The Systemic Sources of Geopolitical Turmoil: Instability, Fragmentation, Resource Wars

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

The proximate trigger of instability is less important than we think.

It's tempting to think that the resolution of various geopolitical crises would restore global stability: tempting, but wrong. Global turmoil may appear to have specific causes–Ukraine, Iraq, Syria,etc.–but the deeper reality is the instability is systemic.

The proximate trigger of instability is less important than we think. The often-cited analogy is a sand pile formed by a steady trickle of sand from a storage bin. The sand slowly accumulates into a seemingly stable pile. But the structure of the pile becomes increasingly unstable as the sides steepen and the height grows, and at some unpredictable point the pile suddenly collapses in cascades of sand.

Do we focus on the last grain of sand that triggered the collapse of apparent stability, or do we focus on the real cause, the rise in systemic instability?

Gordon Long and I discussed these systemic causes of global conflict in Geopolitical Turmoil: Instability, Fragmentation, Resource Wars:

We discuss five systemic sources of global instability:

1. Failed Governments/States, where failed means an inability to provide the citizenry with basic levels of security, civil liberties and basic necessities of life.

Failed states are characterized by:
 

  • Weak Institutions & Corruption
  • Failed Governance/Political Gridlock
  • Failure of Central Planning Model
  • Failure of Neo-Liberal Model of Capitalism
 

2. Fragmentation of nation-states assembled in the 20th century by the Great Powers.

3. Divided geopolitical loyalties of traditional states located on geopolitical fault lines.

4. Resource wars:

  • Transport of energy
  • Fewer resources (food, water, energy)
  • Shortages/rising prices of resources
 

5. Insolvency of Nations/governments due to unpayable debts.

Thinking that putting out geopolitical fires is the solution to global instability is equivalent to thinking that the solution to forest fires is to douse every small fire before it spreads. What results is an entire forest piled high with so much deadwood that the next fire will necessarily explode into a raging, uncontrollable conflagration.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1x17MJz Tyler Durden

BIS Slams “Market Euphoria”, Finds “Puzzling Disconnect” Between Economy And Market

“… it is hard to avoid the sense of a puzzling disconnect between the markets’ buoyancy and underlying economic developments globally….  Despite the euphoria in financial markets, investment remains weak. Instead of adding to productive capacity, large firms prefer to buy back shares or engage in mergers and acquisitions.

 

As history reminds us, there is little appetite for taking the long-term view. Few are ready to curb financial booms that make everyone feel illusively richer.  Or to hold back on quick fixes for output slowdowns, even if such measures threaten to add fuel to unsustainable financial booms. Or to address balance sheet problems head-on during a bust when seemingly easier policies are on offer. The temptation to go for shortcuts is simply too strong, even if these shortcuts lead nowhere in the end.

     – Bank of International Settlements, 84th Annual Report

It was a year ago when the general manager of the Bank of International Settlements (the central banks’ central bank), Jamie Caruana warned that the “Monetary Kool-Aid Party Is Over.” Since then central banks have proven their own supervisor wrong in their ability to kick the can, because even as the Fed has commenced tapering its own QE (due to the same bond market liquidity issues we warned about last summer) the ECB has more than offset the Fed’s brief attempt at policy normalization by escalating, for the first time in history, from ZIRP to NIRP. In other words, the Kool-Aid keeps flowing.

Which brings us to the BIS’ just released annual report. There are many reason to read the full report cover to cover, but perhaps the most prominent one is that, once again, the Bank of International Settlements has merely compiled a book report of all Zero Hedge posts not only over the past year, but since our inception.

A quick summary of the report comes from FT:

The Bank for International Settlements has warned that “euphoric” financial markets have become detached from the reality of a lingering post-crisis malaise, as it called for governments to ditch policies that risk stoking unsustainable asset booms.

 

While the global economy is struggling to escape the shadow of the crisis of 2007-09, capital markets are “extraordinarily buoyant”, the Basel-based bank said, in part because of the ultra-low monetary policy being pursued around the world. Leading central banks should not fall into the trap of raising rates “too slowly and too late”, the BIS said, calling for policy makers to halt the steady rise in debt burdens around the world and embark on reforms to boost productivity.

 

In its annual report, the BIS also warned of the risks brewing in emerging markets, setting out early warning indicators of possible banking crises in a number of jurisdictions, including most notably China.

 

“Particularly for countries in the late stages of financial booms, the trade-off is now between the risk of bringing forward the downward leg of the cycle and that of suffering a bigger bust later on,” it said.

 

The BIS, the bank for central banks, has been a longstanding sceptic about the benefits of ultra-stimulative monetary and fiscal policies and its latest intervention reflects mounting concern that the rebound in capital markets and real estate is built on fragile foundations.

Or, as Hyman Minsky and Zero Hedge would call it “common sense.”

But why use an establishment paper, one whose very existence has repeatedly been shown to rely on perpetuating the broken and unsustainable status quo, when one can quote from the BIS itself. Of course, to anyone who has read Zero Hedge either extensively or in isolation in the recent and not so recent past, all of this will be very familiar territory.

Below we present some of the key excerpts from the 84th BIS Annual Report. As you read these, please recall all those idiots who said the Fed is not solely focused on boosting stock prices and that anyone claiming that is a conspiracy theorist.

Overall, it is hard to avoid the sense of a puzzling disconnect between the markets’ buoyancy and underlying economic developments globally.

Yes BIS, we know you read us. Here’s why:

The global economy continues to face serious challenges. Despite a pickup in growth, it has not shaken off its dependence on monetary stimulus. Monetary policy is still struggling to normalise after so many years of extraordinary accommodation.  Despite the euphoria in financial markets, investment remains weak. Instead of adding to productive capacity, large firms prefer to buy back shares or engage in mergers and acquisitions. And despite lacklustre long-term growth prospects, debt continues to rise. There is even talk of secular stagnation.

And here the BIS explains broken markets so easily, even a Janet Yellen can get it:

Financial markets have been exuberant over the past year, […] dancing mainly to the tune of central bank decisions. Volatility in equity, fixed income and foreign exchange markets has sagged to historical lows. Obviously, market participants are pricing in hardly any risks.

* * *

Growth has picked up, but long-term prospects are not that bright. Financial markets are euphoric, but progress in strengthening banks’ balance sheets has been uneven and private debt keeps growing. Macroeconomic policy has little room for manoeuvre to deal with any untoward surprises that might be sprung, including a normal recession.

