Tag: news

If you add up all the money that national governments have borrowed, it tallies to a hefty $63 trillion.

 

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

In an ideal situation, governments are just borrowing this money to cover short-term budget deficits or to finance mission critical projects. However, as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, around the globe, countries have taken to the idea of running constant deficits as the normal course of business, and too much accumulation of debt is not healthy for countries or the global economy as a whole.

The U.S. is a prime example of “debt creep” – the country hasn’t posted an annual budget surplus since 2001, when the federal debt was only $6.9 trillion (54% of GDP). Fast forward to today, and the debt has ballooned to roughly $20 trillion (107% of GDP), which is equal to 31.8% of the world’s sovereign debt nominally.

THE WORLD DEBT LEADERBOARD

In today’s infographic, we look at two major measures: (1) Share of global debt as a percentage, and (2) Debt-to-GDP.

Let’s look at the top five “leaders” in each category, starting with share of global debt on a nominal basis:

Together, just these five countries together hold 66% of the world’s debt in nominal terms – good for a total of $41.6 trillion.

Next, here’s the top five for Debt-to-GDP:

While only Italy and Japan here are considered major economies on a global scale, the high debt levels of countries like Greece or Portugal are also important to monitor.

In the IMF’s baseline scenario, Greece’s government debt will reach 275% of its GDP by 2060, when its financing needs will represent 62% of GDP.

 

– A recent IMF report, obtained by Bloomberg

Greece, for example, is continuing along a particularly unsustainable path – and external creditors are getting stingier. Most recently, both the IMF and Greece’s euro-area creditors have demanded for the country to implement a law that automatically introduces austerity measures if a budget surplus of 3.5% of GDP isn’t hit.

While Greece has dismissed such demands as “unacceptable”, the country – along with many others around the globe – will have to accept that constant debt accumulation has eventual consequences.

*  *  *

To get “$63 Trillion of World Debt” in printed form, go to the Kickstarter page now. Deadline: Oct. 31, 2017

via http://ift.tt/2ic8W4C Tyler Durden

Just under a year ago, US home prices finally surpassed their prior all time highs, one decade after the 2006 bubble…

… and haven’t looked back since. Which, all else equal, would be great news for America, where the bulk of middle-class wealth is not in the stock market contrary to conventional wisdom, but in its biggest, and most illiquid asset-cum-investment: one’s home.

There is just one problem: while house prices are once again hitting new all time highs every month, household incomes have failed to keep up; in fact, as the Political Calculations blog shows, in the past two years there has been a distinct trend in home affordability, or lack thereof.

As the first chart below shows, starting in September 2015, the TTM average median new home sale price in the U.S. has been rising at an average rate of $906 per month.

That’s the good news; the bad news is that in terms of affordability, the ratio of the trailing twelve month averages of median new home sale prices to median household income in the U.S. has risen to an all time high of 5.454, which following revisions in the data for new home sale prices, was recorded in July 2017. The initial value for September 2017 is 5.437.

In other words, the median new home in the US has never been more unaffordable in terms of current income.

One final way to visualizie it comes from Ironman’s next chart, which shows the long-term relationship between median new home sale prices and median household income, with the annual data now spanning 2000 through 2016 and the monthly data covering the period from December 2000 through September 2017. It confirms the above: for the average American, buying a new home has never been more unaffordable.

via http://ift.tt/2xw1oju Tyler Durden

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

President Trump is expected to nominate the next Federal Reserve chair within a matter of days.

As I’ve explained before, Donald Trump has the opportunity to appoint a higher percentage of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system at one time than any president since Woodrow Wilson.

President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act during the creation of the Fed in 1913 when they had a vacant board. At that time, the law said the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency were automatically on the Fed’s board of governors. But besides that, President Wilson selected all of the other participating members.

Due to vacancies he inherited and key resignations, Trump now has the opportunity to fill more seats on the Fed’s Board of Governors than any president since then.

That’s pretty amazing when you think about it.

To review, the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors is made up of seven appointees. That means that they can make a majority decision with four votes. If you’re reading about the Fed, you might also see reference to “regional reserve bank presidents.” These are roles within the Federal Reserve System, but the real power is found on seven-member Board of Governors.

Trump will own the Fed.

