Stalkers of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

A great
piece
in Roads & Kingdoms visits the world of the
stalkers—not creepy dudes who follow women around, but a Ukrainian
subculture devoted to illegally exploring the Chernobyl
Exclusion Zone
. Here’s an excerpt:

I'm not a huge Tarkovsky fan, but the movie has its moments.Online communities have emerged
to trade information, tips, and advice on what routes are safe from
the police, which entrances have become too dangerous, or where
supplies are hidden. Experienced stalkers sometimes mentor younger
wannabes. Pseudonyms are always used. In-person meetings are only
cautiously pursued, as stalkers worry about police sting
operations.

Some forums are open only to those who’ve achieved a certain level
of success. Stalkers pursue a set of thresholds—or “acceptances”—by
reaching an increasingly challenging (and dangerous) set of
destinations. “Dogs and security are the biggest problem in the
Chernobyl Zone, not radiation, not zombies,” says one veteran who
almost lost an eye while fleeing police.

Of course, radiation seems like the most obvious danger, though the
health risks aren’t as clear as you might think. Nearly 30 years
after an accident, nuclear contaminants with short half-lives are
no longer a threat, and acute radiation poisoning would only take
place if you “went into the sarcophagus and sat on the fuel
containing rods,” says Chernobyl official Vita Polyakova. But there
are still elevated background radiation levels in places such as
Pripyat as well super “hot spots” of severe contamination, many of
them undocumented. The risk of ingesting radionuclides—the
radioactive strontium and cesium present in dust, water, and food
grown in the area—is the most acute threat.

“Maybe on the outside we got more radiation than usual,” a stalker
concedes, “but once we leave, radionuclides are washed off our skin
and that’s it. The greatest risk is when it gets inside your body.
That’s why we try to bring everything with us—water, food.”

“But D. ate apples in the Zone,” I remind him.

“I did, twice. They were so big!” D. chimes in. “I drink water in
the Zone, eat apples, and everything is good for me. No second
head,” he adds with a small smile.

The stalkers took their name from the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. video
game franchise, in which players probe a post-apocalyptic Chernobyl
region. The games, in turn, were inspired by Andrei Tarkovsky’s
cerebral science-fiction film
Stalker
, released in the pre-Chernobyl-disaster days of
1979; and Tarkovsky’s movie was broadly based on Arkady and Boris
Strugatsky’s 1971 novel
Roadside Picnic
, in which “stalkers” steal artifacts
from mysterious and deadly “Zones.” So this is a life-imitates-sf
story, overlaid with a layer of no-future punk pessimism:

Another oft-cited piece of cultural fallout from
Chernobyl is a pervasive fatalism; a widespread victim mindset,
which creates a feeling of “lacking control over their future,” as
Fred Mettler of the International Atomic Energy Association wrote
in the report Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and
Socio-Economic Impacts
. He adds, “The population remains
largely unsure of what the effects of radiation actually are and
retain a sense of foreboding. A number of adolescents and young
adults who have been exposed to modest or small amounts of
radiation feel that they are somehow fatally flawed and there is no
downside to using illicit drugs or having unprotected
sex.”

Or eating the forbidden apples.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/29/stalkers
via IFTTT

US Dollar Tumbles Ahead Of FOMC

Whether it is European banks (Greece and Italy) plunging again, lower-than-expected crude inventories, or expectations of an uber dovish Fed this afternoon, the US Dollar has suddenly gone bidless against the major currencies.

USD dumped…

 

Decoupling from stocks…

 

 

Charts: Bloomberg




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/13bTiwR Tyler Durden

Good Riddance To QE – It Was Just Plain Financial Fraud

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

QE has finally come to an end, but public comprehension of the immense fraud it embodied has not even started. In round terms, this official counterfeiting spree amounted to $3.5 trillion— reflecting the difference between the Fed’s approximate $900 billion balance sheet when its “extraordinary policies” incepted at the time of the Lehman crisis and its $4.4 trillion of footings today. That’s a lot of something for nothing. It’s a grotesque amount of fraud.

The scam embedded in this monumental balance sheet expansion involved nothing so arcane as the circuitous manner by which new central bank reserves supplied to the banking system impact the private credit creation process. As is now evident, new credits issued by the Fed can result in the expansion of private credit to the extent that the money multiplier is operating or simply generate excess reserves which cycle back to the New York Fed if, as in the present instance, it is not.