* * *

There is a common element in all this. In no small measure, the causes of the post-crisis malaise are those of the crisis itself – they lie in a collective failure to get to grips with the financial cycle. Addressing this failure calls for adjustments to policy frameworks – fiscal, monetary and prudential – to ensure a more symmetrical response across booms and busts. And it calls for moving away from debt as the main engine of growth. Otherwise, the risk is that instability will entrench itself in the global economy and room for policy manoeuvre will run out.

* * *

The combined public sector debt of the G7 economies has grown by close to 40 percentage points, to some 120% of GDP in the post-crisis period – a key factor behind the 20 percentage point increase in total (public plus private sector) debt-to-GDP ratios globally.

 

 

… government debt-to-GDP ratios have risen further; in several cases, they appear to be on an unsustainable path.

* * *

Once more, communication from the Federal Reserve and the ECB […] helped support credit and equity markets, with the major stock exchanges reaching record highs in May and June 2014.

* * *

The S&P 500 Index, for  gained almost 20% in the 12 months to May 2014, whereas expected future earnings grew less than 8% over the same period. The cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio of the S&P 500 stood at 25 in May 2014, six units higher than its average over the previous 50 years.

* * *

On record low default rates:

Low corporate bond yields not only reflect expectations of a low likelihood of default and low levels of risk premia, but also contribute to the suppression of actual default rates, in that the availability of cheap credit makes it easier for troubled borrowers to refinance. The sustainability of this process will ultimately be put to the test when interest rates normalise.

What forward guidance leads to:

If the public fails to fully understand the conditionality of the guidance, the central bank’s reputation and credibility may be at risk if the rate path is revised frequently and substantially, even though the changes adhere to the conditionality originally announced. Forward guidance can also give rise to financial risks in two ways. First, if financial markets become narrowly focused on it, a recalibration of the guidance could lead to disruptive market reactions. Second, and more importantly, forward guidance could lead to a perceived delay in the speed of monetary policy normalisation. This could encourage excessive risk-taking and foster a build-up of financial vulnerabilities.

As Bloomberg summarizes, “Central bank policy makers, who expressed concern low market volatility is masking future risks, are helping suppress price swings with their accommodative monetary policy.” Aka, Bill Dudley hypocrisy 101:

The developments in the year under review thus indicate that monetary policy had a powerful impact on the entire investment spectrum through its effect on perceived value and risk. Accommodative monetary conditions and low benchmark yields – reinforced by subdued volatility – motivated investors to take on more risk and leverage in their search for yield.

But the biggest “heresy”: even the BIS is suggesting that, gasp, deflation isn’t the end of the world:

It is essential to discuss the risks and costs of falling prices in a dispassionate way. The word “deflation” is extraordinarily charged: it immediately raises the spectre of the Great Depression. In fact, the Great Depression was the exception rather than the rule, in the intensity of both its price declines and the associated output losses. Historically, periods of falling prices have often coincided with sustained output growth. And the experience of more recent decades is no exception. Moreover, conditions have changed substantially since the 1930s, not least with regard to downward wage flexibility. This is no reason to be complacent about the risks and costs of falling prices: they need to be monitored and assessed closely, especially where debt levels are high. But it is a reason to avoid knee-jerk reactions prompted by emotion.

And the punchline:

Never before have central banks tried to push so hard.

Which nobody will care about until it’s too late, for one simple reason:

As history reminds us, there is little appetite for taking the long-term view. Few are ready to curb financial booms that make everyone feel illusively richer.  Or to hold back on quick fixes for output slowdowns, even if such measures threaten to add fuel to unsustainable financial booms. Or to address balance sheet problems head-on during a bust when seemingly easier policies are on offer. The temptation to go for shortcuts is simply too strong, even if these shortcuts lead nowhere in the end.

So when even the BIS says it’s game over, it may be time to sell every last VIX contract, because the alternative – admission that the central banks have finally failed – is hardly an enjoyable one.

The alternative message is more pleasant: indeed – why worry. Just because every single previous central-bank inflated bubble has always burst, resulting in tears for most (if not those who precipitated the crash and managed to load up on liquidating hard assets at firesale prices) this time will be different.

As for the BIS authors of its last two annual reports: please stay away from nail guns.

Full BIS report below (pdf link)




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

ISIS Declares A Caliphate; Crucifies 9 Syrian Rebels For Being “Too Moderate:”

Esrtwhile leader of ISIS, Sheikh Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has declared himself Caliphate, Amir Al-Mu’minin – Leader of Believers, as militants bear down on Baghdad. This comes as the extremist group demands that all Al-Qaeda and Jihadi branches must now pledge allegiance to ISIS.. if not there are consequences as nine rebels have been crucified for being too ‘moderate’ or accused of rececing support from Western powers. We suspect this may slow ‘demand’ for Obama’s latest cunning plan to offer ‘aid’ to only “moderate” terrorists.

 

ISIS have declared their Caliphate…

Which means…

 

 

And all Al-Qaeda and Jihadis must pledge allegiance to ISIS…

Or fear death for being too moderate… (as RT reports)

Eight rebel fighters have been crucified in Syria by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) because they were considered too moderate, a monitoring group said on Sunday.

 

The eight men were brutally killed in the town square of Deir Hafar in the east of Aleppo province on June 28 because they were from rebel groups that had fought the jihadists as well as President Bashar Assad’s forces, the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said, AFP reports.

 

ISIS then “crucified them in the main square of the village, where their bodies will remain for three days,” the pro-opposition NGO added.

 

A ninth man was crucified alive in Aleppo province where he was nailed up for eight hours in Al-Bab near the Turkish border as a punishment, although he has reportedly survived the ordeal.

We suspect there will not be too many takers for President Obama’s newly unveiled plan to offer “aid” to “moderate” Syrian rebels… Red line?

As Reuters reports, better not hold your hand out for Western support…

The men were accused of being “Sahwa” fighters, the Observatory said, a term ISIL uses to refer to rival combatants whom it accuses of being controlled by Western powers.




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

The End of the Occupation

From Slope of Hope: Well, this is just kind of sad. I was looking at a post from a few years back, when our own BDI visited the Occupy Wall Street gathering. There was a link to one of the better-known protestors who did an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on the mega-website reddit.com:

0630-ows

 I was curious to see what his current thoughts were, so I went to his web site link to check it out:

0630-owstwo

That, my friends, pretty much says it all. The plutocrats have won. The idealists have wound up looking like fools. And OWS pretty much nailed a major bottom in the market. Depressing, ain’t it?