Meaning, whatever the president wants monetary policy to be, he’ll get. In other words, Donald Trump will be able to shape the Fed’s majority. But the tricky part is figuring out how he plans to shape it…

During the campaign season, Trump called China and other nations currency manipulators. That signaled he believed the dollar was too strong and wanted it to weaken. But then the North Korean nuclear crisis rose to the fore.

Trump backed off his threats against China because China has the most economic influence over North Korea, and Trump wanted China to use that leverage to convince the North to back off its nuclear program.

But China didn’t deliver as Trump had hoped, and a trade war with China is now likely. That’s especially true now. Chinese president Xi Jinping has solidified his hold on power after the Chinese Politburo re-appointed him yesterday. Xi had avoided rocking the boat in recent months while his position was uncertain. But now that his lock on power is secure, Xi can afford to be much more confrontational with Trump.

Trump’s trade policy has led many to believe that Trump will appoint a lot of “doves” to the Board. But don’t be surprised if Trump goes with a hard-money board. In fact, that’s what I expect. These will be hard-money, strong-dollar people, contrary to a lot of expectations.

Trump advisers include hard-money advocates like Dr. Judy Shelton, David Malpass, Steve Moore and Larry Kudlow. I expect Trump to heed their advice.

Which brings us to Janet Yellen and the next Federal Reserve Chair…

Janet Yellen’s term as chair is up at the end of January – just over three months from now. Whoever President Trump appoints to replace her will be subject to Senate confirmation.

Because that process takes time, that means the president has to name Yellen’s successor around November or December.

And again, he’s expected to make that announcement by Nov. 3, before he heads to China.

The market is tightly focused on President Trump’s pick. As of now, betting markets had the approximate probabilities as follows:

Powell’s main qualification seems to be that he’s just like Yellen except he’s a Republican. So, if we combine their votes, that a 68% chance that policy will continue unchanged, which means more rate hikes ahead.

The next in line is John Taylor, who is considered the most hawkish of the group. If we add his votes to the Powell + Yellen pool, that an 85% probability that policy will either be the same or tighter.

No relief for gold in the Fed sweepstakes.

Now, as I’ve been saying for months, my money’s on Kevin Warsh. Warsh is the likely next chair of the Fed.

Warsh has previously served on the board. After being nominated by President George W. Bush he was a Fed governor where he served from 2006 until he resigned early in 2011.

Kevin Warsh is a pragmatist, not an ideologue like Yellen. He’s not beholden to obsolete Fed models like Phillips curve that says low unemployment means higher inflation. Warsh understands that disinflation is a serious problem for a country with a 105% debt-to-GDP ratio, like the U.S.

Warsh and the pragmatists understand that inflation is needed for the U.S. to have any hope of getting the debt problem under control.

Warsh believed that the Federal Reserve should have raised interest rates a long time ago. But with disinflation a much more pressing concern than inflation right now, being a pragmatist means he won’t commit to tightening if conditions don’t warrant it.

We’ll see how this all plays out probably late this week or early next before Trump leaves for China.

But it’s important to realize that institutions boil down to people. And there’s going to be a lot of turnover at the Fed under Trump. It’s not just limited to his choice of Fed chair.

Yes, Yellen will likely be out. But so are Fed officials that align with her, like Vice President Stanley Fischer, who announced his resignation in September.

As I indicated, the new, emerging Fed will have less faith in traditional models. For example, in September, Fed governor Lael Brainard delivered one of the most significant Fed speeches ever. Translating from Fed-speak to plain English, she more or less admitted the Fed has no idea how inflation works.

Brainard pointed out that the Fed began its current monetary policy tightening cycle in the belief that tight labor markets implied inflation was coming with a lag. The Fed raised rates in December 2015, December 2016, March 2017 and June 2017 in part to get out ahead of this coming inflation.

Instead the opposite happened.

The Fed’s favorite measure of inflation plunged from 1.9% to 1.3% between January and August 2017 even as job creation continued and the unemployment rate fell. In other words, the relationship between tight labor markets and inflation turned out to be the exact opposite of what the Fed believed.

Their models are in ruins.

Of course, this is what I’ve been telling my readers to expect all year. The Fed was tightening into weakness, not strength, and would soon have to flip back to ease in order to avoid an outright U.S. recession. And ease is exactly what Brainard called for in her speech.

In the meantime, a lot of uncertainty over the Fed’s direction will hover over the market, as if there wasn’t enough uncertainty in the market already.

But one thing is certain:

The next Fed head will have a lot on his (or her) plate.