But the fact that the new reserves generated during QE have cycled back to the Fed does not mitigate the fraud. The latter consists of the very act of buying these trillions of treasuries and GSE securities in the first place with fiat credits manufactured by the central bank. When the Fed does QE, its open market desk buys treasury notes and, in exchange, it simply deposits in dealer bank accounts new credits made out of thin air. As it happened, about $3.5 trillion of such fiat credits were conjured from nothing during the last 72 months.

All of these bonds had permitted Washington to command the use of real economic resources. That is, to consume goods and services it obtained directly in the form of payrolls, contractor services, military tanks and ammo etc; and, indirectly, in the form of the basket of goods and services typically acquired by recipients of government transfer payments. Stated differently, the goods and services purchased via monetizing $3.5 trillion of government debt embodied a prior act of production and supply. But the central bank exchanged them for an act of nothing.

Contrast this monetization process with honest funding of government debt in the private market. In the latter event, the public treasury taps savings from producers and income earners and re-allocates it to government purchases rather than private investments. This has the inherent effect of pushing up interest rates and, on the margin, squeezing out private investment. It is a zero sum game in which savings retained from existing production are reallocated.

To be sure, the economic effect is invariably lower investment, productivity and growth down the line, but the process is at least honest. When the public debt is financed from savings, government purchase of goods and services are funded with the fruits of prior production. There is no exchange of something for nothing; there is no financial fraud.

And it is the fraudulent finance of public deficits which is the real evil of QE because the ill effects go far beyond the standard saw that there is nothing wrong with central bank monetization of the public debt unless is causes visible inflation of consumer prices. In fact, however, it does cause enormous inflation, but of financial asset values, not the CPI.

Despite the spurious implication to the contrary, central banks have not repealed the law of supply and demand in the financial markets. Accordingly, their massive purchases of the public debt create an artificial bid and, therefore, false price. Moreover, government debt functions as the “risk free” benchmark for pricing all other fixed income assets such as home mortgages, corporate debt and junk bonds; and also numerous classes of real assets which are typically heavily leveraged such as commercial real estate and leased aircraft.

In short, massive monetization of the public debt results in the systematic repression of the “cap rate” on which the entire financial system functions. And when the cap rate gets artificially pushed down to sub-economic levels the result is systematic over-valuation of all financial assets, and the excessive accumulation of debt to finance non-value added financial engineering schemes such as stock buybacks and the overwhelming share of M&A transactions.

Needless to say, the false prices which result from massive monetization do not stay within the canyons of Wall Street or even the corporate business sector. In effect, they ride the Amtrak to Washington where they also deceive politicians about the true cost of carrying the public debt. At the present time, the weighted average cost of the $13 trillion in publicly held federal debt is at least 200 basis points below a market clearing economic level—–meaning that debt service costs are understated by upwards of $300 billion annually.

At the end of the day, the fraud of massive monetization makes the rich richer because it drastically inflates the value of financial assets—–roughly 80% of which is held by the top 5% of households; and it makes the state more bloated and profligate because its enables the politicians to spend without imposing the pain of taxation or the crowding out effects which result from honest borrowing out of society’s savings pool.

In the more wholesome times before 1914, the Federal government didn’t borrow at all. During the half-century between the battle of Gettysburg and the eve of World War I, the public debt did not rise in nominal terms, and amounted to just $1.5 billion or 4% of GDP at the time of the Fed’s creation.  Even then, the Fed was established as only a “bankers bank” which could not own a dime of public debt, but instead existed for the narrow mission of liquefying the banking market by means of discounting solid commercial paper on receivables and inventory for ready cash.

The modern form of monetization arose in the service of financing war bonds, not managing the business cycle, levitating the GDP or boosting the labor market toward the artifice of “full employment”. These latter purposes reflect a century of “mission creep” and the triumph of the statist assumption that governments can actually tame the business cycle and elevate the trend rate of economic growth.

But history refutes that conceit. In the early post-war period, central bank interventions mainly caused short term bouts of unsustainable credit growth and an inflationary spiral which eventually had to be cured by monetary stringency and recession. In the process of repetition over several decades culminating in the 2008 crisis, the household and business leverage ratios were steadily ratcheted upwards until the reached peak sustainable debt.