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jzIla1 Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

The Great War’s Aftermath: Keynesianism, Monetary Central Planning & The Permanent Warfare State

Sarajevo Is The Fulcrum Of Modern History Part 2 (Part 1 here)

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

The Mythical Banking Crisis and the Failure of the New Deal

The Great Depression thus did not represent the failure of capitalism or some inherent suicidal tendency of the free market to plunge into cyclical depression – absent the constant ministrations of the state through monetary, fiscal, tax and regulatory interventions.  Instead, the Great Depression was a unique historical occurrence – the delayed consequence of the monumental folly of the Great War, abetted by the financial deformations spawned by modern central banking.

But ironically, the “failure of capitalism” explanation of the Great Depression is exactly what enabled the Warfare State to thrive and dominate the rest of the 20th century because it gave birth to what have become its twin handmaidens – Keynesian economics and monetary central planning. Together, these two doctrines eroded and eventually destroyed the great policy barrier – that is, the old-time religion of balanced budgets – that had kept America a relatively peaceful Republic until 1914.

To be sure, under Mellon’s tutelage, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover strove mightily, and on paper successfully, to restore the pre-1914 status quo ante on the fiscal front.  But it was a pyrrhic victory—since Mellon’s surpluses rested on an artificially booming, bubbling economy that was destined to hit the wall.

The Hoover Recovery of 1932

Worse still, Hoover’s bitter-end fidelity to fiscal orthodoxy, as embodied in his infamous balanced budget of June 1932, got blamed for prolonging the depression.  Yet, as I have demonstrated in the chapter of my book called “New Deal Myths of Recovery”, the Great Depression was already over by early summer 1932.

At that point, powerful natural forces of capitalist regeneration had come to the fore. Thus, during the six month leading up to the November 1932 election, freight loadings rose by 20 percent, industrial production by 21 percent, construction contract awards gained 30 percent, unemployment dropped by nearly one million, wholesale prices rebounded by 20 percent and the battered stock market was up by 40 percent.

So Hoover’s fiscal policies were blackened not by the facts of the day, but by the subsequent ukase of the Keynesian professoriat. Indeed, the  “Hoover recovery” would be celebrated in the history books even today if it had not been interrupted in the winter of 1932-1933 by a faux “banking crisis” which was entirely the doing of President-elect Roosevelt and the loose-talking economic statist at the core of his transition team, especially Columbia professors Moley and Tugwell.

The Pre-1933 Banking Failures Were Caused By Insolvency

The truth of the so-called banking crisis is that the artificial economic boom of 1914-1929 had generated a drastic proliferation of banks in the farm country and in the booming new industrial centers like Chicago, Detroit, Youngtown and Toledo, along with vast amounts of poorly underwritten debt on real estate and businesses.

When the bubble burst in 1929, the financial system experienced the time-honored capitalist cure—-a sweeping liquidation of bad debts and under-capitalized banks.  Not only was this an unavoidable and healthy purge of economic rot, but also reflected the fact that the legions of banks which failed were flat-out insolvent and should have been closed.

Indeed, 10,000 of the 12,000 banks shuttered during the years before 1933 were tiny rural banks located in communities of less than 2,500.  Most had been chartered with trivial amounts of capital under lax state banking laws, and amounted to get-rich-quick schemes which proliferated during the export boom.

Indeed, a single startling statistic puts paid to the whole New Deal mythology that FDR rescued the banking system after a veritable heart attack: to wit, losses at failed US banks during the entire 12-year period ending in 1932 amounted to only 2-3 percent of deposits. There never was a sweeping contagion of failure in the banking system.

Milton Friedman’s Huge Error: The Fed Did Not Cause the Bank Runs of 1930-1933

Nor did the Fed’s alleged failure to undertake a massive bond-buying program in 1930-1932 to pump cash into the banking system constitute the monumental monetary policy error that Milton Friedman so dogmatically claimed, and which has become the raison d’etre of contemporary central banking.

In fact, fifty years after the fact, Bubbles Ben 2.0 essentially zeroxed the errors in Friedman’s treatise and got awarded a PhD for this tommyrot by Professor Stanley Fischer of MIT, who Obama has now seen fit to make Vice-Chairman of the Fed. Bernanke then passed himself off as a scholar of the Great Depression and a Friedman disciple, thereby bamboozling the ever gullible Bush White House into appointing a rank money-printer and Keynesian to head the Fed.

Bernanke then proceeded to follow Friedman’s bad advice about 1932 and flooded the banking system with money during the so-called financial crisis, and thereby bailed out the rot on Wall Street instead of purging it as the Board of Governors had the good sense to do in the early 1930s.

But…I digress—slightly!

In fact, it is important to refute the scary bedtime stories that have been handed down about the pre-New Deal banking crisis because they are the predicate for the Fed’s current lunacy of QE, ZIRP and massive monetization of the public debt, which, in turn, enables the perpetual deficit finance on which the Warfare State vitally depends.

The Unnecessary February 1933 Bank Panic: FDR’s 10-Day Fumble

In truth, the banking liquidation was over by Election Day, failures and losses had virtually disappeared, and as late as the first week of February 1933, according the Fed’s daily currency reports, there were no unusual demands for cash.

The legendary “bank runs” occurred almost entirely during the last two weeks before FDR’s inauguration. The trigger was Henry Ford’s vicious spat with his former partner and then Michigan Senator, James Couzens, over responsibility for the failure of a go-go banking group in Detroit that had been started by his son Edsel and Goldman Sachs.  Always Goldman!

The hapless Herbert Hoover secretly wrote FDR begging him to cooperate in resolving the Michigan banking crisis. Instead, Roosevelt failed to answer the President’s letter for two weeks; lost Carter Glass as his Treasury Secretary because the President-elect refused to affirm his commitment to the sound money platform on which he had campaigned; and allowed Tugwell to leak to the press a radical plan to reflate the economy by reneging on the dollar’s 100-year old linkage to one-twentieth ounce of gold.

Within days there was a massive run on gold at the New York Fed and a scramble for cash at teller windows across the land. Unlike historians today, citizens back then knew that the Fed could not legally issue more currency unless it had 40 percent gold-backing—hence the sudden outbreak of currency hoarding.

In this context, the daily figures for currency outstanding give ringing evidence of FDR’s culpability for the midnight-hour run on the banks.  After rising by a trivial $8 million per day in early in the month, cash outstanding rose by $200 million per day by late February and by a staggering half billion dollars on the day before the FDR’s inauguration. All told, 80 percent of the increase in currency outstanding—from $5.6 billion to $7.5 billion—occurred in the last ten days before FDR took office.

Then, even more fantastically, nearly all of the hoarded cash flowed back into the banking system on its own when 95 percent of the banks were re-opened in an “as is, where is” condition during the three weeks after FDR’s inauguration.  Moreover, the mass re-opening scheme was actually drafted and executed by Hoover hold-overs at the Treasury, and had been completely accomplished before the heralded banking reforms of the New Deal and deposit insurance had even had Congressional hearings.