The biggest winner will be gold. The time to enter your gold position, if you don’t already have one, is now.

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

America’s obsession with the ever-growing McMansion, combined with a perpetual lack of funding for said McMansion, has resulted a unique phenomenon which Trulia has dubbed “The Incredible Shrinking Yard.”  Analyzing public records to compare residential lot sizes to home footprints, Trulia says that homes built over the past two years occupy a staggering 25% of the land on which they sit, compared to roughly half that amount in 1975. 

Here are some of Trulia’s key findings:

• Nationally, single family homes occupy 17.4% of the lots on which they sit, regardless of the year they were built.

 

• Homes built since 2015 occupy 25% of the land on which they sit, while homes built in 1975 occupy just 13.9%. This is being driven by a combination of lots shrinking by 36.2% and home footprints growing by 15.2% size.

 

• Meanwhile, some of the oldest homes in the country, built in the early 1800s, occupy less than 5.0% of the large lots they are built on. The last time lot usage was nearly as high as it is now was during the early 1900s.

 

• Don’t mind the neighbors? Single family homes in places like Philadelphia, and San Francisco, which are both geographically small but dense, have the highest lot utilization at 57.7%, and 44.2%, respectively.

 

• Want plenty of yard space? Head to New England. Three Connecticut metro areas, Worcester, Mass., Hartford, Conn., and Bridgeport, Conn. make up the places with the smallest amount of house occupying lot space, at less than 7.5%.

 

• While most metro areas have seen lot usage grow since the mid-70s, with Oakland, Calif., and Miami seeing the largest upward swings, six metros have bucked the trend with San Francisco, Memphis, and Long Island, N.Y. moving toward less lot usage.

When national home price growth charts start to look like an Amazon stock chart, despite the fact that wage growth remains non-existent, but you know your family of 4 can never find a way to survive in a house even an inch smaller than 4,000 square feet, it only makes sense that lawn sizes would have to shrink to keep purchase prices somewhat ‘reasonable’…and by reasonable, of course we mean below FHA lending limits so that those McMansions can be purchased with minimal money down and backstopped by the American taxpayer.

As Trulia notes, since the mid-70s, when the proportion of lots used by new construction hit a national low of 13.6%, it climbed 11.3 percentage points to 25% of the lot of homes built in 2015 or later. Most metro areas have seen lot usage grow similarly. Oakland, Miami, and Indianapolis have seen the largest upward swing in lot usage, with homes built after 2015 occupying 25.6, 24.9, and 20.3 percentage points more, respectively, of the lots they are built on than they did in the mid-70s.

Meanwhile, 7 of the 95 metro areas analyzed by Trulia managed to buck the trend, with San Francisco, Memphis, Tenn., and Long Island, N.Y. actually seeing a 12.9, 11.6, and 6.0 percentage point decrease, respectively, in the percent of lot usage by homes constructed after 2015 when compared with homes built in the mid-70s.

 

With that, here’s a helpful chart depicted just how small the ‘American Dream’ has become in your neck of the woods:

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

By Chris at http://ift.tt/12YmHT5

A tale of two James’.

What does this guy:

Captain James Cook

…have in common with this guy:

Two things:

1. Same first name, and
2. similar opportunities.

Let me explain.

Captain James was probably just another ruffian salty with poor hygiene and bad teeth. But you know what the catalyst to his fame was? And by extension what turned muddy old Britain into an empire?

These:

You see, the thing holding back Captain Jamie from extended ocean going voyaging was a nasty disease called scurvy. We know now that Jamie was dead eager to get out there and bring nasty European diseases to natives in faraway lands and upon arrival announce, “By George it’s nice and lush here, we’ll take it.”

And so when Scottish physician James Lind figured out via controlled experiments that, in fact, a diet including vitamin C rich foods cured this pesky disease, the advantage presented to sailors was enormous. After all, those poor sods used to routinely lose up to 60% of their crews to scurvy on voyages.

Imagine setting out knowing such odds.

Da Gama, for instance, lost 116 if his 170 crew, and Magellan 208 of his 230. You’d have better odds skulling a bottle of Absolut and then playing chicken with Mack trucks on a freeway.

It took the Brits about 40 years to put this knowledge to good use, but it has been argued by historians to have been a catalyst to the founding of the British Empire. At the time, there were plenty other countries who could quite easily have stacked up some lemon juice in the hull, set sail, and begun planting flags. But they didn’t.