Now the credit channel of monetary policy transmission is broken and done. The Fed’s most recent massive monetization and “stimulus” has therefore simply inflated financial asset values—-meaning that the Fed has become a serial bubble machine.

There is a better way, and it contrasts sharply with the systematic fraud of QE. That alternative is called the free market, and at the heart of the latter is interest rates which are “discovered” by the market, not pegged and administered by the central bank. Stated differently, the free market requires that all debt and other forms of investment be funded out of society’s pool of honest savings—-that is, income that is retained out of production already made.

Under that regime there is no fraudulent bid for public debt and other existing assets based on something for nothing. Markets clear where they will, and interest rates are the mechanism by which the supply of honest savings and the demand for investment capital, including working capital, are balanced out.

Needless to say, free market interest rates are the bane of Wall Street speculators and Washington spenders alike. They can spike to sudden and dramatic heights when demand for funds to finance government deficits or financial speculation out-run the voluntary pool of savings generated by society. So doing, they bring financial bubbles and fiscal profligacy up short.

In stopping QE after a massive spree of monetization, the Fed is actually taking a tiny step toward liberating the interest rate and re-establishing honest finance. But don’t bother to inform our monetary politburo. As soon as the current massive financial bubble begins to burst, it  will doubtless invent some new excuse to resume central bank balance sheet expansion and therefore fraudulent finance.

But this time may be different. Perhaps even the central banks have reached the limits of credibility—- that is, their own equivalent of peak debt.

“I think QE is quite effective,” Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, describing the approach as an option for dealing with an adverse shock to the economy.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/13bTk83 Tyler Durden

What Will Republicans Do If WHEN They Win the Senate?

It’s looking increasingly
likely that the GOP will take control of the Senate. The New York
Times’ model gives Republicans a 65
percent chance
 of gaining a majority and Five Thirty Eight
is giving them a 62
percent
shot. “Midterm
momentum belongs to GOP
” says The Washington Post,
whose latest poll with ABC News finds that even Hispanics, often
the target of Republican immigrant-bashing, are up for the
change.

So what might Republicans actually do if they have majorities in
both houses of Congress? If past behavior is any indication of
future performance, the short and likely answer is: screw it all
up. The Wash Post’s “Right Turn” blogger Jennifer Rubin offers up
advice, much of which makes sense. She says the GOP should think
about legislation as belonging to one of two piles. The first is
stuff that “enjoys bipartisan support.” The second includes things
“the GOP cannot accomplish without the White House.” For the
latter, she says, Republicans should take their case to the public
and force President Obama to ‘splain why he’s dragging his heels.
In all cases, says Rubin:

Bills should follow some basic criteria: 1. The principle
purpose is reform, not penny pinching; 2. The lower or middle class
benefits; and 3. If the welfare state bureaucracy is doing
something poorly (e.g. Obamacare, food stamps) replace it with
something better. That leaves the field wide-open for welfare
reform, full-blown tax reform, regulatory reform, and an Obamacare
alternative. Legislation may include a more decentralized solution
in which the feds take a more supportive role (e.g. funding)
 but states construct programs.

That all sounds pretty good. But of course we know what
Republicans and conservatives really want to do is spend
lots of money on stuff that favors their constituencies and
ideological fixations. So that means:

What Republicans can’t do is spend their time
trying to chop chunks of government, obsess on the spending side,
cut holes in the safety net, perpetuate cronyism or let paranoia
gut anti-terror measures (e.g. drones, NSA). Senate gadflies are
about to learn that being in the majority is far different than
throwing spitballs from the minority. They will need to show they
can problem-solve (or they will confirm concerns that they
cannot).


Read the whole article.

I agree with Rubin that this election is not
about Americans being suddenly dazzled by Republican proposals.
People are fed up with Obama, whose signature legislative
accomplishments either didn’t work as advertised (the stimulus) or
remain genuinely unpopular (Obamacare). “Voters are looking
for executive competence,” writes Rubin, “something the Congress
can affect only indirectly through oversight and the budget.” She
warns that Republicans “misread public opinion at their own
peril.”