In short, the banking system never did really collapse and the true problem was bad debt and insolvency—not Fed errors or an existential crisis of capitalism.

New Deal: Political Gong Show

Beyond that, the New Deal was a political gong show that amounted to a grab-bag of statist gimcrack. The mild fascism of the NRA and AAA caused the economy to further contract, not recover. The legendary WPA cycled violently between 1 million make-work jobs in the off-years and 3 million make-vote jobs in the election years—-before even a Democratic Congress was compelled to shut it down in a torrent of corruption in 1939.

Likewise, the TVA was a senseless boondoggle and environmental curse; the Wagner Act paved the way for the kind of coercive, monopolistic industrial unionism that resulted in “Rust Bucket America” five decades later; and the legacy of New Deal housing stimulants like Fannie Mae speaks for itself.

Finally, universal social insurance enacted in 1935 was actually a fiscal doomsday machine. When in the context of modern political democracy the state offers universal transfer payments to its citizenry without proof of need it thereby offers to bankrupt itself—eventually.

To be sure, during the middle 1930s, the natural rebound of the nation’s capitalist economy continued where the Hoover Recovery left off— notwithstanding the New Deal headwinds.  Yet the evidence that FDR’s policies retarded recovery screams out of the last year of pre-war data for 1939:  GDP at $90 billion was still 12 percent below 1929, while manufacturing value added was off by 20 percent and business investment by 40 percent.

Most telling of all was private non-farm man-hours worked: the 1939 level was still 15 percent lower than what the BLS recorded in 1929.

How FDR Torpedoed Recovery and Sowed the Seeds of Autarky, Rearmament, Revanchism and War 

So the New Deal did nothing to help the domestic economy. But FDR did personally torpedo world recovery and paved the way toward WWII with his so-called “bombshell” message to the London Economic Conference in July 1933. The latter had been the world’s last best hope for rescue of the failed task of post-war resumption. Specifically, the conferees had shaped a plan for restoring convertibility by means of pegging the pound sterling at a lower exchange rate to the dollar and gold, thereby alleviating the beggar-thy-neighbor pressure on the remaining gold standard countries like France, the Netherlands and Sweden.

In turn, monetary stabilization would pave the way for reduction of Smoot-Hawley instigated tariff barriers and the restoration of global trade and capital flows.

The American delegation led by the magnificent statesman, Cordell Hall, had molded a tentative agreement among the British and French, and thereby had attained a crucial inflection point in the post-war struggle for resumption of the old international order. Yet FDR defied his advisors to the very last man, including the nationalistic and protectionist-minded Raymond Moley, who the President had sent to London as his personal emissary.

Roosevelt’s message, penned by moonlight on the luxurious yacht of his chum, Vincent Astor, was undoubtedly the most intemperate, incoherent and bombastic communique ever publicly issued by a US President. It not only stunned the assembled world leaders gathered in London and killed the monetary stabilization agreement on the spot, but it also locked in a destructive worldwide regime of economic nationalism and autarky.

Accordingly, high tariffs and trade subsidies, state-dominated recovery and rearmament programs and manipulated currencies became universal after the London Conference failed, leaving international financial markets demoralized and chaotic.

The irony was that the Great Depression was the step-child of the Great War.  American entry had unnecessarily extended it; had greatly amplified its destructive impact on the liberal international order; and had contributed a witch’s brew of Wilsonian nostrums to a Carthaginian peace that laid the planking for a new world war.  FDR then delivered the coup de grace,  extinguishing  the last hope for resumption and insuring that autarky, revanchism and rearmament would hurtle the world to an even greater eruption of carnage, and an even more debilitating rendition of the Warfare State.

 Krugman’s Lie: WWII Was Not A Splendid Exercise in Keynesian Debt Finance

World War II soon delivered another blow to the old-time fiscal religion. Not only did that vast expansion of war production fuel the illusion that New Deal statism had alleviated an endemic crisis of capitalism, but it also became heralded as a splendid exercise in Keynesian deficit finance when, in fact, it was nothing of the kind.

The national debt did soar from less than 50 percent of GDP in 1938 to nearly 120 percent at the 1945 peak. But this was not your Krugman’s benign debt ratio— or proof that the recent surge to $17 trillion of national debt has been done before and had been proven harmless.

Instead, the 1945 ratio was an artifact of a command and control war economy which had banished civilian goods including new cars, houses and most consumer durables, and tightly rationed everything else including sugar, butter, meat, tires, shoes, shirts, bicycles, peanut brittle and candied yams.

With retail shelves empty the household savings rate soared from 4 percent in 1938-1939 to an astounding 35 percent of disposable income by the end of the war.

Consequently, the Keynesians have never acknowledged the single most salient statistic about the war debt: namely, that the debt burden actually fell during the war, with the ratio of total credit market debt to GDP declining from 210 percent in 1938 to 190 percent at the 1945 peak!

This obviously happened because household and business debt was virtually eliminated by the wartime savings spree; households paid off what debts they had left after the liquidation of the 1930s depression and business generally had no ability to borrow except for war production. Thus, the private  debt ratio plunged from 150 percent of GDP to barely 60 percent, thereby making massive headroom in the nation’s bloated savings pool for the temporary surge of public debt.

In short, the nation did not borrow its way to victory via a Keynesian miracle.  Measured GDP did rise smartly because half of it was non-recurring war expenditure. But even then, the truth is that the American economy “regimented” and “saved” its way through the war.

Supplementing the aforementioned “voluntary” savings spree were “mandatory savings” in the form of a staggering increase in taxation.  Confiscatory levies on the wealthy and merely onerous taxation on everyone else caused the tax take to rise from 8 percent to a never again equaled 25 percent of GDP.

Compare that to the opposite circumstances of January 2013. Urged on by the Keynesian stimulators and election-minded “progressive” politicians, Obama signed a permanent extension of the unaffordable Bush tax cuts for the “bottom” 98 percent of households at a cost of $4 trillion in added national debt over the next decade. But unlike 1945, this came at a time when household, business and financial sector debt was 260 percent of GDP, not 60 percent.

Yet professor Krugman said don’t sweat it! FDR proved the national debt doesn’t matter. That wasn’t remotely true—but the persistence of this canard amounts to one more nail in the coffin of fiscal rectitude, and still another illusion that perpetuates the nation’s trillion dollar Warfare State.