Isn’t that amazing? The bloody British Empire owes its fortunes to the humble lemon. And, by golly, old Jamie Cook took advantage of that didn’t he? And the rest, as they say, is now history.

And this brings me to the other Jamie.

You see, Jamie (the old Brit Jamie), used something quite revolutionary at the time to alter the course of history and become a major player in it.

And Jamie (the not so old yank), Captain of the JPM ship has a similar opportunity today.

It’s why he should learn about lemons.

It seems he knows little about modern day “lemons” and their properties. Here’s some major ignorance points he shared with us all on his views just recently.

I think Alex Gurevich said it best:

I was mentioning this all to my lovely wife the other night, and you know what she said?

She said that if he was a she (Jamie that is), he probably wouldn’t be so arrogant and may look at the manual. Which in this case is, of course, Satoshi’s white paper.

And, as usual, she’s right. When we got our last DVD thingy player she immediately pulled out the manual to learn about how it all works so that when she wants to, she’ll be able to play exactly what she wants without delay and mess and fuss.

Me? I stabbed away at the buttons, safe in the knowledge that even if I’m trying to get the Blu-ray to play, I’ll probably get the USB figured out, and who knows what excellent films are on the thumb drive I’ve shoved in there.

I console myself with the fact I’m male, and as such, reading the manual is against my religion. But I tend to make up for it by diving in and learning by doing.

Jamie, bless him, isn’t even prepared to do either, and that’s fine.

It just means that when Bitcoin hits another all time high and history books are written (by the robots, of course), he won’t even make the pages. He’ll simply be like all those other sailors in Portugal, Spain, France, and the Netherlands who, in the 1800s, were sailing around at the same time Captain James Cook was.

And you know what? We don’t know anything about them, and neither will future generations know anything about the present Captain of the USS enterprise JPMorgan’s Jamie “I don’t know isht about Bitcoin” Dimon.

And that’s probably how it should be.

– Chris

“Do just once what others say you cannot do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again.” — Captain James Cook

————————————–

Liked this article? Then you’ll probably like my other missives on

this topic as well. Go here to access them (free, of course).

————————————–

via http://ift.tt/2zdDOMQ Capitalist Exploits

Authored by Mike Shedlock via http://ift.tt/2lfU0ag,

Even before the emergence of the growing plethora of cryptocurrencies, several attempts had been made in the past to create digital currencies based on gold, but none of them gained widespread support. Will blockchain and Bitcoin succeed where other attempts failed?

 

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

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Ulster County, N.Y. legislator Jennifer Schwartz Berky (D) – who is up for reelection Nov. 7, put on quite an act for a local police officer Gary Short, after she was pulled her over for driving 43 mph in a 30 mph zone while talking on her cell phone.

A 26-minute video of the May 2017 incident was released last Tuesday during an Ulster Town Board meeting, and features a meltdown of epic proportions.

After Berky failed to impress officer Short by casually mentioning “I work for the county government, I’m a county legislator,” she immediately shifted into the victim role and proceeded to have histrionic tantrum. “Please don’t give me a ticket, I’m broke,” Berky cried, adding “I’m completely broke, and if you tell people, it’s going to hurt me. I’m totally broke. I made $20,000 last year. Please don’t give me a ticket.”

Officer Short – a consummate professional throughout the encounter, returns to his squad car to run Berky’s information, when Berky gets out of her car and fakes a panic attack, while on the phone, claiming PTSD.

WOW: NY (D) Legislator Jennifer Schwartz #Berky fakes PTSD panic attack to try and get out of minor speeding ticket. Up 4 Election in 2 wks???? http://pic.twitter.com/6gIM91hmA7

— ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) October 28, 2017

Full video here:

  

Berky has learned from this and is ready to move on!

In response to the viral video, Berky issued an apology (the comments section is hilarious):

“The video released earlier this week of my Town of Ulster traffic stop captured a tough moment for me,” stated Berky. “Like so many working families, I too face tough times and stressful situations.  As a professional, a public servant and a mother, I know my interaction with Police Officer Gary Short was unacceptable. I want to apologize to Officer Short and thank him for his patience and professionalism with me during a very difficult time. This has been a humbling experience for me. I hope to use it to grow and learn how to better represent the diverse working families who reside in the great the city of Kingston.”

If you’re an Ulster resident and would like to check out Berky’s platform – here ya go. I don’t think it’s going over so well.