True, true. But so do Washington
Post
 bloggers. First and foremost, it’s clear that
Americans want Congress to do its job and actually vote on a war
declaration regarding the current adventures in Iraq and Syria.
According to the latest Reason-Rupe Poll, fully
78 percent of us want to see that
. And don’t mistake the recent
post-beheading spike of support for action against ISIS as a
long-term shift. The Reason-Rupe Poll found that 52 percent of
Americans are against ground troops fighting in the Middle East.
Tellingly, the poll also found that more people today claim to have
supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq than actually did at the time.
We’re a nation of summer soldiers, it turns out.

The Republicans would in fact do well to “obsess on the
spending side.” Rubin is probably right that it’s not a winning
political strategy to start calling for an end to the Department of
Commerce, but the GOP should absolutely make the case that spending
and debt is a real issue and that we need to get by with less of
both. Had the GOP in the past actually started cutting corporate
welfare first and social welfare second, they would have confounded
expectations and won some plaudits from libertarians as well as
fiscally serious independents and Democrats. But when you cut food
stamps without targeting farm subsidies, the jig is up. A
Republican Congress could kill the Export-Import Bank (a corporate
welfare institution that is supported by such progressive Democrats
as Sen. Elizabeth Warren) as an opening salvo.

If the GOP is interested in hitting on specific measures
that enjoy broad majorities of approval, it would do well to follow
Rand Paul’s lead in pushing on sentencing reform and other criminal
justice fixes. Polls routinely
show 75 percent and more of voters believing in such things. Given
that such measures would disproportionately affect minorities, they
would also help recast the Party of Lincoln as something other than
a good old boys’ club too.

If the Republicans are interested in catching some spark
with millennials, they would also do well to push social issues
(including immigration) off their near-term agenda. The GOP pulls
poorly among 18-29 year olds, with just 23 percent of millennials
self-identifying as Republicans. The
Reason-Rupe Millennials Poll
 released over the summer
strongly suggests taking a break from freaking out over gay
marriage and pot legalization. Millennials support both and
Republicans are generally against them. Yet the Republicans could
also tell a story about economic policy that might resonate with
younger Americans. Large majorities of millennials believe that
government is too big and regulates too much; that cutting taxes
would help the economy; and that cutting spending by 5 percent
would help the economy. Younger Americans are worried about state
surveillance and tend to be anti-war too.


The GOP would be wise to think through its
approach to foreign policy. George W. Bush left office with
record-low approval ratings. Obama may well set new lows. While
both presidents have done poorly economically, both have followed a
largely interventionist, largely disastrous foreign policy. It’s
not tough to outline a defense strategy that protects Americans
without breaking the bank or coming to the aid of every country in
the world which nonethless votes to kick us out after a decade of
occupation (such as Iraq). An engaged America needn’t be an
American that spends itself to the poorhouse on the
military.

If the Republican majority actually laid out policies that
fell into line with all that while explaining a theory of limiting
government and increasing individual freedom, they might just win
over people who worry (not without reasons) that the GOP is simply
a socially reactionary party that wants to cut spending on the poor
but lard it up on wealthy people and the military-industrial
complex. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1tMy2ZC
via IFTTT

A. Barton Hinkle: Don’t Let Cops Dodge the Constitution

You can’t blame police departments if
they feel a trifle besieged these days. But as A. Barton Hinkle
points out, police departments cannot blame anyone but themselves
for that circumstance. They keep pushing the envelope and dodging
the limits of the Constitution. From asset forfeiture to
stop-and-frisk to military-style tactics, Hinkle observes, the cops
are putting everyone’s civil liberties at risk.

View this article.

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

Rosneft “Radical” Sanctions Retaliation Proposal Sends Russian Bonds, Currency Plunging

10Y Russian bond yields have broken above 10%, trading at the highest yields since 2009 as the Ruble plunges once again to fresh record lows against the dollar. These significant moves come on the heels of two notable headlines overnight. First, German exports to Russia slumped 26.3% YoY in August (down a stunning 16.6% year-to-date with vehicle exports plunging 27.7%) as sanctions batter bilateral trade. Secondly, Rosneft has proposed what is being described as “radical” reactions to the West’s sanctions, which the Kremlin has (for now) denied.