 Triumph of The Permanent Warfare State

After America’s earlier wars there occurred a swift and near total demobilization: the Union Army of 2 million had been reduced to 24,000 within months of Appomattox, and the 3 million called to arms by Woodrow Wilson was down to 50,000 within a few years of the armistice.

By contrast, the American Warfare State became permanent and self-fueling after World War II. So doing, it both catalyzed new extensions of Keynesian statism and monetary central planning and simultaneously flourished from their rise.

How Truman Lost the Battle To Contain the Warfare State

President Eisenhower famously warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell, but it was Harry Truman who first felt the sting of its political power. Truman was an old-fashioned budget balancer and made remarkable strides in the immediate post-war years toward traditional demobilization— cutting military spending from $70 billion to $15 billion by 1948 and balancing the Federal budget two years in a row.

Unfortunately, his government was still crawling with warriors—like Admiral Leahey and General Curtis LeMay and civilian hardliners like Secretaries Forrestal and Acheson—-who had thrived during WWII and were looking for new enemies to vanquish. Moreover, the unschooled haberdasher and machine politician from Missouri had made it far easier for them with his deplorable decision to drop atom bombs on an already beaten Japan.

There is now plenty of evidence from the archives of both sides that Truman’s brusque treatment of Stalin at Potsdam (July 1945) based on his “atomic secret” was the catalyst that began the Cold War. Thereafter, Tuman’s unwillingness to over-ride the brass and the hardliners and negotiate international control of atomic weapons—eloquently urged by the legendary statesman, Henry Stimson, in his last cabinet meeting after serving presidents for half a century—assured a nuclear arms race and perpetual cold war.

Indeed, upon Truman’s rejection of Stimson’s plea, another Cabinet participant presciently queried, “…. (so) the arms race is on, is that right?”

Truman famously agreed and insisted “but we should stay ahead”.  Except that he could not both continue the demobilization and stay ahead in the arms race and nascent cold war.

So by spring 1950 Truman had already lost the battle. His government had become increasingly populated with hardliners in response to alleged Soviet provocations.  In fact, fearful of encirclement yet again and Truman’s atomic diplomacy, Stalin was brutally collecting upon his eastern European territorial winnings from Yalta—even as the Republican Right went on a jihad about the “loss” of China.

In that context, the cold warriors led by Paul Nitze at State and the Keynesian professoriat represented by CEA Chairman Leon Keyserling effected a fatal alliance. In that truly insidious policy document known as NSC-68, they proclaimed a Soviet agenda to conquer the world, which was balderdash, and averred that a massive increase in cold war defense spending would levitate the American economy, which was lunacy.

The Pointless “Police Action” in Korea and Full Blast Rearmament

Soon an inconsequential civil war on the barren Korean peninsula between two brutal tyrants became a flash point in the Cold War, causing military re-mobilization and sending the defense budget soaring five-fold to more than $60 billion. Harry Truman, the resolute  budget balancer, avoided a torrent of red ink only by seizing on the moment of domestic fear, when the “chicoms” came flooding across the Yalu River, to re-impose FDR’s  onerous wartime taxes.

In my book, I gave Truman the hero award for insisting that an elective war be financed with current taxes.

But I also give him a villains badge for succumbing to the war-mongers, and for invading Asian rice paddies that posed no threat to American security. Indeed, they might just as well have become a province of China’s “red capitalism”, which both the Keynesians and Wall Street now tell us is an economic cat’s meow.

Thereafter the “begats” went full retard, old testament-style. To be sure, the great General Dwight Eisenhower held-back the tide for a time and had no trouble seeing the folly of a land-war in Asia. So he did quickly end the hideously named “police action” in Korea after 58,000 American soldiers and upwards of a million civilians had been killed. He also had the strategic vision to see the folly of NSC-68, which called for massive conventional military capacity to fight multiple land and air wars all over the planet.

Instead, Eisenhower drastically downsized the army, shelved naval plans for a massive armada of supercarriers, and cut Truman’s bloated war budget from $500 billion in today’s money to $370 billion based on the gutsy doctrine of massive nuclear retaliation and the correct perception that the Soviets were not suicidal.

By decisively throttling the Warfare State, President Eisenhower gave brief reprieve to the old time fiscal religion.  He balanced his budgets repeatedly, refused to reduce Truman’s war taxes until reductions were earned with spending cuts, shrunk the total Federal budget in constant dollars for the last time ever, and over his eight year term held average new public borrowing to a miniscule 0.4 percent of GDP.

The Detestable Dulles Brothers and the Origins of Cold War Imperialism

Yet in his endless quest to economize, Eisenhower carried a good thing too far by delegating cold war fighting to the seemingly low-cost cloak-and-dagger operations of the detestable Dulles brothers. Unfortunately, to this very day the Warfare State flourishes from the bitter harvest planted by the Allen’s CIA and Foster’s bully-boy diplomacy throughout the developing world.

The untoward legacy of the 1953 coup against Mossadeq in Iran is obvious. But it was no less stupid than the Dulles brothers’ senseless assault on Nasserism, which brought the Soviets into the Middle East and turned it into a permanent armed camp.

But the most abominable Dulles legacy was the insanity of Vietnam. Not only did it saddle America with culpability for an outright genocide, but it set-off a string of economic calamities that spelled the final doom of the old time fiscal religion and extinguished what remained of sound money doctrine at the Fed.

In quick sequence, Kennedy gifted Washington’s politicians with the Keynesian gospel of full-employment deficits; Johnson’s guns and butter then engendered a flood of red ink;  and thereafter the White House broke the will and integrity of the great Fed Chairman, William McChesney Martin, thereby busting the financial discipline of the Bretton Woods gold standard with a battering ram of unwanted off-shore dollars.

It was Nixon who committed the final abomination of Camp David in August 1971 by defaulting on the nation’s obligation to live within its means and redeem dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. Adhering to the canons of sound money, of course, would have caused a deep recession after a decade of fiscal excess —and that, in turn, might have spared the nation of Nixon’s horrific second term.

Instead of post-Vietnam Peace, Friedman’s Folly

It also would have put the Democrats’ peacenik wing in power, thereby exposing the Warfare State to an existential challenge at just the right moment— to wit, when it was on its heels from the Vietnam fiasco. But instead of serendipity, we got Milton Friedman’s Folly—-that is, floating fiat money and a central bank unshackled from the anchor of  gold.

Ironically, the great libertarian’s monetary recipe amounted to statist management of our massive capitalist economy. This would be accomplished through the wisdom of 12 monetary eunuchs ensconced in the Eccles Building where they were to occupy themselves playing scrabble and reading book reviews, while occasionally adjusting the money supply dials exactly in accordance with the Friedmanite formula.