  

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

via http://ift.tt/2yTLC66 ZeroPointNow

Last December we joked that the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund had responded to sinking returns and withdrawals required to fund budget deficits by allocating another $130 billion in assets to what appeared to be an already massively overpriced equity bubble in return for an extra 40bps of “expected average annual real returns” (see: Norway Buying $130 Billion In Global Equities As Sovereign Wealth Fund Continues To Bleed Cash).  The extra equity purchases pushed the fund’s total equity allocation to a staggering 70% of their $860 billion in assets under management.

Alas, with global equity bubbles becoming ever more bubblier with each passing day, the bet on equities has paid off ‘bigly’ for Norway so far this year and grew their $1 trillion in AUM by another 3.2%, or a mere $32 billion, in Q3 2017 alone. 

As Bloomberg notes this morning, the staggering size of Norway’s wealth fund and their seemingly reckless allocation to equities, implies they now own roughly 1% of global stocks.

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, which owns more than 1 percent of global stocks, is treating its $300 billion bond portfolio as a hedge for what it now essentially views as a stock fund.

 

“60 to 70 percent in equities — imagine it was 60 to 80 or 90 percent — the whole thing is that this fund is actually to a large extent now a public equity fund,” CEO Yngve Slyngstad told reporters in Oslo. “We don’t think about this as two separate asset classes that have their distinct dynamics, the real risk of the fund is in the equity market.”

 

The $1 trillion Government Pension Fund Global, which started out as a pure bond portfolio before adding stocks, returned 3.2 percent in the third quarter, or 192 billion kroner ($24 billion), the Oslo-based investor said on Friday. Equities drove returns gaining 4.3 percent, while bonds rose 0.8 percent and real estate investments grew 2.7 percent.

So what does Norway’s wealth fund own?  Aside from the obvious answer of “literally all the things,” they have roughly $360 billion in U.S. stocks, with Apple being their largest bet of course and $100 billion in emerging market equities with the remainder spread between Euro equities and U.S., Japanese and German bonds.

Emerging stocks, which make up 10.2 percent of the fund’s equity holdings, returned 6.4 percent, while U.S. stocks, its single largest market with 35.9 percent, returned 3.2 percent. Oil and gas shares were the best preforming sector in the quarter with a 8.7 percent increase as increased demand for oil, OPEC’s quota discipline and lower production of shale oil in the U.S. boosted crude prices, the fund said.

 

Owning close to 1.5 percent of all large listed companies globally, the Norwegian fund largely follows indexes, but is allowed some active management of its portfolio.

 

The fund held 65.9 percent in stocks in the quarter, 31.6 percent in bonds and 2.5 percent in real estate. Its mandate is to keep about 70 percent in stocks, 30 percent in bonds, with about 7 percent in real estate that’s now separate from the main portfolio.  The fund beat its benchmark by 0.1 percentage point.

 

The fund’s biggest equity investments in the quarter are Apple, Nestle and Royal Dutch Shell, while its largest fixed income holdings are U.S., Japanese and German government bonds.

Meanwhile, the fund’s record AUM comes despite taking withdrawals for the first time ever in 2016 and expectations that another 70 billion kroner will be withdrawn this year to help offset budget deficits.

Norway’s government last year made direct withdrawals from the fund for the first time in its history and is expected to take out about 70 billion kroner this year. Meanwhile, Norway has lowered the fund’s expected return to 3 percent from 4 percent.

 

The fund has been given permission to raise its stock holdings to 70 percent from 60 percent, with an equivalent cut in bonds. That could help it eke out higher returns, or at least maintain the 8 percent annualized real return it’s had over the past five years.

 

But Slyngstad also recently said he sees fundamental issues with the global economic system and trade, which is being buffeted by increasing global political risk. And that’s not good for a fund that owns 1.3 percent of global stocks.

So, it appears that Norway’s reckless equity bet has paid off for now…but, what is the saying about ‘he who laughs last?’

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

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Once we wake up to how the game is being played, then we will have a real shot at changing things.  For decades, the elite have been pulling the strings behind the scenes in both major political parties.  That is why nothing has ever seemed to change very much no matter which party has been in power. 

The agenda of the elite has always seemed to march forward, and ordinary people like us have always been frustrated that we can’t seem to make a difference.  But now a shift seems to be taking place.  Donald Trump took on the establishment in both major parties, and he miraculously won the presidency.  Down in Alabama, the elite spent more than 30 million dollars to defeat Roy Moore, and he still defeated Luther Strange.  A political awakening is taking place, and I can’t wait to see what happens during the mid-term elections in 2018.

