter has standing in his/her/their discipline. This is not a matter of ideological bias. Pseudoscience suggesting that men are more naturally equipped to excel in STEM fields than women, for example, has no place at Wellesley. Similar arguments pertaining to race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, and other identity markers are equally inappropriate.

Third, faculty and administrators should step up in defense of themselves and all members of the Wellesley community. The responsibility to defend the disempowered does not rest solely with students, and the injuries suffered by students, faculty, and staff are not contained within the specific identity group in question; they ripple throughout our community and prevent Wellesley from living out its mission.

In solidarity,

Diego Arcineagas
Beth DeSombre
Brenna Greer
Soo Hong
Michael Jeffries
Layli Maparyan

[emphasis added]

via http://ift.tt/2nKDLm4 Tyler Durden

North Korea has tested the patience of America for way too long, now that there is a new sheriff in town, President Trump, things may be different.

Source: Branco via ComicallyDifferent.com

Ron Paul has some views on this too… Is North Korea about to launch an attack? Is it capable of being an existential threat to the US? Or is it possible that the threat is only made worse by continued US meddling in the dispute?

via http://ift.tt/2mu6rzu Tyler Durden

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In 1988, a bank called Guardian Savings and Loan made financial history by issuing the first ever “subprime” mortgage bond.

The idea was revolutionary.

The bank essentially took all the mortgages they had loaned to borrowers with bad credit, and pooled everything together into a giant bond that they could then sell to other banks and investors.

The idea caught on, and pretty soon, everyone was doing it.

As Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera describe in their excellent history of the financial crisis (All the Devils are Here), the first subprime bubble hit in the 1990s.

Early subprime lenders like First Alliance Mortgage Company (FAMCO) had spent years making aggressive loans to people with bad credit, and eventually the consequences caught up with them.

FAMCO declared bankruptcy in 2000, and many of its competitors went bust as well.

Wall Street claimed that it had learned its lesson, and the government gave them all a slap on the wrist.

But it didn’t take very long for the madness to start again.

By 2002, banks were already loaning money to high-risk borrowers. And by 2005, all conservative lending standards had been abandoned.

Borrowers with pitiful credit and no job could borrow vast sums of money to buy a house without putting down a single penny.

It was madness.

By 2007, the total value of these subprime loans hit a whopping $1.3 trillion. Remember that number.

And of course, we know what happened the next year: the entire financial system came crashing down.

Duh. It turned out that making $1.3 trillion worth of idiotic loans wasn’t such a good idea.

By 2009, 50% of those subprime mortgages were “underwater”, meaning that borrowers owed more money on the mortgage than the home was worth.

In fact, delinquency rates for ALL mortgages across the country peaked at 11.5% in 2010, which only extended the crisis.

But hey, at least that’s never going to happen again.

Except… I was looking at some data the other day in a slightly different market: student loans.

Over the last decade or so, there’s been an absolute explosion in student loans, growing from $260 billion in 2004 to $1.31 trillion last year.

So, the total value of student loans in America today is LARGER than the total value of subprime loans at the peak of the financial bubble.

And just like the subprime mortgages, many student loans are in default.

According to the Fed’s most recent Household Debt and Credit Report, the student loan default rate is 11.2%, almost the same as the peak mortgage default rate in 2010.

This is particularly interesting because student loans essentially have no collateral.

Lenders make loans to students… but it’s not like the students have to pony up their iPhones as security.

That’s what made the subprime debacle so dangerous.

Millions of homes were underwater, so when borrowers didn’t pay, lenders didn’t have sufficient collateral to cover their loan exposure.

With student loans, there is no collateral. Lenders have no security to recoup their loans.

So when students don’t pay, someone is going to take a hit.

That ‘someone’ will likely be you.

That’s because hundreds of billions of dollars of these student loans are either owned or guaranteed by the United States government.

So as borrowers stop making payments, it’s the taxpayer who will suffer yet another massive loss.

Let’s be honest, though, there’s something seriously screwed up with this system.

Young people are pushed into this system by a society that places an irrationally high value on university degrees.

Kids are told for their entire lives that if they study hard to get into a good school, there will be a great career waiting for them.

For many young people this turned out to be a total lie.

In fact, Federal Reserve data once again show that, for at least 25% of college graduates, salaries are no higher than for people with just a high school diploma.

Racking up so much debt hardly seems worth it.

It seems bizarre to begin with that an 18-year old will know what s/he wants to do in life, to the point that they should take on $50,000 in debt for a piece of paper that might not even make them marketable.

What did any of us really know at age 18? And how many of us could have accurately predicted our life’s path?

Very few.

And yet there’s an absurd amount of pressure to force young people into this system that heaps debt upon them.

If you’re a young person about to go down this path of debt, I’d suggest two alternatives:

1) Look overseas.

There’s a multitude of top-ranked universities around the world that you can attend for a fraction of what you might pay at home. See here, and here.

2) Seek mentorship.

The master-apprentice relationship worked well for thousands of years. And it’s so simple.

If you want to be successful, learn from successful people.

If you want to be great at something, find someone who’s already great at it and learn from them.

And if you’re not sure, find someone who you respect admire… someone whose activities and values excite you… and make yourself indispensable to that person

Do you have a Plan B?

via http://ift.tt/2nE3a04 Tyler Durden

CONTRIBUTED BY SPROTT MONEY NEWS

(for original click here)

via http://ift.tt/2neBgqC peterdiekmeyercontributor

The Director of The FBI has managed to do what many have failed to do – bring a desperately divided nation together. James Comey is unpopular across the political spectrum, according to a new poll that finds voters have a negative opinion of Comey by a more than two-to-one margin.

As The Hill reports, according to data from a Harvard-Harris Poll survey of registered voters provided exclusively to The Hill, only 17 percent have a favorable view of Comey,  compared to 35 percent who have a negative view of him.

Forty-one percent of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Comey, with only 12 percent saying they view him positively.

Comey is almost at break-even among Republicans, with 26 percent viewing him positively and 27 percent viewing him negatively.

Among independents, Comey has an overall negative rating, with 17 percent holding a positive view compared to 36 percent with a negative view of the FBI director.

Harvard-Harris Poll co-director Mark Penn said, "Comey’s ratings, which are two-to-one negative, suggest a crisis of confidence in his leadership as top law enforcement officer."

That could change for the worse, as the Harvard-Harris Poll survey was conducted prior Comey’s testimony on Monday before the House Intelligence Committee that frustrated many Republicans. Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) lamented that Comey had cast “a big, gray cloud” over the Trump administration.

Finally we note that a plurality of voters – 40 percent – say Congress is spending too much time on Russia and Trump’s wiretapping claims.

via http://ift.tt/2neAgmd Tyler Durden