It didn’t work out that way. The cowardly Dr. Arthur Burns quickly became a mad money printer and we were presently off to the 1970s races of double-digit inflation. And soon enough there arose the hoary legend that this calamity of central banking was actually caused by high oil prices and the machinations of the former camel-drivers who had recently conquered the oil-rich lands of eastern Arabia.

Thus, thanks to the abominations of Camp David, the Warfare State got two massive boosts which have carried it far toward its current trillion dollar girth.

First, instead of a house cleaning by the likes of Frank Church, Nixon’s re-election eventually brought the Yale skull and bones back to the CIA. There, during his brief but destructive tenure, Poppy Bush rummaged up the neo-con “B team” and paved the way for the massive Reagan defense build-up a few years later.

The B team’s report falsely painted lurid imagery of an Evil Empire bent on a nuclear war-winning strategy, when, in truth, the Soviet Union was already a beached whale of decaying state socialism.

Secondly, Washington went into the misbegotten business of fighting so-called high oil prices by massive policing of the Persian Gulf. This soon evolved into rampant meddling in the region, including military alliances with an endless stable of corrupt sheikhs, princes, emirs, dictators and despots—-with the despicable royal family of Saudi Arabia in the lead.

By the late 1970s, moreover, Washington had become so mesmerized by the Keynesian predicate—that is, the notion that the state must constantly maneuver to levitate the GDP—that it didn’t even know that American prosperity did not depend on carrier battle groups cruising the straits of Hormuz or alliances with despots.

The simple and pacific solution was free market pricing—the sure fire route to new supplies, alternative energy and more efficient consumption. The truth is, there never was an OPEC cartel—just the Saudi royal family, whose greed and intoxication with decadent opulence apparently knows no bounds.

If they threatened to hold-back production, we should have let the global market price work its magic, meaning probably less GDP in 1974 and more by 1994. The intra-temporal distribution of GDP is a matter for the market to decide, not the state. Accordingly, it should never have been an excuse to arm and ally with the sordid despots of Riyadh, nor to keep them on the throne to avert a Shia uprising in the eastern oil provinces.

Twenty million everyday Saudis would have been every bit as eager for the oil revenues as 2,000  gluttonous princes.

Reagan’s Presidency: Final Apotheosis of The Warfare State

Regrettably the Reagan Presidency brought on the final apotheosis of the American Warfare State. The massive $1.5 trillion defense build-up launched without shred of analysis in February 1981 was not only an unnecessary and utter waste, but it also left four legacies that enabled today’s trillion dollar Warfare State, and which now propel the nation on its appointed path toward fiscal bankruptcy.

First, the only politician of modern times who honestly campaigned against Big Government and the national debt was reduced to enunciating pure fiscal babble once in office. Ronald Reagan was so mesmerized by the brass and so bamboozled by the neo-cons’ scary bedtime stories about the Soviets that he not only gave the Pentagon a blank check, but he then proclaimed that there was no deficit problem because the flood of red ink on his watch amounted to necessary and excusable “war debt”.

Secondly, when the national debt skyrocketed from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion during the Reagan-Bush era, the GOP interred the old time fiscal religion once and for all and proclaimed the modest debt fueled boom of those years as a victory for tax-cutting and the gospel of painless growth. So with two fiscal free lunch parties now in incumbent in the machinery of governance, the Warfare State was unleashed like never before.

Indeed, in due course the fatuous Dick Cheney proclaimed that Reagan proved deficits don’t matter, and then charted the most reckless fiscal course in modern history: massive tax cuts and a doubling of the defense budget during the midst of a Fed induced credit boom that was destined to collapse.

When it did, the Federal deficit surged to nearly 10 percent of GDP—even before Obama’s Keynesian witch doctors got their hands in the public till.

The War Machine the Gipper Built: Armada of Invasion and Occupation

Thirdly, the massive Reagan defense buildup did not go to countering the alleged strategic nuclear threat posed by the Evil Empire because there wasn’t one in the first place, and there was not much to spend it on anyway—-except the rank fantasy of Star Wars which even the Congressional porkers couldn’t abide.

Instead, the Pentagon poured hundreds of billions into a vast conventional war machine, including  the 600-ship Navy and its 13 lethal carrier-battle groups; 12,000 new tanks and armored fighting vehicles; 16,000 fighters, bombers, attack helicopters, close air support and transport planes; and a blizzard of cruise missiles and electronic warfare suites.

All of this soon proved well suited to wars of invasion and occupation in the lands of the unwilling and among the desert and mountain redoubts of the mostly unarmed.

In short, the wherewithal for the pointless invasions of 1991, 2001 and 2003 and all the lesser American aggressions in-between and after was requisitioned during the Reagan defense spending binge to thwart an enemy of liberty that had already failed by eating its own cooking.

Finally, if the truth be told the Reagan White House could not get rid of Paul Volcker soon enough. Doing so in 1987, it removed from what was already a rogue central bank the last vestige of sound money discipline and fearless independence from Wall Street.

Treasury Secretary Jim Baker, a policy descendent of John Connally, wanted low interest rates, a weak dollar and a politically pliant  disposition at the Fed.  Alan Greenspan 2.0 accomplished all of the above and much more, turning the Fed into a pliant tool of GOP triumphalism and Wall Street speculation—even as he spent 19 years in the Eccles Building  institutionalization the destruction of  the very doctrines of sound finance and gold-backed money about which Greenspan 1.0 had written so eloquently before he came to Washington.

Now caught up fueling a repetitive and destructive cycle of financial bubbles and busts, the Greenspan-Bernanke-Yellen Fed has taken monetary central planning into the deep waters of wanton monetization of the public debt.

Under these circumstances there is no fiscal governance – just an inexorable drift toward monetary catastrophe. In the interim, our senseless and dangerous trillion dollar Warfare State rolls on.

Keynesian statism and monetary central planning  have triumphed, meaning that the American Republic has no remaining fiscal defenses, nor immunities from its extractions.

The good Ben (Franklin that is) said,” Sir you have a Republic if you can keep it”.

We apparently haven’t.




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

Dear US Soldiers And Veterans: Avoid The Following Hospitals Like The Plague

The VA scandal was just the beginning.

According to Internal documents obtained by New York Times, US military healthcare is “a system in which scrutiny is sporadic and avoidable errors are chronic.” As the NYT reports In Military Care, a Pattern of Errors but Not Scrutiny, “the military system has consistently had higher than expected rates of harm and complications in two central parts of its business — maternity care and surgery.”