In Part I and Part II of this series, I talked about how the elite use debt as a tool of enslavement.  In Part III, I went over how the elite use the colossal media corporations they own to control what we think.  Today, I want to talk about their influence in the realm of politics.

In Washington D.C., it is well understood that the game of politics is all about the money.  If I win my election, and online polling suggests that there is a ton of enthusiasm for my campaign, I will be expected to spend most of my time on the phone raising money.  As a freshman member of Congress, at orientation it will be explained to me that I am supposed to spend approximately four hours a day doing fundraising, and that is why the House and Senate floors are so empty most of the time.

By law, members of Congress cannot make fundraising calls from their offices, and so both parties have huge call centers just across from the Capitol.  Especially around lunch and dinner times (because those are some of the best times to reach people), those call centers are packed as members of the House and Senate run through lists of potential donors.

And it isn’t just about raising money for their own campaigns.  As a freshman member of Congress I would be expected to raise at least $200,000 for the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee).  If I don’t pay my dues, I would get into big trouble with party leadership.

But you know what?  I have already pledged that I am not going to participate in this very corrupt system.  If I am sent to Congress, I am going to spend my time doing the job that the people of Idaho sent me there to do.

So will Paul Ryan and the others in leadership get very upset with me for not “paying my dues”?

Of course.

But it is time for some of us to take a stand and do what is right.  Congress has become a cesspool of filth and corruption, and it is time to flush the toilet.

Because if we don’t fight this corrupt system, the influence of money in politics will just get worse and worse.  Today, the elite pour millions upon millions of dollars even into small campaigns, and in 2016 it took an average of more than 10 million dollars to win a U.S. Senate seat…

While the White House may not have gone to the biggest spender, an awful lot of House and Senate seats did — as usual. And it was pricier than ever to win them.

 

This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission). That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed.

Once you win, the pressure to raise money for your next campaign never ends.

The elite know this, and they use this pressure to influence votes.  Prior to a big vote, lobbyists will make it abundantly clear how they want certain members of Congress to vote, and if they vote the “right way” those members of Congress will be rewarded.

Just across from the U.S. Capitol there are clubs where fancy receptions are regularly held.  If you vote the “right way” on a particular bill, you may be invited to one of these receptions, and there will be big, fat donation checks waiting there for you.

Of course most members of Congress have learned how to play the game, and this is why it is nearly impossible to defeat incumbents.  Over the past six decades, the re-election rate for members of the House of Representatives has consistently been well over 80 percent, and according to the UVA Center for Politics incumbents actually did far better than that in 2016…

This election cycle, 393 of 435 House representatives, 29 of 34 senators, and five of 12 governors sought reelection (several of the governors were prohibited from seeking another term). Of those, 380 of 393 House members (97%), 27 of 29 senators (93%), and four of five governors (80%) won another term. These members of Congress and governors not only won renomination, but also won in November.

Since World War II, the overall success rate for Senate incumbents has been 84 percent, and the overall success rate for House incumbents has been 94 percent.

Incumbents are almost always armed with huge war chests and most of them have tremendous name recognition, and so toppling them is not easy.

Fortunately, there is no incumbent in my race because Raul Labrador is running for governor.  So the race is completely wide open, and right now my campaign has the most enthusiasm by far.  If you would like to help me flush the toilet in Washington, I would encourage you to visit MichaelSnyderForCongress.com.

If we don’t fight back, we will never break the stranglehold that the elite have on our political system.

Every generation of Americans has had to stand up and fight for liberty and freedom, and now it is our turn.  This particular battle will not be fought with guns and bullets, but rather with ideas, values and principles.

We are part of a movement that is sweeping the nation.  Good men and women are rising up to run in federal, state and local races all across the country, and it is absolutely imperative that we all get behind them and support them.

*  *  *

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

via http://ift.tt/2yVr1vA Tyler Durden

What would you guess? Five…twenty five…fifty?

James Stafford, editor of Oilprice.com not only does the math, but explains the energy-driven geographic arbitrage currently driving bitcoin mining. 

The bitcoin boom is well and truly underway, and investors are constantly looking for new ways to gain an advantage in this space The best way to do this, it seems, is by cutting the energy costs of mining this precious commodity. The bitcoin mining industry consumes 22.5 TWh of energy annually, which amounts to 13,239,916 barrels of oil equivalent.