Bonds and Ruble are tumbling…

 

As German exports to Russia collapsed (via Xinhua)

German exports to Russia dropped significantly in August as the Ukraine crisis hit their bilateral trade, official data showed on Wednesday.

 

In August, German exporters delivered goods worth 2.3 billion euros (about 2.9 billion U.S. dollars) to Russia, the German Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) said. Compared to the same month of previous year, the exports slumped by 26.3 percent.

 

From January to August, German exports to Russia fell by 16.6 percent year on year. Vehicles and motor vehicle products was hit the worst, suffering a decline of 27.3 percent.

 

The drops showed a deteriorating bilateral trade between the two countries. From 2010 to 2012, German exports to Russia enjoyed high growth every year. In 2011, the exports rose by 30.8 percent.

And Rosneft unveils new “radical” sanctions (via Interfax)…

Russian presidential aide Andrei Belousov said he had received proposals from Rosneft on how to react to Western sanctions, and these proposals are being reviewed.

 

“I would say that the radicalism of the proposals for now exceeds the sharpness of today’s situation,” Belousov told journalists on Wednesday.

 

“We are in the process of studying [the proposals],” he said.

 

Commenting on Rosneft’s proposals, Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said: “It’s a very complex document, complexly formulated. I don’t think it is grounds for making any decisions.”

The Kremlin has denied the rumor

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied on Wednesday reports that Russian oil major Rosneft allegedly prepared proposals on new retaliatory sanctions.

 

“This absolutely does not correspond to reality, this information that Rosneft allegedly prepared proposals of anti-sanctions nature,” Peskov said.

 

“Preparations of any proposals are out of the question,” Peskov said. “This is not true that there are some proposals from Rosneft.”

*  *  *

It seems someone is really upset as Sechin news just reported: Rosneft to file lawsuit against Kommersant daily – the entity that broke the story.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1p1gKqH Tyler Durden

Coming November 4: Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court by Damon Root

On November 4, Palgrave Macmillan will be publishing
Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme
Court
, the new book from Reason Senior Editor
Damon Root. Here’s what the book is all about:

Should the Supreme Court defer
to the will of the majority and uphold most democratically enacted
laws? Or does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to protect
a broad range of individual rights from the reach of lawmakers? In
this timely and provocative book, Damon Root traces the long war
over judicial activism and judicial restraint at America’s highest
court. Beginning in the bloody age of slavery, the Civil War, and
Reconstruction, this fight now plays a central role in today’s
blockbuster legal battles over gay rights, gun control, and health
care reform.

It’s a conflict that cuts across the political spectrum in
surprising ways and makes for some unusual bedfellows. For example,
judicial restraint—where judges defer to the policy choices made by
lawmakers and other government officials—is not only a touchstone
of the Progressive left, it is also a philosophy adopted by many
members of the modern right. Today’s growing camp of libertarians,
by contrast, has no patience with judicial restraint and little use
for majority rule. They want the courts to police the other
branches of government, striking down any state or federal law that
infringes on their bold constitutional agenda of personal and
economic freedom.

This is the story of two competing visions, each one with its
own take on what role the government and the courts should play in
our society, a fundamental debate that goes to the very heart of
our constitutional system. Overruled brings to life the
ongoing battle for power in the Supreme Court.

And here’s what the reviewers are saying:

“A riveting account of the raging debate over the future of our
Constitution between those who contend that judges must ‘defer’ to
legislatures and those who view the judiciary as an equal branch of
government whose mandate is to secure the rights and liberties of
the people by holding government to its just powers. Root reveals
the inside story behind the surging movement to restore
constitutionally-limited government. I loved this book.”—Randy E.
Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown
University Law Center, and Director, Georgetown Center for the
Constitution

“An intriguing account of judicial and economic policy
reflecting controversies within conservatism over civil rights and
other issues.”—Kirkus Reviews

“In Overruled, Damon Root explains a divide in judicial
theory about which I was not only ignorant but mistaken. ‘Judicial
activism’ is wrong. Right? It gives unelected authorities
minority power to impose rules and regulations that violate
individual rights without a democratic process. Wrong. It’s
‘judicial deference’ that gives elected authorities majority power
to impose rules and regulations that violate individual rights
within a democratic process. And to further confuse the issue
judicial activism and judicial deference have, by turns, been the
darlings of both Liberals and Conservatives. Fortunately, Damon
Root explains it all.” —P. J. O’Rourke, journalist and H. L.
Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute

Pre-order your copy of Overruled today at
Amazon
,
Barnes & Noble
, or your favorite online bookseller.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/29/coming-november-4-overruled-the-long-war
via IFTTT

Oil Residue The Size Of Rhode Island Covers Gulf Of Mexico Seafloor As Result Of Macondo Well Disaster

Ever since the April 2010 disaster on the BP-operated Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, there was one big outstanding question: where did the bulk of the oil gol? Now, thanks to a research team led by David Valentine, a microbial geochemist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, sampled more than 534 locations near the spill site, gathering more than 3,000 individual samples, we know the answer: the oil spill – some 10 million gallons of coagulated oil – left an oily "bathub ring" on the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico, about 25 miles from the well, that's about the size of Rhode Island.

The researchers found an area of 1,250 square miles (3,237 square km), mostly southwest of the Macondo well, where a thin sheen of oil rests in patches on the top half-inch of the seafloor, according to the NSF.

The reason why the massive spill was never visible on the ocean surface? "Based on the evidence, our findings suggest that these deposits are from Macondo oil that was first suspended in the deep ocean, then settled to the seafloor without ever reaching the ocean surface," Valentine said in the statement.

"This analysis provides us with, for the first time, some closure on the question, 'Where did the oil go, and how did it get there?'" Don Rice, the program director of the National Science Foundation's Division of Ocean Sciences, told Live Science in a statement.

More from Live Science:

The droplets of oil started out 3,500 feet (1,067 meters) below the ocean surface and were caught by deep-ocean currents before raining down another 1,000 feet (305 m) to the seafloor, Valentine said. This hydrocarbon rain explains the damage suffered by coral around the site, he said.

 

"The pattern of contamination we observe is fully consistent with the Deepwater Horizon event but not with natural seeps," Valentine said.

Unfortunately, there is more: a major portion of the spill has still not be accounted for and much of the deep ocean oil is still missing. The portion Valentine and his colleagues traced represents only 4 to 31 percent of the oil thought to be trapped in the depths of the ocean (up to 16 percent of the total oil spilled).

AP adds that according to Valentine the spill from the Macondo well left other splotches containing even more oil. He said it is obvious where the oil is from, even though there were no chemical signature tests because over time the oil has degraded.

"There's this sort of ring where you see around the Macondo well where the concentrations are elevated," Valentine said. The study, published in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calls it a "bathtub ring."

 

Oil levels inside the ring were as much as 10,000 times higher than outside the 1,200-square-mile ring, Valentine said. A chemical component of the oil was found on the sea floor, anywhere from two-thirds of a mile to a mile below the surface.

 

The rig blew on April 20, 2010, and spewed 172 million gallons of oil into the Gulf through the summer. Scientists are still trying to figure where all the oil went and what effects it had.

Needless to say, BP is not enthused and hardly wants this walk down memory lane recreated which is why the oil giant questioned the conclusions of the study. In an email, spokesman Jason Ryan said, "the authors failed to identify the source of the oil, leading them to grossly overstate the amount of residual Macondo oil on the sea floor and the geographic area in which it is found."

It's impossible at this point to do such chemical analysis, said Valentine and study co-author Christopher Reddy, a marine chemist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, but all other evidence, including the depth of the oil, the way it laid out, the distance from the well, directly point to the BP rig.

And, of course, there is the logical question: who else had a massive oil spill in the GOM in recent years?

And while some of the oil has been found, the question where the rest is remains, as does the far more important question: what was the spill's impact on sealife and sea-currents in the Gulf? One may need to wait many years until that particular answer is revealed.

Source: Fallout plume of submerged oil from Deepwater Horizon




via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1UVG9Hy50aE/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Horse Is Loose Again: Fiat To Spin-Off Ferrari

In what appeared to be a sign of discord, Bloomberg reported in September that Ferrari Chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo was poised to leave the super-car maker because of a clash over strategy with the brand’s parent Fiat, proclaiming “Ferrari is now American,” which represents “the end of an era.” It now seems Marchionne’s Fiat strategy to compete with Volkswagen’s Lambo division is no set to fail as Bloomberg reports: FIAT CHRYSLER PLANS TO SPIN OFF FERRARI. Expected to list in US and European markets, the IPO of 10% of Ferrari is expected to be completed in 2015… another sign of the top?