Among the findings:

  • More than 50,000 babies are born at military hospitals each year, and they are twice as likely to be injured during delivery as newborns nationwide, the most recent statistics show. And their mothers were more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth than mothers at civilian hospitals, according to a 2012 analysis conducted for the Pentagon.
  • In surgery, half of the system’s 16 largest hospitals had higher than expected rates of complications over a recent 12-month period, the American College of Surgeons found last year. Four of the busiest hospitals have performed poorly on that metric year after year.

As the NYT observes, “based on Pentagon studies, court records, analyses of thousands of pages of data, and interviews with current and former military health officials and workers, indicates that the military lags behind many civilian hospital systems in protecting patients from harm. The reasons, military doctors and nurses said, are rooted in a compartmentalized system of leadership, a culture of interservice secrecy and an overall failure to make patient safety a top priority.”

One would think that when caring for the nation’s veterans, the healthcare system – whose very existence one can say is a direct function of the US military’s intervention around the globe – would pay particular attention. One would be wrong:  the military’s reports show a steady stream of the sort of mistakes that patient-safety programs are designed to prevent. 

The most common errors are strikingly prosaic — the unread file, the unheeded distress call, the doctor on one floor not talking to the doctor on another. But there are also these, sprinkled through the Pentagon’s 2011 and 2012 patient-safety reports:

  • A viable fetus died after a surgeon operated on the wrong part of the mother’s body.
  • A 41-year-old woman’s healthy thyroid gland was removed because someone else’s biopsy result had been recorded on her chart.
  • A 54-year-old retired officer suffered acute kidney failure and permanent hearing loss after an incorrect dose of chemotherapy.
  • In 2011, 50 unexpected deaths were identified but only 25 analyses submitted.
  • The next year, the center was informed of 110 deaths but received only 44 root-cause analyses.
  • In 2013, the report documented 79 deaths and 31 root-cause analyses.

The NYT slams a system rife with abuse: “The patient-safety system is broken,” Dr. Mary Lopez, a former staff officer for health policy and services under the Army surgeon general, said in an interview.

“It has no teeth,” she added. “Reports are submitted, but patient-safety offices have no authority. People rarely talk to each other. It’s ‘I have my territory, and nobody is going to encroach on my territory.’ ”

In an internal report in 2011, the Pentagon’s patient-safety analysts offered this succinct conclusion about military health care: “Harm rate — unknown.

In short, America’s veterans and military forces: proud recipients of the worst health care America has to offer.

We sincerely urge US veterans to avoid the following military hospitals like the plague.




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

Shinzo Abe And The Three Magic Arrows

Submitted by Andy Sirkis via The Ludwig von Mises Institute,

Despite claims to the contrary in the mass media, Japan’s economy is continuing to suffer mightily under the leadership of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. Abe is from a famous family and he’s a convincing talker, so he was able to bamboozle people into believing that he could make Japan prosper with his three arrows. These metaphorical arrows stand for “monetary stimulus,” “fiscal stimulus,” and “structural reform.”

When Abe was elected using his “three arrows” symbolism to attract votes, I thought the Japanese people were beginning to believe in magic. Perhaps they were gullible or a little lazy in thinking or thought they would receive “free stuff” from Abe. No matter, Abe became Prime Minister in December 2012 and shot off his arrows.

With his “monetary stimulus” arrow, Abe arm-twisted the central bank into doubling the money supply in just a few months time. I could just imagine Abe rubbing his palms together and fiendishly muttering “We’re going to be rich, rich, RICH!” All that the central bank had to do was type a few numbers into their computers to make this happen. Naturally, the newly created money was distributed to politically powerful banks.

How did all of this money creation affect the common people? Despite claims that Japan has less than 2 percent inflation, I can assure you that the prices of many goods, especially imported goods like energy, have increased dramatically since the monetary stimulus arrow was fired. Wages, on the other hand, have remained depressed. With higher expenses to pay, Japanese people can’t afford other goods they would like to buy and businesses can’t afford to raise wages, hire, or expand. Only Abe’s bankster friends have profited from this scheme by speculating in the stock market with the counterfeited money that had been credited to their accounts with the central bank computer.

Japanese people are mostly smart enough to realize that typing numbers into a computer can’t make an economy strong, yet they just haven’t figured out that Abe’s monetary stimulus is nothing but a sneaky counterfeiting scheme.

At the same time as the monetary stimulus arrow doubled the money supply, Abe and his gang used their fiscal stimulus arrow to enormously increase spending on government works projects. Unlike capitalists who at least try to invest productive enterprises, the government allocates money based on pull and other political considerations. Wasting money on things like a new sewer system in Kiev, replacing the perfectly good Olympic stadium with an expensive new Olympic stadium, and handing out plum contracts for highways to nowhere will never generate a profit. Government investment is more like consumption, often creating a 100-percent loss.

These money-losing projects weigh heavily on the people. After all, they will have to pay for this waste in the form of higher taxes and higher debt service. Even if by some miracle the fiscal spending created a profit, the money wouldn’t be distributed to the taxpayer. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

Most Japanese people are smart enough to realize that investing in things that lose money can’t make an economy strong, yet they just haven’t figured out that Abe’s fiscal stimulus is nothing but a sneaky scheme to enrich his well-connected friends. After nearly twenty-five years and fifteen rounds of fiscal stimulus spending, you’d have to be totally bamboozled to still be a believer in this failed Keynesian claptrap.

To pay for his “fiscal stimulus” arrow Abe decided to raise taxes and take the money he needed by force. He raised car taxes and income taxes and he raised sales taxes by 60 percent, but he also announced plans to raise sales taxes by 100 percent. He is considering increasing taxes on married people and poor people. With each tax increase and threat of further tax increases, the economy has weakened further.

And what of Abe’s third arrow, “structural reform”? No one knows what this political slogan actually means. It sounds like some modern day form of Soviet era Glasnost, but there’s been no significant deregulation or loosening of government controls that have long stifled the Japanese economy. We do know that Abe has spent a great deal of effort making enemies with the neighbors. Effectively, Abe’s aggressiveness in foreign affairs is the real third arrow.

Abe has severely damaged relations between the peaceful and industrious Japanese people and their business trading partners in the neighboring countries of China, Russia, and South Korea. Business deals such as the effort to build a gas pipeline between Japan and Russia have been scrapped. Profitable trading in South Korea and especially China has been crushed by Abe’s undiplomatic actions. Via his confrontation with China and sanctioning of Russia, Abe has recklessly followed the dictates of the warmongering US government, all to the detriment of the Japanese people.