With 12.5 bitcoins being mined every 10 minutes, that means the average energy cost of one bitcoin would equate to 20 barrels of oil equivalent.

While it’s all about where you sit on the cost curve, Stafford provides us with some context on gross energy consumption.

To put this in perspective, the total energy consumption of the world’s Bitcoin mining activities is more than 40 times greater than that required to power the entire Visa network.

And it’s very profitable…

Mining bitcoin has the potential to be a wildly lucrative business, with a single Bitcoin now valued at more than 100 barrels of oil.

 

That kind of price makes it one of the most valuable commodities on the planet and, just like oil, this commodity is increasingly valuable to mine if the energy costs can be kept down. Bitcoin transactions are secured by computer miners, who are competing for rewards in the form of coins from the network.

 

The more computation power they use, the better their chances. The drill rig is a computer, and hydraulic fracturing is done with the tip of your fingers.

…if you’ve got bucket loads of cheap electricity.

It’s a phenomenally energy-intensive process. Cheap electricity is exactly what made China the Bitcoin mining king. The yearly cost of the energy necessary to mine Bitcoin determines its economics. But to get in on that you risk reputation because you’re either siphoning off surplus energy from somewhere else, or you’re partnering with the government. No matter how you look at it, it’s a very gray area. No one wants dirty coal fueling such a sophisticated endeavor, for example.

As we discussed recently, subsidized electricity and hyperinflation has led to rapid growth in Bitcoin mining in Venezuela, albeit from a low base.

When it comes to scale, however, the new Bitcoin mining hub – with a different type of energy advantage – is Iceland. James Stafford calls it the “New Ground (Below) Zero”, he continues.

That’s why HIVE Blockchain Technologies Ltd. – a gold-miner-turned-bitcoin-miner – has set up in Iceland. As one of the first public companies that lets you participate in the build-up and infrastructure of crypto mining, HIVE is taking advantage of Bitcoin’s favorite element: Ice. It’s freezing in Iceland, so the relative energy cost of mining there is lower. Mining hardware requires enormous power and creates tons of heat, and natural temperature is key: Iceland saves on cooling costs, making it one of the most potentially profitable places to mine Bitcoin.

He cites other examples of crypto companies moving to Iceland.

Giant ether mining start-up, BitFury Group, is there. BitFury, out of the Netherlands, generated over $90 million in revenue this year, and predicts it will be generating $585 million in revenue by 2021. While its flagship data center is in the Republic of Georgia, it’s also now tapping into the cool temperatures of Iceland. Emmanuel Abiodun, founder of Cloud Hashing, a company which owns a computing facility in Iceland, chose Iceland because of its cheap and plentiful geothermal and hydroelectric energy, and the “free Arctic air” that is piped in to cool the machines. Iceland is also ground zero for Hong-Kong-based Genesis Mining Ltd, which is building the largest ether mining facility in the world in Iceland. And HIVE has recently acquired a new data center from Genesis for $9 million and a 30 percent equity stake in HIVE, according to Bloomberg, which says HIVE shares have “Bitcoin investors buzzing”. Right next door to this landmark bitcoin facility in Reykajanes, Iceland, HIVE has just acquired a second data center from Genesis.

Stafford states that “The cold countries are now the home of what is being dubbed ‘geothermal gold’.” Talking of which.

HIVE’s backers include mining mavericks Frank Giustra and Frank Holmes. Giustra built up Goldcorp (NYSE:GG) in 2000 and today it trades at a market cap of nearly $11 billion, and is one of the largest gold-mining companies in the world. He was also behind Silver Wheaton, which is now Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (NYSE:WPM), the biggest silver and gold streaming company in the world. Giustra’s 20-oscar-winning entertainment behemoth, Lion’s Gate, also took in $2.4 billion in revenue in 2015. And these are just a few of his multi-billion-dollar hits. Holmes is the CEO of San Antonio-based US Global Investors, which has $2.6 billion in assets under management and is one of the definitive top precious metals funds. Both have backed HIVE, and Holmes is now its chairman. Both still love gold because gold will always be gold, but they’re not old-fashioned. Bitcoin is huge, and they won’t be left out of the wave.

A two-pronged strategy of gold and crypto, we’re not going to argue with that.

via http://ift.tt/2zNQsi7 Tyler Durden