As Bloomberg reported in September, there have been hints of discord…

Ferrari Chairman Luca Cordero di Montezemolo is poised to leave the super-car maker because of a clash over strategy with the brand’s parent Fiat SpA (F), people familiar with the matter said.

 

Montezemolo, who has led Ferrari for more than 20 years, may step down later this year, said three people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. The executive has yet to agree on a severance package, and there’s no firm timing for him to leave, they said.

 

 

Montezemolo, who took charge of Ferrari in 1991, wants to maintain Ferrari’s autonomous status and limit sales to about 7,000 cars a year to preserve the brand’s exclusive allure. That clashes with Marchionne’s goal of having Ferrari bolster a shift by the group into upscale cars as part of Fiat’s merger with U.S. unit Chrysler Group LLC.

 

 

“Ferrari is now American,” which represents “the end of an era,” Montezemolo told close associates

 

Ferrari, which sold about 7,000 cars last year, accounted for about 12 percent of Fiat’s 2013 operating profit. The group sold about 4.4 million cars last year.

And now we find out that:

  • *FIAT CHRYSLER PLANS TO SPIN OFF FERRARI
  • *FIAT CHRYSLER TO MAKE PUBLIC OFFER FOR 10% OF FERRARI
  • *FIAT CHRYSLER TO DISTRIBUTE REST OF FERRARI STAKE TO SHRHOLDERS
  • *FIAT CHRYSLER PLANS TO LIST FERRARI IN U.S., EUROPE MKTS
  • *FIAT CHRYSLER PLANS TO COMPLETE FERRARI SPIN OFF IN 2015

As DPA reports,

Italo-American car group Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) said Wednesday it was going to spin off its racing car subsidiary Ferrari as part of plans to raise fresh capital for the business.

 

“The separation will be effected through a public offering of FCA’s interest in Ferrari equal to 10 per cent of Ferrari’s outstanding shares and a distribution of FCA’s remaining Ferrari shares to FCA shareholders,” a company statement said.

 

Ferrari shares were going to be listed in the United States and, “possibly,” on a European stock market, FCA said.

 

FCA needs money to put into practice a five-year development strategy centred on the relaunch of Alfa Romeo, a venerable Italian car brand suffering from an outdated product range and shrinking sales.

 

“As we move forward to secure the 2014-2018 business plan and work toward maximizing the value of our businesses to our shareholders, it is proper that we pursue separate paths for FCA and Ferrari,” Fiat-Chrysler boss Sergio Marchionne said.

*  *  *

Top?




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

White House Sustains Cyberattack, Scientists Find Extreme-Violence Genes, Supreme Court Stays Missouri Execution: A.M. Links

  • The White House’s unclassified computer
    network was recently
    hit by a sustained cyberattack
    which may be the work of Russian
    government hackers. “Network outages are not uncommon in the White
    House,”
    the Huffington Post notes
    , but this one—lasting at
    least two weeks—was significant in its duration and strength.
  • The makers of an unmanned, NASA-commissioned rocket that
    exploded over eastern Virginia yesterday are
    vowing
     to find the root cause of the explosion before
    flying again. 
  • Late Tuesday night,
    the U.S. Supreme Court halted
    the execution of Mark Christeson,
    a Missouri man scheduled to die by injection at 12:01 a.m.
    Wednesday.
  • Scientists link
    two genes
     to “extremely violent behavior.” 
  • Kaci Hickox, the nurse quarantined at her Maine home after
    returning from West Africa, told Good
    Morning America
     via Skype that she’ll “go to court to
    attain (her) freedom.” And a
    Connecticut dad is suing
    after his third-grade daughter was
    told to stay home from school over Ebola fears. 
  • The North Dakota Supreme Cout has
    upheld a state law
     restricting the use abortion-inducing
    drugs.
  • Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson denied
    rumors
     that he is resigning.

Follow Reason and Reason
24/7
 on Twitter, and like us
on 
Facebook. You
can also get the top stories mailed to you—
sign up
here
.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/13b3TYJ
via IFTTT