Abe’s arrows have been praised in the media by the economically ignorant, the politically motivated, and those who believe prosperity is parceled out by some all powerful shaman. However, the arrows, seen in the harsh light of reality, turn out to be counterfeiting schemes, “investing” in money losing ventures, taking money from the productive, and squabbling with the neighbors. These counterproductive political actions won’t ever result in a stronger economy and have instead left the Japanese people with a crushing debt and tax burden. Don’t get taken in by the hogwash you read in mainstream media propaganda pieces.

Abe’s policies are complete and utter failures.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1q2DDak Tyler Durden

“The Battle For Baghdad” – A Backgrounder On ISIS’ Grand Plan

It is no secret that the extremist al-Qaeda Jihadist group known as ISIS for short, which in the span of weeks has overrun the northern part of Iraq, has grand ambitions to not only preserve its power in the north and central regions, as well as the border with Syria, but to ultimately proceed south where not only Baghdad is located but also the great energy infrastructure of the country: “the grand prize” for ISIS as it would make the extremist group viable and financially self-sustaining.

But how and when will this “Battle for Baghdad” take place?

For the answer we go to a backgrounder prepared by the Institute for the Study of War titled, as expected, “ISIS Battle Plan for Baghdad” which lays it out in detail.

* * *

There are indications that ISIS is about to launch into a new offensive in Iraq. ISIS published photos of a military parade through the streets of Mosul on June 24, 2014 showcasing U.S. military equipment, including armored vehicles and towed artillery systems. ISIS reportedly executed another parade in Hawijah on June 26, 2014.2 These parades may be a demonstration of force to reinforce their control of these urban centers. They may also be a prelude to ISIS troop movements, and it is important to anticipate where ISIS may deploy these forces forward. Meanwhile, ISIS also renewed the use of suicide bombers in the vicinity of Baghdad. An ISIS bomber with a suicide vest (SVEST) attacked the Kadhimiya shrine in northern Baghdad on June 26, 2014,3 one of the four holy sites in Iraq that Iran and Shi’a militias are most concerned to protect. ISIS also incorporated an SVEST into a complex attack in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, on June 25, 2014 in a zone primarily controlled by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Shi’a militias on the road from Baghdad to Karbala.4 These attacks are demonstrations that ISIS has uncommitted forces in the Baghdad  Belts that may be brought to bear in new offensives. ISIS’s offensive has not culminated, and the ISIS campaign for Iraq is not over. Rather, as Ramadan approaches, their main offensive is likely imminent.

ISIS seeks to create an Islamic Emirate that overcomes the modern states of Iraq and Syria. The Syrian war began without ISIS, but ISIS succeeded in instigating a sectarian war in Iraq in order to destabilize the state. ISIS has systematically targeted sectarian fault lines in Iraq over the past two years in order to precipitate a civil war, but ISIS also intends to break the Iraqi state permanently so that it cannot recover. This is essential in order to protect the Islamic Emirate from external attack. ISIS may not seek to make Baghdad its capital; Baghdad is far from the center of Iraq’s Sunni heartland and sits along the contested corridor that separates the Sunni and Shi’a majority lands in Iraq. Rather, ISIS likely seeks to destroy the government of Iraq, to destroy the Iraqi Army, and to ensure that Baghdad does not remain a viable Shi’a capital. It is more reasonable to expect that ISIS has a battle plan for Baghdad than to presume that ISIS would not create one because they recognize how difficult the task of controlling the city.

ISIS now has artillery and other indirect fire capability, in addition to heavy machine guns. This is visible in their social media coverage of their acquisitions in Ninewa. ISIS can induce a surface-to-air threat against IA aircraft at Balad Airbase, Taji Base, and Baghdad International Airport that effectively neutralizes Iraq’s air assets. ISIS can also attack fortified positions in downtown Baghdad through medium-range direct fire via the artillery pieces it has seized. ISIS likely intends to strike the Green Zone and other fortress targets that have adequate ground protection. ISIS likely has presence inside Baghdad that can facilitate accurate fire through visual observation, and the emergence of SVESTS on June 26 in lieu of the more detectable SVBIEDs likely illustrates its adaptation to the new Shi’a militia environment. ISIS may also layer explosive attacks through SVBIEDs against checkpoints or infrastructure in order to open temporary movement corridors that will permit ground assault against targets in Baghdad. ISIS may still be designing and sequencing its plan for Baghdad, but from a threat perspective, the most dangerous outcomes that ISIS could precipitate against U.S. interests in Baghdad are feasible. ISIS’s revived capability for spectacular attacks in Baghdad and its ability to harness medium range artillery comes just as the U.S. has placed 300 personnel in country, in addition to those essential personnel already stationed at the Embassy. There is no safe place in Baghdad against the threat of ISIS.

A ground campaign to deny Ramadi and Baghdad to ISIS in the near term and to begin to retake lost territory is critical to overcome the offensive spirit and message of victory that are currently fueling ISIS. The Sunni population in Iraq may very well unite in order to counter ISIS deep within the Sunni heartland if they perceive that ISIS can be defeated, and that their tribes will be protected from ISIS and Iran. The Sunnis are not looking to the government of Iraq for these assurances right now, because they perceive more than ever that Maliki’s government is part of an Iranian axis. Syrian air strikes into Iraq’s Sunni lands only underscore this point. With no army to protect them, and no army that can outmatch ISIS on the ground, the Sunnis are faced with an existential crisis on two-fronts: the threat of ISIS, and the threat of Iran, both assaulting Iraq’s Sunnis with military force. The war in Iraq and the war in Syria have the potential to engulf the region, while ISIS usurps the terrain lost by states that may never recover their former likeness.

* * *

There is much more in the full report below (pdf link):




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nT1c0S Tyler Durden

Crushing The Q2 “Recovery” Dream In 1 Simple Chart

For a week or two, the 'news' appeared to confirm the 'hope'; faith that Q1's dysphoria would emerge phoenix-like into Q2 euphoria as a 'hibernating' American public emerging from their weather-shelter and spent-spent-spent all their borrowed-borrowed-borrowed money. That ended last week! Despite the dramatically low volume liftathon in stocks since the FOMC meeting, major risk markets around the world are cracking. European bonds and stocks had a bad week, Treasuries rallied the most in 6 weeks, and the key to it all, USDJPY, slipped to 4 week lows. Why? As the chart below shows, US macro data is collapsing again (right on cue) and stands at 2-month lows… (and is the worst-performing macro nation in the world this year!)

 

 

But it's not just top-down that's "broken"…

as Bottom-up Fundamentals are no longer the driver for credit

or equity markets…

 

Source: Bloomberg and Citi

Bonus Chart: Guess which country has the worst performing "Macro" this year relative to 'exuberant' expectations… USA USA USA




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